Case Summary:
Employment: Complainant submitted that her disability hadn’t been uploaded in the computer record despite her request and that her pay had not been stepped up on par with her junior. Respondent submitted that as per her HOS, the Complainant is getting all admissible benefits and that her record has been updated. The case regarding her pay had been submitted to HQ along with the relevant documents. Respondent also submitted that the junior in question was on examination found to be senior to the Complainant. Complainant submitted the name of another TGT junior to her getting more pay than her. Respondent submitted that the stepping up of pay is possible only if the senior and junior belong to the same gender, and this junior was male.
Recommendations: Complainant advised to give the name of her junior in receipt of higher pay within one month of order, and respondent to examine and take a decision on the same within 3 weeks as per relevant circulars/instructions.
Rules/Acts/Orders:
Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi’s Circular No. 38(11)/P&PF/Vol.I/619-938 dated 11.07.2013
Order / Judgement:
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. 4/1372/2016-Wel./CD/ 317-318 Dated: 05.05.2017
In
the matter of:
Smt. Saroj Kumari Pal,
TGT Hindi, ID -20071220,
Govt. Co.Ed. Vidyalaya,Mehram Nagar,
Delhi-110037. .……… Complainant
SCH Code- 1720003.
Versus
The Director,
Directorate of Education,
GNCT of Delhi, Old Sectt.,
Delhi-110054.
…...…Respondent
Present Smt. Saroj Kumari
Pal, Complainant.
Ms. Omeshwara Singh,
DDE(South West-A), Ms. Alpana Kumar, HOS, Mehram Nagar, Sh. Ved Prakash Singh,
Supdt. on behalf of Respondent.
Date of hearing:
02.05.2017
ORDER
Smt
Saroj Kumari Pal, a person with 41% locomotor disability vide her complaint
dated 08.08.2016 raised two issues (i) that her disability had not been
uploaded in the computer record despite her request dated 04.08.2014; (ii) that
stepping up of her pay at par with her junior had not been done. Although the complainant had not enclosed a copy
of her Disability Certificate, the complaint was taken up with the Directorate
of Education, vide letter dated 18.08.2016.
2. Office
of the Spl. Director of Education referred the matter to the Deputy Director of
Education, Distt. (South West-)vide letter 23.08.2016. Thereafter, two reminders dated 07.10.2016 & 30.11.2016
were issued by this Court.
3. The
DDE(South West-A) vide letter dated 08.12.2016 informed that as per the HOS,
Smt. Saroj Kumari Pal is getting all the benefits as admissible as per rules. Her service book has been updated and details
of her disability certificate have also been entered. Her case regarding stepping up of salary and
entering the disability details in computer record had been submitted to the HQ
along with all the documents. The HOS
has also been advised to send reminders for updation of computer records. Thereafter a hearing was held
on 23.01.2017. The representative of the
respondent submitted a written statement dated 21.01.2017 alongwith the details
of the complainant that had been entered in the computer record. It has further been stated that she has been
receiving all the benefits which are to be given to differently abled persons like double
transport allowance, enhanced benefit of availing CL and rebate in income tax etc.
4.
As regards the stepping up of her pay the complainant had requested for
stepping up of pay at par with Smt. Shashi Bala TGT Hindi with seniority no.
4693. The complainant’s seniority is
4310. After examination of the case, it was noticed that the seniority of the complainant
was actually lower than that of Smt. Shashi Bala who had been issued two seniority
numbers i.e. 3838 & 4693. As per corrigendum dated 19.01.2017 issued by the
Establishment-III Branch seniority of Smt. Shashi Bala has been fixed at 3838
and hence the complainant is not eligible for stepping up as requested by her.
The respondent further submitted that the school authorities have denied any
misbehaviour with complainant and she is being treated with dignity and
respect.
5. The
respondent was advised to submit the copy of the order vide which the
complainant had been treated as a person with disability. The said order dated
12-15/07/2013 was submitted by the representatives of the respondent. The complainant vide her letter dated
06.03.2017 submitted that in the same school, Sh. Ganraj, TGT(SST), who is
junior to her is getting more pay than her. She also submitted that all the new
teachers who joined after her i.e. 09.08.2007, are getting Rs. 17140/- whereas
she is getting less pay than him.
6. During
the hearing on 02.05.2017, the complainant stated that she could not attend the
hearing on 23.01.2017 as she did not get the notice of hearing dated
21.01.2017. She got the notice dated
09.03.2017 by post through her school Principal. Sh. Shyam Singh Pal Husband of the
complainant requested that he may be permitted to present the case of her wife.
The same is allowed and he stated that the case of stepping up of Smt. Saroj
Kumari Pal should be settled expeditiously as there are so many junior teachers
who are getting more pay than her. He also submitted that while OH has been
mentioned against the name of Smt. Saroj Kumari Pal, her category as `General’
without suffixing OH to it is not right as in case of some other teachers, their
vertical category has been mentioned with their horizontal category. However,
the representatives of the respondent submitted that personal details of the
complainant have been uploaded in the computer like other employees with
disabilities. No discrimination in this regard has been done to the complainant.
They showed the details of one Sh. Manoj Kumar 20100283 who is also a person
with locomotor disability and belongs to general category in the phone. Perusal
of the same indicates that his personal details and that of the complainant have
been filled in the same format. This seems to be in order unless any evidence
to the controversy is produced by the complainant. In any case, no additional benefit is likely
to accrue to the complainant by suffixing OH to `General’ in her service
details.
7. With
regard to stepping up of pay, the representatives of the respondent submitted
that the stepping up of pay is possible if the senior and junior belong to the
same gender and same subject. Therefore,
the stepping up of pay of the complainant w.r.t the pay of Sh. Ganraj would not
be possible as he is a male teacher.
8. In the light of the submissions of
the parties as brought out above, the complainant is advised to give the name
of her junior who is in receipt of higher pay than her within one month from
the date of receipt of this order. On
receipt of complainant’s request for stepping up of her pay, the respondent
shall examine the same and take a decision on it within 03 weeks in accordance
with the relevant circulars/instructions issued in this
regard such as Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi’s Circular No.
38(11)/P&PF/Vol.I/619-938 dated 11.07.2013 and ensure that the complainant
does not get harassed. Action taken in
the matter be intimated to this Court within three months from the date of
receipt of this order as required under the RPwD Act, 2016.
The matter is disposed of
accordingly.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court
this 5th day of May,2017.
(T.D. Dhariyal )
State Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities
No comments:
Post a Comment