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, 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
Saturday, June 9, 2018
Pradeep Kumar Vs. The Chairman, DSSSB | Case No. 155/1041/2018/03/7739-40 | Dated: 08.06.2018
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. 155/1041/2018/03/7739-40 Dated: 08.06.2018
In the matter of:
Sh. Pradeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Zile Singh
R/o 1569 Near Brahman Chopal
Pna Mamur Pur, Narela
Delhi-110040. .……Applicant
Versus
The Chairman
Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
F-18, Institutional Area
Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092. ...…Respondent
Date of Hearing: 07.06.2018
Present: Sh. Pradeep Kumar, applicant in person.
Sh. LR Garg, Member DSSSB on behalf of respondent.
ORDER
The above named complainant, a person with 90% Locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 06.03.2018 submitted that DSSSB conducted the (Tier-I) examination for the post of Administrative Officer/Z.R.O. in Delhi Jal Board on 31.05.2015 after a gap of three years from the closing date of applications. The result of Tier-I examination was declared on 28.07.2016. But Tier-II examination had not been held. He therefore submitted that the examination process should be completed within six months.
2. The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 13.03.2018 followed by a reminder dated 17.04.2018 and a hearing was held on 07.06.2018.
3. During the hearing on 07.06.2018, the representative of the respondent submitted a report dated 06.06.2018 as per which the Tier-II examination for the post code 67/12 has already been conducted on 03.06.2018. The complainant was issued an admit card and was also present in the examination. There was however, no discrimination against the complainant.
4. The complainant confirmed that he has appeared in the Tier-II examination on 03.06.2018. He further stated that as Tier-II examination was not being held for long, he filed this complaint. However, as the examination has already been held, he has no further grievance in this regard. In light of this, the complaint is disposed of.
5. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 08th day of June, 2018.
(T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Ms. Harjeet Gambhir Vs. DCP Shahdra | Case No. 4/1699/2017-WEL/CD/ 7736-38 | Dated: 08.06.2018
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,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
Case No. 4/1699/2017-WEL/CD/ 7736-38 Dated: 08.06.2018
In the matter of:
Ms. Harjeet Gambhir,
125, Pratap Khand, Vishwakarma Nagar,
Jhilmil, Shahdara,
Delhi – 110 095. ……….Complainant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Shahdara.
Delhi – 110 032. …………Respondent
ORDER
The above named complainant vide her complaint dated nil, presented before the State Commissioner on 21.08.2017, submitted that her husband expired and her only son, Aman Gambhir is a person with 40-70% mental illness (Schizophrenia). Her neighbour, Sh. Ram Kishore and his family members residing at 123, Pratap Khand harass her son and also sometimes beat him up. She also submitted that the said persons have also threatened to kill Aman. Her son was too scared even to come out of the house. She further submitted that she had also filed a complaint earlier and she wants that her above mentioned neighbour and his family members do not harass them.
2. The complaint was taken up with the respondent under the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, vide notice dated 31.08.2017 bringing to the notice of the respondent the provisions under Sections 6, 7 and 89 to 92 of the Act.
3. The respondent vide letter dated 3.10.2017 submitted as under:
“ an enquiry into the matter was got conducted through ACP/Vivek Vihar. During enquiry, the statement of the complainant was recorded wherein she stated that her neighbour Ram Verma and his sons and daughter Rahul, Rohit and Anjali along with his wife Meena Verma used to threaten her son Aman and abused him. Further she is wiling to keep them aside and do not want their interference.
During further enquiry, Ram Kishore and his family members were enquired wherein they stated that we are neighbours of Ms. Harjeet Gambhir whose only son Aman is mentally challenged and used to trouble them and in the same pretext his mother also trouble them. She used to through the garbage in front of their house and disturb their sons and daughter. Also, other neighbours of complainant, Naseem Ahmed and Parvez Khan stated that the same matter as stated by Ram Kishore Verma and his family members. It is a dispute between both the neighbours and no cognizable offence is found to have occurred. There is a possibility of breach of peace, preventive action vide DD No. 29 A dated 25.09.17 PS Vivek Vihar 107/50 Cr.PC is initiated made against both the parties”
4. The complainant was contacted on telephone and informed about the contents of the report submitted by the respondent. She informed that the situation has improved. She however, submitted that she and her son should be provided necessary support by the police as and when required.
5. It is reiterated that Section 6 of the Act inter-alia provides that the appropriate government shall take measures to protect persons with disabilities from being subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Section 7 of the said Act details specific measures for protecting from abuse, violence and exploitation and the action to be taken by a police officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of any abuse, voidance or exploitation. The said Section is reproduced below:-
“7. (1) The appropriate Government shall take measures to protect persons with disabilities from all forms of abuse, violence and exploitation and to prevent the same, shall—
(a) take cognizance of incidents of abuse, violence and exploitation and provide legal remedies available against such incidents;
(b) take steps for avoiding such incidents and prescribe the procedure for its reporting;
(c) take steps to rescue, protect and rehabilitate victims of such incidents; and
(d) create awareness and make available information among the public.
(2) Any person or registered organisation who or which has reason to believe that an act of abuse, violence or exploitation has been, or is being, or is likely to be committed against any person with disability, may give information about it to the Executive Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such incidents occur.
(3) The Executive Magistrate on receipt of such information, shall take immediate steps to stop or prevent its occurrence, as the case may be, or pass such order as he deems fit for the protection of such person with disability including an order—
(a) to rescue the victim of such act, authorising the police or any organisation working for persons with disabilities to provide for the safe custody or rehabilitation of such person, or both, as the case may be;
(b) for providing protective custody to the person with disability, if such person so desires;
(c) to provide maintenance to such person with disability.
(4) Any police officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability shall inform the aggrieved person of—
(a) his or her right to apply for protection under sub-section (2) and the particulars of the Executive Magistrate having jurisdiction to provide assistance;
(b) the particulars of the nearest organisation or institution working for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;
(c) the right to free legal aid; and
(d) the right to file a complaint under the provisions of this Act or any other law dealing with such offence:
Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed in any manner as to relieve the police officer from his duty to proceed in accordance with law upon receipt of information as to the commission of a cognizable offence.
(5) If the Executive Magistrate finds that the alleged act or behaviour constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code, or under any other law for the time being in force, he may forward the complaint to that effect to the Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction in the matter.”
6. The Act also provides for offences and penalties and the relevant Sections are also reproduced below:-
“89. 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.
92. Whoever,—
(a) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view;
(b) assaults or uses force to any person with disability with intent to dishonour him or outrage the modesty of a woman with disability;
(c) having the actual charge or control over a person with disability voluntarily or knowingly denies food or fluids to him or her;
(d) being in a position to dominate the will of a child or woman with disability and uses that position to exploit her sexually;
(e) voluntarily injures, damages or interferes with the use of any limb or sense or any supporting device of a person with disability;
(f) performs, conducts or directs any medical procedure to be performed on a woman with disability which leads to or is likely to lead to termination of pregnancy without her express consent except in cases where medical procedure for termination of pregnancy is done in severe cases disability and with the opinion of a registered medical practitioner and also with the consent of the guardian of the woman with disability,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.”
7. Office of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide Circular No. 28/2017 dated 25.10.2017 has also brought to the notice of all concerned in Delhi Police the provisions of the Act relating to the duties of police officers and the provision for offences and punishments for contravention/violation of any provision of the Act and has directed all the DCsP to take necessary action to make all the I.O.s aware of the provisions of the Act and to ensure its effective implementation.
8. In light of the provisions of the Act and the situation of the complainant and her son, the respondent is advised to ensure that Sh. Aman Gambhir is not harassed/threatened/teased by any person and his rights are not infringed. It is also recommended to organise awareness and sensitisation programmes among the members of civil society, if necessary, in consultation with the Social Welfare Department/District Social Welfare Officer concerned, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
9. The complainant may contact the concerned Police Station for assistance as and when required, who are expected to take appropriate measures to ensure that atrocities are not inflicted by anyone on Sh. Aman Gambhir and his rights are not infringed.
10. The complaint is disposed off.
11. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 08th day of June, 2018.
(T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Copy to :
The Secretary (Social Welfare), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate, New Delhi – 110002, for extending necessary support in organizing awareness and sensitization programmes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)