Dhapa Devi Vs. Commissioner Food & Supplies | Case No. 4/1470/2016-Wel./CD/ 2593-94 | Dated: 30.03.2017

Case Summary

Misc. Issuance of BPL Card - Complainant a blind person, a widow and senior citizen submitted non issuance of AAY/PRS/BPL cards despite awaiting for 5 years. On notice, the respondent informed that no BPL/AAY ration card of any person including persons with disabilities has been prepared afresh.  After implementation of NFS Act, 2013 only renewal of Ration Card that has already been prepared was done. Noticing that the application is pending for nearly 5 years, the respondent was advised to examine her case on priority for issuance of the card that she is eligible for, so that she can avail the benefits she is entitled to.

Order/ Judgement

In the Court of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-23216002-04, Telefax: 23216005

[Vested with power of Civil Court under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]

Case No. 4/1470/2016-Wel./CD/ 2593-94                                 Dated: 30.03.2017

In the matter of:

Smt. Dhapa Devi,

E-18, Mansa Ram Park, Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi-110059                                                                  …………… Complainant     

                                                                 

Versus

The Commissioner,

Deptt. of Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs,

GNCT of Delhi, Vikas Bhawan,

New Delhi-110002                                                                      ……...…Respondent

            

ORDER

1.            The above named complainant, a person with blindness submitted a complaint dated 20.11.2016 and submitted that she is a widow and senior citizen. Even after submitting the form to the Food Supply Officer, Circle-34, she has not been issued AAY/PRS/BPL Card.  The Food Supply Officer vide his letter dated 18.07.2012 informed her that the BPL card would be issued to her on priority after the scheme is implemented.  As per her, many people have been issued AAY/PRS and BPL Cards during the period 2007-16.  However, she has not been issued the said card and the complainant has prayed that the AAY/PRS & BPL Card may be sent to her by Speed Post. 

2.            The complaint was taken up with the Commissioner, Deptt. of Food  Supplies and Consumer Affairs vide notice dated 14.12.2016. However,  Sh. Pramod  Kumar, Inspector, Circle-36, Palam Vihar Road, Bijwasan, vide his letter dated 22.12.2016 informed that no BPL/AAY ration card of any person including persons with disabilities has been prepared afresh.  After implementation of NFS Act, 2013 only renewal of Ration Card that has already been prepared was done.  However the BPL family including disabled are entitled to get NFS Card that are also for the families who are below poverty line.  He has also stated that no new NFS Card has been prepared since 2016 and the ration card of the complainant would be processed on priority but only when the Department resumes the work of preparation of new ration cards.

3.            Sh. Subhash, son of complainant, appeared during the hearing on 23.01.2017 and submitted that his mother Smt. Dhapa Devi is eligible for this card.  Her request is pending for so many years and she is not getting the benefits she is entitled to.

4.     It is observed that the case of complainant is pending for nearly 05 years. Considering her disability, the respondent is advised to examine her case on priority and if she is found eligible, her request be considered and she may be issued the card that she is eligible for, so that she can avail the benefits she is entitled to.

5.     Respondent is directed to submit an action taken report within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

           The matter is disposed of accordingly. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 30th day of March, 2017.     

                               (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                                 Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

P.S. Dhama Vs NDMC | Case No. 4/1462/2016-Wel./CD/ 2597-98 | Dated: 30.03.2017

Case Summary:

Employment - Promotion, Regularization, seniority list, 

Complainant alleges non regularization of his promotion granted at the order of the Commissioner, failure to prepare seniority list etc. and granted promotion to his junior. The respondent  directed to examine the matter thoroughly taking into consideration the representation of the complainant and other relevant facts and take a final view on his prayer explaining the reasons for giving the Current Duty Charge to a junior person in preference to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order and inform the complainant by way of a speaking order under intimation to this Court.  As regards regularization of ad-hoc promotion of the complainant to the post of Principal, the same be considered as per extant provisions of the relevant rules and instructions issued by the appropriate Government. It may be ensured that no discrimination be meted out to the complainant on the ground of his disability as provided  under section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.

Order / Judgement:

In the Court of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-23216002-04, Telefax: 23216005

[Vested with power of Civil Court under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]

Case No. 4/1462/2016-Wel./CD/ 2597-98                                 Dated: 30.03.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. P.S. Dhama,

President, Joint Front of PwD & OBC Teacher’s Association Delhi,

G-63, MCD Colony Dhaka, Kingsway Camp,

New Delhi-110009                                                               …………… Complainant     

                                                                 

Versus

The Director (Personnel),

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

4^th Floor, SPMC Civic Centre,

New Delhi-110002                                                                      ……...…Respondent

            

Date of hearing: 23/03/2017

Present:   Sh. P.S. Dhama, Complainant

Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Asstt. Commssioner/CED, Ms. Nirmala, Dy.Director(Education), HQ on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

        The complainant, a person with 40 % locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 05.11.2016 submitted that he was appointed as teacher on 15.07.1994 in O.H. sub-category of persons with disabilities.  He alleged that after the order of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, he was promoted to the post Principal (Pry.) on adhoc basis on 11.02.2009 and has not been regularised so far.  He also alleged that despite the order of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to follow the seniority list for giving look after charge to the post of School Inspector, one Sh. Mahipal Singh, who is junior to him, is still working as School Inspector.  The complainant has prayed that he may be granted look after charge to the post of School Inspector (General) as the same is an identified post for persons with locomotor disability.  His second prayer is to regularise his adhoc promotion to the post of Principal.

2.     The complaint was initially taken up with the East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Education Deptt., HQ, who vide their letter dated 25.1.2017, informed that the complainant was working in the North Delhi Municipal Corporation and hence no action on the grievance of the complainant could be taken by the East Delhi Municipal Corporation.

3.               The North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Education Deptt., HQ vide their letter dated 14.02.2017 submitted that they have sought clarification from DOP&T on whether the reservation for persons with disabilities in promotion to the post of Head Master, which is a Group-B post, is applicable or not in the light of  the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The said clarification is still awaited. In the meantime as per the current instructions, there is no reservation for persons with disabilities for promotion to Group-B posts. It is further submitted that the look after charge of School Inspectors (SI-LAC)  is purely a temporary arrangement to deal with the short falls of school Inspectors for smooth functioning of the Department. In the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Education Deptt., HQ, the look after charge has been assigned to senior most eligible Head Masters.  All the School Inspectors (SI-LAC) working in the North Delhi Municipal Corporation are senior to the complainant. 

4.               As regards Sh. Mahipal Singh (VH), it has been stated that he was assigned the charge of School Inspector on Current Duty Charge (CDC) by Central Establishment Department(CED) of North Delhi Municipal Corporation who had been asked to clarify.  The representative of North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Education Department clarified that the expression `promotion’ has inadvertently been mentioned in Para 7  instead of `Current Duty Charge’(CDC). It has also been stated that the promotion to the post of School Inspector which is a Group-A post, is to be carried out by the Central Establishment Deptt.(CED), who have made their submissions vide their letter dated 16.3.2017.  The Central Establishment Deptt.(CED) in the said letter have inter-alia submitted that complainant was promoted to the post of Headmaster, category B w.e.f. 01.01.2006 on ad-hoc basis under reservation for persons with disabilities.  However, as per the instructions of DoP&T, there is no reservation for persons with disabilities in promotion to Group B posts.  Therefore, the ad-hoc promotion of the complainant and Sh. Mahipal Singh(VH)  to the post of Headmaster, selection category `B’ post needs review /examination with reference to reservation for persons with disabilities.  It has further been stated that a regular departmental action  No. 1/15/2016 for major penalty is pending against the complainant since 18.3.2016. Whereas the case for current duty charge/LAC to selection category ‘A’ post of School Inspector (Gen.) entry level in PB-3 in the present scenario, is not covered under the instructions/guidelines of DoP&T. As regards the case of Sh. Mahipal Singh (VH), the only person junior to the complainant in North Delhi Municipal Corporation, who has been assigned current duty charge to the post of School Inspector (Gen.) in his own pay scale of Head master, will be taken up subsequently. 

5.               The complainant submitted that his promotion to the post of Principal was against the backlog of reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities (OH) which belong to the period when the post of Principal was in Group C. The said promotion was given to him following the directions of the then Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt. of Delhi.

6.               It is seen that the then Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide his order dated 12.10.2015 had observed,  “there is a need therefore to prepare a seniority list of Principals/teachers and if there is a need to appoint School Inspectors on look after charge in exigencies of public service, it should be done on the basis of seniority of Principals/teachers”.

7.               Admittedly, at least one person namely Sh. Mahipal Singh, a person with disability (VH),  is junior to the complainant, is working as School Inspector on Current Duty Charge(CDC).  The respondents should have given the justification for his continuance in the post of Inspector on Current Duty Charge(CDC) despite being junior to the complainant and the observation of this Court, and why the complainant who is senior to Sh. Mahipal Singh was not considered.       

8.              In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent is directed to examine the matter thoroughly taking into consideration the representation of the complainant and other relevant facts and take a final view on his prayer explaining the reasons for giving the Current Duty Charge to a junior person in preference to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order and inform the complainant by way of a speaking order under intimation to this Court.  As regards regularization of ad-hoc promotion of the complainant to the post of Principal, the same be considered as per extant provisions of the relevant rules and instructions issued by the appropriate Government. It may be ensured that no discrimination be meted out to the complainant on the ground of his disability as provided  under section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.

        The matter is disposed of accordingly.  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 30th day of March, 2017.     

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                                                        Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Vs. DCP South East District, Delhi Police | Case No. 4/1341/2016-Wel./CD/ 2258-59 | Dated:27.03.2017

In the Court of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-23216002-04, Telefax: 23216005

[Vested with power of Civil Court under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]

Case No. 4/1341/2016-Wel./CD/ 2258-59                                        Dated:27.03.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari,

S/o Sh. Parshuram Tiwari,

C/o Sh.Daya Shankar Pandey,

GPO Thana, Kargahar,

Distt. Rohtash, Bihar.                                                               ..……… Petitioner     

                                                                      Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,

South East Distt., Delhi Police,

!st Floor, PS Sarita Vihar, Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110076                                                                      ……...…Respondent

            

Date of hearing: 22/03/2017

ORDER

1.               Sh. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, a person with 65% locomotor disability  appeared before me today at 12.00 Noon on 22/03/2017. Although the case was not posted for hearing, yet the complainant was heard. He was informed about the report dated 22/12/2016 of the Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, South East Distt., New Delhi. As per the said report, an inquiry was conducted through ACP, New Friends Colony/SED.  In the said inquiry it revealed that the Blind Relief Association is a private association which trains the blind and disable persons.  Sh. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, had also received training during the year 2006-07 where after he left the Institute and was not connected with the said Association. The report also says that the complainant was running an association in the name of Smt. Indira Gandhi Foundation Handicapped and Blind Relief Association in Distt. Rohtas, Bihar and claiming to have been approved and affiliated by the Blind Relief Association, Delhi.  The report further says that Smt. Indira Gandhi Foundation Handicapped and Blind Relief Association is fake association and the letter-head and signature of Executive Secretary/B.R.A. was also found to be fake. The ACP, South East Distt. has concluded  that the complainant has made false allegations against the B.R.A. so as to become a permanent employee of the B.R.A. and no  cognizable offence has been made out.

2.     When the contents of the Police report were disclosed to the complainant, he submitted that he should be given the report of enquiry which was conducted on 03/10/2011 at Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi.  He has been advised to obtain the copy of the said enquiry report under the RTI Act.

3.      It is also observed from the records available in the file, that no case is made out to suggest any violation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 or any rules, regulations, etc for the benefit of persons with disabilities.  The complainant had also approached the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, who vide letter dated 20/11/2014, a copy of which was produced by the complainant during the hearing, found that the complainant had not submitted any documents that proved that he was appointed by the B.R.A. to any post or he was removed from any post.  The Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, therefore, closed his case vide said letter dated 20/11/2014.

4.    In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, no further action by this Office is called for and the case is closed.

        The matter is disposed of accordingly.  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 23^rd day of March, 2017.     

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                                            Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities