The website contains all the orders and judgements passed by the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Delhi starting March 2017.
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Monday, November 26, 2018
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Meenakshi Arora Vs Dte of Education & DSSSB | Case No.323/1082/2018/06/11022-24 | Dated: 09.10.2018
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-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under
the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
Case No.323/1082/2018/06/11022-24 Dated: 09.10.2018
In the matter of:
Ms.
Meenakshi Arora,
Flat No. BE-102, Ground Floor,
Street No. 2, Near Vikas General Store,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064. …… Complainant
Versus
The
Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Sectt. Bldg., Civil Lines,
Delhi-110054. ........Respondent No.1
The Chairman
Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board,
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma
Delhi-110092. ........Respondent No.2
Date of
hearing: 28.09.2018
Present: Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Complainant on telephone.
Sh. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Assistant on behalf of respondent
No. 1.
ORDER
The above named complainant, a person with 90%
locomotor disability (wheel chair user), vide her complaint dated 24.01.2018
submitted that she is working in Jawahar Navodya Vidayala School, Ministry of
HRD, Govt. of India as a Librarian since
February, 2002 and is posted at Jafar Pur Kalan, Delhi. The Navodya Vidayala job has all India
transfer liability. She, therefore
appeared in the examination conducted by DSSSB in 2016 for the post of
Librarian in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
2.
The complainant further submitted
that she was selected for the post but was not in a position to join due to
some official and personal reasons as the condition of her 70 year old mother,
who is suffering from Blood Cancer, was critical. She was given an extension for joining till
06.02.2017. Even at that time, her
mother was under treatment at AIIMS and she could not join. In July 2017, she informed that she wanted to
join and the concerned officer told her that her request for further extension
of 10-15 days would be accepted and she was verbally advised to resign from her
post in Navodya Vidayala. However,
before she could resign, she was informed on telephone that her Dossier was
being sent to DSSSB. In reply to her RTI
application, she was informed that her file had not been sent to DSSSB. She had not got any reply to her last
application dated 27.07.2017. The
complainant has also submitted that she needs the support of her brother as she
cannot live alone in the campus of Navodya Vidayala through out her life due to
her physical condition. It is, therefore
critical for her to join a Delhi Govt. School close to her family residence. She has, therefore requested that the Authorities
should understand her problem and allow her to join the post of Librarian.
3. Her complaint was taken up with the
Directorate of Education vide notice dated 25.01.018. Directorate of Education vide reply dated
09.04.2018 submitted as under :
1) As per appointment consolidate
order No. F.No. 2/DRC/E-IV/DE/Lib./2016/1339-50 dated 02/09/2016 (posting ID
20160025) as well as individual order No. 2/DRC/E-IV/DE/Lib./2016/1339-50 dated
06/09/2016 Ms. Meenakshi Arora (Empl. ID -20160888) was appointed as Librarian
and posted in Hari Nagar, Block-L S(Co-ed)- 1514022 with the direction to
report to her place of posting latest by 10/10/2016 failing which her
appointment shall stand cancelled without any further communication (copy
enclosed).
2) As per her request dated 04/10/2016
and 01/11/2016, extension was granted for joining up to 13/01/2017 vide order
dated 07/11/2016, as per Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training OM No.
9/23/71-Estt. (D) dated 6th June, 1978 and OM No. 35016/2/93-Estt.
(D) dated 9th Aug. 1995 (Copies of GM's are enclosed).
3) Ms. Meenakshi Arora again
requested for some more time extension vide diary No. 81/E-1V dated 11/01/2017
competent authority vide memorandum dated 24/01/2017 has grant a last
opportunity to Ms. Meenakshi Arora to
join her place of posting by 06/02/2017 and it was informed to her that failing
which her appointment will automatically be treated as cancelled and no further
correspondence will be entertained.
4) Further Ms. Meenakshi Arora
has requested for some more time vide application dated 02/02/2017. However as
per As per Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) OM No 9/23/71-Estt. (D) dated
6th June, 1978 and OM No. 35016/2/93-Estt. (D) dated 9th Aug. 1995 extension can not be granted beyond
six months. The OM is reiterated as under :
"The matter has been
examined in consultation with the UPSC and it has been decided to reduce from
nine months to six months the maximum time upto which an offer of appointment
can be kept to open. In other words an offer of appointment should be clearly
specify the period (which shall not normally exceed one or two months) after
which the offer would lapse automatically if the candidate did not join within the specified period. If however within
the specified period, a request is received from the candidate for extension of
time, it may be considered by the Ministries/Deptts. and it may be granted only
as an exception where facts and circumstances so warrant and in any case only
upto a maximum of six months from the date of issue of the original offer of a
appointment. An offer of appointment would lapse automatically after the expiry
of six month from the date of issue of original offer of appointment".
Therefore request of Ms.
Meenakshi Arora vide dated 02/02/2017 was considered & rejected by the
Competent Authority and she was intimated vide memorandum No. DE. 02/DRC/E-IV/Extension
(Lib.)/2016/2458 dated 07/07/2017 and her appointment orders dated 02/09/2016
and 06/09/2016 were cancelled (copy enclosed).
5) It is further mentioned that
in response of request of Ms. Meenakshi Arora dated 29/01/2018, her case has
been examined sympathetically by the Competent Authority and DSSSB has been
requested to provide their views in this matter vide letter No. DE.
02/DRC/E-IV/Ext. (Lib.)/2016/2143 dated 14/03/2018 as per DOPT OM dated 6th
June, 1978 point No. iv (Copy enclosed).
This is for your information
please.
Yours
faithfully,
Encl.
As above.
(R.S.
Krishnan)
Assistant
Director (E-IV)”
4. Directorate of Education vide letter
dated 25.05.2018 and 15.06.2018 requested DSSSB to expedite their views and DSSSB
were impleaded as respondent no. 2 on 28.06.2018 and a hearing was scheduled on
04.09.2018. Vide letter dated 25.07.2018,
Directorate of Education informed that views of DSSSB had been received vide its
letter dated 21.06.2018 and as per their advice, clarification/expert advice of
Services Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has been sought vide their letter
dated 23.07.2018. Further action would
be taken after receiving the clarification/expert advice. As per the letter dated 21.06.2018 of DSSSB,
final acceptance/rejection of a candidate is the prerogative of the appointing
authority. As such, decision may be
taken on the basis of Court Order(s) vide WP (C) 267/2013, CM APPL.555/2013,
CAT Order vide OA No. 611/2014 & DoPT OM dated 09.08.2017 & 06.06.1978 and
opinion of Service Department and Law Department may be taken, if required. Inviting reference to MHA’s OM No 9/23/71-Estt.
(D) dated 6th June, 1978, DoPT vide their OM No. 35016/2/93-Estt. (D) dated
9th Aug. 1995 has conveyed that the said
instructions provide that the offer of appointment could lapse if the candidate
could not join within a specified period and lapse automatically after the
expiry of 6 months from the date of issue of original offer of
appointment. DoPT has advised all the
Ministries and Departments to ensure strict compliance of the said
instructions.
5. During the hearing on 04.09.2018, the complainant
reiterated her written submissions and added that she could
not resign from the post in Navodaya Vidyalaya without handing over the charge
of the library, which has approximately 100000 books in addition to text
books. She was also under the impression
that the extension would be granted upto nine months as indicated in DOE’s
letter.
6. The representative of the Directorate of
Education submitted that nine months extension was permissible as per the MHA”s
OM No. 9/23/71-Estt(D) dated 06.06.1978 which was reduced to 6 month in 1995.
7. It was observed that a large number of
posts of Librarian in the Directorate of Education and the post in the School
where the complainant was posted were still vacant. Therefore, revival of appointment in respect of
the complainant might also serve the purpose of the Department. As DSSSB has advised Directorate of Education
to take final decision in consultation with Services Department, it was recommended
that Secretary (Services) may give a personal hearing to the complainant and
convey the opinion of Services Department to Directorate of Education at the
earliest and the matter to scheduled for hearing on 2.09.2018.
8. The complainant, who deposed on telephone
on 28.09.2018, informed that she was given a personal hearing by Secretary (Services)
who assured her to do the needful. She
also vide email dated 01.10.2018 submitted that in one of the orders cited,
DSSSB’s letter does not relate to her case as that case was not the service
matter. In other matter of Ajay Kumar
Vs. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 267/2013, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
dismissed his petition as the Hon’ble Court did not find any element of public
interest and was not an exceptional case.
She also submitted that OA no. 1786/2011 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal pertains to fixation of seniority and the applicant’s
appointment in that case was revived and he was permitted to join beyond the
extended time. He got extension up to
22.02.2006 and finally he joined duty on 28.11.2006. As per the complainant, her case is
exceptional on the following grounds:
(i) Genuineness
of her case is proved by the fact that she has decided to leave the job of Librarian
with higher Grade Pay of There are 9000 vacant teaching posts and the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi has directed DSSSB to fill those posts.
(ii) The
post of the Librarian in that school where the complainant was posted, is still
vacant. Therefore her appointment as Librarian in that school will benefit it.
(iii) Selection
of a candidate involves lot of time and expenditure. Revival of her appointment will save time and
money and benefit the school as she is well qualified for the post and also
having teaching experience of about 16 years.
(iv) No
training after appointment is involved in her case as in the case of the
petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 267/2013.
(v) She
is a person with 90% locomotor disability and wheel chair user and therefore
her case is exceptional one.
(vi) `4800 to join the post of Librarian
in Govt. of NCT of Delhi with lower Grade Pay of `4600 after 16 years of service
in Navodya Vidayalya.
9. Chronology of events of selection process
in respect of the complainant as Librarian in Directorate of Education is as
under:
(i)
The complainant was offered
the post of Librarian by the Department of Education on 14.04.2016.
(ii)
The appointment letter for her
selection in Hari Nagar Block-L (Co-Ed) School
was issued on 02.09.2016 and she was asked to join on or before
10.10.2016.
(iii)
The complainant requested for
extension of upto 13.01.2017 on the ground that her mother was suffering from
blood cancer and kidney ailment and was under treatment, which was granted.
(iv)
She asked for further
extension upto April 2017, but extension was given upto 06.02.2017. She was also informed that the maximum
permissible period of extension of nine months had expired on 11.01.2017. She
was however, given one more opportunity to join by 06.02.2017.
(v)
Finally the offer of
appointment was cancelled on 07.07.2017.
10. It is observed that it is a case of revival
of the offer of appointment which has lapsed.
Under para (iv) of MHA OM no. 9/23/71-Estt.(D) dated 06.06.1978, if the
Appointing Authority finds the circumstances exceptional and on ground of
public interest, revival of the offer of appointment is to be done after
consulting DSSSB in this case and the seniority of the complainant would be
fixed in accordance with sub para (v) of the said OM. The reason for reducing nine month period to
six months month for the direct recruits to join, was that a longer period
delayed preparation and issue of select/seniority lists, which affects the
interests of the existing appointees as also determination of the vacancies for
recruitment/ promotion as has been explained in the order dated 16.01.2013 of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 267/2013, CM APPL.555/2013.
11. The Appointing Authority in this case, therefore
needs to be convinced whether circumstances of the complainant were exceptional
due to which she could not join within the specified period of six months/nine
months and whether revival of offer of appointment would serve public interest
and not adversely affect the interest of any existing Librarian. This essentially needs to be decided by the Appointing
Authority and in my view no expert opinion is required as DoPT’s instructions do
envisage revival of a lapsed offer of appointment in exceptional circumstances
and on ground of public interest. The complainant in her email dated 01.10.2018
has fairly brought out the distinction between her case and the other two cases
that have been cited and therefore there is no need to repeat the same. In my view, her circumstances were
exceptional as her mother was suffering from a terminal illness (Blood Cancer). Her physical condition due to her disability
has forced her to take a decision to move from a higher post for 14 years (in
2016) to a lower post. As a large number
of teaching posts including the post of Librarian in the school where she was
originally posted, are stated to be vacant, revival of her offer of appointment
would serve the interest of the Department and hence public interest. Revival of offer of the appointment of the
complainant would also not affect the interest of any existing employee as the
posts of Librarian are to be filled by direct recruitment. The complainant is aware and clear about the
fact that if her offer of appointment is revived, her seniority would be fixed
in accordance with para 5 of MHA’s OM dated 06.06.1978.
12. In light of the above, it is recommended that
Directorate of Education may take a positive view in the matter at the earliest,
in any case within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order and intimate
this Court and the complainant as required under Section 81 of the Act.
13. The complaint is disposed off accordingly.
14.
Given under my hand and the seal of
the Court this 08th day of October, 2018.
(T.D. Dhariyal)
State
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Visit the signed PDF File of the Order here:
Monday, October 1, 2018
Friday, September 28, 2018
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Sunday, September 23, 2018
Friday, September 21, 2018
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Saturday, September 8, 2018
Friday, September 7, 2018
G.B. Singh Vs. Commissioner EDMC & Anr. | Case No. 189/1101/2018/04/ 9728-30 | Dated:07-09-2018
SCPD Delhi's Order on Accessibillity of Public Parks dated 07 Sep 2018
Thursday, September 6, 2018
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Thursday, June 14, 2018
Mukhtar Singh, Dulal Lal & Jagdish Rai Vs. The Director, Department of Social Welfare | Case No. 205/1092/2018/04/7830-36 | Dated: 13.06.2018
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. 205/1092/2018/04/7830-36 Dated: 13.06.2018
In the matter of:
Sh. Mukhtar Singh
B.M. 3, Bandhe Matram Kust Rogi Seva Samiti,
Tahirpur, Jhilmil,
Delhi-110095. Complainant
Versus
The Director,
Department of Social Welfare,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002. Respondent
Case No. 206/1092/2018/04/
In the matter of:
Sh. Dulal Pal,
T.Huts No. 17, Bandhe Matram Kusht Rogi Sewa Samiti,
Tahirpur, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095. Complainant
Versus
The Director,
Department of Social Welfare,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002. Respondent
Case No. 204/1092/2018/04/
In the matter of:
Sh. Jagdish Rai,
B.M. 3, Bandhe Matram Kusht Rogi Sewa Samiti,
Tahirpur, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095. Complainant
Versus
The Director,
Department of Social Welfare,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002. Respondent
Date of Hearing: 08.06.2018
Present: Sh. Mukhtar Singh, Sh. Dulal Pal and Sh. Jagdish Rai complainants are in person.
Smt. Aarti Kapoor, District Officer (North-East) on behalf of respondent.
Order
The above named Leprosy cured persons vide their complaints dated 01.04.2018 submitted that they were getting disability pension of Rs. 1,500/- per month, which has been stopped from September, 2016/ August 2016/ October, 2016. Sh. Anoop Sagar, Editor of Halla Bol Times also submitted representation and requested for a high level inquiry.
2. The complaints were taken up with the respondent vide show cause-cum-hearing notices dated 16.04.2018, 19.04.2018 and 17.04.2018.
3. The complaint of Sh. Mukhtar Singh was also received from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 15.05.2018. As the complaints pertain to identical issue and the same District Social Welfare Office i.e. North-East, all the three complaints were clubbed and heard on 07.05.2018. The respondent vide letter dated 26.04.2018 informed that as per the directions of this Court, the complainants were contacted on their mobile phones and to know the status about their pension. It was found that the Office Superintendent RCL, Leprosy Cured has informed that the complainants were not the beneficiaries of the RCL. Their pension was stopped by the then District Officer (North-East) with the remark “pension stopped due to doubt case”. After physical verification of the documents of the beneficiaries, further necessary action will be taken.
4. On the date of hearing on 07.05.2018, Ms Aarti Kapoor, District Officer (North East) submitted that the status report would be submitted within a week after physical verification. On the next date of hearing on 08.06.2018, she submitted a letter dated 08.06.2018 of Dy. Director (FAS), as per which the amount released are as under:-
1) Sh. Mukhtiyar Singh Rs.21000/- (a/c base).
2) Sh. Jagdish Rai Rs.23000/- (Aadhaar base)
3) Sh. Dulal Pal Rs.21000/- (a/c base)
She submitted that after verification, the disability pension in respect of Sh. Mukhtar Singh, Sh. Jagdish Rai and Sh. Dulal Pal has been released including the arrears based on her report. The amount will be credited into their accounts within a few days. On a query as to the basis for recording the remark, “stop pension doubt case” by Sh. Tudu Joseph, the then District Officer, she informed that no reason has been mentioned. Smt. Aarti Kapoor also stated that as the accounts of Sh. Mukhtar Singh and Sh. Dulal Pal have not been linked to their Aadhaars, they would not be getting their full pension of Rs. 2,500/-. They have been advised to do the needful so that their full pension can be released.
5. In the light of the above discussion, it is important for Social Welfare Department to put in place clear guidelines for the Inspecting Officers before stopping the pension. The reasons for doing so should be clearly recorded. It should also be uploaded in the website and communicated to the beneficiaries to avoid complaints as also the misuse of the scheme by unscrupulous persons. Sh. Tudu Joseph be advised to inform the District Officer as to the basis of stopping the disability pension of above mentioned three complainants.
6. The complaints are disposed off.
7. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 12th day of June, 2018.
(T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Copy to the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, 6 Sarojini House, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi, w.r.t. letter no. 9636/1024/2018 dated 15.05.2018.
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Satish Prasad Vs. The Director, Deptt. of Education & Anr. | Case No. 236/1024/2018/05/7822-24 | Dated: 13/06/2018
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. 236/1024/2018/05/7822-24 Dated: 13/06/2018
In the matter of:
Shri Satish Prasad,
H.No. 405, Gali No. 19, Main Market,
Sant Nagar Burari, Delhi-110084 ………………..Petitioner
Versus
The Director,
Department of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054 …………..Respondent No. 1
The Principal,
SBV, Timarpur,
Delhi-110054
(School I.D. No. 1207012) …………..Respondent No. 2
O R D E R
Vide his email dated 03/05/2018, Shri Satish Prasad, submitted that he is working as Guest Teacher in Department of Education on contract basis in SBV, Timapur, Delhi-110054. He has not received his salary for the month of March and April, 2018.
2. The complaint was taken up with respondents under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, herein after referred to as the Act, vide notice dated 10/5/2018 with the direction to submit an ATR within 30 days. Simultaneously, the complainant was directed to submit a copy of his disability certificate and letter of appointment as guest teacher within 15 days vide letter dated 10/5/2018.
3. While the complainant did not submit the documents, the respondent No.2 (Principal, SBV, Timarpur) vide letter dated 30/5/2018 submitted that the salary of the complainant for the month of March and April, 2018 had been released on 10/5/2018 and 14/5/2018. The Complainant was also contacted on his mobile no. 9899578489 on 08/6/2018 and he confirmed that the matter has been resolved.
4. In view of the above, the case is closed and disposed off accordingly.
5. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 12th day of June, 2018.
(T. D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
Dr. Nitesh Tripathi Vs. The Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation & 4 Others | Case No. 4/1754/2017/Wel/CD/7806-7810A | Dated: 12.06.2018
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. 4/1754/2017/Wel/CD/7806-7810A Dated: 12.06.2018
In Re:
Dr. Nitesh Tripathi
H.No. 241, Gali No. 11, B-Block,
Sant Nagar, Burari,
Delhi-110084. …………..Complainant
The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Dr. SPM Civic Centre, 4th Floor,
J.L.N. Marg, New Delhi-110002. …….Respondent No.1
Ms. Aman Enterprises (Airtel Store)
100 Feet Main Sant Nagar Road,
Burari, Delhi-110084. ……… Respondent No. 2
The Executive Engineer, PWD,
Bhairon Marg, T-Junction, Ring Road/
Near Pragati Power Station,
New Delhi-110002. …………Respondent No. 3
The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
Bharti Enterprises,
6th Floor, Tower A, Plot No. 16,
Udyog Vihar Industrial Area,
Phase-4, Gurgaon – 122016. .….. Respondent No. 4
The Engineer-In-Chief,
PWD, GNCT of Delhi,
MSO Bldg., I.P. Estate,New Delhi. …..Respondent No.5
Date of Hearing: 08.06.2018
Present: Sh. Y.A. Jafri, AE, Ms. Neelam Arora, Chief Architect on behalf of respondent No.1, Sh. Chetan on behalf of respondent No.2, Sh. Yadvinder Singh EE, C&MD, on behalf of respondent No. 3, Sh. Hitesh Kr. Singh, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 4,
ORDER
The above named complainant, a person with 65% locomotor disability vide his email dated 12.09.2017 submitted that he visited the Airtel Store (Aman Enterprises 100 feet main Sant nagar Road Burari, Delhi) on 15.09.2017 for processing of biometric verification. He got injured due to inaccessible stairs and could not do the verification. He also mentioned that as the store is located in the area that falls under the jurisdiction of North DMC, they should be directed to ensure the accessibility to such a public place. He requested that the Store be directed to make proper arrangement for home visit by deputing an executive for biometric verification of his Aadhar number or make their outlet accessible for persons with disabilities. Vide his another email dated 15.03.2018, complainant also pointed out that he was yet to receive refund of Rs. 3200/- from the respondent.
2. The complaint was taken up with respondent No. 1&2 vide Notice dated 06.10.2017 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as an Act and a hearing was scheduled on 03.01.2018. However, the respondents did not appear and they were directed to submit ATR by 15.01.2018 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 02.02.2018.
3. Executive Engineer (M-I)/CLZ vide his letter dated 24.01.2018 informed that the matter does not pertain to North DMC as all the roads above 60 feet ROW have been transferred to Public Works Department (PWD). Therefore action, if any, is to be taken up by PWD.
4. During the hearing on 02.02.2018, the representative of North DMC also informed that MCD and PWD had jointly removed encroachment from that area and submitted a copy of the photograph of the store. It was expected that the owner of the said store would make arrangement for free access for persons with disabilities.
5. As none appeared to represent M/s Aman Enterprise, the owner/occupier of the store was directed to appear on 13.03.2018. It was also informed that as per Section 46 of the Act, the premises need to be made accessible for persons with disabilities failing which he would run the risk of being punished u/s 89 of the Act for contravention of the provisions of the Act.
6. As the respondent No.2 & 3 did not appear on the next date of hearing on 13.03.2018 also Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharti Enterprise and Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, GNCT of Delhi were impleaded as Respondent No. 4 & 5 vide RoP dated 15.03.2018
7. As the respondent No.2 continued to defy the direction to appear, Proclamation Requiring Attendance was issued on 03.05.2018. Thereafter, the proxy counsel for respondent No. 4 requested for adjournment of the hearing on 07.05.2018 as the father of the learned counsel expired recently.
8. On the next date of hearing on 08.06.2018, representative of North Delhi Municipal Corporation (North DMC) respondent No. 1 submitted that even though they have no role to play, they facilitated installation of portable ramp for persons with disabilities and requested that North DMC may be exempted from further appearance in the hearings, if any.
9. The representative of the respondent No. 2 submitted the photographs of store which shows temporary provision of a ramp to facilitate entry of persons with disabilities to the store. Although the ramp is very steep, yet as per him it shows the bona fide intention of the owner to make it easier for persons with disabilities to use the services.
10. As regards refund on surrendering of dongle by the complainant, Sh. Hitesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 assured that the complainant will be contacted on his email Id and mobile phone and a representative will be deputed to resolve the issue within 10 days. He further submitted that the company is conscious about the needs of persons with disabilities and they are inclusive about it. They are also opening their own stores at various places which are disabled friendly and their other franchisees who are working from the old commercial buildings are as per the approved plan from the concerned authorities. This particular store is working as a franchise on principal to principal basis.
11. The respondent No. 3 who appeared subsequently, submitted that he has recently joined the Department. However, he would do whatever best is possible for easy access of persons with disabilities to Store in question. A copy of the pictures of temporary iron ramp in front of the store installed by respondent No. 2 was handed over to him to do the needful and has been directed to submit an ATR by 06.07.2018.
12. From the above mentioned proceedings of this case, it is observed that except North DMC (respondent No. 3), rest of the respondents have shown less than adequate concern about an important issue of access to public places and services to persons with disabilities. Non-compliance with the repeated requests and directions issued under the Act also indicate their scant regard for the statutory authority created under the Act. This is a matter of concern for the disability sector and persons with disabilities, while the country has come out with one of the most progressive legislations on the rights of persons with disabilities in line with United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the organizations mandated to make public buildings and services accessible to persons with disabilities, continue avoiding the mandate despite the fact that implementation of Section 46 of the Act prescribes a time limit of two years to ensure accessibility by service providers. The said section is reproduced below:
“The service providers whether Government or private shall provide services in accordance with the rules on accessibility formulated by the Central Government under section 40 within a period of two years from the date of notification of such rules:
Provided that the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Commissioner may grant extension of time for providing certain category of services in accordance with the said rules”.
13. It will also be in the fitness of things to mention that Section 89 provides, “any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule made thereunder shall for first contravention be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and for any subsequent contravention with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees”.
14. Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities had notified the guidelines for making built environment accessible for persons with disabilities on 15.06.2017. Therefore the service providers are required to ensure provisions of services in accordance with the said accessibility standards by 15.06.2019. By now, all service providers including respondent No. 2 and 4 should have taken substantial steps so that the services being provided by them can be made accessible by 15.06.2019.
15. In view of the position mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, it is recommended that respondent No. 2 & 4 should ensure that the services they provide in the National Capital Territory of Delhi are accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with the guidelines formulated by the Central Govt.
16. As regards biometric verification of Aadhar number and refund on surrendering of dongle to the complainant, respondent No. 2 & 4 are advised to resolve the matter by 30.06.2018. An action taken report be submitted to this court within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act.
17. The matter is disposed off accordingly.
18. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 12th day of June, 2018.
( T.D. Dhariyal )
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)