Case Summary:
Employment - Promotion, Regularization, seniority list,
ORDER
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,
4th 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
No comments:
Post a Comment