LUCKNOW: Luckyland, the sprawling coastal town where the city of Lucknow is located, has no rules about how the handicap is defined and is often referred to as “a playground”.

Its residents have the freedom to work as they wish in the small town and the handicapped are just as welcome as the rest of the population, where many people have no clue what it means to be handicapped.

But in the case of Luckyland residents, the word “waste” and the word, “disadvantage” have become the most frequent slurs, which is unfortunate.

Luckyland is the first city in India to pass a law making it a crime to refer to the handicaps as “disabilities”.

It is also one of the few states in India where the handicapping law has become a hot issue.

This week, the Lucknow high court heard a petition filed by an Indian woman who claimed she had been denied a job by her employer after her daughter was diagnosed with a brain tumour.

The woman’s daughter was not the only one to have her job terminated due to the condition, the court heard.

When she applied for a job, her employer, the state government, had written to the family and said she was too ill to work, according to the petition.

However, she says, she was told that the state had decided to terminate her contract because her daughter had a brain tumor.

She was then asked to provide the name and address of her employer.

It was only after she provided her address that she was informed that the company had decided against hiring her.

The woman filed a case before the court.

The Lucknow High Court has also issued notices to the state administration and the Luckmanjana district administration to ensure that there is no discrimination in the workplace in the area of disability.

In Lucknow, only a handful of handicaps are considered disabilities, including “lack of dexterity”, “muscle aches and pains”, “painful breathing” and “pain with respect to the body’s movements”.

A case was registered against a woman from the village of Prakasam in the district.

The woman, who was a nurse, was told she would be unable to work in Lucknow.

However, the woman’s employer had decided that she could work in the nearby village of Dibakar, but that she would have to take a back-breaking job at the Dibaksam nursing home.

The case was later registered in the Luckmenjana High Court.

The court was also hearing a case on the issue of a person who was being denied a livelihood due to his handicap.

A resident of Doklam, a mountain in the Ladakh region of Ladakh, had been employed as a contractor at a building site in the village.

His employer had asked him to work for a month and pay him Rs 5,000 for every hour he worked.

He had to take the daily walk to work and was allowed to have no more than four hours rest.

He was then told that he could not work in Ladakh because his job did not meet the legal definition of a handicapped job.

He was given a notice to return to his village for 10 days, which he did.

The notice was also given to his employer.

The High Court heard the case and said the case should be taken up with the state, as well as the district administration.

Earlier this month, a case was filed in the same court by a person with a handicaps condition, claiming that he had been refused a job due to being a “disability”.

The man claimed that his employer had written on his application that he was too poor to work because he was handicapped, even though he had worked for him for more than 30 years.

He was also told that a local official had said he was an ‘idiot’ and that he would be made to work at a ‘small handicap’ in the neighbouring village of Bagan.

“If I had been able to get a job in my village, I would have been able work in a big job like mine in the city,” he told the court, according a translation provided to The Hindu.

The man had applied for work in his village, which was about 30 kilometres away from his village.

He told the high court that he knew his village had a disability-based job classification.

Instead, the man was told he would have had to go back to his home village and spend the next two months as a migrant.

Later, the High Court granted him a job at a factory in Dokam, the district where the man lives.

He had to earn Rs 6,000 a month, and he also had to get regular visits from his doctor and other medical workers.

As a result of his