Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Thursday, November 21, 2024

Uttarakhand HC Very Rightly Issues Landmark Directives For Senior Citizens Welfare

Posted in: Judgment Reviews
Fri, Jun 29, 18, 09:49, 7 Years ago
star star star star star
3 out of 5 with 3 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5096
Senior Citizen Welfare Organization & Another v State of Uttarakhand & Another in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 52 of 2013 with far reaching consequences, the Uttarakhand High Court on June 12, 2018 has issued a slew of directions for welfare and protection of rights of senior citizens in the state.

It has to be stated at the outset that in a historic and latest judgment titled Senior Citizen Welfare Organization & Another v State of Uttarakhand & Another in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 52 of 2013 with far reaching consequences, the Uttarakhand High Court on June 12, 2018 has issued a slew of directions for welfare and protection of rights of senior citizens in the state. This shall ensure that senior citizens don't get a raw treatment anymore. It is thus a landmark judgment from all angles!

Before proceeding ahead, it would be instructive to go through briefly the manner in which the case proceeded. The petitioner no. 1 is a Society, registered under the Society Registration Act having its registration no. 1344/1997-98 dated 29.12.1997. The petitioner no. 2 is the Vice President of the Society. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for protecting the rights of the senior citizens as per the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2007). The petitioner no. 2 has prayed for establishment of the old age homes in each district of the State of Uttarakhand as visualized under Section 19 of the Act.

To be sure, while referring to the various provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Bench said that 11 years have elapsed since it was enacted but till date enactment has not been implemented fully. This is a matter of deep regret! "Once the law is enacted, it must be implemented in letter and spirit," the Bench added.

Going forward, the Bench observed that, "Every senior citizen has a fundamental right to live with dignity. It is the duty cast upon the State Government to protect the life, liberty and property including dignity and decency of senior citizens. They cannot be permitted to be left unattended in the twilight of their lives. Ours is a welfare and socialist state and it is expected that every citizen should live in a dignified manner with the assistance to be provided by the State Government." Every State Government must always bear this in mind. They must endeavour to always do as directed by the court.

It is evident from the counter filed by the respondent State that it has established only two old age homes in the districts Chamoli and Bageshwar. These are being maintained and operated from the funds provided by the State Government. But according to the plain language of Section 19 the State Government is required to establish old age homes in each district and also to prepare a Scheme as per Section 19(2) of the Act, 2007.

Truth be told, the two old age homes one in Dehradun and one in Udham Singh Nagar having capacity of 25 citizens each are being maintained by the NGOs' who received grants from the Central Government. The old age home in District Dehradun is being operated and maintained by Gramya Mahila Kalyan Sansthan in Prem Nagar. The onerous responsibility of running and manning old age homes lies on the State Government primarily which it cannot abdicate under any circumstances!

Needless to say, the Bench made it clear that the state government should establish/set-up the old age homes at its own level instead of relying upon NGOs or societies. It also held that, "It cannot be permitted to pass on the responsibilities upon the NGOs for better management of the old age homes. It is also the duty of the State Government to provide beds for all senior citizens in government/government aided hospitals. There is requirement of separate queues for senior citizens. The facility for treatment of degenerated diseases is required to be extended to senior citizens." There can be no denying or disputing it!

To ensure that the State Government fulfils its duties and obligations in maintaining old age homes, a Bench of Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Lok Pal Singh issued many directives while disposing of a PIL filed by the Senior Citizen Welfare Organization seeking directions for protecting the rights of the senior citizens as per the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Those landmark directives issued by the Bench are as follows:
A. The state government is directed to establish old age home in each district of the State of Uttarakhand within a period of six months. It is made clear that it shall be open to the state government to hire private accommodation, as a temporary measure.

B. The state government is directed to make a scheme for management of old age homes within a period of eight weeks.

C. The state government is directed to ensure to provide a sufficient number of beds for senior citizens in each government hospital or hospitals funded by the state government.

D. The state government is further directed to ensure that all the senior citizens in the State of Uttarakhand are provided free treatment including blood test, CT scan, MRI and other tests at government hospitals.

E. The respondent-state shall upgrade the facilities to be provided in old age homes from time to time, including the strength of the inhabitants.

F. The state government is also directed to give due publicity to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 in print media, electronic media including through Panchayati Raj institutions for the awareness of the enactment as per Section 21 of the Act, 2007.

G. The state government shall provide the facilities to the senior citizens as per the Rules.

H. The state government shall provide separate accommodation for men and women including sufficient potable water, electric fans, coolers/AC, separate kitchen, dining room, separate bathroom for disabled senior citizens.

I. The state government is also directed to provide wheel-chair, television, newspaper and books in old age homes.

J. The state government is also directed to provide ramp railing to the senior citizens including telephone service.

K. The state government is also directed to provide balanced nutritious food, two sets of clothes for summers and winters, linen, sufficient number of sweepers for maintaining hygiene and cleanliness in old age homes.

L. The senior citizens, in case of emergency, shall be taken to the nearest hospital for treatment. The cost of conveyance shall be borne by the State Government including the medical expenditure as well as of ambulance.

M. The circle officers of the respective area are directed to maintain vigil in and around the old age homes.

N. The state government is directed to protect the life and property of the senior citizens as provided under Rule 20.

Having said this, it would be imperative to also mention here that the Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in its landmark judgment also held that, "The Secretary, Welfare to the State of Uttarakhand shall be personally responsible to implement the orders and monitor the directions issued hereinabove." On a parting note, the Bench also observed that, "The Court places on record its appreciation for the valuable assistance for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr Narendra Bali, Advocate, in such a sensitive matter."

All said and done, it is a very landmark judgment with far reaching consequences. The directives issued by the Bench of Uttarakhand High Court are really laudable and all courts must adhere to it. Not just this, the State of Uttarakhand must implement the landmark directives issued by it in letter and spirit and not just leave it unattended! It is the senior citizens who will benefit the most who are made to suffer untold sufferings and miseries if this landmark judgment with commendable directives are really implemented now!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Arun Kumar Bhadoria v State, Improve Working Conditions For Police And Ensure Minimum Three Promotions For All Cops
in Arun Kumar v State of Uttarakhand and other [Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2112 of 2011] dated July 6, 2018 issued a slew of landmark directions to ensure that road safety is enhanced to the best possible extent.
It is a matter of deepest regret that both the Congress and the BJP which have ruled India from 1947 to 2018 fully and firmly support the unrestricted, unaccounted and undisclosed political donations to political parties from foreign countries.
Delhi High Court in Jasmeen Kaur v Union of India and others in W.P.(C) 7040/2018 while holding merit over technical grounds has opened up a closed opportunity for an aspiring medico to register for the second round of counselling for deemed universities after the due date. How can merit be defeated on technical ground?
What will the lawyers of West UP do on August 4? Strike like they do every Saturday since May 1981.
The State of Rajasthan v Mohan Lal, Minced no words in sending out a clear and categorical message to all courts below that courts must see that the public doesn’t lose confidence in the judicial system.
Alim v State of Uttarakhand, The Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of directions for the welfare of cows and other stray cattle in the state.
Chhitij Kishore Sharma v Mr Justice Lok Pal Singh while holding that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against a Judge of Court of Record, on allegations of committing a contempt of his own Court has dismissed as not maintainable.
ection 377 of the IPC has been decriminalised partially by a Five Judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court for sex between consenting adults on a batch of petitions filed.
In Mohammed Imran v Maharashtra has directed the state authorities to reconsider the candidature of a successful aspirant for judicial service, whose selection for appointment was cancelled on the ground of 'Moral Turpitude' and even high court had turned down his plea against cancellation.
many other UP Chief Ministers like ND Tiwari, Rajnath Singh and others too suported the demand for a high court bench in West UP but Centre never cooperated
Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India has clearly and convincingly held that the Court proceedings shall be live-streamed in the larger public interest.
dismissed the plea by Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), who are the publisher of National Herald newspaper and who challenged the Centre's order to vacate the premises
Adultery is the symptom of broken marriage and not the reason of broken marriage.
Anil Kumar v UOI that no authority can claim a privilege not to comply with its judgment.
Madras High Court has been very categorical in drawing a red line for itself on which it just cannot tread upon! Each and every Court in India must always bear this in mind while ruling in such sensitive and emotional cases
ICJ has held upfront that Pakistan violated the Vienna Convention in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case and it should review and reconsider his conviction and sentencing while allowing India consular access to the Indian national.
Lord Ram did not fight shy to even sacrifice his life for the cause of justice and for satisfying what his people thought was right! Lord Ram always wanted that justice must be available to the poorest of the poor! He was not happy to see even a single person being unhappy in his kingdom
AS Marimuthu Vs The Ministry of Telecommunications slammed BSNL for virtually grabbing the property belonging to one AS Marimuthu without any compunction by paying a paltry sum of just Rupee one.
critical and comprehensive analysis of the case kapore chand vs. kadar unnisa begum
Pankaj Bansal v. State (Govt of NCT Delhi) that was pronounced as recently as on June 9, 2023 has decisively ruled that the discretion of an applicant
Top