JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. The petitioner by this writ petition impugns the Circular/decision published in the Hindustan Times dated 11.5.1997, regarding concessions made available in rail fare to certain categories of handicapped persons. Petitioner is aggrieved as deaf and dumb persons, though eligible for 50% concessional fare, have not been provide the facilities of any rail concession for an attendant/escort accompanying the deaf and dumb passenger. This facility of concessional fare for the escort/attendant has been confined to blind persons, T.B. patients, mentally retarded persons, thalassamia and major disease patients as well as cardiac patients etc.
2. The petitioner’s case is that his sister, who is deaf and dumb, was residing in Amroha, U.P. She is required to regularly come to Delhi for treatment. The Chief Medical Officer, Muradabad in a medical certificate issued, certified that she needed an escort. The printed form also carried the following notation:-
“This is a permanent dis-ability hence her case is under category of physically orthopaedic person.”
3. Petitioner’s sister was earlier allowed to have an escort but pursuant to the impugned circular/notice, which appeared in the Hindustan Times, deaf and dumb persons, though eligible for concession of 50% themselves were not included in the category, which allowed a concession for the escort/attendant. Further, grievance of the petitioner is that as against 75% concession given even to T.B. Patients, Orthopaedic handicapped person, mentally retarded person, thalassamia major disease patients and cardiac patients etc., here the extent of concession given was only 50%.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the notification/circular in providing a lesser concession to the deaf and dumb was not based on any rationale. Moreover, the decision to deny the concession for an attendant was totally arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable. It was not based either on any discernible criterion.
5. Respondents have filed the counter affidavit, justifying the applicability of concessions at the varying rates of 75% or 50%, depending upon the nature of afflictions and disease. As regards the concession for the attendant/escort, it was provided in case of patient, who could not travel without an escort/attendant on account of nature of dis-ability such as orthopaedic handicapped and paraplegic persons. For such person traveling alone would be physically difficult and fraught with risk. This was not so, in the case of deaf and dumb persons. Similarly, the requirement for a T.B. or Cancer patient, who were having a high permanent dis-ability, as certified by the Doctor to have an attendant was far greater than that of a person, who is simply deaf and dumb.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and given my careful consideration to the circular/decision prescribing different rates of concessions for the various diseases and afflictions as well as the availability of concessions for the attendant for the specified categories, viz., blind persons, T.B. Patients, Cancer patients, orthopaedic handicapped persons, mentally retarded persons, thalassamia and other major disease patients and cardiac patients, I find that the challenge to the notification must fail as there is a justifiable differentia, based on the gravity of the illness, which would necessitate the escort/attendant for travel or otherwise. While in the case of deaf and dumb person, he may be physically mobile and, therefore, in a position to board and alight from the train. This would not be possible in case of orthopaedic or paraplegics, who would need assistance for physical movement. Similarly critically ill cardiac or other patients, or cancer patient and other categories specified would need physical help in their movement.
7. I find that if a deaf and dumb person is illiterate, traveling without an escort/attendant despite being able to sit, walk and alight could be fraught with some risk and inconvenience. The illiterate deaf and dumb person for instance traveling alone would have no means of communicating with fellow passengers or comprehend what a fellow passenger may be trying to tell him. It was, therefore, necessary to give directions for provision of certain basic facilities and amenities, which would mitigate the difficulty of physically challenged handicapped and deaf and dumb person, who are not being provided concessional fare for the escort/attendant.
8. The Senior Commercial Manager and a Doctor from the railways were directed to appear and assist the Court on the measures that could be taken to mitigate and ameliorate the difficulties of deaf and dumb persons or blind or other physically challenged persons during rail travel. It was enquired from them as to what facilities were presently available at least at the main Railway Stations/Junctions to help physically handicapped/physically challenged persons and especially a deaf and dumb person, who may be traveling without an escort/attendant. The Senior Commercial Manager informed that in case of prior intimation of a physically handicapped person, traveling, the staff could inform him to alight, when the destination was to reach. Learned counsel for the respondent had also submitted that the concessional fare given by the Railways to handicapped persons were out of their own funds. The Railways did not receive any reimbursement or compensation for the same. It was for this reason that no fixed criteria or policy regarding the application of rail concessions and the extent thereof was formulated. As per the records made available by the Railways, the losses on account of concession in fare to different categories of persons amounted to Rs. 860 crores during 1999-2000. These were stated to be estimated figures. Learned counsel submitted that for the benefit of handicapped persons as well as orthopaedic handicapped paraplegic person, mentally retarded, blind and completely deaf and dumb persons, the following facilities are available:-
1) A reservation quota of two berths in all classes of all trains running on non-suburban sections has been earmarked for handicapped persons performing their journey on handicapped concessional ticket. The person accompanying the handicapped persons as escort should also be provided accommodation out of this quota.
2) Instructions have also been issued that in the tickets issued through Computerised Passenger reservation System, one lower berth should be allotted to the handicapped person and the person accompanying the handicapped person as escort should be allotted Middle/Upper berths near the handicapped person.
3) Instructions have also been issued that after departure of the train, if there are vacant lower berths available in the train and if any physically handicapped person booked on the authority of handicapped concessional ticket, who has bene allotted upper/middle berth, approaches for allotment of vacant lower berth, the Conductor/TTE should be authorised to all to the same on first come first serve basis making necessary entries in the Chart.
4) In sub-urban trains, separate accommodation for handicapped persons has been earmarked.
5) For allotment of STD/PCO booths, 75% allotments are made to the highest bidder and out of the balance 25%, 2% quota is reserved for physically handicapped persons.
Having noted the concessions and facilities offered by the Railways to the physically handicapped persons, I find that while the challenge in the writ petition fails, the following directions need to be issued to the Railways for provisions of additional amenities and facilities at least on all the main Railway Stations/Junctions including those, who are deaf and dumb. These are the minimum facilities, which a welfare State must provide. Considering that the quantum of fare concessions, as given by the Railways is in the range of Rs. 860/- crores, the provision of these facilities would not have significant financial outflow. The amenities to be provided are:-
1. There should be a booth established at all the major railway stations/junctions having a prominent pictorial sign that assistance is available to physically handicapped/challenged persons;
2. The booth should be manned by attendants, who would make available wheel chair/trolley, stretcher etc., as required. Folding canes should be provided for the blind. Moveable ramps should also be provided so that there is no difficulty in boarding or alighting.
3. At the time of issuance of concessional tickets to each physically handicapped/challenged person or a person, who is blind, deaf and/or dumb, information regarding the complete particulars of the passenger name, address and telephone number of the contract person to be contacted in case of emergency should be obtained.
4. The Railway Authorities on the basis of information so obtained will print out a card giving the full particulars of the passenger name and address of the passenger as well as that of contact person to be contacted in case of emergency. The boarding station as well as the destination to be printed out/typed out in bold letters.
5. Each physically handicapped/challenged person, blind, deaf or dumb or otherwise sick person traveling on concessional fare should carry the card to enable seeking assistance from fellow passengers/travellers in case of need.
6. The Train Ticket Examiner/Guard or the concerned staff should be given a duplicate copy of the card and made responsible to ensure that physically handicapped/challenged person has no difficulty in boarding or alighting from the train or during travel.
9. These are the few of the basic amenities, which are to be provided and are not intended to be exhaustive or limited in any manner to what the Railways or their experts may find suitable to provide in addition. The provision of the above facilities considering the limited number of physically handicapped/challenged person, who may travel in a train should not pose any major difficulty.
10. The challenge in the writ petition fails. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. The Railway Authorities to file an action taken report within four months from today.