IN THE COURT OF STATE COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS

WITH DISABILITIES
(Under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016)
LADY WELLINGTON COLLEGE CAMPUS, KAMARAJAR SALAI,
CHENNAI – 600 005
PRESENT: THIRU JOHNY TOM VARGHESE, I.A.S
Date: 16.08.2021
FILE NO. 13320/L.O.1/2019
V. Selvaraj
3, Ramalinganar 13th Street
Thiruvannamalai - 606 602 …Complainant
ORDER OF RECOMMENDATION
1. A complaint dated 25.12.2019 was received by this Court of State Commissioner
for Persons with Disabilities on 27.12.2019 and the same was considered on
various dates by this Commissionerate.
2. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that his son aged 42 years is a person
with 60% disability certified by the medical board and is in possession of an
agricultural land of 4.00 acres with S.No.110/1A of Kattumalayanur village,
Kilpennathur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. The complainant’s son had applied
for free agricultural connection. However, it is stated that the electricity board has
rejected the application three times citing that only those with 66% or above
disabilities are eligible for preference in agricultural connection. In support of the
rejection, it is stated that the electricity board has cited G.O.Ms.No.694 of social
welfare department dated 06.09.1974.
3. The complainant had further stated that the G.O mentioned by the officers of
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board herein after referred to as TNEB, is outdated and
there has been new rules passed by the Central Government by the way of Central
Act, 1995 and 2016 Tamil Nadu State Act 2002 which was revised in 2018 and
these updated rules are not being followed. The complainant had further stated that
the Chairman of TNEB Chennai had instructed all the Superintending Engineers to
adhere to the rule stating that only persons with 66% and above disability should
be considered under this scheme. It is further stated that the complainant had filed

1
 a RTI petition querying the provision for such insistence but no reply has been
given.
4. Section 80(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is as follows
“80. Functions of State Commissioner.—The State Commissioner
shall—
(b) inquire, suo motu or otherwise deprivation of rights of persons with
disabilities and safeguards available to them in respect of matters for
which the State Government is the appropriate Government and take up
the matter with appropriate authorities for corrective action;”
5. Thus section 80(b) of the 2016 Act empowers this Court to inquire into complaints
of differently abled persons who are deprived of their rights and safeguards
provided to them by law. This Court after carefully examining the complaint had
issued a notice dated 27.02.2020 to the Chairman, TNEB and the Superintending
Engineer, TNEB, Thiruvannamalai.
6. This Court has received a reply from the TANGEDCO dated 19.03.2020 stating
that the complainant’s son S.Karthikeyan had applied for free agriculture service
connection under differently abled special priority scheme since S.Karthikeyan is
known to be a person with 60% disability. It is stated that S.Karthikeyan had
applied for free agriculture service connection on 15.10.2016 under differently
abled special priority scheme. However, it was informed to S.Karthikeyan vide a
letter dated 31.10.2016 from Superintending Engineer, Thiruvannamalai that
person already registered under normal category and in the waiting list with 66%
of disability is only eligible under the differently abled special priority scheme. It
is further stated that after receiving such reply from the EB department,
S.Karthikeyan has applied under normal category for agriculture service
connection. It is stated that the general category application up to 31.03.2000 has
been given service connection and further stated that S.Karthikeyan’s seniority has
not been reached so far.
7. The reply further states that the government has issued letter dated 16.04.1987 to
provide 100 agricultural service connection every year under special priority to
Widows, Physically Challenged persons, Scheduled Tribes and Ex-Serviceman on
completion of one year from the date of registration of the application. It is further

2
 stated by TANGEDCO that the G.O.Ms.No.694, Social Welfare Department dated
06.09.1974 is followed for providing priority to persons with disabilities. This G.O
provides that those persons who has 66% and above disability are eligible to get
the priority under the differently abled scheme with the certificate obtained from
Government Doctor prescribed in Annexure-III.
8. It is also stated that the number of free connections which can be provided under
priority has been increased over years from 100 to 150 in 2007, then 150 to 250 in
2010 and then from 250 to 350 in 2015, all subject to the conditions mentioned in
the letter dated 16.04.1987.
9. The reply further states that the above government orders and letters are being
followed by TANGEDCO and persons who have 66% disability and above alone
are considered under the priority scheme.
10. It is also stated that based on the complaint from complainant, the TANGEDCO
has written a letter to Energy Department, Government of Tamil Nadu requesting
to issue a suitable amendment regarding the percentage of disability for persons
with disabilities under special priority scheme.
11. This Court has carefully examined the reply filed by the TANGEDCO. This Court
deems it fit to refer the following provision of Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 before issuing recommendations.
Section 2(r):- "person with benchmark disability" means a person with not less
than forty per cent of a specified disability where specified disability has not been
defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified
disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying
authority; {Emphasis Supplied}
Section 2 (s):- "person with disability" means a person with long term physical,
mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers,
hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others;
12. It is to be noted that 2016 Act has provided provisions for two kinds of disabilities
viz. Person with Disability and Person with Benchmark Disability. The phrase
“person with disability” has been defined in widest sense possible to include all
kinds of disability which hinders their full and effective participation in society

3
 equally with others. On the other hand, the 2016 Act defines persons with
benchmark disabilities as a person with not less than 40% disability. The
distinction between these two terms assumes significance in conferring rights and
entitlements to the persons with disabilities. The 2016 Act provides various rights
to persons with disabilities such as equality and non-discrimination, protection and
safety etc. These rights and entitlements are applicable to all persons with
disabilities including benchmark disabilities. The 2016 Act further provides certain
provisions under Chapter VI of the Act for persons with benchmark disabilities.
This Chapter provides free education for children with disabilities, reservation in
higher education institutions and employment and reservation in schemes and
development programmes. These provisions are applicable only for the persons
with benchmark disabilities. Hence, it is imperative from these provisions that the
2016 Act does not prescribe any other classifications of persons with disabilities
except those discussed above. It is true that the 2016 Act talks about “person with
disability having high support needs” however this need not be treated as a
separate classification since this is the extended provision for persons with
benchmark disabilities.
13. It will be appropriate to deal with the issue raised by the complainant keeping in
mind the above statutory provisions. The issue raised by the complainant deserves
consideration as it has brought to the fore an issue for the action of appropriate
authorities. It can be understood from the reply from the TANGEDCO that the
complainant’s son has applied for free agricultural service connection in 2018 after
the TANGEDCO has informed to the Complainant’s son that the priority scheme
is applicable only to the applicants under normal category and in the waiting list.
Admittedly, the complainant’s son is in the seniority list from 2018 and
TANGEDCO had given free agricultural connection to applicants who has applied
till 31.03.2000. In such scenario, the complainant had approached this Court for
bringing the government orders in line with the provisions of 2016 Act.
14. It can be seen that the TANGEDCO is following a government order which is
more than 40 years old. During the passage of this time, the entire jurisprudence on
disability and their rights have attained a substantial change. There are many

4
 schemes for the persons with disabilities implemented through various
departments each prescribing it’s own requirements and qualifications. Though the
free agricultural service connection scheme provided by TANGEDCO benefits the
agriculturalists at large, the government has certain fixed numbers for each year to
extend the free connections. Such numbers are determined by government every
year keeping in mind the economic and other capacities of TANGEDCO and the
government. In such determined number, there is a provision for special priority
scheme. The beneficiaries of such special priority scheme are widows, persons
with disabilities, scheduled tribes and Ex-Serviceman. TANGEDCO has a
requirement to satisfy if anyone claims under “persons with disability” category.
Such requirement is the necessity of having 66% of disability determined and
certified by government doctor. This requirement is mandated by the TANGEDCO
based on the G.O.Ms.No.694 dated 06.09.1974. Without going into the rationale
behind fixing 66% and above disability, this court is of the opinion that this 1974
Government Order is inconsistent with the provisions of 2016 Act in so far as the
mandatory insistence of 66% disability is concerned.
15. It is further to be noted that the Central Government and Government of
TamilNadu follows 40% and above disability as a sole or one of the criteria for
many welfare schemes implemented through various departments.
16. This Court records the statement of TANGEDCO that it has addressed a letter to
Energy Department, Government of TamilNadu requesting to issue suitable
amendment regarding the percentage of disability to be considered under persons
with disability category in special priority scheme. Hence, it would be proper on
the part of the Energy Department to issue suitable amendment to bring the
requirements to avail free connection in line with the provisions of Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
In light of the above, this Court recommends the below.
1. The TANGEDCO is recommended to expeditiously co-ordinate with the
Energy Department to get it’s proposal approved so as to bring the percentage
of disability in line with the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016.

5
 2. TANGEDCO is further recommended to apprise the Energy department with
the necessary provisions including the provisions of Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016.
3. This Court refrains from issuing any positive recommendations to
TANGEDCO regarding the free connection to complainant’s son as it is
entirely within the domain of TANGEDCO. However, it is recommended that
the application of complainant’s son seeking free connection be processed after
considering the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and
the ensuing amendment from Energy Department.
4. TANGEDCO is directed to file a status report before this Court detailing the
status of amendment sought from the Energy Department on or before
13.12.2021 either through post or in person.
Given under my hand and seal of this office on this the 16th day of August, 2021.

(Sd- JOHNY TOM VARGHESE)

STATE COMMISSIONER
FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
To:-
Chairman & Managing Director,
TANGEDCO,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.

Copy To:-
1. Principal Secretary to Government,
Energy Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.

2. V. Selvaraj
No.3, Ramalinganar, 13th street
Thiruvannamalai – 606 602

//TRUE COPY//
//BY ORDER//
LAW OFFICER (I/C)