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
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
Case No. 4/ 1606/2017 -Wel/CD/ 577-578 Dated:
26.05.2017
In the
matter of:
Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma/
Smt. Sudesh Sharma,
WB 118,
Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 .……… Complainant
Versus
The Chairman-Cum- Managing Director,
Delhi Transport
Corporation,
DTC Headquarter,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002. …...…Respondent
Date of hearing: 16.05.2017
Present Sh. Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Complainant.
Sh.
P.K. Singhal, Dy. Manager (Personnel) and Sh. Raja Ram, Accountant, on behalf of
Respondent.
ORDER
Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma, a person with 80%
locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 25.06.2015 alleging harassment by
his Depot Manager Sh. Balraj Singh at Hasanpur Depot. The said complaint, which
inter alia related to his deployment in the depot, was disposed of by the then
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide order dated 25.08.2015. The
Depot Manager had then informed in writing on 21.08.2015 that Sh. Arvind Kumar
Sharma had been deputed in the general office of the Depot on table duty on the
seat of LTC claim and specialized Medical Claims of the employees. After a year, a complaint dated 11.09.2016
from Smt. Sudesh Sharma, wife of Sh. A.K. Sharma addressed to the Office of
Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities was received through that
office vide their letter dated 03.10.2016.
The said complaint was taken up
with the CMD, DTC vide communication dated 10.11.2016 from the same case file
No. 3/1033/2015-Wel/CD. In her complaint
Smt. Sudesh Sharma, submitted that her husband had been transferred to Rajghat
Depot-I on fabricated administrative grounds under Sh. Balraj Singh who had
been harassing him at Hasanpur Depot. She
prayed that her husband be transferred to Hasanpur Depot which was close to her
house.
2. Since this is a fresh complaint it is being assigned a
new case number.
3. The Dy. Manager (Personnel), DTC vide letter dated
06.10.2016 submitted that the complainant was physically and mentally fit and has
disability in his hands. He had been making complaints to the Office of Chief
Minister, Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and other higher
level. Similar two disciplinary cases were
pending against him. In another case, he was warned. The respondent further has
submitted that Sh. Sharma had also manhandled an Assistant Foreman and departmental action
had been initiated against him. Despite
these actions, Sh. Sharma had not stopped this type of activities which was vitiating
the environment in the Depot. In case he had not been transferred, some
untoward incident might have occurred. He was transferred from Hasanpur Depot
to Rajghat Depot-I on 17.08.2016. Through another letter dated 13.02.2017, Dy.
Manager (Personnel), DTC informed Sh.
A.K. Sharma that his request for transfer from Rajghat I to Hasanpur or East
Vinod Nagar cannot be considered with reference to his representation dated
23.11.2016. Thereafter hearings were scheduled on 23.11.2016 and 22.03.2017.
However, the proceedings could not be conducted in the absence of either
parties. Next hearing was scheduled on
16.05.2017.
4. On 11.05.2017, the complainant informed that on
01.05.2017, he was asked to take over the charge of Livery Section by
Manager(Mechanical). It is also mentioned in the letter that Sh.
Sharma had asked for the charge of livery section in writing and was directed
to make a list of all the items in the livery section for which he has been
given an assistant. It was further
stated that in case he had any problem he would be given some other person to
assist him. As per the letter he had also
requested to provide him the complete duties as Incharge Livery, he
should be given proper training and that it was
not possible for him to make the list of items and take the charge. On
02.05.2017 Sh. Sharma informed Manager(Mechanical) that he had not been
provided any assistant fitter.
5. On 04.05.2017, the Depot Manager informed him that he
had been transferred to Rajghat-I on administrative grounds. Therefore he cannot be transferred to any
other Unit for two years as per the transfer policy. On the other hand Sh. Sharma had been
transferred to East Vinod Nagar Deport on 03.05.2017 by Dy. Manager (PLD), DTC
HQ. On 08.05.2017, the Deport Manager Rajghat-I
suspended the complainant based on the report of Sh. Kishan Lal Maurya, Foreman
on the ground that on 19.04.2017 & 01.05.2017 Sh. Sharma was deputed to
Livery Section but he refused to take over the charge of that section in front
of Sh. K.L. Maurya, Foreman and Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Fitter. The Depot Manager concluded that Sh.Sharma was
not interested to do any work. Sh.
Sharma vide his letter dated 11.05.2017 alleged that Sh. Balraj Singh, Deputy
Manager was harassing him by suspending him.
6. During the hearing on 16.05.2017, the representative
of the respondent submitted that Sh. Sharma has already been transferred from
Rajghat-I to East Vinod Nagar on 03.05.2017.
Personnel Deptt. will pursue the matter with the concerned authorities
to get him relieved at the earliest. All his record and pending disciplinary
cases will automatically be transferred to the new independent depot authority
i.e. Dy. Manager (East Vinod Nagar) and hence his grievance will automatically
be resolved. The representative of the respondent also gave a written statement
to this effect which was taken on record.
7. From perusal of records made available by the parties,
it is observed that the concerned officer in the respondent’s Corporation was
apparently prejudicial to the interest of Sh. Sharma as he was posted to
Rajghat Deport-I from Hasanpur Depot under the same Sh. Balraj Singh, Deputy
Manager with whom Sh. Sharma’s relations were not at all cordial and Sh. Sharma
had complained against him. Transfer of Sh. Balraj Singh to Rajghat Depot-I within
15 days of the posting of Sh. Sharma to that Deport as his superior officer
would also seem a deliberate attempt to settle the scores with Sh. Sharma for
filing complaints. The sequence of
events from Ist May, 2017 to 08.05.2017, when Sh. Sharma was placed under
suspension also go on to point to an attempt to put Sh. Sharma under mental
pressure and to harass him. It is a common practice that a person handing
over the charge gives the list of items to the person taking over the charge. This was not done in case of Sh. Sharma as is seen from the letter of
Manager(Mechanical) dated 01.05.2017 and letters of Sh. Sharma and his suspension
order dated 08.05.2017. The actions on the part of the concerned official seem
to be an attempt to implicate Sh. Sharma and then take departmental action
against him, which is clear violation of the provisions of the Act and the
instructions of Government. The entire
episode for last two years has brought to the fore, a case of insensitivity and
a revengeful attitude towards a person with disability which needs to be addressed
by the concerned authority in Delhi Transport Corporation.
8. It is brought to the notice of respondent that DoP&T
vide their OM No. 36035/3/2013/Estt.Res dated 31st March, 2014 have
issued guidelines for providing certain facilities in respect of persons with
disabilities who are already employed in Govt. for efficient performance of
their duties. The said OM, among other things provides that as far as possible,
the persons with disabilities may be exempted from the rotational transfer
policy/transfer and be allowed to continue in the same job, where they would
have achieved the desired performance. Further, preference in place of posting
at the time of transfer/promotion may be given to the persons with disability
subject to the administrative constraints. The practice of considering choice
of place of posting in case of persons with disabilities may also be continued.
To the extent feasible, they may be retained in the same job, where their
services could be optimally utilised.
9. It is also important to note that Section 89 of the
RPwD Act, 2016 provides, “Any person who
contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule made thereunder
shall for first contravention be punishable with fine which may extend to ten
thousand rupees and for any subsequent contravention with fine which shall not
be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees. Section 92.(a) of the said Act, also provides
that whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
person with disability in any place within public view shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may
extend to five years and with fine.”
10. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and
a careful examination of the documents made available, it is recommended that the respondent should personally ensure
that the transfer order dated 03.05.2017 in respect of Sh. A.K. Sharma, Fitter is
implemented without any delay and that he is not harassed thereafter. It should also be ensured that the
complainant is not posted to work under Sh. Balraj Singh to avoid recurrence of
such disputes / complaints. A report be sent to this Court by 5th
June,2017. The respondent is also advised to organize workshops / programmes on
rights of persons with disabilities and the issues concerning them for officers
and the employees of DTC. The matter concerning grievances of Sh. Sharma be
also investigated keeping in view the entire facts including those brought out
above and it be ensured that Sh.Sharma is not harassed. He should be allowed to
work in a congenial environment. This
Court be informed of the action taken in the matter within 3 months from the
date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act (RPwD) Act, 2016.
The matter is disposed of
accordingly.
Given under my hand and the
seal of the Court this 26th day of May,2017.
(T.D. Dhariyal )
State Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities
No comments:
Post a Comment