Thursday, November 30, 2017

R.K. Sharma Vs. Secretary, Public Works Department | Case No. 4/837/2014-Wel./CD/3164-65 | Dated:29.11.2017




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. 4/837/2014-Wel./CD/3164-65                            Dated:29.11.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. R.K. Sharma
C-682, Delhi Administration Flats,
Timarpur, Delhi-110054.                              ................ Petitioner

                                          Versus                         
Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Delhi Secretariat,
Delhi.                                                           ………...…Respondent

   ORDER

            The above named complainant, who claimed to be a person with 80% loco-motor disability (above knee (R) amputation), vide his complaint dated 09.01.2014 received through the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on 30.12.2014, submitted that he was working as Accounts Officer in Govt. of NCT of Delhi.  He was allotted a Type –III accommodation C-682, Delhi Administration Flats, Timarpur.  The said flat did not meet basic requirements which are necessary for an ambulated person with disability.  Referring to the provisions of the Persons with Disability Act, 1995, the CPWD guidelines etc., the complainant requested for the following:-

(i)           That the work aforesaid i.e. covering of Entrance Gate of C-682 by Acrylic sheet etc. and changing of door and W.C. alternatively construction of a separate Toilet in the vacant land may kindly be got done on urgent basis out of its own fund for maintenance of Building in pursuant to the guidelines issued by Central Public Works Department, Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and in compliance of provisions of Section 44, 45 and 46 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.  The shed by Acrylic Sheet is most urgent as it is continuously leading my life and limb to dangerous position and anything can happen anytime, thus, the same may be carried out on priority basis.
(ii)          That, if the PWD is in short of funds under Maintenance of Building Head to carry out the said work, though it is mandatory on the part of the PWD to carry out the said work out of its own fund, the PWD may ask for the same so from the undersigned and the undersigned may deposit the amount with PWD and the work may be got done by PWD in accordance with the provisions contained under O.M. dated 10.08.2007 issued by Dy. Secretary, PWD, GNCT of Delhi on urgent basis please as the life and limb of the undersigned and family members is at stake all the time.
(iii)        That, if the PWD is not in a condition to carry out the said work out of its own fund, the undersigned will have no option except to get the work done out of his own pocket in order to save the life, limb and personal property of the undersigned and his family member and thus it is requested that the work may be got done within the reasonable period of time of one month from the receipt of this request i.e. by 10.02.2014 failing which it will be reasonably presumed that the PWD does not have fund or is not willing to comply with the statutory provisions and guidelines issued by the Authorities in this behalf and the undersigned shall got the same done purely in the interest of his life, limb and personal property.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 31.12.2014 and was thereafter heard on 20.01.2015 and 07.04.2015.

3.      The respondent vide reply dated 20.01.2015 and 27.03.2015 inter alia submitted that the complainant had himself requested that either this modification may be done by PWD out of Govt. funds or alternatively he would be constrained to do the same out of his own pocket to make the flat barrier free.  It has further been stated that respondent did not office did not have funds during the financial year 2013-14, therefore, the complainant was informed on 15.01.2014 and advised to get necessary modifications done as per guidelines out of his own pocket.  The complainant carried out the modifications.  Namely, fixing the gate of wash room/toilet from outward, providing European style WC in the washroom, providing acrylic sheet on the entrance gate of the flat and fencing around the flat including electrical feeders, out of his own pocket, Therefore, respondent contended that the grievance of the petitioner had been resolved.

In the letter dated 27.03.2015, the respondent stated that a meeting was held on 24.02.2015 by Spl. Secretary, PWD with the Supdt. Engineers of various Delhi Government Colonies to discuss the matter of additions/alterations by allottees of Govt. flats.  In the meeting, the case of the complainant who had been issued notice was also discussed.  However, the action on the notice issued to the complainant was kept in abeyance as per the directions of this Court.  As per the minutes of the meeting on 24.02.2015 on the direction of this Court for withdrawal of notice issued to the allottees with disabilities on ground floor flats, it has been mentioned that as far as the case of Sh. R.K. Sharma was concerned, the same was also required examination to see the extent of construction/addition done by him so that only those additions facilitating him in barrier free movement should be permitted.  The concerned SE was advised to examine the case and take action so that all necessities and conditions as per the Disability Act were fulfilled.  In case of non disable persons, permission, if any should be given on case to case basis as per situation. 

4.      As the complainant did not pursue the matter this court tried to contact him on his given telephone No. (8750196282), but the same was switched off.  Even on the date of writing this order (28.11.2017), the telephone was switched off.  In view of this, the complainant is closed and disposed off.  If the complainant faces any harassment in violation of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 or the Rules or Regulations made thereunder, he may file a fresh complaint. 

5.      Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 29th day of November, 2017.     

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


Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Priya Varadan Vs. Commissioner, SDMC | Case No. 4/842/2014-Wel/CD/ 3145-47 | Dated: 28.11.2017




                    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 -02
(Ph. 011-23216002-04 Fax: 011-23216005 Email:comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/842/2014-Wel/CD/ 3145-47                                          Dated: 28.11.2017

In the matter of:

Smt. Priya Varadan
1, Gulmohar Enclave,
New Delhi-110049                                                                     ....................Petitioner           

Versus

The Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
New Delhi-110002.                                                                     ...........Respondent  No.1


Sh. Mukesh  Khanna
President of Gulmohar Enclave Resident Association (GERA)
Flat No. 161, Gulmohar Enclave,
New Delhi-110049.                                                                    .............Respondent No.2
                                                                                 
                                                                    ORDER

A Complaint dated 16.09.2014 was filed by Smt. Priya Varadan, a person with 60% disability (cerebral palsy with quadriplegia) requesting for a pathway measuring eight feet (8ft) from the approach of the house (wall) which will enable them to walk though and also call a car or an ambulance in time of emergency or necessity.

2.              The matter was taken up with Commissioner,  South DMC and President of Gulmohar Enclave Resident Association (GERA) on 08.12.2014 followed by reminders dated 23.12.14, 06.01.15 as no response was received from the respondents, hearings were held on 05.02.15, 05.03.15, 10.04.15, 11.05.15, 30.07.15, 02.09.15 and 18.11.15. The respondent informed that uneven portion immediately adjacent to the building had been done smooth with cement concrete for the convenience of the complainant. Further 8 feet wide area has been designated and provided for smooth flow of vehicles/ wheel chair in case of emergency. Photographs were also submitted. The complainant was contacted and she confirmed that the above work had been done. In view of this the complaint is disposed of.
                        Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 28th day of November’2017.

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






Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Nitesh Tripathi Vs. Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 4/1746/2017-Wel/CD/3130-31 | Dated:27.11.2017


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. 4/1746/2017-Wel/CD/3130-31                                     Dated:27.11.2017
Case No. 15/1014/2017/10

In the matter of:                                                                   

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

The Commissioner,                                                            
North Delhi Municipal Corpn.                              
4th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,                                    
New Delhi-110002.                                                                   .........Respondent                     
           
Date of Hearing :      15.11.2017 and 23.11.2017
Present :                    Complainant – Not present
                                   None for respondent.


ORDER

      The above named complainant, a person with 65% locomotor disability vide his complaint received through email dated 21.09.2017 submitted that he is working as GDMO in North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) and his salary for the month of  July and August, 2017 has not been released.  He faced this kind of situation earlier also and the then Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities had to intervene to release his salary at that time.  The complainant requested to pass an order for immediate release of his salary and adopt proper measures for prevention of such drastic conditions in future.

2.         The complaint (4/1746/2017-Wel/CD) was taken up with the respondent vide Notice dated 12.10.2017 followed by a reminder dated 10.11.2017 and a hearing on 15.11.2017.  As per the request of complainant he was allowed to make his submissions on telephone.  During the hearing on 15.11.2017, Dr. I. Ghanshyam, CMO (M&TB)(HQ), North DMC,  the representative of the respondent submitted that the complainant’s engagement  as Medical Officer on contract basis expired on 30.06.2017. As his contract has not been extended, the payment could not be released.  He further stated that he did not receive the Show Cause Notice dated 12.10.2017.  The Notice of hearing dated 10.11.2017 reached him only in the morning of 15.11.2017.  Therefore, written submission could not be filed.  He further informed that  Accounts Officer (Health) has processed his file for renewal of contract and once his contract is renewed, his salary will also be released by the concerned DDO. 

3.         Vide record of proceedings dated 15.11.2017, the respondent was directed to release the salary of the complainant for  the month of July and August by 22.11.2017, if the complainant had worked during the said period.  Vide letter dated 22.11.2017, Dr. Kamal Sarin, RMS, Dr. Sahib Singh Verma Polyclinic, Jharoda, Burari informed that the salary bills could be signed by Dr. N.K. Tripathi only on 22.11.2017 when he joined.  His salary will  be credited to his accounts within two days.

5.         The complainant vide his email dated 23.11.2017 confirmed that his salary for the month of July and August had been credited to his account late evening on 22.11.2017.  He further submitted that other GDMO has got the salary for the month of September 2017 as well and therefore such discrimination should be avoided.  He has also pointed out unavailability of a Grievance Redressal Officer / Liaison Officer to address his genuine issues besides creating awareness about the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 so that such unpleasant experiences sometimes unknowingly could be avoided.  He also mentioned about his request to make Dr. S.S.V. Poly Clinic Burari disabled friendly.  The complainant also informed that his contract of appointment has been extended beyond June, 2017 for one year and therefore his salary for the month of September should also have been released alongwith the salary of July and August, 2017.

6.         The instant complaint relates to release of salary for the month of July and August, 2017, which has been released, however, if his contract of appointment has been extended and he has worked as per the contract, his salary beyond August, 2017 be also released without any further delay on equal basis with others.

7.         The complainant vide his email dated 28.10.2017 had also submitted that his contract  renewal  letter had not been released while the contract renewal letters in respect of other non-disabled doctors had been released.  He had been directed not to mark his attendance from 27th  October, 2017, although he had submitted his application on 16.05.2017 to his Incharge, which amounted to harassment on the ground of his disability.  The said complaint was registered as Case No. 15/1014/2017/10 and was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 30.10.2017.  In view of the fact that the Complainant’s contract of appointment has been extended, the complaint has become infructuous.

8.         As regards the arrangement of a Grievance Redressal Officer, the respondent is advised to take steps to appoint such officer in accordance with  Rule 10 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 which is reproduced below:

“10. Manner of maintenance of register of complaints by the Government establishments- (1) Every Government establishment shall appoint an officer not below the rank of a Gazetted Officer as Grievance Redressal Officer:
Provided that where it is not possible to appoint any Gazetted Officer, the Government establishment may appoint the senior most Officer as a Grievance Redressal Officer. (2) The Grievance Redressal Officer shall maintain a register of complaints of persons with disabilities with the following particulars, namely:- (a) date of complaint; (b) name of complainant; (c) name of the person who is enquiring the complaint; (d) place of incident; (e) the name of establishment or person against whom the complaint is made; (f) gist of the complaint; (g) documentary evidence, if any; (h) date of disposal by the Grievance Redressal Officer; (i) details of disposal of the appeal by the district level committee; and (j) any other information. ”

9.         With regard to his request for making Dr. S.S.V. Poly Clinic Burari accessible, appropriate directions have already been issued to the respondents along with other concerned agencies for making built environment accessible in their respective geographical jurisdiction vide Record of Proceedings dated 17.11.2017 in  a Suo-Motu Case No. 4/1665/2017-Wel/CD.

10.       As the salary for the month of July and August, 2017 in respect of the complainant has been released  and his contract appointment beyond June, 2017 has been extended, both the complaints (Case No. 4/1746/2017-Wel/CD and Case No. 15/1014/2017/10)  are  closed and  disposed of accordingly.

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



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






Raman Batra Vs. Parivartan Foundation | Case No. 4/ 1749/2017-Wel/CD/3128-29 | Dated: 27.11.2017


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/ 1749/2017-Wel/CD/3128-29                            Dated: 27.11.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Raman Batra,
SP-10, Pitampura, Maurya Enclave,
Delhi-110088.                                                                                  .……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus

Parivartan Foundation,
Mundka, Delhi-Bahadurgarh Road,
Delhi-110041.                                                                                   ..   …...…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



Ramdev S/o Baijnath & Anr. Vs. Secretary Deptt of Urban Development | Case No. 4/619&466/2014-Wel/CD/3132-34 | Dated: 27.11.2017





                  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 -02
(Ph. 011-23216002-04 Fax: 011-23216005 Email:comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/619&466/2014-Wel/CD/3132-34                                    Dated: 27.11.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Ramdev S/o Baijnath,
E-52/4, Aradhak Nagar,
Shahdara Border, Near Toll Tax,
Delhi-110095.                                                                          ............Complainant No. 1
  
Sh. Laxman Prasad,
L-204,  Camp No. 3, JJ Colony
Nangloi, Delhi -110041                                                             ............Complainant No. 2                                                
Versus

The Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
GNCT of Delhi,
9th Level, ‘C’ wing, Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi.                                                                                   ....................Respondent

                                                     ORDER

            Office of the Commissioner for Persons with disabilities received representations from Sh. Ram Dev s/o. Sh. Baijnath and Laxman Prasad S/o Sh. Sakal Prasad dated 24.03.14 and 15.05.2013 respectively regarding allotment of Rajeev Ratan Awas  flats under the quota for persons with disabilities.

2.         Notice dated 17.04.2014 was issued to Secretary, Department of Urban Development, GNCT of Delhi. A reply was received from the respondent vide letter No. F. 542(7)/UD/BSUP/2014/2328-31 dated 12.05.14 which was not satisfactory and a hearing was fixed on 16.07.14 by former Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The Respondent did not appear on the next date of hearing on 20.04.2015 and through various communications, the last being letter No. F. 542(7)/UD/BSUP/2014/1826 dated 18.08.17, the respondent clarified that both the complainants fall under the urban poor which is second category of urban poor as per their residential addresses. As per the decision of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the preference in allotment of completed flats is being given to the eligible beneficiaries of prioritised J.J. Basti for removal, in view of taking up some important public projects on the occupied land.

3.         A copy of the above letter was sent to both complainants on dated 31.08.17 to submit comment by 18.09.17 failing which it would be presumed that they have nothing to say and the case would be closed.

4.         As no comments have been received from the complainants till date, the cases are closed.
            Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 27th day of November’2017.



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













Friday, November 24, 2017

Sanyogeeta Vs. Secretary Deptt of Health & Family Welfare | Case No. 4/1133/2015-Wel./CD/3206-07 | Dated: 23.11.2017



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. 4/1133/2015-Wel./CD/3206-07                                        Dated: 23.11.2017

In the matter of:

Ms. Sanyogeeta,
H.No.501, Nangal Thakran,
Delhi-110039                                                                                       .……… Complainant
    
                                                                          Versus
The Secretary.
Deptt. of Health and Family Welfare,
9th Level, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.                                                                          …...…Respondent
 
ORDER

                 The above named complainant who claimed to be a person with disability vide her complaint received on 06.10.2015 submitted that she was selected as Staff Nurse.  She was asked to join Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, GNCT of Delhi which is 25-30 Kms. away.  Due to her disability it is difficult for her to travel to the office every day.  She requested that she may be transferred to a nearby hospital i.e. Maharishi Balmiki Hospital.
 
2.         The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 12.10.2015 and a hearing was held on 26.11.2016.

3.               The respondent vide letter dated 02.11.2015 informed that it was not possible to transfer her at that stage. However, her request can be considered in future.  As the complainant did not pursue her case for long, she was contacted on telephone and she informed that she has been transferred as per her request and requested to close her case. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.

4.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 23rd  day of November,2017.     



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