Friday, March 25, 2022

Suo-Motu Regarding “Accessibility & barrier free movement for PwDs in the National Capital Territory of Delhi” Vs. 35 Respondents (Enclosed List)

 
In the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-110002
Phone-23216001-04, Email: comdis.delhi@delhi.gov.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.2345/1101/2021/09/4343-4380      Dated : 25-03-22

In the matter of :

SUO-MOTU Regarding “Accessibility & barrier free movement for PwDs in the National Capital Territory of Delhi”

Versus

As per enclosed list          .............. 35 Respondents

Date of Hearing : 23.03.2022 

Present: As per enclosed list


ORDER

It has been observed/noticed that there are many obstructions/ barriers/encroachments, illegal squatters/vendors etc. on the footpaths and roads in the National Capital Territory of Delhi which creates a lots of hindrance/problem of “Accessibility” for the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) besides Women, Children & Elderly. Consequently, the common public spaces are becoming inaccessible and unsafe not only for persons with disabilities and elderly but also for general citizens. Some of the common flaws are as under:-

(i) There are narrow spaces between bollards on the foot paths making it impossible for a wheel chair user to pass through;

(ii) Some sign boards on the foot paths are of low height and at times on the tactile making it dangerous for visually impaired persons;

(iii) Obstructions such as lamp posts, gutters, protruding objects, sign boards, trees on foot paths especially on the guiding tiles/ warning blocks make them unsafe for persons with visual impairment;

(iv) Many Roads/footpaths are encroached by the vendors/hawkers and in open violation of the existing norms and procedure besides orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein the open, hazardous, unhygienic cooking and selling of food goes on;

(v) Excavated roads/ footpaths by various agencies are not repaired quickly or haphazardly done.

2. Section 40, 41, 44, 45 and 46 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 here in after referred to as the Act, mandate the appropriate Government to ensure accessibility of existing built environment and transport among other things, to persons with disabilities under an action plan within five years and undertake the new construction only as per the prescribed standards. The said Sections are reproduced below:

“40. The Central Government shall, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner, formulate rules for persons with disabilities laying down the standards of accessibility for the physical environment, transportation, information and communications, including appropriate technologies and systems, and other facilities and services provided to the public in urban and rural areas.

41. (1) The appropriate Government shall take suitable measures to provide—

(a) facilities for persons with disabilities at bus stops, railway stations and airports conforming to the accessibility standards relating to parking spaces, toilets, ticketing counters and ticketing machines;

(b) access to all modes of transport that conform the design standards, including retrofitting old modes of transport, wherever technically feasible and safe for persons with disabilities, economically viable and without entailing major structural changes in design;

(c) accessible roads to address mobility necessary for persons with disabilities.

(2) The appropriate Government shall develop schemes programmes to promote the personal mobility of persons with disabilities at affordable cost to provide for,—

(a) incentives and concessions;

(b) retrofitting of vehicles; and

(c) personal mobility assistance.

44. (1) No establishment shall be granted permission to build any structure if the building plan does not adhere to the rules formulated by the Central Government under section 40.

(2) No establishment shall be issued a certificate of completion or allowed to take occupation of a building unless it has adhered to the rules formulated by the Central Government.

45. (1) All existing public buildings shall be made accessible in accordance with the rules formulated by the Central Government within a period not exceeding five years from the date of notification of such rules:

Provided that the Central Government may grant extension of time to the States on a case to case basis for adherence to this provision depending on their state of preparedness and other related parameters.

(2) The appropriate Government and the local authorities shall formulate and publish an action plan based on prioritisation, for providing accessibility in all their buildings and spaces providing essential services such as all primary health centres, civil hospitals, schools, railway stations and bus stops.

46. The service providers whether Government or private shall provide services in accordance with the rules on accessibility formulated by the Central Government under section 40 within a period of two years from the date of notification of such rules:

Provided that the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Commissioner may grant extension of time for providing certain category of services in accordance with the said rules.”

3. Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, here in after referred to as the Rules, notified by Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Government of India, standards as specified in the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment for Persons With Disabilities and Elderly Persons issued by Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India in March, 2016 and standard for Bus Body Code for transportation system as specified in the Notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide G.S.R. 895(E) dated 20th September 2016 are to be followed. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy has also developed and published “Footpath design: A Guide for creating footpath that are safe, comfortable and easy to use”;

4. Therefore, the undersigned has taken suo motu cognizance under Section 80 (b) of the Act of the above mentioned state of the built environment and of the fact that even at some places in Delhi new constructions are being carried out without following the prescribed standards. The respondents were accordingly directed to show cause as to why the existing built environment meant for public use in the National Capital Territory of Delhi should not be made fully accessible to persons with disabilities as mandated in the Act, the Rules and the guidelines and why all the new construction of built environment and transportation should not be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the standards prescribed for each of the facility vide Notice dated 13.09.2021 followed by reminder dated 27.10.2021, dated 24.02.2022.

5. A hearing was scheduled on 23.03.2022 on the subject. The respondents were further advised to stop forthwith any construction activity of built environment meant for public use without following the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the prescribed standards until appropriate corrective action is taken to ensure their accessibility to persons with disabilities. 

6. A joint hearing was held with all the respondents, annexed at ‘A’ on 23.03.2022 at 11.30 AM.  List of participants is annexed at ‘B’.  Initiating the hearing, State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (SCPD) deliberated and briefed about the aim, objectives and need of implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in Delhi in true spirit.  It was brought to the notice of all that deadline for making public buildings accessible is expiring on 15.06.2022 and for public facilities and services it had already expired on 15.06.2019.

7. A Power Point Presentation covering important aspects of the RPwD Act, 2016 was shown and deliberated upon during the hearing.  The contents of the PPT in short are as under:-

(i) Barrier Free Environment

(ii) Basic Components of Accessibility

(iii) Definition of Public Building & Public Facilities and Services as per the RPwD Act, 2016.

(iv) Section 45 & 46 of RPwD Act, 2016 and Delhi RPwD Rules, 2017 provides for deadline for making built in environment barrier free as 15.06.2022. 

(v) Harmonised guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India 2021 issued by MoHUA.

(vi) Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan

(vii) 10 Basic Features of Accessibility

(viii) Standards for Accessible facilities for PwDs.

(ix) Short coming of Accessibility in  different localities of NCT of Delhi

8. Some glaring shortfalls in respect of Accessibility carried out by the audit team of the Office of SCPD were pointed for benefit of all present.   SCPD also mentioned about a news clipping which appeared in Times of India dated 13.03.2022 regarding Public Works Department, Delhi starting clearing footpaths encroachment as per orders of Hon’ble High Court to cover entire capital similar to the one issued by SCPD in this regard.

9.   SCPD stated that there is lack of awareness among the general public/officials of executing agencies regarding Accessibility.  SCPD also stressed about the need for sensitisation among all the stakeholders specially the implementing officials.  It was desired that Delhi should become the model city for PwD for Accessibility and other States should replicate the same.   

10. SCPD sought the views and suggestions from the Members of the Advisory Committee/Domain Experts.  Dr. Satendra Singh, Professor of Physiology, University College of Medical Sciences & GTB Hospital, Delhi, Domain Export and a Person with Locomotor Disability expressed his views about the current status of accessibility in Delhi.  He explained that Delhi is not friendly so far as accessibility is concerned for persons with disabilities and all concerned Departments responsible for executing accessibility have failed.    Due to such infrastructure barriers, persons with disabilities are facing great difficulties.  Even the number one premier AIIMS Hospital in Delhi is not disabled friendly/accessible for which case is pending in the Court of CCPD.  All Hospitals, Markets, Stadias, Theatres, Cinema Halls etc. in Delhi need to be  disable friendly.  He highlighted various existing short comings and need of right approach to overcome these short comings.  Shri Subhash Chandra Vashishth, Advocate and a an Accessibility Auditor, CABE Foundation addressing the participants stated that the major problem is that we have not looked up RPwD Act, 2016 with seriousness that it deserved. Lackadaisical approach is still prevailing among the municipal agencies/ implementing ageicies.  As per Section 45(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and in order to achieve the objective of accessibility, all the Departments are primarily required to frame an Action Plan based on prioritisation of how they would address accessibility and put it before the SCPD and publish it on their websites. The matter has already been delayed as above action plans were required to be submitted / framed earlier by the year 2017.  

11. Engineer-in-Chief, PWD informed that currently all norms of accessibility are being followed in respect of new construction/works.  As far as old works are concerned, which are owned by other departments, they are facing problems like space constraints, site restriction and in getting sanctions for these works.  On this, SCPD asked for a list of such works/departments.  He also mentioned that in respect of Government buildings, they have provided the required provisions for PwDs and uploaded the list of such buildings on their website.

12. It was made clear by the SCPD that after the deadline prescribed under the RPwD Act and Rules, some punitive action may be initiated against the defaulters.  Provision of imposition of penalty would be considered.  

13. After due deliberations and discussions, the following recommendations are made:-

(1) As Public Works Department (PWD) is the main road owning agency covering almost 85% of the roads in NCT of Delhi, it is the duty and responsibility of the PWD to maintain all roads and footpaths under its jurisdiction in proper manner specially catering to the needs of persons with disabilities mainly Persons with Visual Impairment, Persons with Locomotor Impairment and those who are wheelchair bound. Apart from other points, following are the important actionable points for the PWD:-

(i) Awareness:- Awareness about Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, Universal Design of walkways/footpaths/signages. Engineer-in-Chief, PWD to chair a meeting upto the level of Junior Engineer and get them aware about the need of accessibility.  This office can help them on this aspect.

(ii) Training:- No organisation can survive or improve without continues training to sensitize and update the personnel of the organisation with the latest developments/procedures to be followed. It is recommended that the executing officials of the Public Works Department should be imparted training on accessibility preferably through access auditors. A report to this effect be sent to this Court.

(iii) Monitoring:- Continuous monitoring be done by the agency that no one violates the conditions of roads and footpaths.

(iv) Pelican Signals:- Provision of Pelican signals should be considered on the roads for larger public interest.

(v) Retrofitting work should be done to create barrier free environment for PwDs. 

(vi) This Court specifically authorises Public Works Department and all respective road owning agencies to take all possible measures to keep roads and footpaths under its jurisdiction PwD friendly, accessible and encroachment free.

(2) These recommendations are not only for Public Works Department but for all road owning agencies/concerned departments.

(3) It is often seen that footpaths are illegally encroached by squatters, hawkers, rehris, vendors, illegal parking, illegal sign boards, illegal construction of porta cabins for guards etc. which obstructs easy movement of PwDs and all pedestrians .It is the duty and responsibility of the road owning agencies i.e. PWD, MCD, Delhi Police etc. to ensure that there is no encroachers of the pavement/footpaths. It is also the responsibility of the Delhi Police to ensure that adequate action is taken for immediate removal of such illegal encroachers from the footpaths. Special time bound drive is required to remove all such encroachments by 6th April 2022 and ATR be submitted.

(4) It is the duty and responsibility of concerned Dy. Commissioner of the Municipal Corporations to ensure that no illegal hawker or tehbazari is allowed to sit on the road and pavement restricting movement of PwDs/Pedestrians. There has to be a Joint Action and Enforcement Team in this regard consisting of licensing inspectors of MCD alongwith Delhi Police.

(5) Delhi Police should sensitise all Police personnel specially all SHOs and Beat Constables to keep Delhi Roads and Footpaths encroachment free and PwD friendly.

(6) While providing Sewer and Water connection to the individual households, relaying of sewer and water lines in colonies or housing societies, DJB often, has to dig roads for connecting water and sewer. Unfortunately, it has been observed that after completion of the work of relaying or new connection, roads and pavement are never brought back to its original condition which creates obstacles in movement of PwDs and other persons. DJB to take strict action/impose penalty against the persons/ organisations that does digging work without their permission. Also other service providers like IT, Power companies etc. does the same. A certificate be given by the concerned agencies that the roads and pavements are brought to its original condition after completion of the work.   

(7) DTC was directed to make Bus Queue Shelters Audio Video friendly for PwDs.

(8) Director, UTTIPEC, DDA being the nodal agency for Unified Traffic regulation in the Capital, need to take cognizance of this important factor and hearing to initiate and take appropriate action accordingly.

(9) Each District Magistrate is the overall incharge of the district to ensure that there is not a single obstruction with respect of accessibility issue for PwDs and others such as Elderly, Women and Children. Each DM is the Nodal Officer in the respective district to ensure that all concerned agencies such as PWD, MCD, Delhi Police etc. do carry out their duty in effective and efficient manner to create barrier free, Accessible PwD friendly roads and footpaths in the District.

(10) An Action Plan in this regard by all the road owning agencies/concerned departments is to be submitted to the Office of SCPD through the District Magistrates immediately for making a barrier free environment for PwDs.

(11) DSW may like to issue notification regarding declaration as per the RPwD Act that the Deputy Magistrates are Additional Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities to assist SCPD in this regard.    

 14.     This court be informed of the action taken by all the concerned respondents within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of RPwD Act, 2016.  In addition about the Action Plan for implementation by all respondents by 25th April, 2022.

15. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 25th day of March, 2022. 


 (Ranjan Mukherjee)
      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Copy to:-

The Pr. Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate, New Delhi-110 002. 



Annexure – ‘A’
 

List of Respondents in Case No.2345/1101/2021/09

In the matter of :

SUO-MOTU Regarding “Accessibility & barrier free movement for PwDs in the National Capital Territory of Delhi”

Versus

35 Departments

**********
 
1.    The Vice Chairman, DDA, A-Block, 1st Floor, Vikas Sadan, Near INA, Market New Delhi-110023.

2.    The Commissioner of Police, GNCT of Delhi, 2nd Floor, MSO Building Police Headquarter, ITO Delhi-110002

3.    Engineer-in-Chief, O/o The Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, 12th Floor, MSO Building, I. P.Estate, New Delhi: 110002

4.    The Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, 9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi -110002

5.    The Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 4th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi -110002

6.     The Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation,419, Udyog Sadan, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi -110096

7.    The Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council, Palika Kendra, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.

8.    The Deputy Commissioner (South Zone), South Delhi Municipal Corporation Sri Aurobindo Marg, Block A, Green Park Extn. Green Park New Delhi-110016

9.     The Deputy Commissioner (Najafgarh Zone), South Delhi Municipal Corporation Najafargh Dhasana Road, Near Bus Stand, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043

10.     The Deputy Commissioner (West Zone), South Delhi Municipal Corporation 290, Road Number 28, Nehru Nagar, Shivaji Place, Basai Dara pur New Delhi-110027.

11.     The Deputy Commissioner (Central Zone), South Delhi Municipal Corporation MCD Zonal Office, Shiv Mandir Marg, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi -110024.

12.     The Deputy Commissioner (City-SP Zone), North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 2nd floor, Idgah Road, Near Sadar Bazar PS, New Delhi-110006.

13.    The Deputy Commissioner ( Keshavpuram Zone), North Delhi Municipal   Corporation, Dr Satpal Sachdeva Marg, Keshav Puram, Tri Nagar,Delhi, 110034

14.     The Deputy Commissioner ( Karolbagh Zone), North Delhi Municipal Corporation, DB Gupta Road, Christian Colony, Block 17 B, Dev Nagar, Anand Parbat, New Delhi, Delhi 110005

15.    The Deputy Commissioner ( Civil Line Zone ), North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 16,Rajpur Road, Kamla Nehru Ridge, Civil Lines, Delhi, 110054

16.    The Deputy Commissioner (Rohini Zone), North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Rohini Institutional Area, Sector 5, Rohini, Delhi, 110085

17.     The Deputy Commissioner (Narela Zone), North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 13 RI-178, MDR 138, Rajeev Colony, Swatantra Nagar, Narela, Delhi, 110040

18.    The Deputy Commissioner (Shahdara South Zone),East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Vishwas Nagar, Institutional Area, behind Karkardooma Court Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi, Delhi 110032

19.    The Deputy Commissioner (Shahdara North Zone), East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Kehsav Chowk, Near Shyam Lal College, Delhi-110051

20.    The Managing Director, Delhi Transport Corporation, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002

21.    The Managing Director, DTIDCL, Transport Department, 5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi

22.    The District Magistrate (North East), D.C. Office Complex, Nand Nagri, Opposite Gagan Cinema, Delhi-110093.    

23.    The District Magistrate (South East), Old Gargi College Building, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024    

24.    The District Magistrate (New Delhi), 12/1, Jam Nagar House Sahajahan Road, New Delhi

25.    The District Magistrate (North), Alipur, Delhi-110036

26.    The District Magistrate (North West) Kanjhawala, Delhi-110081                           

27.    The District Magistrate (Shahdara), Nand Nagri, Opposite Gagan Cinema, Delhi-93                                                           
28.    The District Magistrate(Central), 14, Darya Ganj, New Delhi 02.                                              
29.    The District Magistrate (East), L.M. Bund, Shashtri Nagar, Delhi-110031.        
                                
30.    The District Magistrate (South West), Old Terminal Tax Building Kapashera, New Delhi-110037                                                            

31.    The District Magistrate (South), M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi-110068.             

32.    The District Magistrate (West), Old Middle School Building Lawrance Road, Rampura, Delhi- 110085. 

33.    The CEO, Delhi Cantonment Board, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt-10.

34.    The Director, UTTIPEC, VIKAS MINAR, 2nd Floor, New Delhi, Delhi 110002.

35.    The CEO, Delhi Jal Board, Varunalaya Complex, Jhandewalan Extension, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110005.  


Friday, September 10, 2021

Anju Rani Vs. Directorate of Education & Anr. | Case No.2009/1014/2020/10/1541-43 | Dated:10-09-21

 
In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-110002
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.2009/1014/2020/10/1541-43                  Dated:10-09-21

In the matter of:

Ms. Anju Rani, 
Email: parminderpkm80@gmail.com …………….Complainant
                           
Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Education
Govt. of NCT Delhi
Old Secretariat
Delhi-110054                                    ...............Respondent No.1

The Chairman,  
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092                                             ...............Respondent No. 2

Date of Hearing: 27.07.2021

Present: Ms. Anju Rani, complainant.

Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Assistant on behalf of Respondent No. 1

Sh. K.K. Mishra, Dy. Secretary and Sh. R.P. Tripathi, S.O. on behalf of Respondent No. 2

ORDER

The above named complainant, Ms. Anju Rani, a person with 50% locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 04.06.2020 regarding non-selection for the post of Librarian under post code 02/13, which was received in this Office from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on 20.10.2020.  Vide her complaint, she also submitted that in compliance of order passed by Hon’ble CAT in OA No. 2330/2018 dated 01.06.2018, DSSSB passed a Speaking Order dated 17.09.2018 stating therein that she stands in waiting list of Post Code 02/13, Advertisement No. 01/13 and as on date no vacancy was lying vacant in OH category. However, during the validity of waitlist/panel (that was upto 09.11.2018) if the user department i.e. Directorate of Education (DoE) would request the DSSSB to forward the same, her dossier would be forwarded to them as per merit. She further informed that as per RTI reply sought from the concerned (User) Department the posts were still lying vacant.  She approached DSSSB several times for issuing the dossiers but the DSSSB refused to do so on the pretext that no post is lying vacant in UR OH category.  Thus, DSSSB had passed false Speaking Order.  She alleged that she should not be penalised because of in-coordination between the departments.  She requested for justice in the matter.

2. The matter was taken up with the DSSSB vide letter dated 11.11.2020 followed by reminder dated 17.12.2020 for submission of their comments. A reply was received from Dy. Secretary, DSSSB on 06.01.2021 vide which it was informed that the result of above post code was declared on 09.11.2017 for which waiting Panel was valid upto 09.11.2018.  The name of the candidate Ms. Anju Rani having Roll No. 69000113 was as per waiting panel in OH category.  However, no dossier was received back under the said category from the User Department during the validity period of Waiting Panel. Hence, her name could not be considered for selection.

3. The complainant vide her rejoinder dated 24.01.2021 stated as per DSSSB the result for the Post of Librarian, Post Code 02/13 was declared by them on 09.11.2017 so the wait list was valid till 09.11.2018. But the DSSSB contradicted its own statement when result Notice No. 610 dated 13.02.2018, result Notice No. 737 dated 12.11.2018 and result Notice No. 747 dated 16.01.2019 were declared by them for the same post code and advertisement number.  Complainant therefore, emphasised that wait list should be valid upto 16.01.2020 as per DSSSB Notification dated 13.06.2013 as it clarifies that the waitlist shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of declaration of result and vacancies arising due to non-acceptance of offer of appointment, not joining the post or due to resignation of the selected candidates within one year of joining the post shall be filled up from the reserved panel/waitlist.

4. The complainant further informed that as per DoE vacancy position sent to DSSSB on 05.04.2018, there were 18 vacancies that remained unfilled for the post of Librarian post code 02/13, out of these two vacancies were of UR/OH.  The DoE, vide its letter dated 29.12.2018, once again returned the dossiers of 15 candidates, who did not join or resigned including the dossier of one Sh. Dhananjay Kumar in UR/OH category.

 5. The matter was taken up with the Directorate of Education vide this office letter dated 04.02.2021 to seek explanation for delaying in submission of requisite dossier to the DSSSB (i.e. after expiry of validity of wait list panel) followed by reminder dated 11.03.2021.  

6. DoE vide its letter dated 15.04.2021 submitted that DoE received 289 dossiers out of total 382 vacancies for the post of Librarian under Post Code 02/13 till 13.02.2018 due to various cases pending in different courts.  The results of post code 02/13 were declared vide notice No. 445 dated 14.03.2016 and Notice No. 516 dated 27.07.2016.  Thereafter, these results were revised in compliance with various court orders and the last result was declared on 13.02.2018 vide result Notice No. 610.  The waiting panel for which was valid upto 09.11.2018 as per DSSSB.   The DoE vide letter dated 05.04.2018 requested DSSSB to send dossiers against 37 unfilled vacant posts and informed about 18 candidates who were terminated/resigned/not joined in the same letter.  At that time, it was not in practice to return the dossiers of terminated/resigned/not joined candidates to DSSSB.  But later on it was decided in consultation with and approval of higher authorities to send such dossiers to DSSSB. Therefore, 16 such dossiers were sent back to DSSSB on 26.12.2018. The dossier of Sh. Dhananjay Kumar was also included in these 16 dossiers.

7. Sh. Manak Singh joined the post of Librarian but later on resigned from the post. So his dossier was not returned to DSSSB. Further, Sh. Amresh Kundu sought extension for joining which was allowed upto 15.06.2019. However, he did not join and his candidature was cancelled on 12.07.2019 and his dossier was returned to DSSSB on 24.07.2019.

8. Although, it was not in practice to return the dossiers to DSSSB, however, the Department intimated the DSSSB well in time vide letter dated 05.04.2018 about unfilled vacancies and requested to fill up maximum possible candidates in the interest of students. 

9. The complainant vide rejoinder dated 16.06.2021 submitted that DoE and DSSSB are contradictory in their statements about the declaration of last result. The DoE stated that the last result notice No. 610 was declared on 13.02.2018. However, DSSSB declared the last result notice No. 747 on 16.01.2019. So the wait list should be valid till 16.01.2020 as per Govt. of NCT of Delhi letter No. F.No.1(192) DSSSB/P&P/13/5653-72 dated 13.06.2013.  It was further submitted that the Result Notice 747 dated 16.01.2019 is in continuation of result notice No. 445 dated 14.03.2016 and subsequent Result Notice No. 516 dated 27.07.2016 Result No. 597 dated 09.11.2017 and Result Notice No. 610 dated 13.02.2018. It is evident from these result numbers that the recruitment process was going on for the post of Librarian under post code 02/13, Advt. No. 01/13. Then, how can the validity of Waitlist expire when the last result was declared on 16.01.2019. 

10. Considering the replies of the DSSSB, DoE and the complaint & rejoinder of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 08.07.2021. Respondent No. 1 being User Department in the instant case was directed to ascertain the fact that whether the post of Librarian in the Post Code 02/13 under UR/OH category (Advertisement No. 01/13) was still vacant/existing or not.  Similarly, Respondent No. 2 was also directed to ascertain if the complainant was qualified age-wise on the actual closure of the post code.

11. DoE vide letter dated 15.07.2021 informed that the DoE had sent requisition of 382 vacant posts of Librarian which were advertised vide Advertisement No. 01/13 under Post Code 02/13.  Further, DoE has apprised the unfilled vacancies for the post of Librarian under post code 02/13 to DSSSB vide letter dated 05.04.2018 so that the dossiers of the candidates waiting in panel can be forwarded to the Education Department.  The Panel was valid till 09.11.2018.  However, appointment process for the post of Librarian under post code 02/13 was closed on 05.06.2018 and unfilled vacancies were returned to the user department as no suitable candidate was available in their respective categories i.e. 18 (UR-06(PH-HH), OBC-03(PH-HH), SC-01(PH-HH) and ST-08 including (PH-HH).  Further, the unfilled vacancies were carried forward in subsequent requisitions sent to DSSSB which were advertised vide advertisement No. 02/14 and 04/20.  It was further added that it was not feasible to accommodate the aforesaid candidate under post code 02/13 at this stage, as the recruitment process under the post code 02/13 had already been closed and the vacancies carried forward.

12. During the hearing on 27.07.2021, the Court observed that validity of the post of Librarian in UR/OH category was up to 09.11.2018, however as confirmed by the Education Department vide their letter dated 15.07.2021 that the appointment process of the subject post of Librarian under Post Code 02/13 was closed on 05.06.2018 itself and the unfilled vacancies were returned to the user department as no suitable candidate was available in respective categories.  DSSSB, Respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 18.09.2018 and 27.07.2021 had confirmed that the name of Ms. Anju Rani existed in the wait list/panel (at Sl. No. 1) and for which validity was upto 09.11.2018. Thus, how the appointment process for the particular post was closed by Education Department before the validity date.

13. DSSSB vide its letter dated 27.07.2021 submitted the status report reiterating its earlier submission. It was further submitted that the complainant filed an OA No. 2330/2018 in the CAT. In compliance of the order of Hon’ble CAT dated 01.06.2018, the candidature of Ms. Anju Rani, the complainant was thoroughly considered, examined and not found admissible and hence rejected. A reasoned speaking order dated 17.09.2018 was issued in the matter. 

14. This court took into account the order dated 08.07.2021 passed by Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in similarly placed case in OA No. 243/2021, Akhand Pratap Singh Vs. GNCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary, DSSSB, SDMC and North DMC.  Relevant Para 8 & 9 of the said order is reproduced below:-

Para-8: “if one takes into account, the very objective underlying the preparation and maintenance of waitlist, it is only to avoid the possibility of the post remaining vacant even after the selection process was concluded. The selecting agency has to make huge efforts to filter the candidates and then publish the select list. If for any reason, a selected candidates do not join, the looser will not be just the candidate or the selecting agency, but the user department, and thereby public at large. Once the selection process in this case was spread over seven years, counting of a day this way or that was should not make much difference, particularly when the applicant is a candidate with physical disability. We are of the view that the existing vacancy of the post of ALO reserved in favor of PH category can be offered to the applicant, who is next in the merit.

Para-9: We therefore, allow the OA and direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as ALO against the vacancy reserved in favor of PH category after due verification, by treating that the waitlist was alive, when the requisition was received. On being appointed, the applicant shall hold the office prospectively, without any benefit anterior to the date of appointment. The exercise in this behalf shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the dated of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

15. After going through the submissions of the complainant, respondents and due deliberations and discussion, the Court recommends the respondents to do the needful in this case on the similar lines as ordered by Hon’ble CAT in the OA No. 243/2021, Akhand Pratap Singh Vs. GNCT of Delhi and Ors. (Copy enclosed)

16. The case is closed with the above recommendation and action taken be intimated to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.

17. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 10th day of September, 2021.

(Ranjan Mukherjee) 
                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Encl: As above


Wednesday, September 8, 2021

Jayant Singh Raghav Vs. Delhi Development Authority | Case No. 2146/1101/2021/02/1493-96 I Dated: 08/09/2021

 
In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2146/1101/2021/02/1493-96 Dated: 08/09/2021

In the matter of:

Sh. Jayant Singh Raghav
Flat No. 323, Chandanwari Apartment,
Plot no. 8, Sector 10, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075
Email: jsraghav323@gmail.com             ……………Complainant

Versus

The Vice Chairman
Delhi Development Authority
D Block, VikasSadan, INA,
New Delhi-110023.                      .……………Respondent


Date of Hearing: 07.09.2021


Present: Sh. Jayant Singh Raghav, Complainant

Sh. Youvraj Singh, father of Complainant

Sh. Ajay Kumar Saroj, Director (Building) &

Sh. YogeshTyagi, Dy. Director (Building), DDA on behalf of respondent


ORDER

The above named complaint, a person with visual impairment, submitted a complaint vide his email dated 06.03.2021,under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act,regarding inaccessibility of extension work of flats in Chandanwari Apartments, Dwarka.The complainant further requested that construction work be stopped,accessibility audit of the infrastructure be conducted and if required penalty be imposed. 

2. The matter was taken up with the President, RWA, Chandanwari Apartments, Dwarkavide letter dated 19.03.2021.  The Presidentof the RWA, Chandanwari Apartments vide letter dated 04.04.2021 responded that RWA is bound to ensure equality of rights and accessibility to Persons with Disabilities.Complainant has not disclosed any particular instance or fact of violation of rights of Persons with Disabilities. He has simply pointed out that rights are being violated without specifying how they are being violated. Further, it was submitted that construction work in question in the present complaint was undertaken by the RWAafter taking the prior approval of DDA and other Development Authorities. All the Architectural plans were duly submitted with DDA and other concerned authorities and due procedure was adopted for obtaining the approval. Needless to say that DDA and other development authorities took into consideration all the guidelines issued by the different government departments with respect to construction of public building and facilities for Persons with Disabilities. It was also submitted that all the guidelines issued by the government from time to time are complied with and the infrastructure project being constructed is in complete harmony with National Building Code, Harmonized Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons in March, 2016 and other guidelines issued by appropriate Government from time to time. In addition to various facilities, Infrastructure project in question is comprises of ‘electronic lift’ for smooth and comfortable accessibility of Persons with Disabilities to any floor.

3. Further, RWA submitted that lift area is accessible for PwDs by the way of proper spaces ramps. Moreover, adequate care had been taken make parks and recreation areas accessible for PwDs by constructing enough ramps around such facilities and that parking area constructed is in accordance with the parking infrastructure as mandated by various guidelines of the government.

4. RWA’s effort to make the building accessible for PwDs is limited to the common space only. Occupant of the individual flat is at liberty to design the interiors of its accordance with its own choice.

5. RWA also submitted that the complainant has sought relief to stop the construction work with immediate effect. This relief cannot be granted in the light of law laid down by legislature and also cited judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala &Ors. V.Vinesh Kumar Bhasin (2010)4 SSC 368.

6. The comments of RWA were sent to the complainant vide this office letter dated 13.04.2021. Complainant vide email dated 27.04.2021 submitted his rejoinder. 

7. The matter was taken up with the Vice Chairman, DDA vide this office letter dated 18.06.2021followed by reminder dated 02.08.2021 to conduct and Access Audit of Chandanwari Apartments and to submit an Access Audit Report to this office.No response was received from DDA. VC, DDA was, therefore, impleaded as Respondent and a hearing was scheduled on 07.09.2021 vide summons dated 27.08.2021. 

8. During the hearing,complainant reiterated submissions. DDA submitted the status report on the complaint of Sh. Jayant Singh Raghavwith respect to provisions of UBBL-2016 with reference to Persons with Disabilities.

9. It was submitted that the scheme was sanctioned on 26.09.1995 after receiving NOC from DFS and DUAC, D Form issued on 19.06.2000, POC was issued on 30.01.2002 and revised sanctioned was granted on 23.08.2019 after receiving NOC from DUAC, DFS.

10. It was further submitted that as per the Unified Building Bye Laws (UBBL), 2016, Chapter 11, Clause 11.0, [modified vide SO no. 668(E) dated 12.02.2020], the provisions for Universal Design for Persons with Disabilities are applicable to the common areas in the ground level/stilts for Residential Group Housing.In this case, there is no stilt and therefore the provisions of design for Persons with Disabilities are to be provided for common areas at the ground floor as per chapter 11.0 of UBBL 2016.The provisions are to be provided by the Managing Committee of the Society.

11. The matter was discussed at length with both the parties. After due deliberation and discussion held, it was recommended as under:

(i) DDA should conduct an Access Audit of Chandanwari Apartments and bring out the deficiencies, if any. 

(ii) President and the Society Authorities of the Chandanwari CGHS Limited, Dwarka to ensure all the accessibility norms in the common area, lift area, proper signages, tactile etc., are fitted/retrofittedas per the RPwD Act, 2016 and Harmonised guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier free built environment for Persons with Disabilities and elderly persons, issued by Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India.

(iii) RWA/Society Authorities should adhere to the timings with respect to construction work, if any being carried out in the society premises as per the National Building Code of India)MBC) guidelines & norms i.e. 10:00 hours to 17:00 hours only.

(iv) DDA should also get the Standard norms enforcements checked in the society premises & report compliance or deviations if any, to this court before 90 days from the date of receipt of this order.

12. This court be informed of the action taken on the above recommendations within three months from the date of receipt of this office as required under section 81 of the RPwD Act, 2016. 

13. The complaint is disposed of. 

14. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 07thday of September, 2021.


(Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to:

1. The President, Chandanwari CGHS Limited, Plot No. 8, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075: (For ensuring the implementation of recommendations mentioned above and appraise this court of the action taken within three months from the date of receipt of this order)

2. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, GNCT of Delhi, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. (For appointing an Administrator, in case accessibility norms are not ensured by the Chandanwari CGHS Limited)


Inderjeet Kumar Vs. Commissioner NDMC | Case No. 2077/1021/2021/01/1491-92 | Dated:08-09-21

 
In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-110002
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court 
under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2077/1021/2021/01/1491-92                 Dated:08-09-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Inderjeet Kumar S/o Shri Raj Kishor Singh
R/o 28, Hariom Kusth Ashram, 
Tahirpur, Delhi-110095
E-mail ID: inderjeetkumar1441@gmail.com 

And

Shri Pramod Kumar Sao S/o Shri Ramchandra Sao,
50, Manav Seva Samiti, Tahirpur, Jhilmil,
East Delhi-110095.                                     ..……Complainants            
          
Versus

The Commissioner, 
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Dr. SPM Civic Centre, 
Delhi-110002                                ..........Respondent 

D.O.H.: 07.09.2021

Present: Sh. Inderjeet Kumar, Complainant alongwith Sh. Bimbadhar Sethi, General Secreatary, Vandematram Swasth Kusht Rogi Majdoor Punarvash Sangthan  

Sh. Sanjeev Narayan, Addll. Deputy Commissioner, DEMS, Sh. S.K. Bhardwaj, A.O.(DEMS) and Sh. Sanjay Batra, SSA  appeared on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

          The above named complainants, persons with locomotor disabilities have filed a joint complaint dated 04.01.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act.  They inter-alia submitted that they were engaged as Leprosy Cured Swachhata karmacharies on daily wages in the North Delhi Municipal Corporation in the year 2003 and they were regularized as Swachhata Karmacharies in the year 2016. After that as per order of North DMC, they had acquired Diploma in Assistant Sanitary Inspector (ASI).  They submitted various representations to their department for promotion to the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector (ASI) and consequently North MCD vide letter dated 13.12.2019  had issued a provisional seniority list of eligible employees for promotion to the post of ASI and their names were reflected at Serial.No. 282 and 283 respectively.  Thereafter, they  sought information about their promotion from the North MCD but till date no information has been received from their department and their promotion case is still pending. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 07.01.2021 followed by reminders dated 01.02.2021, 26.03.2021, 09.04.2021 and  Show-cause Notice dated 27.07.2021 for submission of their comments. But despite issuance of several reminders & a Show-cause Notice, respondent did not submit any reply.

3. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 07.09.2021.  

During the hearing, Sh. Inderjeet Kumar complainant was present alongwith Sh. Bimbadhar Sethi, General Secretary, Vandematram Swasth Kusht Rogi Majdoor Punarvash Sangthan.  However, another complainant Shri Pramod Kumar Sao was absent.  Representatives of respondent were also present. Complainant reiterated his written submission and grievance towards promotion.

4. Sh. Sanjeev Narayan, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, DEMS and other representatives appeared on behalf of the respondent submitted that the names of Sh. Inderjeet Kumar and Sh. Pramod Kumar Sao, have already been enlisted in the list of eligible candidates for promotion of Swachhata Karmacharies to the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector (ASI).  The matter is in process and final decision in this regard will be taken as per recommendations of DPC meeting as and when held in accordance with the relevant rules and prescribed terms and conditions. 

5. After due deliberations and discussion, the Court recommends that the matter of promotion of Sh. Inderjeet Kumar and Sh. Pramod Kumar Sao to the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector (ASI) should be duly considered by Department whenever comes up for consideration.  However, respondent is hereby directed that the above promotion process be expedited after completing all the codal formalities and ensuring 4% reservation to persons with disabilities so that the persons with disabilities are not deprived of their entitlements.

6. The case is disposed of. 

7. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 07th day of September, 2021.      


(Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Friday, September 3, 2021

Rajiv Kumar Ahlawat Vs. The Commissioner, EDMC & Anr. | Case No. 2189/1111/2021/04/1444-1446 | Dated:03-09-21

 
In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-110002
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court 
under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2189/1111/2021/04/1444-1446                 Dated:03-09-21

In the matter of:

Sh. Rajiv Kumar Ahlawat
F-26A, 40 Futa, Ganga Vihar,
Near Sun Shine School,
Delhi-110094.
e-mail: seema9560205141@gmail.com                  ....……Complainant           
           
Versus
The Commissioner, 
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
419, Udyog Sadan,
Patparganj Industrial Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092                     ..........Respondent No.1

The Deputy Commissioner of Police
North East District,
Seelampur, G.T.Road
Delhi-110053.                             ..........Respondent No.2


D.O.H.: 02.09.2021

Present: Sh. Rajiv Kumar Ahlawat, Complainant alongwith his wife Mrs. Seema

Sh.Suresh Kumar, Inspector and Dr. Madhuri Panth, DHO (Shahdara North) appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

Sh. Pramod Joshi, SHO (Gokalpuri) appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

ORDER

  The complaint of above named complainant, a person with 40% visual impairment was received on 07.04.2021 vide which he alleged about the public nuisance and noise pollution caused by Cross Fit Land Gym and Banquet Hall at Kanak Residency / Sahu Dharamshala at D-251-254, 40 Futa, Ganga Vihar, Delhi-110094 situated in the vicinity of his residence.  He made various complaints to Delhi Police,  EDMC and other departments  via helpline number and emails but no action had been taken by any of the department. He further added that he was threatened by operators of above Gym and Banquet Hall on making such complaints. Thus, he requested this court for taking strict action against the harassment / mental torture caused by running of such prohibited activities in his vicinity.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent No. 1 & 2 vide letter dated 09.04.2021 for submission of their comments. Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, North East District vide his reply dated 23.07.2021 informed that an enquiry into the matter was got conducted through ACP/Gokalpuri/NE.  Complainant alleged that Deepak Kumar, Gym Manager of Cross Fit Land, D-251-254, Ganga Vihar played music at a very high pitch which caused nuisance in the locality.  During the course of enquiry the alleged was properly instructed not to play music on high pitch.  He had given in writing that he would ensure the compliance of direction.  SHO/Gokalpuri had been directed to take proper action if the alleged found violating the norms. 

3. Complainant vide his rejoinder dated 09.04.2021 inter-alia submitted that as per direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, no such functions can be conducted or permissible in the vicinity of any residential area. 

4. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was held on 02.09.2021.  

During the hearing, complainant was present along with his wife.  Representatives of respondent No. 1 & 2 were also present. Complainant inter-alia submitted that being a person with disability he is facing mental torture / harassment for raising a valid point i.e. “to maintain a proper environment in residential area”. He wanted to know whether the Cross Fit Land Gym / Banquet Hall situated in Kanak Residency/ Shahu Dharamshala has any permission of competent authority to conduct such activities in the residential area, if not thus such prohibited activities should immediately  be closed.  

5. Sh. Suresh Kumar, Inspector and Dr. Madhuri Panth, DHO, Shahdara (North) appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 1 informed that the Cross Fit Land Gym / Banquet Hall situated at Kanak Residency/ Shahu Dharamshala were being running without licence.  Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice had already been served to the operators of Cross Fit Land Gym and Banquet Hall (Kanak Residency) in March’2021.  However, the Closure Notice in the matter could not be served keeping in view of the force unavailability due to Independence Day Celebration. Now the closure notice would be served shortly to the operators of above Gym and Banquet Hall for sealing.

6. Sh. Pramod Joshi, SHO, Gokalpuri appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 has also ensured that he would take appropriate action in the matter and provide all assistance to the EDMC for sealing of the Cross Fit Land Gym and Banquet Hall at Kanak Residency / Sahu Dharamshala.

7. After due deliberations and discussion, the Court recommends as under: 

(i) Court observed that the Cross Fit Land Gym and Banquet Hall located at Kanak Residency / Sahu Dharamshala are being run by its operators without licence.  Thus, Respondent No. 1 & 2 is hereby directed to seal the Cross Fit Land Gym and Banquet Hall located at Kanak Residency / Sahu Dharamshala within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  

(ii) Respondent No. 2 is also directed to initiate proper action as per law against anyone who tries to manhandle / harass the complainant in any manner being person with disability.

8. The case is disposed of. 

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 03rd day of September, 2021.      


(Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Chander Bhushan Rajput Vs. The Secretary, Services Department | Case No. 2098/1021/2021/01/1442-1443 | Dated:03-09-21

 In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2098/1021/2021/01/1442-1443                  Dated:03-09-21

In the matter of:

Shri Chander Bhushan Rajput,
(Email ID: cbrajput.57@gmail.com) ………………..Petitioner

Versus

The Secretary,  
Services Department,  
GNCT of Delhi,
7th Level, ‘B’ Wing, Delhi Secretariat,
I P Estate, New Delhi-110002.                  ………………..Respondent

Date of Hearing: 02.09.2021

Present: Shri Amitabh Joshi, Deputy Secretary (Services) on behalf of respondent.

ORDER

Sh. Chander Bhushan Rajput, a person with 40% locomotor disability and a retired Grade-I/Section Officer, vide email dated 19.01.2021 filed a complaint, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, regarding granting of benefits of quota to “Persons with Disabilities” in promotion to the post of Group ‘A’ & ‘B’ citing the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No. 5389 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 244 of 2016). The complainant requested that the ongoing process of promotion to the post of Group ‘B’ be stopped immediately and first consider the cases of Persons with Disabilities of left out cases as per their eligibility.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 29.01.2021 and followed by reminders dated 22.02.2021, 23.03.2021 and 07.06.2021. 

3. Respondent vide letter dated 17.08.2021 submitted that in service matters, including reservation, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, being Union Territory, follows the OMs/instructions etc. issues by Govt. of India from time to time. A letter was sent to MHA, GOI vide their Department’s letter dated 23.03.2021 for issuance of necessary clarification with the request to take up the matter with DoPT on following points:-

(i) As to whether reservation to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities is to be provided in promotion quota with reference to judgement dated 15.01.2020 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

(ii) The percentage of reservation to be granted to Persons with Disabilities, as the judgement dated 15.01.2020 of Hon’ble Supreme Court is regarding grant of three percent reservation to Persons with Disabilities, whereas, extant guidelines laid down in DoPT’s OM No. 36035/02/2017-Estt (Res) dated 15.01.2018 provides reservation at the rate of four percent of the total number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment, in the cadre strength in each group of posts i.e. Groups A, B and C for persons with benchmark disabilities.

4. A Grievance was also received in the Services Department through PGMS vide ID No. 2021008436 dated 25.01.2021 filed by the complainant, which was replied by the respondent as detailed below:

“It is not a grievance but a matter of policy. In service matters, including reservation, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, being Union Territory, follows the OMs/instructions etc. issues by Govt. of India from time to time. Accordingly, the reservation to PwDs is being provided as per instructions laid down in DoPT’s OM No.36035/02/2017-Estt (Res) dated 15.01.2018.

Subsequent to the judgement dated 15.01.2020 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors, a clarification has been sought from Govt. of India in this regard.”

5. It was further informed by the respondent that in response to Services Department’s letter dated 23.03.2021, a reply from the Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI has been received vide letter F.No.13028/84/2016-Delhi-I dated 22.06.2021 informing as under:-

“…DoPT has stated that in the matter of reservation in promotion for PwDs, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of ‘Siddaraju’ case (Civil Appeal No. 1567/2017) and other tagged cases, has, inter-alia, directed on 14/15.01.2020 that the reservation to PwDs may be extended, as per judgements, as clarified in National Federation of the Blind Vs. Secy, DoPT (2015) and Rajeev Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI (2016).

Further, DoPT has filed an ‘Application for Clarification’ (MA No. 2171/2020) in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 28.09.2020 in the matter of ‘Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka’, which is sub-judice.”

6. A hearing was scheduled on 02.09.2021.  Complainant was not present and Ex-parte proceedings were initiated, keeping the interest of the complainant sacrosanct.  Representative of the respondent reiterated the submissions and informed that the matter is still sub judice in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

7. As the matter is sub judice in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the case is being closed at this court, with the recommendation to the respondent to process the case of the complainant accordingly after the final decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter referred above.

8. The case is closed with the above recommendation and this Court be apprised accordingly. 

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 2nd day of September, 2021. 


 (Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities



Thursday, August 26, 2021

Raj Kumar Singh Vs. Dte of Education & Anr. | Case No. 1929 /1024/2020/09/1333-1335 | Dated:26-08-21

 
In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1929 /1024/2020/09/1333-1335                      Dated: 26-08-21

In the matter of:

Shri Raj Kumar Singh,
SE-321, Shastri Nagar,
Ghaziabad, U.P.-201002.
(Email ID: - rajkumarsingh335@gmail.com)                    ..…………..Complainant

Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110054.                                                       ………….Respondent No.1

The Principal/HOS,
DAV Public Sr. Secondary School, 
Jangpura, New Delhi-110014              ………….Respondent No.2


Date of hearing: 24.08.2021


Present: Sh. Raj Kumar Singh, Complainant

Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Asstt., DOE on behalf of Respondent No.1

Sh. Kiran Bage, Vice Principal and Sh.  Sunil Kumar, ASO , DAV, SSS, Jangpura on behalf of Respondent No. 2


ORDER

The complainant, a person with 52% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 23.08.2020 submitted that he is eligible for the benefits of 1st financial up-gradation under MACP scheme, 2008 w.e.f. 05.08.2018 but no benefit is given to him till now. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondents vide letter dated 03.09.2020 and followed by reminders dated 05.11.2020, 25.03.2021 and Show Cause Notice dated 05.07.2021.

3. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 20.07.2021 submitted that the 1st Financial up-gradation under MACP Scheme could not be granted to the complainant as his ACR for the year 2015-16 is pending for review. A letter dated 16.03.2019 had been sent to DDE Zone-25, South East.  Also, ACRs of the complainant for the years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 are ‘Average’ and ‘Good’ respectively i.e. below benchmark and file in this regard is under submission for further process to DDE Zone-29, South East sent vide letter dated 07.09.2020. Further action will be taken after receipt of the reply.

4. Vide rejoinder dated 23.07.2021, the complainant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply of respondent No. 2 as he was not communicated his ACR appraisal.  

5. A hearing was scheduled on 24.08.2021. The complainant submitted that the above mentioned grading in his ACR for the relevant years should have been communicated to him within prescribed time limit. The school authorities had not followed the relevant rules. The complainant also mentioned about a similarly placed case in which grading of ACR was reviewed from ‘Average’ to ‘Very Good’ on the basis of un-communicated adverse grading in ACR. 

6. The representative of Respondent No. 1 pleaded that ‘Average’ and ‘Good’ grading of ACR is not adverse and hence could not be communicated to the complainant. Representative of Respondent No. 2 mentioned about a Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2017 issued to the complainant regarding refusal to teach ‘Chemistry’ to the students of Science Stream Classes XI & XII besides his routine periods as an internal arrangement for the time being as there is shortage of teaching staff.

7. The complainant submitted that he had already requested the HOS, DAV Senior Secondary School, Jungpura vide his letter dated 14.09.2017 that he was not comfortable with the subject as he is PGT Physics and M.Sc in Physics and not in Chemistry. He tried to teach the Chemistry but failed to do the justice to students and therefore requested to relieve him from this subject. He never refused to take the classes of ‘Chemistry’ and took the classes for the complete year. 

8. After due deliberations and discussion held, the court is of the opinion that enough caution has not been exercised in this particular regard.  The crux is that the complainant has not given the benefit of MACP which should have been granted to him. In view of the above, the case is disposed of with the following recommendations:- 

(i) Respondent No. 2 should process the case for grant of first financial up-gradation under MACP scheme with effect from the restrospective date it was due to the complainant, after following the procedure/rules. 

(ii) DoE should take into consideration the vacant posts of teaching staff in the school and arrange to fill the same urgently.

9. An action taken report is to be filed post actions accomplished. 

10. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 25th day of August, 2021.


(Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities