‘Disabled employees are compelled to climb the stairs daily’: Chhattisgarh High Court Takes Suo Motu Action, Directs PWD Secretary To Explain Non-Functional Lift And Lack Of Facilities In Govt Building
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru has taken suo motu cognisance of a news report published in a Hindi daily highlighting the distressing state of a composite Government building in Bilaspur. The report revealed that the building, which accommodates around 500 employees and visitors daily, including four disabled staff members, has been without a functioning lift for six months and lacks essential facilities such as drinking water. The Court directed the Secretary of the Public Works Department to file a personal affidavit indicating the status of repair works, reasons for delay, and measures to ensure accessibility and basic amenities.
The case arose from a suo motu public interest litigation initiated by the High Court of Chhattisgarh based on a newspaper article published in the “Bilaspur Bhaskar” edition of “Dainik Bhaskar” on 8 November 2025. The report highlighted that the elevator in a composite Government building at Bilaspur, housing twenty-two Government departments, had remained non-functional for six months. The three-storey building, comprising seventy-two stairs, was reported to be causing severe inconvenience to employees and visitors due to the absence of a working lift.
The news item stated that around 250 Government employees work in the building, while an equal number of citizens visit daily for official purposes. It specifically mentioned that four disabled employees were facing significant physical hardship as they were compelled to climb the stairs daily. The article also pointed out that despite the building being constructed in 2013 at a cost of about eight crore rupees, essential amenities such as drinking water were unavailable, forcing employees to arrange water themselves.
The report further referred to existing Government directives requiring that all public buildings be equipped with operational lifts, ramps, and wheelchair facilities to ensure accessibility. It also emphasized that, in case of equipment failure, temporary arrangements should be made on the ground floor. The Court took note of these facts and sought clarification regarding compliance with such statutory requirements and the reasons for the continued inaccessibility of the premises.
The Court recorded that the news item “goes to show a deeply concerning state of affairs prevailing in the new composite Government building, which houses the offices of 22 different Government departments.” It noted that, according to the report, the existing elevator had been non-functional for six months and the new elevator had also not been made functional due to delays in installation work. The Bench stated that, as a result, the entire building “remains without any operational lift facility.”
The Court observed that approximately 250 officials and employees work in the building and an equal number of citizens visit daily for essential work, resulting in nearly 500 daily users. It recorded that the absence of a lift had caused “widespread inconvenience and hardship.” Special attention was drawn to the news report’s account of disabled employees posted in the building, including a detailed description of one employee using crutches and climbing 24 steps daily. The Court noted that the report “visibly demonstrates the severe physical strain faced by disabled personnel.”
The Court stated that Government rules require functional lifts, ramps and wheelchair facilities in public buildings to ensure convenience for disabled persons and that temporary arrangements must be made on the ground floor in case such facilities fail. It recorded that the situation in the building reflected “complete disregard for these directives, as no ground floor arrangements have been made despite the long duration of lift failure.”
The Bench also noted the report on lack of drinking water, stating that employees were pooling funds to buy water. It referred to the building’s cost and year of construction and noted that various departments had written to the Collector to expedite repairs and installation. It recorded that the Advocate General sought time to seek detailed instructions from authorities concerning accessibility issues faced by disabled employees, pregnant staff, the general public, and allegations about absence of basic facilities.
The Court observed that, “having regard to the gravity of the situation disclosed in the newspaper article dated 08.11.2025,” and considering the submission of the Advocate General, it found it appropriate to call for the personal response of the concerned authority.
The Court directed that the Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, shall file his personal affidavit. The affidavit must “clearly indicate the present status of the repair of the existing lift, the reasons for the prolonged delay in making the new lift operational, the timeline within which both lifts shall be made functional, and the steps proposed to ensure accessibility and availability of basic amenities within the composite Government building.” The Court ordered that the affidavit be filed before the next date of hearing and listed the matter on 13.11.2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Respondents: Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General; Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General.
Case Title: In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Regarding News Item Published in Dainik Bhaskar Dated 08.11.2025
Case Number: WPPIL No. 99 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
