STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS.versusVINESH KUMAR BHASIN

                            [2010] 2 S.C.R. 6


  A               STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS.
                                     v.
                       VINESH KUMAR BHASIN
                    (Civil Appeal No. 1718 of 2010)

                           JANUARY 22, 2010
  8
      [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRtSHNAN, JJ.]

            Persons with disabilities (equal opportunities, protection
      of rights and full participation) Act, 1995:
  c
         Applicability of the Act -Bank employee, three days prior
   to his completing the age of retirement, filing application for
   being relieved under the 'Exit Policy Scheme' of the Bank -
   On the request not being accepted, employee filing
   complaints before the Commissioner for Persons with
 0
   Disabilities, Dehradun, and the Chief Commissioner for
   Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi - Employee filing writ
   petition and contempt petition before Allahabad Higl'I Court
   - HELD: The conduct of the employee requires to be
   commented upon - Though he retired at Dehradun, he filed
FE a writ petition in Allahabad High Court to enforce an interim
   order Issued at New Delhi - He filed successive complaints,
   writ petition and contempt petition within a span of less than
   three months, without giving opportunity to the Bank to appear
   and show cause - He succeeded in evoking sympathy and
 F securing ex parte interim orders repeatedly by highlighting
   his position as a person with disability, but failed to disclose
   full or correct facts - The grievances and complaints of
   persons with disabilities have to be considered by courts and
   authorities with compassion, understanding and expedition
 G - But the provisions of the Act cannot be pressed into service
   to seek any relief or advantage where the complaint or
   grievance relates to an alleged discrimination, which has
   nothing to do with the disability of person - Nor do all
   grievances of persons with disabilities relate to discrimination
 H                                  6
    STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. v. VINESH                     7
                KUMAR BHASIN
based on disability - The fact that the employee claimed to        A
be person with disability appears to have swayed the Deputy
Chief Commissioner and the High Court, to ignore the
absence of any legal right, and to grant an interim remedy
which in the normal course would not have been considered
- Issuing interim orders when not warranted, merely because        B
the petitioner is a person with disability, is as insidious as
failing to issue interim orders when warranted - Administration
of justice - Conduct of litigant - Non disclosure of correct
facts-Interim orders. [Para 18 and 19]

      ss. 47, 58, 59, 61, 62 and 63 r/w r.42 - Power of authorities C
 under the Act to issue mandatory/prohibitory injunction -
 HELD: Neither the Chief Commissioner nor any
 Commissioner functioning under the Act has power to issue
 any mandatory or prohibitory injunction or other interim
directions - The fact that the Disabilities Act clothes them with D
certain powers of a civil court for discharge of their functions
(which include power to look into complaints), does not enable
them to assume the other powers of a civil court which are not
 vested in them by the Act - In the instant case, the order of
the Deputy Chief Commissioner, not to implement the order E
of retirement was illegal and without jurisdiction - Besides, the
claimant filed application for grant of benefit of 'Exit Policy
Scheme' three days prior to his completing the age of
retirement- He was not entitled, as of right, to continue beyond
thirty yeas of service - In fact, he did not want to continue in F
service, as his grievance was that he ought to have been
permitted to retire under the 'Exit Policy Scheme' - The
grievance of the employee had nothing to do with his being a
person with a disability - Prima facie neither s.47 nor any
provision of the Act was attracted - The Deputy Chief G
Commissioner while issuing the ex parte direction, overlooked
and ignored the fact that the retirement from service was on
completion of the prescribed period of service as per the
service regulations, which was clearly mentioned in the letter
of retirement dated 17.11.2006, and that when an employee
                                                                   H
    8       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [20t0] 2 S.C.R.


A was retired in accordance with the regulations, no interim order
  can be issued to continue him in service beyond the age of
  retirement - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
  Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996 - r.42
  - State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979
B - Regulation 19 - State Bank of Pa ti ala - 'Exit Policy
  Scheme' - Interim .fnjunction/Directions - Service Law.
  [Para 11 and 13]

        All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees'
    Welfare Association vs. Union of India 1996 ( 8 ) Suppl.
C   SCR 295 =1996(6) sec 606, relied on.

         Constitution of India, 1950:

         Article 136 - Appeal against interim order passed by
0 High Court - Ordinarily Supreme Court would not interfere
   with an ex parte interim order of the High Court, as the
   respondent in a writ or contempt proceedings can appear and
   seek vacation, or discontinuance, or modification of such ex
   parte order - But where there are special and exceptional
E features or circumstances resulting in or leading to abuse of
   process of court, the Court, may interf~re - The instant case
   falls'under such special and rare category - The employee,
   though retired in accordance with the rules of the Bank, using
   the tag of 'person with disability', has attempted to virtually
   terrorise the Bank and its senior officers by initiating a series
F of proceedings and securing ex parte interim orders by ·
   misrepresenting the facts - The Chief Commissioner acting
   under the Disabilities Act, the High Court in its writ jurisdiction
   and the High Court in its contempt jurisdiction, have passed
   ex parte interim orders, requiring the Bank and its officers to
G. act contrary tO the Bank's Rules when no prima facie was
   made out. {Para 1OJ                '
       Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction of High Court - Interim ..
   orders - Bank employee retired in accordance with
H- Regulations - On the complaints by employee to Chief
    STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. v. VINESH                    9
                KUMAR BHASIN

Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, that his request A
for being relieved under 'Exit Policy Scheme' had not been
accepted, show cause notice and interim directions issued to
the Bank - In writ petition, the High Court on 12. 1. 2007 ordered
the Bank for implementation of interim directions passed by
Deputy Chief Commissioner - HELD: Mandatory interim s
orders are issued in exceptional cases, only where failure to
do so will lead to an irreversible or irretrievable situation - In
service matters relating to retirement, there is no such need
 to issue ex parte mandatory directions - In the instant case,
 when the writ petition disclosed that the employee was retired C
after 30 years of service in accordance with the Bank's
regulations, there was no question of any irreparable injury
or urgency - On the facts and circumstances, the High Court
while directing notice on the writ petition ought not to have
issued an ex parte order which virtually amounts to allowing
                                                                   0
the writ petition without hearing the Bank - The appropriate
course would have been to give an opportunity to the Bank
to explain its stand, particularly, because the court itself felt
a doubt about the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner and
its own jurisdiction - Besides, the Deputy Chief
Commissioner issued the order at New Delhi, whereas the E
employee was working at Dehradun and was retired from
service at Dehradun - Apparently no part of cause of action
arose in the State of Uttar Pradesh - The order dated
12. 1.2007 is, therefore, unsustainable - Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full F
Participation) Act, 1995 - State Bank of Patiala (Officers)
Service Regulations, 1979 - Regulation 19 - Interim orders
- Cause of action - Territorial jurisdiction of High Court. [Para
14-15)
                                                                  G
    Contempt of Court:

    Writ petition by Bank employee - On the grounds that
he was denied benefit of 'Exit Policy Scheme' and the interim
directions passed by Deputy Chief Commissioner, for
                                                                  H

                                                   I•   .
    10       SUPREME COURT REPORTS '             [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A Persons with Disabilities were not implemented - Show cause
  notices issued by High Court returnable on 15.2.2007 - But
  on 13.2.2007, High Court issued contempt notice to Bfanch
  Manager of Bank - HELD: Before issuing any interim
  direction in contempt proceedings, or proposing to hold
B anyone guilty of contempt, the High Court should at least
  satisfy itself that the person to whom the notice is issued is
  responsible to implement the order - The order retiring the
  respondent was not passed by the Branch Manager and
  obviously he was not the officer who could implement the
C interim direction of the Deputy Chief Commissioner or the
  High Court - The contempt petition was, therefore, premature
  - That apart, the High Court at the stage of issuing notice,
  could not have assumed that there was wilful disobedience -
  At all events, as the order dated 12. 1. 2007 was unwarranted,
  the direction for personal appearance on failure to comply with
D the said order cannot be sustained - Persons with Disabilities
  (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
  Participation) Act, 1995 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
  226. [Para 16-17]

E                        Case Law Reference:
     1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 295       relied on           para 13
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    1718 of 2010.
F
        From the Judgment & Order dated 12.1.2007 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow in W.P. No. 40 of
    2007.

                               WITH
G
    Crl. A. No. 170 of 2010.

        Vishnu Mehra, Sakshi Gupta and Pramod Dayal for the
    Appellants.
H
    STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. v. VINESH                       11
                KUMAR BHASIN
    Arvind Kumar Gupta, Bipin B. Singh, Assem Chandra,                 A
Vinod Kumar and Joydeep Mazamudar for the Respondent.

     The Order of the Court was delivered by

                              ORDER
                                                                       B
     R. V. RAVEENDRAN J. 1. Leave granted. Heard.

     2. The respondent was an employee of the State Bank of
Patiala ('Bank' for short). Regulation 19 of the State Bank of
Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 provides that an          C
officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the
age of 58 years or upon the completion of thirty years service
whichever occurs first. It also provides that an officer will retire
on the last day of the month in which he completes the
stipulated service or age of retirement. As respondent
completed thirty years of ser\lice on 17.11.2006, the Bai·'.           0
made an order dated 17.11.2006 retiring the respondent with
effect from 30.11.2006 under Regulation 19 of the said
Regulations.

      3. The Bank had formulated an 'Exit Option Scheme' on            E
 1.12.2005 with the object of bringing down the staff strength of
 the Bank by providing an exit route to eligible officers who may
 be demotivated due to lack of career prospects. The release
 of an officer from service under the said scheme becomes
 effective only after the approval of the request of an employee       F
by the designated authority, is communicated to such officer.
The respondent who joined the Bank's service on 18.11.1976,
and due to retirement on 17.11.2006, made an application
dated 14.11.2006 for being relieved under the said scheme.
As the said application was made hardly three days before the          G
completion of thirty years of service, there was obviously no time
to process it, and before it could be processed, he retired from
service. According to the Bank, accepting such a request a few
days before the due date of retirement does not arise, as there
is no question of an employee feeling demotivated at that              H
       12       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 2 S.C.R.


  A   stage due to lack of career prospects.

          4. Alleging that the non-acceptance of his request for being
     relieved under the 'Exit Option Scheme' was illegal, the
     respondent made two complaints - the first dated 17 .11.2006
     to the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Dehradun,
  .B
     and a second dated 20.11.2006 to the Chief Commissioner
     for Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi ('Chief Commissioner'
     for short) seeking a direction to the Bank to grant him relief
     under the 'Exit Option Scheme' of the Bank. He claimed in the
     said application that he was involved in a road accident on
   C 26.5:1997 and as a result, became a person with disability; and
     that the Bank, by not accepting his application for retirement
     under the Exit Policy Scheme, discriminated him on account
     of his disability.

  D   · 5.. The Deputy Chief Commissioner, New Delhi issued a
    show-cause notice dated 22.11.2006 to the Bank stating that
    the Chief Commissioner had directed issue of a show-cause
    notice under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
    Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995,
· E ('Disabilities A<;:t' for short) calling upon the Bank to show cause·
    why it should not be directed to accept the respondent's request
    under 'Exit Option Scheme', instead of being retired under
    Regulation 19, with a further direction that the decision of the
    Bank to retire the respondent from service should not be
  F implemented until further orders.

         6. The Bank filed objections dated 23.12.2006 contending
    that the complaint was not maintainable and did not have any
    merit. The Bank also pointed out that the show cause notice
    dated 22.11.2006 sent by the Dy. Chief Commissioner, was
  G not accompanied by either a copy of the complaint or a copy
    of the order said to have been made by the Chief
    Commissioner. We are informed that the Chief Commissioner
    has not passed any further order in the matter.

  H         ·7. On the ground that the Bank did not comply with the
     STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. v. VINESH                     13
       KUMAR BHASIN [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

interim direction of Chief Commissioner, the respondent               A
approached the Allahabad High Court on 10.1.2007 (by filing
WP No. 40 (SB) of 2007) seeking a direction to the Bank to
obey the order of the Chief Commissioner and a mandamus
commanding the Bank and its officers (that is the Dy. General
Manager, Delhi Zone, Additional General Manager, Ill (D)              B
Lucknow, and Branch Manager, Dehradun who are appellants
2 to 4 herein), to pay him salary and allow him to work. The
High Court on 12.1.2007 ordered notice to the appellants and
also issued an ex parte interim order that the direction of the
Chief Commissioner be complied with, with an observation that         c
the question of jurisdiction, if raised by the Bank, will be
considered when the matter is next listed. No date was fixed
for compliance with the said interim order.

     8. On the ground that the said ex parte order dated
12.1.2007 was not complied, the respondent again rushed to            D
the High Court with a Contempt Petition. In that petition, the High
Court made an ex parte order dated 13.2.2007 directing the
Branch Manager of the Dehradun Branch of the Bank to appear
in person on 3.4.2007 if the interim order dated 12.1.2007
issued in the writ petition was not by then compiled with.            E

       9. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.1.2007, the Bank and
 its officers have filed SLP (C) No. 6124 of 2007. Aggrieved
 by the order of the High Court in the Contempt Proceedings,
 the two officers of the Bank to whom notice has been issued          F
 filed SLP (Crl.) No.1870 of 2007. This Court on 23.4.2007
directed issue of notice in both the special leave petitions. As
respondent appeared through counsel at the time of preliminary
hearing, this Court also noted that the respondent had retired
on completion of 30 years of service in November, 2006 and            G
recorded the submission of the respondent that he was
prepared to accept the retiral benefits without prejudice to his
rights. Accordingly, the retiral benefits have been released to
the respondent and the contempt proceedings were stayed on
18.8.2008.
                                                                      H
    14      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [201 O] 2 S.C.R.

A        10. Ordinarily this Court would not interfere with an ex parte
  interim order of the H!gh Court, as the respondent in a writ or
  contempt proceedings can appear and seek vacation, or
  discontinuance, or modification of such ex parte order. But
  where there are special and exceptional features or
B circumstances resulting in or leading to abuse of process of
  court, this Court, may interfere. This case falls under such
  special and rare category. The respondent, though retired in
  accordance with the rules of the Bank, using the tag of 'person
  with disability', has attempted to virtually terrorise the Bank and
C its senior officers by initiating a series of proceedings and
  securing ex parte interim orders by misrepresenting the facts.
  The Chief Commissioner acting under the Disabilities Act, the
  High Court in its writ jurisdiction and the High Court in its
  contempt jurisdiction, have passed ex parte interim orders,
D requiring the Bank and its officers to act contrary to the Bank's
  Rules when no prima facie was made out. Let us deal with each
  of these successive ex parte interim orders.

    Interim direction of the Chief Commissioner

E      11. Under the Rules, an officer of the Bank, shall retire on
  completion of 30 years of service. The respondent was
  accordingly retired on completion of thirty years. He was not
  denied any retiral benefits. He was not entitled, as of right, to
  continue beyond thirty years of service. In faCt, he did not want
F to continue in service, as his grievance was that he ought to
  have been permitted to retire under the Exit Policy Scheme.
  The grievance of the respondent had apparently nothing to do
  with his being a person with a disability. Prima facie neither
  section 47 nor any other provision of the Disabilities Act was
G attracted. But, the Chief Commissioner chose to issue a show
  cause notice on the complaint and also issued an ex parte
  direction not to give effect to the order of retirement. He
  overlooked and ignored the fact that the retirement from service
  was on completion of the prescribed period of service as per
  the service regulations, which was clearly mentioned in the letter
H
    STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. v. VINESH                   15
      KUMAR BHASIN [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
of retirement dated 17.11.2006; and that when an employee          A
was retired in accordance with the regulations, no interim order
can be issued to continue him in service beyond the age of
retirement. The Chief Commissioner also overlooked and
ignored the fact that as an authority functioning under the
Disabilities Act, he has no power or jurisdiction to issue a       s
direction to the employer not to retire an employee. In fact,
under· the Scheme of the Disabilities Act, the Chief
Commissioner (or the Commissioner) has no power to grant
any interim direction.

     12. The functions of the Chief Commissioner are set out       C
in Sections 58 and 59 of the Act. Section 58 provides that the
Chief Commissioner shall have the following functions:-

      (a)   coordinate the work of the Commissioners;
                                                                   D
      (b)   monitor the utilisation of funds disbursed by the
            Central Government;

      (c)   take steps to safeguard the rights and facilities
            made available to persons with disabilities;
                                                                   E
      (d)   submit reports to the Central Government on the
            implementation of the Act at such intervals as the
            Government may prescribe.

 Section 59 provides that without prejudice to the provisions of F
 Section 58, the Commissioner may of his own motion or on the
 application of any aggrieved person or otherwise look into
 complaints and take up the matter with the appropriate
authorities, any matters relating to (a) deprivation of rights of
persons with disabilities; and (b) non- implementation of laws,
rules, bye-laws, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or· G
instructions made or issued by the appropriate Governments
and the local authorities for the welfare and protection of rights
of persons with disabilities. "Qle Commissioners appointed by
the State Governments also have similar powers under Section
                                                                   H
    16       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A 61 and 62. Section 63 provides that the .Chief Commissioner
  and the Commissioners shall, for the purpose of discharging
  their functions under this Act, have the same powers as are
  vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying
  a suit, in regard to the following matters: (a) summoning and
B enforcing the attendance for witnesses; (b) requiring the
  discovery and production of any document; (c) requisitioning
  any public record or copy thereof from any court or officer; (d)
  receiving evidence on affidavits; and (e) issuing commissions
  for the examination of witnesses or documents. Rule 42 of the
c Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of
  Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996 lays down the
  procedure to be followed by the Chief Commissioner.

       13. It is evident from the said provisions, that neither the
  Chief Commissioner nor any Commissioner functioning under
D the Disabilities Act has power to issue any mandatory or
  prohibitory injunction or other interim directions. The fact that
  the Disabilities Act clothes them with certain powers of a civil
  court for discharge of their functions (which include power to
  look into complaints), does not enable them to assume the other
E powers of a civil court which are not vested in them by the
  provisions of the Disabilities Act. In All India Indian Overseas
  Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association vs. Union
  of India - 1996 (6) SCC 606, this Court, dealing with Article
  338 (8) of the Constitution of India (similar to section 63 of the
F Disabilities Act), observed as follows :

         "It can be seen from a plain reading of clause (8) that the
         Commission has the power of the civil court for the
         purpose of conducting an investigation contemplated in
         sub-clause (a) and an inquiry into a complaint referred to
G
         i sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338 of the
         Constitution. All the procedural powers of a civil court are
         given to the Commission for the purpose of investigating
         and inquiring into these matters and that too for that limited
         purpose only. The powers of a civil court of granting
H
      STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. v. VINESH                         17
        KUMAR BHASIN [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
       injunctions, temporary or permanent, do no inhere in the 'A
       Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived
       from a reading of clause (8) of Article 338 of the
       Constitution."

 The order of the Chief Commissioner, not to implement the                 s
 order of retirement was illegal and without jurisdiction.

 The interim order in the writ proceedings.

        14. The principles relating to grant of interim ex parte
   orders by the High Court in writ jurisdiction are well settled.         C
   Courts should not grant interim orders in a mechanical manner,
   on the assumption that the aggrieved party can always seek
   vacation. Grant of ex parte interim orders, that too mandatory
   orders, routinely or merely for the asking, on ground of sympathy
  or otherwise, will interfere with justice leading to administrative      D
  chaos, rather than serving the interests of justice. Where the
  writ petition does not make out a prima facie case or wh~re
  there is any doubt about the maintainability of the writ petition
. or the jurisdiction of the court or the tenability of the claim, the
   High Court will not issue any interim order, that too when there        E
  is no irreparable loss or injury. At all events, the l:ligh Court will
  desist from issuing an ex parte mandatory injunction or
  direction which virtually has the effect of allowing the petition
  ex parte without hearing the respondents. Mandatory interim
  orders are issued in exceptional cases, only where failure to            F
  do so will lead to an irreversible or irretrievable situation. In
  service matters relating to retirement, there is no such need to
  issue ex parte mandatory directions. When the writ petition
  disclosed that the respondent was retired after 30 years of
  service in accordance with the Bank's regulations, there was             G
  no question of any irreparable injury or urgency.

     15. On the facts and circumstances we are of the view that
the High Court while directing notice on the writ petition filed
by the respondent for implementation of the interim direction
of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities ought              H
      18       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 2 S.C.R.


  A not to have issued an ex parte order which virtually amounts to
    allowing the writ petition without hearing the Bank. The
    appropriate course would have been to give an opportunity to
    the Bank to explain its stand, particularly because the court itself
    felt a doubt about the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner
  B and its own jurisdiction. The Chief Commissioner issued the
    order at New Delhi. The respondent was working at Oehradun
    and was retired from service at Dehradun. Apparently no part
    of cause of action arose in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Be that
    as it may. We therefore held that the order dated 12.1.2007 is
  c unsustainable.
      The interim order in the contempt proceedings.

         16. The respondent's complaint in the contempt petition
    was that the Bank had disobeyed the ex parte interim order
  D granted by the High Court on 12.1.2007. No period was
    prescribed by the High Court for compliance with its interim
    order. The show cause notice in the writ petition was issued
    on 22.1.2007 returnable on 15.2.2007. But even before that
    date, the respondent filed the contempt petition complaining of
  E non-compliance. Instead of issuing notice and giving an
    opportunity to the Bank or the Bank's officers, the High Court
    passed the following orders on 13.2.2007 :

           "Issue notice to Opposite Party No.2 (Branch Manager of
           the Bank) to show cause as to why he may not be punished
  F
           under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act for
           disobeying the order passed by this Court on
           12.1.2007,which has so far not been complied with in letter
           and spirit. In case the order is not complied with, he shall
           appear on 3rd April, 2007 along with record."
  G
   Before issuing any interim direction in contempt proceedings,
   or proposing to hold anyone guilty of contempt, the High Court
   should at least satisfy itself that person to whom the notice is
   issued is the person responsible to implement the order. The
·H order retiring the respondent was not passed by the Branch
    STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. v. VINESH                          19
      KUMAR BHASIN [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
Manager and obviously he was not the officer who could                    A
implement the interim direction of theChief Commissioner or
the High Court.

      17. We are of the view that the contempt petition was
premature. We are also of the view that the High Court at the
                                                                          B
stage of issuing notice, could not have assumed that there was
wilful disobedience. At all events, as a consequence of our
decision that the order dated 12.1.2007 was unwarranted, the
direction for personal appearance on failure to comply with the
order dated 12.1.2007 cannot be sustained.
                                                                          c
Remarks warranted by the conduct of the respondent

     18. The conduct of the respondent requires to be
commented upon. He was retired with effect from 30.11.2006,
by order dated 17.11.2006 after 30 years of service. He gave              D
a complaint to the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
at Dehradun, Uttarakhand, on 17.11.2006. He made another
complaint to Chief Commissioner, New Delhi, on 20.11.2006.
Though he retired at Dehradun, he filed a writ petition in
Allahabad High Court to enforce an interim order issued at New            E
Delhi. He filed successive complaints, writ petition and
contempt petition within a span of less than three months,
without giving opportunity to the Bank to appear and show
cause. He succeeded in evoking sympathy and securing ex
parte interim orders repeatedly by highlighting his position as
a person with disability, but failed to disclose full or correct facts.   F

     19. The grievances and complaints of persons with
disabilities have to be considered by courts and Authorities with
compassion, understanding and expedition. They seek a life
with dignity. The Disabilities Act seeks to provide them a level          G
playing field, by certain affirmative actions so that they can have
adequate opportunities in matters of education and
employment. The Act also seeks to ensure non-discrimination
of persons with disabilities, by reason of their disabilities. But
the provisions of the Disabilities Act cannot be pressed into             H
     20       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [201 O] 2 S.C.R.


A service to seek any relief or advantage where the complaint or
  grievance relates to an alleged discrimination, which has
  nothing to do with the disability of the person. Nor do all
  grievances of persons with disabilities relate to discrimination
  based on disability.
B
       Illustration :

          Let us assume a case where the age of retirement in an
          organisation is 58 years for all class llD officers and 60
          years for all class I officers. When a class II officer, who
c·        happens to be a person with disability, raises a dispute
          that such disparity amounts to discrimination, it has nothing
          to do with disabilities. Persons with disability as also
          persons without disability may contend in a court of law that
          such a provision is discriminatory. But, such a provision,
D         even if it is discriminatory, has nothing to do with the
          person's disability and there is no question of a person
          with disability invoking the provisions of the Disabilities
          A~t. to claim relief regarding such discrimination.

E Persons with disabilities are no less afflicted by human frailties
  "like ego, pride, jealousy, hate or misunderstanding, when
   compared with persons without disabilities. Many of their
   grievances and disputes may have nothing to do with disability.
   The fact that respondent claimed to be person with disability
F appears to have swayed the Chief Commissioner and the High
   Court, to ignore the absence of any legal right and grant an
   interim remedy which in the normal course would not have been
   considered. Issuing interim orders when not warranted, merely
   because the petitioner is a person with disability, is as
   insidious as failing to issue interim orders when warranted.
G
   Conclusion

        20. We therefore allow these appeals and set aside the
  interim directions contained in the order dated 12.1.2007 of the
H High Court in WP No. 40(SB) of 2007 and the order dated
       STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. v. VINESH                21
         KUMAR BHASIN [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
13.2.2007 in Crl. Misc. Case No.420(C) of 2007. We request         A
the High Court to hear the appellants herein (Bank and its
officers) and then dispose of the WP No. 40 (SB) of 2007 and
Crl. Mis. Case No.420(C) of 2007 in accordance with law.

     21. It is made clear that acceptance of retiral benefits by
                                                                   8
the respondent during the pendency before this court will not
come in the way of his pursuing any remedy, in accordance with
law by establishing that he is a person with disability and that
he was discriminated, before a forum competent to consider
his grievance/complaint.            ·
                                                                   c
R.P.                                         Appeals allowed.