Case Summary:
Rama
Sharma Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
Atrocities: Complainant,
a person with blindness submitted that her husband, also a person with
blindness, was mistreated and manhandled when he went to the office of the
respondent for document verification. During the course of the proceedings, the
respondent informed that the allegations made by the complainant had been
forwarded to the concerned branch and they were waiting for the coming report.
Complainant’s husband later stated that the purpose of filling the complaint
was to send a message to the concerned officers about treating persons with
disabilities with dignity, and that he and his wife did not wish to pursue the
matter and that the complaint may be closed.
Court
pointed out various provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
2016 which would have been applicable in this case had the complainant wished
to pursue the complaint before closing the case.
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. 4/1125/2015/Wel./CD/1601-02 Dated:25.08.2017
In
the matter of:
Ms.
Rama Sharma
D/o
Sh. Jeev Lal Sharma
G-4/17-18,
Sector-16, Rohini
Delhi-110089
................
Complainant
Versus
The
Chairman
Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18,
Institutional Area,
Karkardooma
Delhi-110092 ………...…Respondent
ORDER
The above named complainant,
a person with blindness vide a complaint dated 23.09.2015 inter-alia submitted
that as she was unable to personally go to the office of the respondent for
document verification on 09.09.2015, her husband Sh. Dharma Raj Kumar who is
also a person with blindness visited that office. The concerned official misbehaved with her
husband and asked the guard to throw him out of the office in front of many
other people.
2. The
complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 21.10.2015
followed by a reminder dated 20.11.2015.
3. The
respondent vide letter dated 17.12.2015 submitted that the result of special
education teacher was under process and the representation of the complainant
had been examined. The documents
submitted by the candidates shall be considered while processing the
result. Subsequently, vide letter dated
30.11.2015, Deputy Secretary(Admin.) informed that the allegations made by the
complainant regarding man-handling by the staff of DSSSB and non-verification
of certificates of the candidates had been forwarded to the concerned branch
and a report was likely to be submitted by that branch. Therefore, the respondent sought some more
time up to 15.12.2015. The letter dated
30.11.2015 of respondent was sent to the complainant vide letter dated
28.11.2016 for comments. However, the
said letter was returned undelivered by the postal authorities.
4. As
there was no response from the respondent who had sought time for submission of
the report upto 15.12.2015, the respondent was advised to send the same by
30.12.2016 vide letter dated 20.12.2016.
However, the respondent did not submit any report. Since, the letter sent to the complainant had
also been received back, the complainant was contacted on her given telephone
on 21.08.2017. Her husband Sh. Dharma Raj Kumar informed that
the address G-4/17-18 was incorrectly mentioned as G-417-18. Hence the complainant did not receive letter
dated 28.11.2016. He also stated that
the purpose of filing the complaint was to send a message to the concerned
officers and staff working in DSSSB that they should treat persons with
disabilities with sensitivity and dignity.
He further stated that he expected them to treat him the way they treat
others. It was unfortunate that the
concerned staff was very rude. He
however, stated that Ms. Rama Sharma, his wife does not want to pursue the
complaint further as the purpose was to convey his concern and requested that
it may be closed.
5. It
is a matter of concern that the concerned officer in the office of the respondent
did not submit any report as mentioned in his letter dated 30.11.2015. It will be in the fitness of things for me to
bring to the notice of the respondent that Section 92 (a) of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides, “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 6 months but which may extend to 5 years and with fine”. Section 89 and 93 of the said Act
also provide for punishment for contravention of provisions of the Act or Rules
or Regulations made there under and for failure to furnish information,
respectively which may extend up to 5 lakh rupees.
6. As
the complainant does not wish to proceed further, no action to invoke the above
mentioned sections of the Act is being taken.
However, the respondent is advised to impress upon all concerned in the
DSSSB to ensure handling and treating of persons with disabilities on equal
basis with others and with dignity as envisaged in the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016. An action taken
report be submitted to this Court under intimation to the complainant by 23.09.2017.
7. Given
under my hand and the seal of the Court this 25th day of August,
2017.
(T.D.
Dhariyal)
State
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
No comments:
Post a Comment