Thursday, February 21, 2019

Anup Sagar, Halla Bol Times Vs. Director, Deptt of Social Welfare | Case No. 414/1092/2018/08/947-949 | Dated: 20.02.2019




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
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 414/1092/2018/08/947-949                        Dated: 20.02.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Anup Sagar, Chief Editor,
Halla Bol Times (Complainant)
Ms. Rubi (Victim)
hallaboltimes@gmail.com                                    .……… Complainant     

                                 
                                                    Versus
The Director,
Department of Social Welfare,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.                                            …...…Respondent No.1


The District Social Welfare Officer,
(North East District),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Sanskar Ashram, Dilshad Garden
Delhi-110095.                                                     ........Respondent No. 2
 

Date of Hearing:     19.02.2019

Present:                   None for  Complainant.
Sh. Avinash Chander, Supdt. on behalf of respondent No. 2.
ORDER
           
Sh. Anup Sagar, Chief Editor of Halla Bol Times vide his complaint dated 15.06.2018 addressed to the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities enclosed a copy of a representation dated 12.06.2018 of Ms. Ruby addressed to Hon’ble LG, Delhi. The said representation was received in this Court on 06.08.2018 from the court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 18.07.2018.  In the said representation, it has been mentioned that Ms. Ruby, D/o Mohd. Niyaz Khan R/o H.No. F-7, Mata Vaishnao Colony, Tahirpur, Nandnagri, Delhi is 24 year old and is a student of M.A. She has  42% locomotor disability.  She has further submitted that she was getting the disability pension of Rs. 1000/- per month from the Department of Social Welfare, which has been stopped w.e.f. January, 2013.  She requested that her disability pension should be re-started.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide Notice dated 08.08.2018, reminder dated 19.09.2018 and followed by hearings on 05.12.2018, 29.01.2019 and 19.02.2019.  After the hearings, it transpires that Ms. Ruby was getting disability pension as well as RCL pension and therefore, her disability pension was stopped.  However on 21.11.2019 Sh. Anup Sagar of Halla Bol Times who was contacted on his telephone, stated that the statement of the respondent was factually incorrect as Ms Ruby was not getting RCL pension.   In view of the conflicting statements, Director(SW) and DSWO(North East) were directed to submit the documents in support of the statement that Ms. Ruby has been receiving RCL pension as well as disability pension.  The complainant was also directed to submit by 19.02.2018 the documents in support of his contention that Ms. Ruby did not receive two pensions. It was made clear in the RoP dated 31.01.2019 that if the supporting documents were not received by 19.02.2019, the complaint would be disposed of based on the available record and the matter was listed for hearing on 19.02.2019.

4.      On 19.02.2019, Sh. Avinash Chander, Supdt., DSWO(North East) appeared and submitted a copy of letter dated 13.07.2018 of the Office of Supdt., RCL Tahirpur addressed to the DSWO(North East) intimating that as on 13.07.2018 Ms. Ruby was not an RCL beneficiary.  This does not clarify whether Ms. Ruby was in receipt of two pensions i.e. RCL and disability pension. He also made a written submission that if recovery amount of Rs. 85,500/- as raised by the then DSWO(NE) vide letter dated 22.09.2016 is deposited by Ms. Ruby, D/o Mohd Niyaz Khan then her disability pension would be re-started. 

5.      As Sh. Anup Sagar was not present, the Ms. Ruby  was contacted on her given telephone which was attended by her father Mohd. Niyaz Khan, who stated that Ms. Ruby indeed was getting RCL pension as well as disability pension.   He further stated that the pension  Ms. Ruby received has already been spent on her education, etc.  and therefore it is not possible for them to refund Rs. 85,500/-.  He stated that Ms. Ruby was eligible for one of the two pensions from the period the pension was stopped.  Since she has not been getting any pension for the last 6 years her disability pension should be started without recovery. 

6.      The parties have not submitted any rules / guidelines as to how the cases of this nature are to be dealt. Mohd. Niyaz Khan, father of Ms. Ruby has therefore been advised to make a representation to Director (Social Welfare) for consideration of his request as per the relevant rules / guidelines.

8.      The complaint is disposed of.

9.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 20th  day of February, 2019.     


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

             



Shyam Lal Vs. Director, Deptt of Social Welfare | Case No. 718/1092/2019/02/942-944 | Dated:20.02.2019




In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundri Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi.
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 718/1092/2019/02/942-944                       Dated:20.02.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Shyam Lal,
H.No.31, Chandu Park,   
Chandan Nagar, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi – 110051.                                                       .............. Complainant
                                               
Versus
The Director,
Department of Social Welfare,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.                                 ….…...…Respondent  No.1

The District Social Welfare Officer,
(East District)
GNCT of Delhi,     
Block No.10, Geeta Colony, 
Delhi-110031.                                                  ……...…Respondent No.2

Date of Order: 19.02.2019

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with above 40% cerebral palsy vide his email dated 23.01.2019 submitted that he applied for disability pension but even after visiting the office of Social Welfare East District, Geeta Colony more than 15 times he has not been sanctioned the pension.  He alleged that he is wandering from pillar to post and there is no one to listen to him. 
2.       The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide show cause-cum-hearing notice dated 05.02.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ and a hearing was scheduled on 19.02.2019.
3.       Another case no. 648/1092/2018/12 in which the District Social Welfare Officer (East) was a respondent, was listed for hearing on 18.02.2019. Sh. Ahsan Zafar, Welfare Officer, office of Social Welfare (East District) appeared in that case.  In order to avoid another hearing on 19.02.2019 in this case, he was advised to intimate the status of the pension case of Sh. Shyam Lal before closing hours of 18.02.2019.
4.       Sh. Ahsan Zafar, District Social Welfare Officer (East) vide his email dated 19.02.2019 has informed that on scrutiny of the application of Sh. Shyam Lal, it has been found that he has not properly uploaded all the required documents namely, 5 years resident proof of Delhi, Adhaar Card, Income declaration, Bank passbook etc.  The complainant was telephonically informed on 15.02.2019 to submit the documents.  The said documents had not been submitted till 18.02.2019.
5.       This Court also informed the wife of complainant on the given telephone number that someone should visit the Office of DSW (East) and meet Sh. Ahsan Zafar, Welfare Officer alongwith the original and photocopies of the documents on 19.02.2019.  She was also told to contact this court on telephone No. 23216001-2 in case of any difficulty.
6.       On 19.02.2019 when Sh. Shyam Lal was contacted on his telephone, his wife informed that the legible copy of disability certificate was sent to the East District, Social Welfare Office and the same has been uploaded.  Sh. Ahsan Zafar, who was also contacted on telephone confirmed receipt of the document and informed that the disability pension will be sanctioned by 20.02.2019 and will be online transmitted to FAS Branch.
7.       In light of the above action, the complaint is disposed of with the recommendation that the disability pension of the complainant be released alongwith arrears to his bank account by 31.03.2019.  An action taken report be submitted to this Court as required under Section 81 of the Act.
8.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 20th day of February, 2019. 




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




Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Ajit Kumar & 8 others Vs. DSSSB | F.No.717/1014/2019/02/929-930 | Dated: 19.02.2019




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]


F.No.717/1014/2019/02/929-930                    Dated: 19.02.2019

In the matter of:

1.        Sh. Ajit Kumar (ajitkumar.kumar1989@gmail.com),
2.        Ms. Sujata,
3.        Sh. Vivek,
4.        Ms. Geeta,
5.        Sh. Nitin Kumar,
6.        Sh. Vinod Kumar,
7.        Sh. Parveen Kumar,
8.        Sh. Mahesh Kumar, and
9.        Sh. Munazza.                                                     ……Complainants

Versus

The Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
F-18, Institutional Area
Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092.                                                              ..…Respondent
         

ORDER

The above named complainants, Sh. Ajit Kumar and 08 others personally appeared on 04.02.2019 and submitted a representation stating that DSSSB vide Notice no. 760 dated 01.02.2019 have published the cut off marks for uploading e-dossiers.  As per para 4 of the said notice, 93 vacancies have been shown for PH (OH), whereas SDMC vide their letter no. D/ADE/Admn./ Edu./HQ/SDMC/2018/1435 dated 14.09.2018 had informed DSSSB that 133 vacancies were reserved for PH (OH).  The said letter was also referred to in para 13 of the common order dated 09.10.2018 in case no. 44/1011/2017/11 & six other cases. 

2.       The complainants requested that e-dossiers of PH (OH) be called for 133 vacancies for the post of Teacher (Primary) instead of 93 and cut off marks be determined accordingly.

3.       Secretary, DSSSB was requested to give an audience to Sh. Ajit Kumar & others and do the needful under intimation to this Court before 14.02.2019.

4.       Secretary, DSSSB vide letter No. 2(164)/P&P/DSSSB/2017/ 1186/1077 dated 12.02.2019 has informed that 40 unfilled vacancies of post code 70/09 has been added to the post code 01/18 and accordingly the vacancies of OH category have now been increased to 133 (93+40) and a corrigendum dated 11.02.2019 has also been issued. 

5.       In light of prompt action by Secretary, DSSSB, the matter is disposed off and closed.

6.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19th day of February, 2019.
  

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



Nazmuddin Vs. Director, Deptt of Social Welfare | Case No. 687/1092/2019/01/923-928 | Dated: 19.02.2019



In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundri Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi.
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. 687/1092/2019/01/923-928                          Dated: 19.02.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Nazmuddin,
H.No. C 118, Gali No.3,   
Mulla Colony, Gharoli Extn.,
Delhi – 110051.                                                     ................ Complainant
                                          
Versus
The Director,
Department of Social Welfare,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.                                            ……...…Respondent  No.1

The District Social Welfare Officer,
 (East District)
GNCT of Delhi,         
Block No.10, Geeta Colony, 
Delhi-110031.                                                   ……...…Respondent  No.2

Case No. 715/1092/2019/01/                                     

In the matter of:

Ms. Babita,
H.No. 4, Rashid Market,
Balmiki Basti, Ganesh Park,
Krishna Nagar,
Delhi – 110051.                                                      ................ Complainant
                                          

Versus
The Director,
Department of Social Welfare,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.                                            ……...…Respondent  No.1

The District Social Welfare Officer,
 (East District)
GNCT of Delhi,         
Block No.10, Geeta Colony, 
Delhi-110031.                                                   ……...…Respondent  No.2


ORDER

          The above named complainants, persons with 84% locomotor disability and blindness respectively vide their complaints received in this court on 23.01.2019 and 21.01.2019 respectively alleged that they applied for disability pension in District Social Welfare Office (East) vide Registration ID No. 26040000011779 on 23.05.2018 and Registration ID No. 2604000009735 on 24.03.2018 respectively but the pension has not been sanctioned.  They also alleged that they visited the DSO(East) office many times but the behaviour of the staff was rude.

2.       The complaints were taken up with the Department of Social Welfare and District Social Welfare Officer (East) under the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, vide Show Cause cum Hearing Notices dated 01.02.2019 and 04.02.2019 respectively with the direction to submit Action Taken Report on the complaints and hearing was scheduled for 19.02.2019 in both the cases.

3.       Sh. Ahsan Zafar, Welfare Officer, District Social Welfare Office (East) appeared in case No. 648/1092/2018/12 on 18.02.2019.  He was advised to intimate the status of these cases to avoid another hearing scheduled on 19.02.2019.

4.       Vide e-mail dated 18.02.2019, District Social Welfare Officer (East)  has informed that on scrutiny of the application of Sh. Nazmuddin, it was found that he has not properly uploaded the mandatory documents namely, Bank Passbook and Voter ID. The complainant was also telephonically informed about this.  After the complaint submits the documents, the case was sanctioned by the DSWO (East) and sent to FAS Branch of Social Welfare Department for remittance of payment.

5.       As regards Ms. Babita, DSWO (East) vide e-mail dated 18.02.2019 has informed that pension has been sanctioned on 13.02.2019 and sent to FAS Branch of Social Welfare Department for remittance of payment.

6.       In light of the above, the complaints are disposed of, with the recommendation that the disability pension of the complainants be sanctioned and released alongwith arrears to their accounts by the concerned authorities namely, the District Social Welfare Officer (East) and FAS Branch of Social Welfare Department by 31.03.2019.

7.         Action taken in the matter be intimated to this court as required under Section 81 of the Act.

8.       The complaints are disposed of.

9.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19th day of February, 2019.


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




Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Vipin Kumar & Mahinder Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr | Case No. 604/1146/2018/11/891-894 | Dated:18.02.2019




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]


1.    Case No. 604/1146/2018/11/891-894                                        Dated:18.02.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Vipin Kumar
A-91, Gali No. 2, Phase-IV,
Gautam Vihar, Shiv Vihar,
Delhi-110094.                                                      .............. Complainant

2.    Case No. 607/1146/2018/11

In the matter of:

Sh. Mahinder Singh
H-93, Mangolpuri,
Delhi-110083.                                                         ..………Complainant

Versus

The Managing Director,
Delhi Transport Corporation
Office at DTC HQ, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.                                      …...…Respondent (1)

The Secretary
Directorate of Employment (HQ)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
IARI Complex, Pusa,
New Delhi-110012.                                    ………Respondent (2)

Date of Hearing    14.02.2019

Present:      Sh. Vipin Kumar and Sh. Mahinder Singh, Complainants in person.
Sh. Chander Prakash, Dy. CGM (Pers)-I for Respondent no. 1.
Sh. Pawan Kumar, SREO (DC) alongwith Smt. Anuradha Mittal, DEO for Respondent no. 2.

ORDER
The above named complainants, Sh. Vipin Kumar (59% locomotor disability) and Sh. Mahender (68% locomotor disability) vide their complaints dated 14.11.2018 submitted that their names were forwarded by Directorate of Employment for the post of Conductor in DTC under the category of Ph candidates for which the interview was scheduled on 09.08.2018.  They were also given second opportunity for interview on 02.11.2018.  They had valid registration numbers with the Directorate of Employment and as per the list forwarded by the Directorate of Employment, their names appeared in the list of candidates with disabilities.  However, when they reported for interview on 02.11.2018, they were informed that their names were not in the list of candidates with disabilities. 
2.       The complaints were taken up with the respondent under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ vide notice dated 05.12.2018 followed by reminder dated 08.01.2019.  Deputy Manager (PER) DTC vide reply dated 03.01.2019 submitted as under :
“Sir,
               Kindly refer to your office letter No. 604/1146/2018/11/12665 dated 5.12.2018 along with complaint of Shri Vipin Kumar and Shri Mahinder Singh for the post of conductor in DTC and asked for Action Taken Report on the complaint.   
     
     In this context, it is informed that Delhi Transport Corporation has given requisition of 2000 vacancies for the post of Conductor on short term contract in 2010 and 2017 through on line process to the Directorate of Employment. The Directorate of Employment, GNCTD provided the lists of candidates with registration ID numbers for the post of Conductor on short term contract through on line process. The work of registration/category/allotment of registration ID number with details  of candidate  is exclusive the subject matter of Employment Exchange/Directorate of Employment and the Corporation is considering the candidates sponsored by the Directorate of Employment in order of registration ID Numbers under said category   for the post of Conductor on short term contract.  As per Govt. Instructions, there is no reservation in contractual engagement.

        In the cases of Shri Vipin Kumar Regd. ID No.2009178450) and Shri Mahinder Singh (Regd. ID No.2009459241) were shown in the category of S/Caste in the list supplied by the Directorate of Employment, GNCTD and as such, they appeared for screening of documents on 2.11.18 and 23.8.18 and the Screening Committee found them eligible for the post of conductor on short term contract. As per laid down procedure, they were directed for medical examination as per prescribed medical standards for the said post and they were found Unfit for the post of Conductor by DTC Medical Board.  Photo-copies of the Screening Committee and medical examination reports of both complainants are sent herewith for kind perusal.

               From the above, it appeared that there is no lapse on the part of this Corporation. However, in the fresh list supplied by Directorate of Employment, their names have appeared in PH category also.  DTC is now sending a fresh requisition to Directorate of Employment regarding filling up the post of Conductors on short term contract under PH quota.  After received the updated list from Directorate of Employment, DTC will re-process the case of Shri Vipin Kumara and Shri  Mahinder Singh.      
                                                                                                       Yours  faithfully,
Encl:- As above                                                                   
( M.S.Kataria )
Dy. Manager (Pers.)”
3.       As per the reply dated 04.01.2019 of Directorate of Employment, the employment ID 2009178450 and 2009459241 pertain to Sh. Vipin Kumar and Sh. Mahender Singh.  Their names were sponsored against the vacancy ID 2017001090 for the post of DTC Bus Conductor.  The names of Sh. Vipin Kumar appeared at serial no. 139 in PH category and at serial no. 2361 in SC category in the list sent on 07.12.2017 and at serial no. 134 in PH category and at serial no. 7232 in SC category in the list sent on 22.10.2018.  The name of Sh. Mahender Singh appeared at serial no. 154 in ph category and at serial no. 5885 in SC category in the list sent on 07.12.2017 and at serial no. 230 in PH category and at serial no. 20012 in SC category in the list of 22.10.2018. The Department does not play any role in the recruitment/ call letters/ interview process for the employers.  
4.       Upon considering the submissions of the parties, a hearing was scheduled on 14.02.2019.
5.       During the hearing, the parties reiterated their written submissions.  Sh. Chander Prakash, Dy. CGM (PER)-I added that the names of the complainants were checked in the computer screen and print outs were taken which did not show their names in the list of ph category.  They even sent an email on 19.11.2018 to Directorate of Employment that their names appeared in SC list but not in the list of ph category.  He also informed that about 33 vacancies of Conductor on contract basis under PH quota are yet to be filled.  Due to some technical issues in the portal of Department of Employment, they are not able to place requisition for list of PH candidates.  As soon as the list is available, the process of recruitment would start.  He however, expressed the reservation on the applicability of reservation for persons with disabilities in contractual appointments.
6.       Sh. Pawan Kumar, SREO stated that the data in the list might have been changed at the end of DTC probably in downloading the file.  At their end, they were able to see the names of the complainants in the list of ph candidates. 
7.       The complainants deposed and clarified during the hearing that they were not approached by any person for any extraneous consideration.  Therefore, from the submissions of the parties and the discussion during the hearing, it appears that the names of the complainants did not show in list of PH candidates due to some technical error.  Since the vacancies were reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities, had the complainant’s names appeared in the list of candidates with benchmark disabilities for the post of Conductor on contract basis, they would have been selected and appointed as both the complainants have valid conductor license, first aid certificate and requisite educational qualification.  However, due to the error in the process of transmission of data, downloading it, they got deprived of the appointment. 
8.       In the context of the submissions on behalf of DTC, it is in the fitness of things to refer to the provision under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which came into force on 19 April 2017.  The said provision is reproduced below:
34.   Reservation.—(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:—
(a) blindness and low vision;
(b) deaf and hard of hearing;
(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:
Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time:
Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section.
(2)       Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability:
Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government. 17
(3)       The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit.”
9.       Prior to coming into effect of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 was in force.  Section 33 of that Act had a similar provision except that the quantum of reservation was 3% instead of 4%.  Neither Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 nor Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 distinguished between an appointment on regular, long term, short term, contract, ad-hoc etc. basis.   Reservation is to be provided against the vacancies that are filled.  As per OM no. 27/4/67/(II) and Estt./(SCT) dated 24.09.1968 of Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, reservation orders should apply to all temporary employments which are to last for 45 days or more.  Accordingly, with effect from the date of issue of the said OM, reservation for SCs and STs was instructed to be made in all temporary appointments except appointments which are to last less than 45 days.  In 1968, neither the above mentioned socially beneficial Acts existed nor was there any provision for reservation of vacancies for persons with disabilities. The p urpose of providing for reservation is to ensure that persons with disabilities are given their share in whatever type of employment is available for the citizens of the country.  Considering the purpose and spirit of enacting the said socially beneficial Act, there can be no reason why a principle applicable to candidates belonging to SC and ST category on the same issue, should not apply to persons with disabilities who are in a more disadvantageous position and in case of the complainants, they are doubly disadvantaged as they also belong to SC category.  The purpose of making a provision for reservation for persons with disabilities must therefore be understood in the right perspective which is to economically empower them and to ensure them a dignified life.  Reservation of vacancies in appointments and employment is one of the means to fulfil these objectives. 
10.     In view of the above discussion, I recommend that DTC should consider the complainants and other eligible candidates with benchmark disabilities for whom the post of Conductor has been identified against the reserved vacancies of conductor including on contract basis in accordance with the provisions of the Act as expeditiously as possible particularly because, but for the technical/human error, they would have been appointed in November, 2018 itself.  Any further delay in their appointment shall deprive them of their legitimate right which must be avoided at all costs.
11.     Action taken on the above recommendation be intimated to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.
12.     The complaints are disposed off.
13.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 18th February, 2019.
     



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