MAHARASHTRA STATE HANDICAPPED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned counsel for respondents waive service. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondentauthority revoking the special traveling allowance to the government employees and semi-government employees suffering from blindness. The petitioner has particularly challenged order dated 17 June 2011 issued by the Chief Executive Officer. Zilla Parishad, Nashik. The CEO of Zilla Parishad, Nashik has issued the above order on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 4 June 2001, which provides for special traveling allowance to the disabled government employee for the purpose of travel between the place of duty and the place of his residence belonging to following categories:-

(3.) Mr.Karnik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the definition of "blindness" in the above Government Resolution is not in conformity with the definition of "blindness" in Section 2(b) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Act" for brevity), which reads as under:-