In the Court of Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities
National
Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D,
Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-23216002-04,
Telefax: 23216005
[Vested
with power of Civil Court under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]
Case No.
4/970/2015-Wel./CD/3415-17 Dated:15.12.2017
In the matter of:
Sh. Kamal Kant Aggarwal
Room No. 210, Electrical Block
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi -110059 ....................Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Naresh Kumar
The Chairman
Navyug School
Education Society,
3rd Floor,
Palika Kendra
Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001
............Respondent
Smt. Vidushi Chaturvedi
The Director
Navyug School Educational Society
Head Office, N.P. Primary School,
Hanuman Road, New Delhi -110001
...........Respondent
ORDER
The above named complainant, a person
with 40% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 20.04.2015 submitted
that he participated in recruitment process with roll no. NTWTH-1619 for the
post of TGT (Work Experience) in Navyug School Education Society (NSES) as a
candidate with disability. NSES accepted
the order of Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities in case No.
331/1011/09-10 that 5 vacancies were for PH Category.
2. Although he had secured 49.8% marks and he
was the only candidate with disability, yet he was not given the
appointment. He therefore, requested to
direct the respondent to appoint him without any delay and with benefit of
seniority and back wages.
3. The complaint was taken up with the
respondent vide communication dated 08.05.2015 followed by reminder dated
19.06.2015.
4. The Respondent vide letter dated 03.07.2015
informed that during the hearings before the Chief Commissioner for persons
with disabilities, it was submitted that the complaint would be considered for
appointment as and when vacancies of TGT (Work Experience) would become
available against direct recruitment quota as the RRs provided for filling the
post of TGT 20% by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion. There were 8 sanctioned posts of TGT (Work
Experience) and all were filled up. Therefore, the case of the complainant
would be considered for appointment on availability of vacancy against the
direct recruitment quota.
5. The case was heard by the then Commissioner
on 12.08.2015, 07.09.2015, 12.10.2015 and 10.12.2015. After a number of exchange of correspondence,
the respondent vide letter dated 15.03.2017 informed that the competent
authority had approved the appointment of the complainant as TGT (Work Experience)
against a vacancy reserved for persons with disabilities during the recruitment
drive 2008-09 subject to completion of formalities. The office order dated
20.02.2017 also mentioned that the complainant would be given notional
seniority on the post of TGT (Work Experience) equivalent to his immediate
junior. However, he will be given
financial benefits from the date of his appointment/joining.
7. The complainant vide his e-mail dated
16.04.2017 informed that he had not yet been given final appointment and
therefore his case may not be closed till his final appointment.
8. As
the complaint was pending for more than two years and there was no further
communication from the complainant, he was contacted on his given mobile No.
8802303439 on 08.12.2017. He informed
that he had been given the offer of appointment. However, as his pay was not protected and he
has joined a post in DRDO, he did not wish to join NSES.
9. In view of the above, the complaint is
closed and disposed off, accordingly.
10. However I am constrained to observe that
the concerned authorities took unusually long time to decide a matter involving
the entitlement of a person with disability despite the directions/observations
of statutory authorities and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in his favour. The
case deserved to be fast tracked and a decision taken as expeditiously as
possible. On the contrary it took 8 long
years. This is a case which compels one
to get an impression that there is too much resistance amongst the functionaries
to extend even the legitimate entitlements and the right to persons with
disabilities. It is unfortunate that a
person with disability had to struggle for such a long period of time and was
made to run from pillar to post. In such a scenario, many a hapless person with
disabilities may prefer to forego their entitlements in the face of such
resistance as the trade off would be too much to bear. It is expected that with the coming into
force of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 from 19.04.2017
which also has provisions for punishment for contravention of the provisions of
the Act or Rules or Regulations made there under, all concerned
authorities/functionaries shall avoid situations as observed in this case and
make efforts to comply with the provisions of the Act in letter and spirit and
be more sensitive towards persons with disabilities.
10. Given under my hand and the seal of the
Court this 13th day of December, 2017.
(T.D. DHARIYAL)
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
No comments:
Post a Comment