Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Bhawna Arora Vs. Principal St. Thomas School | Case No. 4/1365/2016-Wel/CD/2497-2501 | Dated: 30.10.2017




 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
Phone 011-23216002-04, Telefax:011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
(Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016)

Case No. 4/1365/2016-Wel/CD/2497-2501                                    Dated: 30.10.2017
Case No. 4/1264/2016-Wel/CD

In the matter of :
                                                                                   
Ms. Bhawna Arora,
A/1, 260 A,
Keshav Puram,
Delhi-110035.                                                                                   …………..Complainant
Vs

The Principal,
St. Thomas’s School,
Mandir Marg, New Delhi-110001.                                                 ..................Respondent

Case No. 4/1713/2017-Wel/CD

In the Matter of:

Sh. Jitender Kumar & Smt. Seema Kumar
R/o 5-A, DDA LIG Flats,
Motia Khan, Paharganj,
New Delhi-110002

Vs

The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat,
New Delhi-110054.                                                  ......................Respondent No. 1


The Principal,
St. Thomas’ School.
Mandir Marg, New Delhi-110001.                         ......................Respondent No. 2


Dates of Hearing:              01.09.2017, 26.09.2017 and 11.10.2017

Present:                             Ms. Bhawna Arora  Complainant
Mrs. A. Amos, Principal of St. Thomas School, Mrs. S. Devdas, Special Educator, Mrs. M. Kapoor, Counsellor and Mr. Vinod Kumar on behalf of Respondent.

ORDER

Ms. Bhawna Arora vide her email dated 09.05.2016 received through Sh. Pradeep Raj, General Secretary of Association for Disabled People submitted that her daughter baby Sanvi Arora was studying in 3rd Class in St. Thomas School, Mandir Marg, New Delhi.  She has CP and Ataxia, her IQ is 78.  She was detained in 3rd Class without intimation to the parents.  She also complained about some other things like provision of writer, extra time, etc.  She submitted another complaint dated 10.05.2016 which also was registered as case No. 4/1264/2016-Wel/CD. 

2.         The complaint was taken up with Directorate of Education vide communication dated 18.08.2016 followed by reminders.  Dy. Director of Education, Zone-26, District New Delhi vide letter dated 03.06.2016 inter alia informed that as per the clarification sought from the school, Sanvi Arora sits with Special Educator in class 1.  The Academic work done by her is especially designed to keep pace with her cognitive abilities.  It was further stated that St. Thomas’ School is committed to provide quality education to girl child since 1930 and it was the first school to have the Special Educator and start a class for children with special needs.  The school has employed three Special Educators and Sanvi had been detained.  Vide letter dated 21.03.2017, Dy, Director, Education added that Ms. Bhawna Arora had requested the school authorities for fee concession and the management was pleased to grant 10% concession in the annual charges which she had not availed.  The Principal of the school vide her letter dated 22.03.2017 also submitted among other things that St. Thomas’  Girls Senior Secondary School, Mandir Marg, is an unaided Christian Minority School and therefore, the provisions of RTE Act, 2009 are not applicable to it.

3.         Upon considering the written submissions of the parties, a personal hearing was held on 01.09.2017.  Smt. Seema Kumar Mother of Ms. Haripriya Kumar, a child with 50% Cerebral Palsy who had submitted a complaint dated 10.08.2017, registered as Case No. 4/1713/2017-Wel/CD also appeared.  Her case is also tagged.

4.         The complainant in case No. 4/1365/2016-Wel/CD and 4/1264/2016-Wel/CD submitted that her daughter has now been shifted to the Senior Wing and most of the issues mentioned in the email dated 09.05.2016 have been resolved.  For example, school had made provision for a helper, scribe is being provided, curriculum of the same level has been modified, child is also participating in extra-curricular activities.  However, the decision on 40% fee concession which was being provided during the academic session 2016-17, has not been taken. Consequently, she has not deposited the fee.  Smt. Seema Kumar also submitted the same. Therefore, both the complainants requested that the school may be advised to extend fee concession to their children till 12th standard.

5.         The representative of the Respondent No. 1 submitted a letter dated 01.09.2017 alongwith the letter of St. Thomas’s Girls’ Sr. Sec.School, Mandir Marg dated 01.09.2017.  The said letter says that the management gave 40% concession in fee of Ms. Bhawana Arora’s daughter.  The School is an unaided Christian Minority School.  The decision about the fee concession has to be taken by the Management of the School.  Therefore the school should be impleaded.

6.         It was observed that the issues raised by the complainant in her complaints registered as Case No. 4/1365/2016-Wel/CD & Case No. 4/1264/2016-Wel/CD had already been resolved. The issue regarding the fee concession raised by her during the course of earlier hearing, which is also the subject matter of Case No. 4/1713/2017-Wel/CD, remains unresolved. In view of this and submissions made on behalf of respondent No. 1, Principal, St. Thomas’ Girls Sr. Sec. School was impleaded as respondent No. 2 and was advised to consider the matter on priority and submit the status on the next date of hearing on 26.09.2017.

7.         On the request of Ms. Seema Kumar vide her letter dated 18.09.2017 in case No. 4/1713/2017-Wel/CD was closed as withdrawn.

8.         Ms. Bhawna Arora, the complainant in case No. 4/1365/2016-Wel/CD and 4/1264/2016-Wel/CD submitted that her daughter has been extended 40% fee concession by the school.  However, in view of the request of the Principal of the school, another hearing was held on 11.10.2017.  

9.         Mrs. A. Amos, Principal of St. Thomas’ School alongwith Mrs. S. Devdas, Special Educator, Mrs. M. Kapoor, Counsellor and Mr. Vinod Kumar appeared to inform that a separate section for children with special needs known as Prerna has been functioning in the school since 1970.  Some of the children attend only the Prerna classes; but the school attempts to enable all for inclusion.  The school is affiliated to the CBSE and recognised by the Department of Education.  It is an unaided Christian Minority school.  The Special Educators are registered with the RCI.  She further submitted that although the school is not obliged to provide the fee concession to students under the provisions of the law, the management takes a view on the request of parents.  In the case of Sanvi, the management has decided to extend 40% fee concession on the request of the parents for the academic year 2017-18.  However, it is not possible to commit for such fee concession beyond this financial year.  The request for subsequent years will be considered by the management on annual basis.  She made it clear that the school and the teachers do not ever involve or even let children know about any such request by the parents.  She also submitted that there is no discrimination against the children or their parents on any ground.  They make all efforts to involve the parents of children with special needs in various co-curricular activities in the school.  The school continues to provide opportunities to all children with disabilities besides making the best possible arrangements for them.  For example, the school has invested substantial amount in setting up multimedia assistive lab for use of children with special needs.  A specially Trained Instructor has also been appointed.

10.       The complainant reiterated her satisfaction with regard to the arrangements for her daughter in the school.

11.       In light of the submissions of the parties as mentioned above, it is expected that the school will continue providing the best possible facilities for quality education to the daughter of the complainant and other children with disabilities and of the standard that can be replicated else where in the country.

12.       The complaints are disposed off accordingly.

13.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 30th day of October, 2017.     
 


 (T.D. Dhariyal)
           State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Saturday, October 28, 2017

Awadesh Kumar Prajapati Vs. Dte of Education | Case No. 4/ 1649/2017 -Wel/CD/ 2447-48 | Dated: 27.10.2017

Case Summary:

Awadesh Kumar Prajapati Vs. The Director, Director of Education

Employment: Complainant submitted that he has not been considered for promotion from TGT to PGT despite seniority No. of 3949 while his colleague with seniority No. 4007 has been. Respondent submitted that the other TGT was under SC category and the last seniority number in the zone of consideration under SC category was 4591. The Complainant comes under General category and the last seniority No in that category is 3316. In addition, it was noted that there is no reservation for persons with disabilities in Group-A & B posts. The position was explained to the complainant and the complaint was accordingly disposed of. 

 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
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/ 1649/2017 -Wel/CD/ 2447-48                                  Dated: 27.10.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Awadesh Kumar Prajapati,
R/O-D-4, Delhi Admn. Flats,
Model Town-I, Delhi-110009.                                                        .……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Sectt., Delhi-110054.                                                                     …...…Respondent
 

Date of hearing:            17.10.2017

Present                           None on behalf of complainant.
                                        Ms. Shakti Singh, Suptd. on behalf of Respondent.

            
ORDER

                The above named complainant, a person with blindness vide his complaint dated 06.05.2017 submitted that he is working as TGT(Hindi) in Govt. of NCT of Delhi.  His Seniority No. is 3949 as per Circular dated 27.04.2011 but his name has not been considered for promotion to PGT (Hindi).  Whereas Sh. Darvesh Kumar, TGT (Hindi) with Seniority No.  4007 has been kept at Sl.No. 165 for promotion.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 27.07.2017. As no response was received, a hearing was scheduled on 17.10.2017.  In the meantime Directorate of Education vide letter dated  21.09.2017 informed the complainant with a copy to this Court that Sh. Darvesh Kumar was appointed as TGT (Hindi) and was allotted Seniority No. 4007 under SC category. The last Seniority number in the zone of consideration for PGT (Hindi) in SC category is 4591. Therefore, the name of Sh. Darvesh Kumar with Seniority No. 4007 exists in the consideration zone. On the other hand, the Seniority number in the consideration zone for PGT (Hindi) in general category is 3316. Since the complainant is at Seniority No. 3949, his name does not exist in the consideration zone for promotion for the year 2015-16.

3.      During the hearing, the representative of the respondent also stated that the position has explained to the complainant and if he still has some doubts, he can contact the concerned officer (Sh. Shakti Singh, Superintendent).

4.      As the complainant was not present during the hearing, he was contacted on telephone on 23.10.2017.  He confirmed the receipt of  letter dated 29.09.2017.  He further stated that the Notice of hearing dated 18.09.2017 was not received by him though the same was not received back in this Court undelivered.

5.      In addition to the position mentioned in the letter dated  21.09.2017 of the respondent, it was clarified to the complainant that as per existing instructions of DoP&T, Govt. of India which are applicable to the employees of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, there is no reservation for persons with disabilities in promotion to Group-A and Group-B posts.  As PGT (Hindi) is a Group-B Post, the complainant would have to be considered alongwith his vertical category counterparts i.e. those belonging to general category for promotion to the post of PGT(Hindi). Since no person junior to him has been included in the consideration zone list as per him, no discrimination has been meted out to him.  The complainant confirmed that he has understood the position as explained to him.

6.      In the light of the above position, the complaint is disposed of.

          Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 27th day of October,  2017.

           (T.D. Dhariyal )
                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Chandra Shekhar Pandey Vs. Dy Director Disabilities, Deptt of Social Welfare & Anr | Case No. 4/1403/2016/Wel./CD/2323-25 | Dated:10.10.2017




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
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/1403/2016/Wel./CD/2323-25                           Dated:10.10.2017

In the matter of:

Chandra Shekhar Pandey
Block-I, Near Mother Dairy,
Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059                                                  ................ Petitioner

                                          Versus         
                
The Dy. Director (Disabilities),      
Deptt. Of Social Welfare,     
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
GLNS Complex, Delhi,
New Delhi-110002                                             ……...…Respondent No. 1

The Principal
Govt. Sr. Secondary School for Blind Boys
Department of Social Welfare
Sewa Kutir Complex, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009                                                      ...…...…Respondent No. 2


                ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with blindness vide his complaint dated 02.08.2016 submitted that he was a student of Senior Secondary School for the Blind Boys, Sewa Kutir, Kingsway Camp, Delhi under Social Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.  He was a student of Class XII in the session 2009-10.  His name in the certificate of XII class is different from the certificate of X class.  He submitted an application in the school on 20.07.2016 for getting the name corrected through CBSE.  The said complaint was received through the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 18.08.2016.

2.      The complaint was taken up with Department of Social Welfare vide letter dated 09.09.2016 who forwarded the complaint to the Principal, Govt. Sr. Secondary School for Blind vide letter dated 14.09.2016.  Thereafter a number of correspondences were exchanged and hearing was heard on 08.09.2017.  during the hearing Sh. Suresh Kumar, DDO/HOO, Govt. Sr. Secondary School for the Blind Boys and appeared along with Dy. Director, Disability, Department of Social Welfare was directed to get the correction in the name of complainant done and to submit a report within a month.

3.      On the next date of hearing on 09.10.2017, Sh. Suresh Kumar submitted a report dated 09.10.2017 as per which he wrote a letter dated 26.09.2017 to the controller of examination CBSE for correcting the first name of the complainant from ‘Chandera’ to ‘Chandra’ he pursued the matter with the CBSE who informed that the matter has been put up to the higher authorities in CBSE and on its approval, necessary correction can be made.  However before issuing a fresh certificate with the correct name, the complainant will have to surrender the existing certificate to CBSE.  The process may take about a month.  Sh. Suresh Kumar also assured that he will get in touch with CBSE in this regard.  During the hearing he also submitted that he tried to contacted the complainant on his given telephone number but he did not pickup. 

4.      It is observed that the given telephone number (7503951549) of the complainant is with someone else.  The letter sent to his given address ‘Block-I, Near Mother Dairy, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059’ have been received back with a remark of the postal authorities that the address is incomplete.

5.      It is also observed that in his complaint the complainant has mentioned one email address <smileushasoni@gmail>.  In view of this, this order will be emailed at smileushasoni@gmail.com, in addition to sending it by speed post.  The complainant is directed to contact the school authorities immediately for further action on his part.  The Respondent No. 2 is directed to take the school record and sent a copy of this order to his given addresses including permanent address.  After CBSE corrects the name of the complainant, the complainant may be advised to surrender the existing certificate as required by CBSE.

6.      The complaint is closed and disposed of accordingly.

7.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 10th day of October, 2017.     

                                                                                       (T.D. Dhariyal )
                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities






Saturday, October 7, 2017

Dr. Nitesh Tripathi Vs. Public Works Department | Case No. 4/1338/2016-Wel/CD/2233-34 | Dated: 06.10.2017


Case Summary:

Dr. Nitesh Tripathi  Vs. Public Works Department

Accessibility: Complainant submitted to the court that there was no proper arrangement of traffic signals on the way to the IPH Satellite Center and DTC Bus Depot in Seemapuri, leading to problems faced by Persons with Disabilities who visit the center for treatment. On perusal of email of complainant, it was observed that the issue pertains to the DTC and Traffic Police. The IPH Director was contacted about the matter and advised to look into it and take up the issue with DTC and Delhi Police.


 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
Phone 011-23216002-04, Telefax:011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
(Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016)

Case No. 4/1338/2016-Wel/CD/2233-34                                     Dated: 06.10.2017

In the matter of:                                                                   

Dr. Nitesh Tripathi
H.No. 241, Gali No. 11, B-Block,
Sant Nagar, Burari,
Delhi-110084.                                                                              …………..Complainant

The Engineer-In-Chief,
Public Works Deptt., GNCT of Delhi,
12th Floor, MSO Building, IP Estate,
New Delhi-110002.                                                                       …………….Respondent

Date of Hearing :       29.09.2017
Present :                    Dr. Nitesh Tripathi, Complainant.
                                   None for respondent.


ORDER

The above named complainant,  a person with locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 06.09.2016 informed that there was no proper arrangement of traffic signals on the way to Satellite Centre of IPH, Seemapuri and at the DTC Bus Depot  New Seema Puri.  As  a number of patients with disabilities who visit the Centre for treatment relating to rehabilitation, have faced problem.  He therefore, requested to take action for providing barrier free way to the Satellite Centre. 

2.         The matter was taken up inadvertently with the Public Works Department vide letter dated 02.08.2016 followed by reminders and a hearing on 29.09.2016.  On perusal of the email of the complainant, it is observed that the issue pertains to the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC)  and  Traffic Police.  In view of this, Director, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for the Physically Handicapped was contacted on telephone during the hearing.  She informed that each Satellite Centre has a Nodal Officer.  She has not received any complaint regarding the above mentioned issue in respect of Satellite Centre at New Seema Puri. She was advised to look into the matter and take up with the DTC and Delhi Police to ensure safe and barrier free access for persons with disabilities to the Satellite Centre. 

3.         The matter is disposed of accordingly.
                 
4.        Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 06th day of October, 2017.     



( T.D. Dhariyal )
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities



Dr. Nitesh Tripathi Vs. The Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation & PWD | Case No. 4/1302/2016-Wel/CD/ 2235-38 | Dated: 06.10.2017

Case Summary:

Dr. Nitesh Tripathi Vs. The Commissioner, NDMC & Another

Accessibility:Complainant submitted that the respondents hadn’t filed a case for not providing an accessible road to Kamal Vihar and requested to order an access audit of the road by deputing an officer to the Court. After communications, respondents submitted that the road in question does not fall under the jurisdiction of the NDMC or the PWD and that the I&FC Department is responsible for its’ construction and maintenance.

Recommendations: I&FC Department is advised to ensure proper accessibility wherever they construct/maintain civic road facilities. Complainant is advised to take up the matter with the concerned authorities and contact the Court in case of any further infringement of his rights.


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
Phone 011-23216002-04, Telefax:011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
(Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016)

Case No. 4/1302/2016-Wel/CD/ 2235-38                                    Dated: 06.10.2017

In the matter of:                                                                  

Dr. Nitesh Tripathi
H.No. 241, Gali No. 11, B-Block,
Sant Nagar, Burari,
Delhi-110084.                                                                …………..Complainant

The Commissioner,                                                      The Engineer-In-Chief,
North Delhi Municipal Corpn.                                       Public Works Deptt.,
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,                                               GNCT of Delhi,
New Delhi-110002.                                                      12th Floor, MSO Building,
....Respondent No.1                                                    IP Estate, New Delhi-110002.         
………….Respondent 2

Date of Hearing :       29.09.2017
Present :                    Dr. Nitesh Tripathi, Complainant.
                                   None for respondent.


ORDER

The above named complainant,  a person with locomotor disability vide his email  dated 05.07.2016 submitted that the Public Works Deptt.(PWD) and North Delhi Municipal Corporation (North DMC) have not  filed a case for not providing accessible road to Kamal Vihar, near Chetan Bihari Temple Sant Nagar Burari, Delhi-110084.  He requested to order an access audit of the road by deputing an officer of the Court. 

2.         The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide communication dated 19.07.2016 followed by reminders dated 07.10.2016 & 15.11.2017.  Thereafter a hearing was scheduled on 27.12.2016.  As none appeared on 27.12.2016, another hearing was scheduled on 29.09.2017. 

3.         On 29.09.2017, Sh. Kapil  Gupta, Executive Engineer, Civil Lines Zone and Sh. Y.A. Zafari, Asstt. Engineer, appeared for Commissioner, North DMC and submitted the status report dated 26.09.2017.  As per the said report, the road in question has been recently constructed by the Irrigation and Flood Control Deptt.(I&FC).  A recent photograph of the road has also been enclosed. They further added that the area does not fall under the jurisdiction of North DMC or PWD.  As the area is an unauthorised colony, the I&FC Deptt. is responsible for construction and maintenance of the road.  Thus, no action is required by the maintenance division of North DMC.

4.         In view of the above submissions, there is no need for an access audit of the area at this stage.  I&FC Deptt. is advised to ensure proper accessibility for movement of persons with disabilities wherever  they construct / maintain any road or civic facilities. 

5.         The complainant is also advised to take up such matters with the concerned authorities and in the event such authorities do not take appropriate action on his complaint and his rights are infringed, the complaint may then be filed before the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in accordance with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rules framed thereunder.

6.         The matter is disposed of accordingly.
                 
7.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 06th day of October, 2017.     



( T.D. Dhariyal )
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to:

Chief Engineer, I&FC Department, L.M. Bund Office Complex, Shastri Nagar, Geeta Colony, Delhi.