Thursday, December 16, 2021

M.L. Tiwari Vs. The DCP South West District & Anr. | Case No. 3020/1062/2021/08/3462-64 | Dated:16-12-21

In the court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-02
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 3020/1062/2021/08/3462-64             Dated:16-12-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. M.L. Tiwari (Principal),
Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School,
KG-I/II, Vikas Puri, 
New Delhi-110018.
 (E-mail: vikaspuri16180185@gmail.com             ………Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
South West District,
Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-110070                  ………..Respondent No.1

The Director,
EMARRET RESOURCES Pvt. Ltd.,
B-120, Sewak Park, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059. ………Respondent No.2

Date of Hearing : 16.12.2021

Present: Sh. M.L. Tiwari, Principal, Complainant

Sh. Mahavir Kaushik, Advocate and Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, W/o Sh. J.B. Singh, on behalf of the respondent No. 2 

None for respondent No.1

ORDER

      Sh. M.L. Tiwari, a person with 100% visual impairment vide his e-mail dated 30.07.2021 & 06.08.2021  alleged that Sh. Jang Bahadur Singh, Director of Emarret Resources Private Ltd.  had taken a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs) on the pretext  of  providing a 100 gaj flat at B-1/34 (upper ground), Sewak Park Delhi.  He had made the above payment to Sh. Jang Bahadur Singh in installments from his wife Mrs. Namita Tiwari’s account.  He further stated that Sh. Jang Bahadur Singh had also got him to sign the Agreement To Sale And Purchase (Bayana Agreement)  for  Rs. 35 Lacs instead of Rs. 32 Lacs (the actual cost informed earlier) in a deceitful manner.  Now after payment the dealer is making different excuses and trying to exploit him being visually impaired.  He is under deep mental stress and wants his money returned with interest.  He also approached Economic Offence Wing, Delhi Police in this regard but no action was taken till date.  Therefore, he prayed this Court for seeking relief.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondents vide letter dated 13.08.2021 followed by reminders dated 07.10.2021 and 29.11.2021 for submission of their comments.  However, no reply was received from respondents till date.  

3. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 16.12.2021, which was attended by Sh. M.L. Tiwari, complainant and Sh. Mahavir Kaushik, Advocate and Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, W/o Sh. J.B. Singh  for respondent No.2.   None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1.

4. Complainant reiterated his written submissions and inter-alia added that he was in great mental agony due to financial loss he invested his well earned money in the said property. 

5. Representatives appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that the company EMARRET RESOURCES Pvt. Ltd has faced great financial loss and due to that the said property deal could not be finalised. 

6. Section 6 & 7 of the Act  mandates the appropriate Government to take measures to protect persons with disabilities from being subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and  from all forms  of abuse, violence and exploitation and to prevent the same.  The concerned Executive Magistrate and the other Police Officers are required to take various measures to ensure protection of persons with disabilities from any abuse, violence and exploitation.   

7. After due deliberations and discussion with the complainant and respondent, the Court recommends as under:

(i) Court has taken serious view about the absence of Respondent No. 1 during the hearing after being summoned.  However taking a lenient view no fine is being imposed this time. 

(ii) Complainant & Respondent No. 2 need to sit together and sort out the exact amount to be repaid to the complainant within next 10 days i.e. 26th December’2021 and confirm the same to this Office.

(iii) Respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to settle the dispute in connnivance with the complainant and return the due amount  as settled as per Para (ii) above to the complainant  by 26th of January 2022 with applicable interest @ 6% per annum.

(iv) Respondent No. 1 is also directed to ensure that the complainant is not harassed, abused, or discriminated by any person in any manner and his rights are not infringed as per Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 

8. Accordingly, the case is disposed of. 

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 16th day of December, 2021.      


(Ranjan Mukherjee )
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities







Thursday, December 9, 2021

Sachin Gupta Vs. The Director Directorate of Education & Anr | Case No. 2256/1031/2021/07/3363-65 | Dated: 09-12-2021

  In the court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-02
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2256/1031/2021/07/3363-65 Dated: 09-12-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Sachin Gupta,
E-15/26-27, Sector-8, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.             ………Complainant
Email: sachin_aman@yahoo.com, wmirza47@gmail.com

Versus

The Director
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.     ………..Respondent No.1

Email: diredu@nic.in
The Principal/HOS
Maxfort School, Parwana Road,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
Email:info@maxfortpitampura.com             .........Respondent No.2

Date of Hearing : 08.12.2021

Present: Sh. Sachin Gupta, Complainant.
Sh.  Rahul Dev, Legal Assistant appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1
Sh. Manish Hasija, Accounts Manager & Sh. Manoj Ahuja, Office Incharge appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

ORDER

      The complainant, Sh. Sachin Gupta, F/o the child Ms. Hridyanshi Gupta, a  person with 73% multiple disability has filed a complaint dated 29.06.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act and alleged that his daughter, Ms. Hridyanshi Gupta, Registration No. 20210023186, aged 07 years, was allotted Maxfort School, Parwana Road, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 for admission in Cass-1st under EWS/DG category for academic session 2020-21 through computerized draw of lots system conducted by Directorate of Education.  In spite of her daughter’s selection, the school has yet to admit her and unnecessarily delaying the matter on one and other pretext.  Thus, he requested to take appropriate action to resolve his grievance.

2. The matter was taken up with the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 08.07.2021, followed by reminder dated 26.08.2021.  However, no reply was received from the respondent till date.  

3. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 08.12.2021.  

During the hearing,  Sh. Sachin Gupta, Complainant was present. Sh.  Rahul Dev, Legal Assistant appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sh. Manish Hasija, Accounts Manager & Sh. Manoj Ahuja, Office Incharge appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

4. Complainant inter-alia added that the School Authorities has not started admission of EWS/DG category in spite of the directives passed by the Govt. to complete the admission process at the earliest.

5. Representatives of Respondent No. 2 submitted that Ms. Hridyanshi Gupta was allotted  S.No. 59 for admission and as per Directorate of Education’s Circular No. DE.15(22)/PSB/2021-22/1897-1904 Dated 15.06.2021  school has to give admission to the selected candidates in order of the Serial Number allotted to the candidate through computerized draw of lots as available on the online module. 

6. Representative of the respondent No. 1 submitted that as per computerized lottery result of Maxfort School for the category of children with special needs for the academic session 2021-22,  out of  five total allotted seats, only one child is admitted, one has not reported and remaining three seats are in waiting. He further added that necessary directions have already been given to all the Private Unaided Recognized Schools of Delhi to implement the inclusive education in line with the provisions of the RPwD Act.

 7. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 31 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates “Free education for children with benchmark disabilities -Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009), every child with benchmark disability between the age of six to eighteen years shall have the right to free education in a neighbourhood school, or in a special school, of  his choice”.  And Section 16 of the RPwD Act, 2016 also  provides  that  the  appropriate Government and the local authorities shall endeavour that all educational institutions funded or recognized by them provide inclusive education to the children with disabilities, hence to achieve this, all educational institutions are required to comply & act as per provisions of section 16 of said Act in letter and spirit.

8. After due deliberations and discussion, the Court recommends as under:

(i) Court has taken serious view about the absence of Head of School, Maxfort School during the hearing after being summoned.  However taking a lenient view no fine is being imposed this time. 

(ii) Reason given by respondent No. 2 for not admitting Ms. Hridyanshi Gupta as per old directives of Directorate of Education is not tenable.  However, as per latest directives and keeping in view the inclusive education norms for Children with Special Needs, the school is bound to admit Ms. Hridyanshi Gupta daughter of Sh. Sachin Gupta.  Thus, Court directs respondent No. 2 to confirm admission to Ms. Hridyanshi Gupta within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order failing which necessary steps as per provisions of the law would be taken by the Directorate of Education. 

9. Accordingly, the case is disposed of. 

10. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 08th day of December 2021.      


(Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Wednesday, December 8, 2021

Sachin Kumar Vs. The Director, Directorate of Education | Case No. 1911/1024/2020/08/3350-52 | Dated:08-12-21

 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, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1911/1024/2020/08/3350-52                                       Dated:08-12-21

 
In the matter of:

Sh. Sachin Kumar, 
(E-mail:- kumarsachin0601@gmail.com)          …… Complainant

Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
(E-mail:- diredu@gmail.com)     ....Respondent No. 1

The Principal/HoS,
Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School,
Sunder Nagri, North-East, Delhi-110093 ....Respondent No. 2

Date of Hearing: 08.12.2021

Present:
Sh. Sachin Kumar, Complainant
Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Assistant on behalf of Respondent No. 1
Sh. Babu Ram, Head of School, Respondent No. 2

ORDER

The above named complainant, Sh. Sachin Kumar, a person with 48% locomotor disability vide e-mail dated 31.07.2020 submitted that he was working as Guest Teacher till 08.06.2020 in Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Sunder Nagri, Delhi-110093. He further mentioned about a circular dated 13.07.2020 of DoE according to which he should have got further engagement as Guest Teacher in the school. Head of School had not appointed him but appointed to a person junior to him, due to his personal intention. He is not able to support his family financially and requested for help. 

2. The matter was taken up with Director, Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 26.08.2020 followed by a number of reminders. However, no Action Taken Report was received and a hearing was scheduled on 08.12.2021.

3. During the hearing, complainant reiterated his submissions. Respondent No. 2 submitted the Action Taken Report dated 03.12.2021 vide which it was informed that the complainant was working as TGT Math as Guest Teacher. His tenure for engagement was expired on 08.05.2020 due to completion of academic year.

4. It was further submitted that in pursuance of circular dated 13.07.2020, mentioned by the complainant, he had not submitted willingness for online teaching learning activities. The request of the complainant for unlocking his ID was forwarded to concerned Branch for further engagement. 

5. It was also informed that the complainant is presently working in GBSS (School ID– 1106263), Block GH, Old Seemapuri w.e.f. 16.01.2021.

6. The representative of respondent No. 1 submitted that when the complainant is already engaged as Guest Teacher in GBSS, Block GH, Old Seemapuri, his claim for appointment in GBSSS, Sunder Nagri is not justified.

7. After going through the submissions of the complainant and respondents, and taking into account that the complainant is appointed in another school, the case is closed and disposed of. 

8. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 08th day of December, 2021. 


    

       (Ranjan Mukherjee)

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Suo Motu Vs. The Pr. Secretary, General Admin Department, Delhi | Case No. 3007/1015/2021/08/3220 | Dated: 23-11-2021

 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-110002
Phone: 011-23216003-04, 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. 3007/1015/2021/08/3220                       Dated: 23-11-21

In the matter of:

Suo-motu                                       ……..Complainant

Versus

The Pr. Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
Delhi-110002                          ……..Respondent

ORDER

As per Section 21 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (The Act), “(i) Every establishment shall notify equal opportunity policy detailing measures proposed to be taken by it in pursuance of the provisions of this Chapter in the manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) Every establishment shall register a copy of the said policy with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be.”

2. Rule 8 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017(RPwD Rules) & Rule 12 of the Delhi Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018(Delhi RPwD Rules), provide as under:

 “Manner of publication of equal opportunity policy.- 

(1) Every establishment shall publish equal opportunity policy for persons with disabilities within a period of six months from the notification of these rules.  

(2) The establishment shall display the equal opportunity policy preferably on their website, failing which, at conspicuous places in their premises. 

(3)  The equal opportunity policy of a private establishment having twenty or more employees and the Government establishments shall inter alia, contain the following, namely:- 

(a) Facilities and amenities to be provided to the persons with disabilities to enable them to effectively discharge their duties in the establishment; 

(b) list of posts identified suitable for persons with disabilities in the establishment;  

(c) the manner of selection of persons with disabilities for various posts, post-recruitment and pre-promotion training,  preference in transfer and posting, special leave, preference in allotment of residential accommodation if any, and other facilities; 

(d) provisions for assistive devices, barrier-free accessibility and other provisions for persons with disabilities;

(e) appointment of liaison officer by the establishment to look after the recruitment of persons with disabilities and provisions of facilities and amenities for such employees. 

(4)  The equal opportunity policy of the private   establishment having less than twenty employees shall contain facilities and amenities to be provided to the persons with disabilities to enable them to effectively discharge their duties in the establishment.” 

3. Vide  letter No.F.5/1766/2017-wel/CD/5134- 5292 dated13.02.2018 followed by reminders dated 15.06.2018 and 18.01.2019, the respondent was advised as under:

(i) to have the Equal Opportunity Policy(EOP) in respect of their Department/Organisation and the establishments under their control, published and registered with the State Commissioner; and 

(ii) provide a list of private establishments registered with or connected to their department/organisation alongwith their full addresses and contact details in soft copy;

4.    As per the Public Notice published in the Times of India dated24.11.2019 (copy enclosed), all the Govt. Establishments and the Private Establishments, covered under the Act and had not framed their EOPs were directed through this public notice to frame and register their EOPs with this office.

5.    As  there  was  no  response  from the respondent, the respondent was directed to show cause why the equal opportunity policy in respect of his/her Department and all the establishments (Govt. as well as private establishments) registered or connected to his/her Department should not be notified and registered with the State Commissioner vide notice dated 03.08.2021.

6.    The respondent vide letter dated23.10.2021  has submitted the copy of EOP in respect of the General Administration Department, GNCT of Delhi for registration. The said EOP has been registered with registrations No. EOP/DL/Discom/117/2021

7.    The matter is disposed off.

8.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 23rd November, 2021.

(Ranjan Mukherjee)
                              State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities




Tuesday, November 9, 2021

Preeti Agarwal Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South West District | Case No.2337/1111/2021/08/3158-3160 | Date: 09-11-2021

 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-110002
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.2337/1111/2021/08/3158-3160                      Dated:09-11-21

In the matter of:

Ms. Preeti Agarwal,
U-12, First Floor, Green Park Main,
New Delhi-110016.
(Email: namaste.preeti@gmail.com)                    …………Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
South West District,
Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-110057.                               ………..Respondent 


Date of Hearing : 08.11.2021

Present : Ms. Preeti Agarwal, Complainant

Sh. Vikram Lamba, SI, PS Safdarjung Enclave, on behalf of respondent

ORDER

Ms. Preeti Agarwal, the above named complainant, a person with 90% hearing impaired filed a complaint dated 09.08.2021, forwarded from the Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide email dated 23.08.2021, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, regarding harassment by neighbor Sh. Pankaj Gandhi, resident of U-12, Ground Floor, Green Park Main, New Delhi-110016.

2. The matter was taken up with DCP, South District vide letter dated 26.08.2021. Complainant vide letter dated 03.09.2021, submitted that the Inquiry Officer SI Vikram Lamba came to her house and told her to give a letter stating that the problem has been resolved, which she refused. As they were locked from outside by their downstairs neighbour Mr. Pankaj Gandhi which was duly captured in the CCTV camera yet, there was no action taken by Police against such inhuman and criminal activities of Mr. Pankaj Gandhi, which bothered them and that’s why she requested the police authorities to prevent any such harassment in future.  

3. The matter was again taken up with the DCP, South District vide reminder dated 06.09.2021 which was forwarded to the office of DCP, South West District vide their letter dated 22.09.2021.  Respondent vide reply dated 06.10.2021 submitted that an enquiry was conducted in the case and it was found that the matter was a petty issue between the neighbours.  No cognizable offence was made out and hence the complaint was filed.

4. Complainant vide rejoinder dated 13.10.2021 strongly protested against the subject of the letter from the Police, and contested the same.

5. A hearing was scheduled on 08.11.2021. During the hearing, complainant reiterated her submissions and stated that locking up two hearing impaired women from outside was not a petty issue.  The same was case of criminal intimidation and an atmosphere of fear for them. She further submitted that she got no apology or assurance that no such intimidation/ harassment would happen in future. She also objected to the action of the concerned SI insisting on signing of letter for reconciliation in the matter. 

6. The representative of the respondent submitted that he visited the premises of the complainant and directed both the parties to maintain peace in future. The Court took serious concern on the action taken by the concerned SI. 

7. After taking due cognizance of submissions made by the complainant & the respondent, the Court recommended the following:

(i) First of all, Court takes objection to sending a relatively junior officer of the rank of Sub Inspector during the hearing which was duly brought to the notice of area DCP and should not be repeated.

(ii) The reply furnished by the representative of respondent was not acceptable wherein he tried to project that it is a mere altercation between two neighbours and the Court hereby orders the local police to deal such cases of intimidation against PwDs with due care respect and regard specially to the disabled ladies, who are being regularly harassed by the neighbours from downstairs and issue warning to them.  They should be asked to refrain from such uncivilized behaviour and activities, failing which necessary action as per the law and RPwD Act, 2016 should be initiated. 

(iii) Sh. Vikram Lamba, SI was directed to personally look into this matter seriously and assure that the complainant and her sister were not intmidated or humilated by anyone. 

8. The complainant was asked to feel free to contact the Office of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (SCPD) in case of repetition of such activities by her neighbours. 

9. The matter is disposed with the above recommendations.

10. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 08th day of November, 2021. 

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)
               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Note: 

SHO of the Area Police Station (Safdarjung Enclave), Sh. Shalender Tomar did come and meet SCPD later. He assured that the case would be looked into and resolved in the correct perspective as per advice of the court. He also requested for sensitisation of the Police personnel of the area to which SCPD agreed to do the needful. 

Copy to:

The Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001.


Monday, October 25, 2021

Chander Bhushan Rajput Vs. The Ddirector, Dte of Education | Case No. 2071/1024/2021/01/3011-3012 | Dated:25/10/2021

 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, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court underthe 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2071/1024/2021/01/3011-3012                                Dated:25/10/2021

In the matter of:

Shri Chander Bhushan Rajput,
(Email ID: cbrajput.57@gmail.com) ………………..Petitioner

Versus

The Director, 
Directorate of Education,  
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi - 110054,
Email diredu@nic.in.                                         ………………..Respondent
Date of Hearing:  30/09/2021

Present:  None of the present

ORDER

Whereas a complaint/email dated 07.12.2020 (Copy enclosed)) along with its enclosures received from Chandra Bhushan Rajput, a person with 40% locomotor disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act, 2016 herein after referred to as the Act. The complainant inter-alia alleged that his wife got treatment in emergency from a non-penal hospital namely Fortis hospital Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. He submitted some bills of empanelled hospital namely B.L. Kapoor, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to concerned department for medical reimbursement. But the concerned department has rejected his medical claims. Further, the complainant has submitted he has been aggrieved by denial of stepping-up his pay to Rs. 18460/- (Basic Pay of Rs. 13860 plus Grade pay of Rs. 4600/-) at par with his junior Shri Bhagwati Prasad Grade-II (DASS) (Retired as Grade-I (DASS)) wef 13/01/2006 as per recommendations of 6th CPC and clarification issued in this regard from time to time by the Services Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and DoPT, Govt. of India as well.

2. And whereas the matter was taken up with Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and summons to appear U/s 82 of the RPWD Act, 2016 was issued to the respondent to appear in the court at 11.30 am on 30/9/2021 vide No 2071/1024/2021/01/1687-88 dated 17/9/2021 to present their case with all related documents so as to dispose of the matter The respondent was also asked to produce any other documents, inputs etc. related to the case in support of their defense.

3. However, complainant vide email dated 21/9/2021 informed that concerned HoS has cleared all his pending medical bills. But another case of stepping-up of pay is still pending.

4. And whereas the respondent vide letter No. F.DDE(NW BY/SCPD/2021/873 dated 29/9/2021 has submitted as under

" as far as matter of stepping up of pay is concerned, it is submitted that Sh. ChanderBhushan Rajput, Grade-1 (Retd.) earlier requested for stepping up his pay at par with Shri N.k. Yadav which was returned by DCA (North) with the remarks that both are of different cadre, hence, it is not a fit case for stepping up. Further, the complainant submitted that he has not requested for considering his stepping up of pay in comparison to Sh. N.K. Yadav and further stated that he only wanted that his pay may be brought at par with Shri Bhagwati Prasad. The case was re-submitted to DCA (North) which was again returned back with the remarks that Stepping up at par with Shri Bhagwati Prasad has already been rejected by A.O (P&PF) as Shri ChanderBhushan Rajput, Grade-I (Retd.) was appointed as LDC under Gen. OH category whereas Shri Bhagwati Prasad was appointed as LDC under SC category. Seniority of both officials are being maintained separately being initially appointed under different category."

5. The respondent has also informed that the matter was taken up by Public Grievance Commission, Govt. of NCT of Delhi which was filed with PGC by ADE (NW-B) wherein PGC opined that demand of Shri C.B. Rajput for stepping-up his pay in comparison to Shri Bhawati Prasad was not justified and could not be considered as per provision of Rule-27 under FR-27 quoting both the junior and senior doesn't belong to same cadre. The Commission disposedof the case with following remarks:

"that the Commission is satisfied that whatever stand is taken by the department is correct and cannot be revised. However, the complainant is free to approach other forums for redressal of his grievance."

6. The complainant has now approached this court with a ray of hope for justice and a belief that he may not be deprived of his right of stepping up his pay at par with his junior.

7. In the interest of justice and with a motive to ensure that a person with disability shall not be discriminated on the grounds of disability, unless it is shown that impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving alegitimate aim, the matter has been examined at length taking into account theCCS (RP) Rules, 2008 and various orders and clarifications issued in thisregard from time to time.

8. The court observed that Shri Chander Bhushan Rajput, now retired as Grade-1 (DASS) had been drawing higher pay in the pre-revised scale as a Grade-II (DASS) but started drawing lower pay in comparison to his junior Shri Bhagwati Prasad, Grade-II (DASS), w.e.f. 13.01.2006. The court also went through the pay fixation orders, the complainant submitted in support of his claim.

9. The court has reached on the conclusion that the pay anomaly was that the officials who have been promoted/getting benefit of ACP between 01/01/2006 to 31/8/2006 were having facilities of giving options to fixation of his pay from the date of promotion/financial up gradation under ACP scheme which took place after 01/01/2008 in the revised pay scales with reference to the fitment table of upgraded pay scale Le pre-revised scale Rs. 7450-11500.

10.      Shri Bhagwati Prasad Grade-II (DASS) has got promoted/getting benefit of ACP w.e f. 13/1/2006 and has given option for fixation of his pay from the date of promotion/ up-gradation Le 13/01/2006 with reference to the fitment table of upgraded pay scale le. Pre-revised scale of Rs. 7450-11500. As such his pay was fixed Rs. 13860+Rs. 4600 = Rs. 18460 (in PB-2, of Rs 9300-3400+ Grade Pay 4800), whereas his actual pay on 01/01/2006 was Rs. 5400/- in the pay scale of Rs 4000-6000 (Copy of UO No. 10/1/2009-IC dated 14/12/2009 issued from DoPT is enclosed)

11. On the other hand the pay of Shri ChanderBhushan Rajput, Grade-II (DASS) (now retired as Grade-1 (DASS) being senior employee who got benefit under ACP/promotion prior to 01/1/2006, was fixed as per pre revised scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 (actual) and Rs 5500-175-9000(notional). and revised Pay Band-2 of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4600 w.e.f. 01/1/2006 i.e. 12540+Rs. 4600 = 17140.

12. As a result Shri ChanderBhushan Rajput, Senior employee who got his promotion prior to 01/1/2006 began drawing less pay w.e.f. 13.01.2006 than his junior Shri Bhagwati Prasad who got benefits under ACP scheme on13/01/2006 (i.e. between 01/1/2006 and 31/3/2008). 

13. As per CCS (RP) Rules 2008, stepping-up of pay of senior promoted prior to 01/01/2006 and drawing less pay than their junior promoted/upgraded after 01/01/2006, is admissible as per note-10 under Rule-7of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

14. In this regard a Circular vide No. 20/17/2015/S-I/Lit/2938 dated 25/8/2015 was issued by Services Department regarding clarifications on stepping-up of pay which suggest to settle the pay anomaly occurred due to the application of Rule-7 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, at administrative departments level subject to fulfilment of conditions laid down in Note 10 below Rules-7 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 in consultation with respective Integrated Finance/Advisor (IFA) of the department.

15. The court therefore recommends the Director, Directorate of Education should personally look into the matter and peruse the relevant papers/file so that the decision in the matter is not delayed now and the complainant is denied any benefits that he is entitled to under rules and he is not made to run from pillar to post. It may also be ensure the complainant is not subjected to any harassment.

16. The Action Taken Report be submitted to this court within 03 months from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the complainant as required under Section- 81 of the Act. The matter is disposed of accordingly.

17. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 22nd day of October 2021.


 (Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Encls: As above

Mohd. Iqbal Vs. The Director, Directorate of Education | Case No.1792/1024/2020/03/3026-27 | Dated:25/10/2021

 In the Court of the 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,Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.1792/1024/2020/03/3026-27                 Dated:25/10/2021

In the matter of:

Mohd. Iqbal,
R/o-240, Street No. 5,
Joga Bai Extension, 
Jamia Nagar,New Delhi-110025         ............Complainant
                                                      Versus
The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat,Delhi-110054                  ……......Respondent


Date of Hearing: 01.03.2021

Present: Sh.Mohd. Iqbal, Complainant

Dr.Shamshad Ali, DDE Zone-29, Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Assistant & Sh. TanveerAlam, Legal Assistant, Zone-29 Respondent, Dte. Of Education on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 80db to 93.3db percent hearing impairment has filed a complaint dated 09.01.2020 received on 14.02.2020 from the court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act, 2016, herein after referred to as the Act. The complainant submitted that he is working in Govt. Boys Sr. Secondary School (Director of Education), Jasola Village, Distt. South-East as a TGT. He further submitted that Directorate of Education is not giving him double Transport Allowance (TA) @ normal rate w.e.f. 01.09.2008 to onwards but they are giving to other disabled employee.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent on 09/6/2020 for submission of their ATR/Comments followed by reminders dated 16/9/2020, 27/11/2020, no response has been received from the respondent. Therefore, hearing held on 01/3/2021, the respondent was directed to send a D.O. letter to Ministry of Finance and obtain the clarification on the OM dated 16/9/2014 & dated 07.07.2017 and on receipt of the clarification from the Ministry of Finance, the matter may be taken up further.

3. It has brought to the notice of the Court that despite direction of this court vide Record of Proceeding dated 02.03.2021, no compliance has been initiated by the Dte of Education, till date

4. It seems the Respondent is indifferent to the issue and deliberately not taking cognizance of the order of the Court, which waspassed in the Court proceeding while administering the justice as per RPWD Act, 2016. It is a matter of serious concern that any public servant is acting in such casual or negligent manner and is having no regard to the orders of Court of Law. 

5. Non-compliance of Court order in the course of administering of the Justice, by the Respondent, is a gross violation and is an offence and respondent may be penalised under Section 93 of the the RPWDs Act, 2016, which reproduced as under:

“Whoever, fails to produce any book, account or other documents or to furnish any statement, information or particulars which, under this Act or any order, or direction made or given there under, is duty bound to produce or furnish or to answer any question put in pursuance of the provisions of this Act or of any order, or direction made or given thereunder, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees in respect of each offence, and in case of continued failure or refusal, with further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day, of continued failure or refusal or refusal after the date of original order imposing punishment of fine."

6. Accordingly, respondent is recommended to pass a speaking order if, transport allowance @ double the normal rates, subject to fulfilment of the stipulated conditions is admissible to Mohd. Iqbal as per extant rules for the period from September, 2008 to July, 2014. It may be ensured the complainant should not be denied benefit that he is entitled to under the rules and should not be subjected to any discrimination and harassment on the ground of his disability and because he has approached to this court for redressal of his grievance.

7. The Action Taken Report is to be sent to this court within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to complainant as required under Section 81 of the Act. The matter is disposed of accordingly.

8. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 25th day of October 2021.


(Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner of Person with Disabilities

Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Advocate Meena Kadian Vs. The Pr. Secretary, Department of Home, GNCTD | Case No. 2370/1016/2021/09/2006-09 | Dated:12/10/2021

 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-110002
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
 
Case No. 2370/1016/2021/09/2006-09                    Dated:12/10/21

In the matter of:

Advocate Meena Kadian,
D/o Sh. Kirpal Singh,
RZ-74, B-Block, Netaji Lane,
Near Surakhpur Road,
Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043.
(Email: meena.kadian@live.com)                   .....……Complainant                          
Versus

The Pr. Secretary,
Department of Home,                               
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
5th Level, ‘C’ Wing,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P Estate, 
New Delhi-110002.                                                       ……..Respondent

Case No.2371/1016/2021/09                                         

In the matter of:

Sh. Surya Joshi,
H.No. 9527, Pocket  C-9,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070.       ....Complainant
                           
Versus

The Pr. Secretary,
Department of Home,                               
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
5th Level, ‘C’ Wing,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P Estate, 
New Delhi-110002.                                                       ……..Respondent

Date of Hearing: 11.10.2021

Present: Advocate Meena Kadian, Complainant on telephone 
Sh. Surya Joshi, Complainant
                        Sh. L.K. Gautam, Deputy Secretary alongwith Sh. Aditya Trehan, APP on behalf of                                Respondent (in both cases)

ORDER

Advocate Meena Kadian, a person with 100% locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 28.01.2021 and Sh. Surya Joshi, a person with 40% Specific Learning Disability filed another complaint dated 29.01.2021, both received from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letters dated 20.09.2021 and 16.09.2021 respectively, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The complainants alleged that Department of Home, GNCT of Delhi had forwarded a requisition for filling up of 80 vacancies of Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), which was advertised by UPSC vide Advertisement No. 2-2021 (Vacancy No. 21010211223). However, UPSC has ignored the Benchmark Disability i.e. Both Leg & Specific Learning Disability (SLD) respectively in the said vacancy.

2. Both the matters were taken up with the respondent vide show cause-cum-hearing notice dated 24.09.2021. As the subject matter in both the cases is similar, a common hearing was scheduled on 11.10.2021. 

3. During the hearing, complainants reiterated their submissions. Respondent department vide their submission dated 11.10.2021 submitted that Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities), GOI, issued the gazette notification on 04.01.2021 notifying the amended eligibility for the post of APP in Central Government by adding new category of disability MF in functional requirement and SLD in suitable category of benchmark disabilities in addition to the earlier eligibility categories. Whereas Home Department submitted the proposal for recruitment of 80 Posts of APP vide letter dated 05.10.2020 which was advertised by UPSC vide Advertisement No. 02/2021 dated 23.01.2021.

4. It was also submitted that a Committee was constituted vide order dated 19.02.2019 for identifying the post of APP in the Directorate of Prosecution. The Committee after considering all the relevant factors relating to the role and responsibilities of APPs of GNCT of Delhi identified the following categories (a) blindness and low vision (b) hard of hearing (with not less than 60% with assistive device) (c) locomotor disability (OA, OL) including leprosy cured, dwarfism and acid attack victims (d) Multiple disabilities from amongst persons (a) to (c).  

5. Further, It was informed that the matter was referred to Law Department and Services Department, GNCT of Delhi and it was advised that “the appropriate Government in case of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi is different than the Appropriate Government in case of Central Government. The Expert Committee constituted by this Government has independently identified the PH requirement for the post of APP in Directorate of Prosecution, Delhi. The above position show that the advertisement issued in case of APP in Directorate of Prosecution, Delhi should be in conformity in the policy decision taken by the Appropriate Government of NCT of Delhi.”

6. Complainants informed the Court that they have appeared in the examination held for this post.  Respondent department informed that meeting of the Competent Committee is scheduled on 13.10.2021 for considering suitability of PwD Candidates for recruitment to the post of APP, GNCT of Delhi, as per Gazette Notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities.

7. After due deliberations and discussions, taking due cognisance of submissions made by the complainant & the respondent, it is observed that the identification of posts by Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities is valid for entire country and all organisations have to follow it.  The respondent department should have taken exemption if there was any deviation from the notification issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities.  In view of the above, the case is disposed with the following recommendations:-

(i)  A corrigendum in respect of re-advertisement/re-examination be issued in respect of those PwD candidates whose categories are identified as per S.No.584 of the list of identified posts issued vide Notification No.38-16/2020-DD-III dated 04.01.2021 by Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India. 

(ii)  The Respondent Department should place the matter in respect of both the complainants and other similarly placed PwD candidates before the competent Committee constituted for the purpose of identification of posts of APP whose meeting has been scheduled on 13.10.2021 regarding their re-appearance for the examination and take decision accordingly.

 8. This court be informed of the action taken by the respondent within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of RPwD Act, 2016.

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 12th day of October, 2021.


 (Ranjan Mukherjee)
      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities 

Thursday, October 7, 2021

Sikandar Vs. The DCP North East District | Case No. 2016/1111/2020/11/1914-15 | Dated: 07-10-2021

  In the court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-02
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2016/1111/2020/11/1914-15         Dated:07-10-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Sikandar 
S/o Wali Mohammad, 
R/o H.No. 288, Ahata Patwari, 
Balupura, Pakka Talab, 
Ghaziabad, UP-201001
(e-mail: foziyajahan786@gmail.com        ………Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
North East District,
Seelampur, GT. Road, Delhi-110053.                  ………..Respondent 
(e-mail: dcp-northeast-dl@nic.in)

Date of Hearing : 05.10.2021

Present: Sh.  Sikandar, Complainant alongwith his daughter 
Ms. Foziya.
Sh. Vijay Kumar, SHO, PS (Welcome) on behalf of the respondent.


ORDER

        Sh. Sikandar, a person with 45% locomotor disability vide his e-mail dated 17.10.2020 alleged that a Community/Khap Panchayat  was organised on 06.08.2020 in Kabir Nagar, Delhi to settle an issue wherein the so called and self employed Sarpanch and other members of that Panchayat gave  verdict  against him and his family  and ordered the community to not to have  any contact  with him & his family in any manner (Hookah Paani Band).  They were forced to do sit up in front of them so as to reverse their orders. Thus they felt persecuted and discriminated by the above act of the Community/Khap Panchayat.  The incident was also reported at the corresponding Welcome Police Station and details of the accused party members were given in the complaint / FIR No. 8130452001128.  Therefore, he sought relief as per the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities.   

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 06.11.2020 followed by reminders dated 17.12.2020 & 12.01.2021 for submission of their comments. A reply was received from Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, North East District dated 22.01.2021 vide which it was informed that an enquiry into the matter was got conducted through ACP/ Bhajanpura/NED.  During the course of enquiry statement of complainant was recorded. He stated that he is permanent resident of Balupura, Ghaziaband, UP and runs a tyre repairing shop at Meerut road.  His son namely Faizal Khan married to Shabnam D/o Ansari in the year 2018.  Soon after the marriage, his daughter in law returned to her maternal home.  He alleged that some members of his community intervened in the matter and convened a meeting in Kabir Nagar, Delhi on 06.08.2020 to sort out the dispute between both the families. The complainant alleged that the members of Committee humiliated him in the meeting and they also issued order to others members to not keep/maintain any relation with the complainant and his family.  During enquiry complainant accepted that he participated in the Community Panchayat as per his own will.  Further with regard to his grievance, he did not make any PCR call on that day.  Further local enquiry was made in Kabir Nagar, Delhi and as per enquiry the community people denied such order of panchayat. Police reported that the matter was found to be matrimonial dispute, hence allegations were not substantiated. 

3. The complainant vide another email dated 07.08.2021 informed that in spite of his repeated requests, no progress has been made in his case. Police authorities are not taking appropriate action in the matter as they did not serve a single Notice to the opposite party.  Now, the opposite party ganged up against him and he was also receiving threats call.  Thus he again requested to take serious actions and expedite the process. 

4. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 05.10.2021, which was attended by complainant, his daughter and representative of respondent.  

5. Complaint reiterated his written submissions and inter-alia added that during the meeting of self employed  Community / Khap Panchayat held on 06.08.20210 he was not only humiliated but also beaten up for not complying their orders.  Police has not taken appropriate action in his case and especially the Investigating Officer, Mr. Sudheer has adopted an indifferent approach in investigation of his case. 

6. Section 6 & 7 of the Act  mandates the appropriate Government to take measures to protect persons with disabilities from being subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and  from all forms  of abuse, violence and exploitation and to prevent the same.  The concerned Executive Magistrate and the other Police Officers are required to take various measures to ensure protection of persons with disabilities from any abuse, violence and exploitation.   

7. After due deliberations and discussion with the complainant and respondent, the Court recommends as under:

(i) As per statement of the complainant, he was taken into a secluded place and bitten up  “BY ORDERS OF SO CALLED COMMUNITY / KHAAP LEADERS” for not complying to their orders on 06.08.2020.  Thus, the respondent should try to  identify the so called members / persons of Community / Khaap Panchayat with the help of complainant and  initiate necessary action against them with due jurisprudence as per law. 

(ii) Court also observed that the Investigating Officer deployed in the case should have been more empathetic towards the complainant and acted in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which he has failed to do so. Thus, necessary sensitisation towards persons with disabilities is required for not only the concerned Investigating Officers but also for all the personnel of Delhi Police. (Reference is made to this Court’s letter No. SCD/07/Misc./Pt. File/1856/19/1836 dated 30.09.2021 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi) 

8. The case is closed with the above recommendations and an Action Taken Report be intimated to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 05th day of October, 2021.      


(Ranjan Mukherjee )
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Monday, October 4, 2021

Dr. Ram Kishan Vs. The Director, SCERT | Case No. 2127/1023/2021/02/1855-56 | Dated: 04/10/2021

 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-2
Phone-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2127/1023/2021/02/1855-56                              Dated: 04/10/21                

In the matter of:

Dr. Ram Kishan,
H.No. 224, Sarai Pipal Thala,
Near Adarsh Nagar, 
Delhi-110033.
(Email ID: ramkishan.diet@gmail.com)                    …………..Complainant 

Versus

The Director,
State Council of Educational Research and Training,
Varun Marg, Block-C, Defence Colony,
New Delhi-110024
(Email: dir12scert@gmail.com)             ……………..Respondent 

Date of Hearing: 27.09.2021

Present: Dr. Ram Kishan, complainant
Sh. A.K. Goel, Deputy Director and
Sh. Mahesh, Section Officer on behalf of respondent

ORDER

Dr. Ram Kishan, the complainant, a person with 80% locomotor disability and Assistant Professor, DIET, Keshav Puram vide his complaint dated 23.02.2021, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act, 2016 herein after referred to as the Act, inter-alia alleged that he was granted MACP w.e.f. 06.12.2018 instead of 01.06.2014 after 03 years and 06 months. He also alleged that he was compelled for re-evaluation of his disability certificate and is being continuously harassed by SCERT. 

2. The matter was taken up with SCERT vide letter dated 08.03.2021 and followed by reminders dated 13.4.2021 and 19.4.2021.  Vide reply dated 14.06.2021, the respondent submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were processed against the complainant with the approval of the competent authority and the date of MACP was deferred as per the recommendations of the DSC.  Competent authority also approved re-examination of physical disability of the complainant.  It was further submitted that the complainant is habitual of non-cooperating with the office.

3. The reply of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant. In response, the complainant filed a rejoinder dated 23.07.2021 that he was not satisfied with the reply of the respondent.    

4. Upon considering the response dated 14.6.2021 & 10.8.2021 of the respondent and rejoinder dated 23.7.2021 & 03.09.2021 of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 14.09.2021. 

5. Vide ROP dated 15.09.2021, the respondent was directed to conduct an inquiry and come out if the complainant can be granted MACP with effect from 01.06.2014 and if so, the actual financial implications thereof to the department.  Regarding issue of medical re-examination, the respondent as a department should consider the necessity of the same and take this issue administratively as per existing rules/norms.  The court also directed the department to investigate/inquire about the representations/grievances of the complainant and give him a personal hearing by the concerned authority, so that he can represent his case which can be resolved accordingly.   

6. During the hearing on 27.09.2021, the respondent submitted letter dated 27.09.2021 reiterating their submissions in detail pertaining to First Financial Up-gradation under MACP Scheme in respect of the complainant. 

7. In this regard kind attention was invited to point 2 of DoPT OM No. 22011/04.2007-Estt.(D) dated 21-11-2016 which states that “Questions have been raised by ministries and Departments asking whether this is applicable in the case of ‘Censure’ also. In this regard, it is reiterated that paragraphs 7(d), 7(f) and 7(g) are applicable in all the penalties under CCS (CCA) Rules including the minor penalty of Censure as well which no currency has been prescribed, it would mean that as per para 7(g), if the DPC considers the officer fit for promotion notwithstanding the award of censure, he can be promoted without referring to the currency of penalty”.

8. Para 7(g) of the said OM states that “In assessing the suitability of the officer on whom a penalty has been imposed, the DPC will take into account the circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty and decide whether in the light of general service records of the officer and the fact of imposition of penalty, the officer should be considered for promotion. The DPC, after due consideration, has authority to assess the officer as ‘unfit’ for promotion. However, where the DPC considers that despite the penalty the officer is suitable for promotion, the officer will be actually promoted only after the currency of the penalty is over (paragraph 13 of DoPT OM dated 10-04-1989)”.

9. In the instant matter penalty of ‘Censure’ was imposed which has no currency. Since penalty of ‘Censure’ has no currency & as per 7(g) the officer can be actually promoted only after the currency of penalty is over, Dr. Ram Kishan was granted Ist Financial Up-gradation under MACP Scheme from the date of issue of order imposing penalty of ‘Censure’ on him. It is very much clear that Ist Financial Up-gradation under MACP Scheme can not be granted before the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings against the employee. Hence Ist Financial Up-gradation under MACP Scheme was granted w.e.f. date of penalty i.e 07.12.2017.

10. It was submitted that no discrimination was made against Dr. Ram Kishan, Asstt. Professor on the grounds of his disability. The action has been taken as per rules. 

11. During the course of hearing, complainant reiterated that the respondent deliberately delayed the disciplinary proceedings against him by more than 3 years despite the fact that it should have been concluded within timeframe of 6 months as prescribed by various circulars/orders of CVC, which consequently caused delay in granting of MACP. The matter has been examined at length and taking into account the submissions given by SCERT as well as information/record available in the file, it was found that the respondent department is not solely responsible for delay in completing the proceedings of the inquiry against the complainant. No doubt there were some delay due to administrative reasons viz. change of Inquiry Officer etc., it was also delayed because of non-cooperation of the charged officer i.e. the complainant viz. seeking extension of time for submitting his reply and later demanding Hindi version of charge-sheet and other documents. The complainant could have asked for the same at initial stage. The same was also observed by the CIC in its order dated 19.08.2015 which clearly states:

 (i) “Though, an employee facing disciplinary charges does not have any moral or legal right to skip the inquiry or defy the process of inquiry and go on filing plethora of RTI applications seeking information not related to allegation against him, but to harass the officers who he suspect to have complained or gave evidence or provided information or took action against him. 

(ii) The RTI is not a rendezvous for suspended employees or those erring personnel facing inquiries to serve their personal interests in protecting their misconduct or preventing the authorities from proceeding with penal proceedings enquiring into misconduct. 

(iii) The Commission directs the appellant to face the inquiry with all material he has and cooperate with the inquiry officer to complete the process in reasonable time.”

12. After due deliberations and discussions, taking due cognisance of submissions made by the complainant & the respondent, it is observed that the respondent department i.e. SCERT besides examining all available records should have completed the administrative actions within the prescribed time frame.  The respondent should have tried to minimise the delay in completing the inquiry, which in the subject case did not happen. Undue delay is unfortunate.

13. It is recommended that the respondent should be careful in future while dealing with such a time bound case especially involving person with disabilities.  Besides, Director, SCERT is advised to dispose of all the representations submitted by the complainant during the course of personal hearing given by him to the complainant and ensure that no discrimination is made against the complainant. 

14. The matter is disposed of accordingly.

15. This court be informed of the action taken by the respondent within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of RPwD Act, 2016. 

16. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 04th day of October, 2021.


 
 (Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities 


Wednesday, September 29, 2021

Ms. Rachna Vs. The Principal, Mt. Columbus School & Anr. | Case No. 1284/1111/2019/11/1813-15 | Dated: 28-09-2021

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

Case No. 1284/1111/2019/11/1813-15                              Dated:28-09-21

In the matter of:

Ms. Rachna,
1280, Pushp Vihar, Sector-03,  
New Delhi – 110017.     ................ Complainant
    
Versus

The Principal,  
Mt. Columbus School, 
C-Block, Dakshinpuri, Near Madangir Market,
New Delhi-110062.               ..............…Respondent No.1
The Director,
Directorate of Education, 
GNCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.               ..............…Respondent No.2


ORDER

The above named complainant, Ms. Rachna, a person with 70% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 07.11.2019 alleged that she was harassed by the Principal, Mount Columbus School, where she was an employee as a Music Teacher on contract basis. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent No. 1 vide show cause notice dated 15.11.2019.  The brief facts of the case were mentioned in the Interim Order dated 12.08.2021.

 3. Vide ROP dated 24.12.2019, this court observed that relieving the complainant before completion of her tenure of six months without issuing any warning letter or notice is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. Respondent No. 1 was directed to maintain status quo ante and let the complainant work till she completes six months. Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was impleaded as Respondent No. 2 and was directed to constitute a committee to enquire into the matter and submit the report bringing out the facts.

4. Respondent No. 2 submitted the inquiry report dated 26.02.2021, exhaustively bringing out the facts in a chronological manner. Vide ROP dated 26.03.2021, the school authorities were directed to submit clarifications on Point No. 4 , 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the inquiry report submitted by the Directorate of Education. 

5. After due deliberations during the course of several hearings on the matter, following were recommended vide ROP dated 09.04.2021:-

(i)  The school authorities need to clarify the points raised by Dte. of Education and this Court by 16.04.2021.

(ii) The Dte. of Education to go through the sanctioned establishment of posts of teachers and staff of the school and ascertain if there is provision of a permanent post of music teacher.

(iii) Post receipt of the response from the School/Respondent No. 1, Dte. of Education was to submit final recommendations to this Court as per existing guidelines/rules. 

6. Vide submission dated 02.08.2021, the representative of Respondent No. 2 reiterated that the complainant was appointed on 06.07.2019 on Temporary basis for a period of 6 months and was not on regular or permanent basis. There was no discrimination with the complainant. There had never been any violation on the part of the Respondent School but always acted in good faith in accordance with the rules. 

7. The court reserved the final recommendations in the subject case till receipt of response from Directorate of Education, GNCTD. 

8. Directorate of Education, GNCTD vide their e-mail dated 22.09.2021 submitted that recruitment of employees in private unaided recognised schools, other than minority school is governed by Rule 96 to Rule 106 of DSEAR and among the aforesaid rules there is no provision for appointing teachers on adhoc basis.  Further, the recruitment to the post of the teachers in the private unaided recognised schools shall be according to such posts created/formulated by the DOE and whose RRs have been duly enacted and published in the Gazette.  It is also implicit in Rule 101 of the DSEAR, 1973 that recruitment to part time teachers other than female teachers in the primary schools shall not be lawful.  

9. It was further added by DOE that the post of Music Teacher is a regular post and teachers are appointed on regular basis in schools under DOE, GNCT of Delhi and all private aided/unaided recognised schools whereas it is taught as one of the subject.  However, it is not a compulsory subject.  It is relevant to mention that in the submission of school against the complainant was that she was appointed on temporary basis for a period of 6 months only and that she was aware of the same and she was employed for a short term period and her employment is not regular or permanent, does not augur well as per DSEAR, 1973.  

10. Further, the services of an employee of private unaided school can be terminated only with the approval of Director (Education) as per Section 8(2) of DSEAR, 1973 read with Rule 120(2) of DSEAR, 1973 for violation of the Code of Conduct by the teacher as specified in Rule 123 of DSEAR, 1973 and after following the due procedure as envisaged in Rule 117 to 120 of DSEAR, 1973 and the protection of Section 8(2) of DSEAR, 1973 is applicable for those employees whose recruitment is done in accordance with the provisions of DSEAR, 1973 on the post for which they are found eligible as per the qualification mentioned in the notified RRs.

11. In the present case, the school and the complainant knew irregularities in appointment.  The DOE has no role to play in such type of matters which accelerates the illegalities.  However, the said school management failed to adhere to the provisions of the DSEAR, 1973 in appointment and termination of the complainant for which a Show Cause Notice had already been issued to the school authorities.

12. In view of the facts of the case, submissions of the complainant & respondents, existing rules & regulations on the subject and the observations given in the Interim Order, the following is recommended:-

(i) It is observed that the rules and regulations were not followed by the school authorities as per the DSEAR, 1973 regarding appointment of the complainant who is a Person with Disabilities, as Music Teacher. Moreover, procedure was also not followed for discontinuing the appointment of the complainant which is arbitrary and discriminatory, specially the complainant being a PwD. As per RPwD Act, 2016, the complainant is to be allowed to continue to work as Music Teacher in the Mt. Columbus School.

(ii) DOE to take appropriate action with reference to Show Cause Notice issued to the School Authorities as per DSEAR, 1973. 

13. The case is disposed of accordingly.  

14. An Action Taken Report be submitted to this Court within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order as required under Section 81 of the RPwD Act, 2016.

15. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 28th day of September, 2021. 




           (Ranjan Mukherjee)
                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities 

Tuesday, September 28, 2021

Ajay Kumar Vs. Principal Secretary, Planning Deptt GNCTD | Case No.2246/1021/2021/06/1811-12 | Dated: 28-09-2021

 
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-110002
Phone: 011-23216003-04, 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.2246/1021/2021/06/1811-12             Dated:28-09-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Ajay Kumar 
H.No. 30, Sharda Niketan, 
Delhi-110034
Email ID: karan.vohra5@gmail.com      …………Complainant

Versus
The Principal Secretary,
Planning Department, 
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
6th Level, B-Wing, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002        ........... Respondent 
Email: psfin@nic.in


DOH: 27.09.2021

Present: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Complainant

Sh. K.R. Chhibber, Dy. Director appeared on behalf of respondent.

ORDER

    The complainant Sh. Ajay Kumar, a person with 40% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated ‘Nil’ (received on 16.06.2021) submitted that he was appointed as Statistical Assistant  in the Planning Department under the category of person with disability.  He alleged that he is presently working in the Directorate of Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi as an Assistant Director.  He was not given any financial and physical benefits till date.  Length of service for the eligibility to his next promotion had not been counted, which should be counted w.e.f. 29.12.2015 with reference to the Planning Department’s rectification Order No. 1158-73 dated  20.02.2020. He made various requests to the Planning Department but no action has been taken till date.  He further added that due to above mistake of department he had not given promotional benefit.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 01.07.2021 for submission of their comments. However, no response was received from the respondent in spite of reminder dated 10.08.2021.  

3. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 27.09.2021.  

Sh. Ajay Kumar, complainant was present.  Sh. K.R. Chhibber, Dy. Director (Planning)  was present on behalf of respondent. 

4. Sh. K.R. Chhibber, Dy.Director (Planning) appeared on behalf of respondent has confirmed that the issue of the complainant would be resolved by 15th October, 2021.

5. After due deliberations and discussion on the case, it is recommended that respondent should consider the plea of complainant as per the existing RRs and provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and dispose it accordingly by 15.10.2021.

6. The case is disposed of. 

7. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 27th day of September, 2021.      


(Ranjan Mukherjee )
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities





Friday, September 24, 2021

Qamar Aleem Vs. The Director, Education Department (HQ), North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 2171/1024/2021/03/1760-62 | Dated:24-09-21

 
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-110002
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

 Case No. 2171/1024/2021/03/1760-62                                                      Dated:24-09-21

In the matter of:

Mr. Qamar Aleem,
Flat No. H-801, Amaatra Homes, 
Plot No-GH-02C, Sector-10, Greater Noida West,
Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh- 201308
Email ID: qamaraleemsaifi@gmail.com                       ……………..Complainant 

Versus

The Director,
Education Department (HQ),
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
15th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, J.L.N. Marg,
New Delhi-110002                          ………..Respondent No.1

The Principal,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation School,
Jharoda Majra-II, Civil Line Zone,
W-8, New Delhi-110084                 ………..Respondent No.2

D.O.H.: 23.09.2021

Present: Mr. Qamar Aleem, Complainant

Sh. Puranmal, S.I.Education/CLZ appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.1

Sh. Parth Sarthi Gupta, Principal appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

ORDER

  The above named complainant, a person with 40% locomotor disabilities filed a complaint dated 08.03.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act.  He  inter-alia submitted that he is presently working as Primary Teacher at North Delhi Municipal Corporation School (NDMCS), Jharoda, Majra-II, W-8 New Delhi-110084 and his transport allowance from the month of October 2020 to December 2020 was deducted by the Principal of NDMCS.  He was harassed and discriminated by the school authorities. Thus, he requested for grant of  his TA as deducted by North DMC from his salary for the month of October 2020 to December 2020.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent No. 1 & 2  vide letter dated 25.03.2021 for submission of their comments. Assistant Director, Education/CLZ, North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), Education Department, Civil Lines Zone informed that Principal, NDMC School Jharoda Majra-II, Civil Line Zone, W-8, Delhi vide their letter dated 27.07.2021 informed that Mr. Qamar Aleem, Teacher did not take part survey in the month of October to November 2020 which was conducted for enhancement of admission in Municipal Schools.  Despite departmental orders / directions, the complainant Sh. Qamar Aleem did not distribute the textbooks to students thereby disobeyed the order of competent authority.  Apart from the above, complainant remained absent from duty during the month of December 2020.  In view of the above stated facts Principal of the school had deducted the TA of Sh. Qaleem Aleem, for the month of October to December’2020.

3. Complainant vide his rejoinder dated 24.08.2021 inter-alia submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of Education Department, NDMC/CLZ. He did work of book distribution on 5,6,9,12,13,14,17 & 21 in the month of October 2020, he attended office in November 2020 and also he did work from home in December 2020.  He further stated that all other teaching staff got TA for above three months except him.

4. Sh. Parth Sarathi Gupta, Principal MCPS Jharoda Mazra-II, respondent No. 2 vide his written submission dated 06.09.2021 inter-alia submitted that the work and conduct of Sh. Qamar Aleem is not found satisfactory.  On several occasions he had been involved in unauthorised activities which are inappropriate for a govt. employee. His TA was deducted on the ground that he disobeyed the orders of superiors and had not worked during the months from October to December’2020.

5. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 09.09.2021, which was attended by complainant and representative of respondent No. 1.   Complainant submitted copies of his attendance record from the month of October, 2020 to December, 2020, which had been perused and taken on record.  As the same was not duly authenticated, it was desired that the HoS should see and do the same. Sh. Puranmal, S.I. Education/CLZ, appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1, submitted that salary of the complainant was released by his office on the basis of attendance record sent by Principal, North Delhi Municipal Corporation School, Jharoda Majra-II, Civil Line Zone, New Delhi.  In view of the above, Court directed respondent No. 1 to have an internal inquiry into the matter and submit an action taken report to this office by 17.09.2021 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 23.09.2021 at 11.30 AM.

6. During the hearing on 23.09.2021, complainant, Sh. Puranmal, S.I. Education/CLZ, for respondent no. 1 and Sh. Parth Sarthi Gupta, Principal NDMC School,Jharoda Majra-II, Civil Line Zone, respondent no. 2 all were present. 

7. Sh. Puranmal, S.I. Education/CLZ, representative of the respondent no. 1 confirmed that the complainant had attended the school during the month of October and November’2020 and there is no proof of his attendance in the month of December’2020. Thus, he is eligible for TA from the month of October & November’2020.   He has also filed duly verified copies of attendance register, which has been taken on record. 

8. In view of the above, the Court recommends as under:

(i) As per attendance register report by the S.I. Sh. Puranmal in this Court and existing norms / rules, complainant is entitled for Transport Allowance for the month of October & November’2020,  thus, respondent No. 1 & 2 are directed to release the TA  to complainant for the above months. 

(ii) Complainant is also directed to be careful in future to adhere the orders / directions given by his superiors i.e. the Head of School in this particular case. 

9. The case is disposed of. 

10. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 23rd day of September, 2021.      


(Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities