Shobhna Sarbhai Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (South District) & Anr. | Case No. 1865/1141/2020/07/3106-3108 | Dated: 26-02-21

 

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-02

Phone-23216002-04,  Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

 
    Case No. 1865/1141/2020/07/3106-3108 Dated:26-02-21
 
In the matter of:

Ms. Shobhna Sarbhai, M/o Aradhya Saxena,
D3A, DDA Flats, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
Email: shobhnasarbhai9@gmail.com      ………………..Complainant 

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police

(South District),

Police Station, Hauz Khas, 

Delhi-110016

E-mail:dcp-south-dl@nic.in   ………………Respondent 1

Ms. Neelam Verma, 

Horizon Learning Centre, 

M-6, First Floor, Malviya Nagar,

New Main Market

New Delhi-110017

Email: vermaneelam88609@gmail.com   ……..Respondent 2

Date of Hearing : 26.02.2021

Present: Ms. Neelam Verma and Sh.. Ambuj Tiwari on behalf of Respondent No. 2 

ORDER

Ms. Shobhna Sarbhai, M/o Ms. Aradhya Saxena, a person with 75% mental retardation vide her complaint dated 23.01.2020 alleged that she enrolled her daughter in the Horizon Learning Centre, M-6, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi for the her therapies like occupational therapy, speech therapy, special education etc. and also her rehabilitation on the assurance that a “complete programme” was being run for rehabilitation of such PwDs. However, within a period of three days she came to know about the irregularities and illegal operation of the Centre as well as the questionable of Ms. Neelam Verma to provide therapy to disabled children like her daughter. 

 2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide SCN-Cum-Hearing Notice dated 15.02.2021 and a hearing was scheduled on 26.02.2021. 

 3. Ms. Neelam Verma, respondent No. 1 appeared alongwith her Advocate Sh. Ambuj Tiwari, informed that her RCI certificate was expired in 2016 and upon completion of various workshops, trainings (comprises of 100 CRE points needed for renewal) she had applied for its renewal before the concerned authorities and the same is under process. 

 4. Complainant, Ms Shobhna Sarbhai vide her email dated 23.02.2021 showed her inability to attend the hearing in person and requested to decide the case on its merits. 

 5. In view of the above, Ms. Neelam Verma, respondent No. 2 is directed to close her Centre till her RCI Certificate is renewed. 

 6. The case was disposed with the above recommendation. 

 7. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 26th day of February, 2021. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee) 

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Puneet Bindal Vs. The Manager, BSES, Yamuna Power Limited | Case No. 1871/1141/2020/07/3114-3115 | Dated:26/02/21

 

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,  Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1871/1141/2020/07/3114-3115             Dated:26/02/21

In the matter of:

Sh. Puneet Bindal, 
2/5117, Krishan Nagar, Karol Bagh,  
New Delhi – 110005.
(E-mail-punitbindal28@gmail.com)    ..... Complainant
    
Versus

The Manager,   
BSES, Yamuna Power Limited,  
Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, 
Delhi-110032.

(E-mail-shweta.bist@relianceada.com)            ...…Respondent 

Date of Hearing: 26.02.2021

Present:     Sh. Puneet Bindal. Complainant
                    Sh. Gaurav Bindal, on behalf of the complainant
                    Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Sr. Manager (Legal) and
                    Ms. Shweta Bist, Sr. Manager (PS), Shankar Road, on behalf of Respondent.

ORDER

After hearing both the parties and due deliberations, the following orders are passed:-

1. Completion Certificate of the building be provided by the complainant from the MCD within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order to the BSES with copy to this office. 

2. The Vigilance Department of BSES should reply with remedial measures taken, to the complainant within 5 days from the date of receipt of this order. 

3. BSES office should be made accessible and disable friendly. 

4. As the matter is already pending before the Central Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), this office will await the final outcome and copy of the final order be submitted by the parties and after that if necessary, this court will take a call subsequently.

5. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 26th day of February, 2021. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities 

Nathu Ram Nishad Vs. The Director Education & Anr. | Case No. 1735/1111/2019/12 /3032- 34 | Dated: 22-02-21

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,  Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1735/1111/2019/12 /3032- 34            Dated:22-02-21

In the matter of:

Sh. Nathu Ram Nishad, 

373, Lancers Road, Timarpur, 

Delhi-110054 ....... Complainant

    

    Versus

The Director,

Directorate of Education, 

Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054          .....Respondent No.1

The Deputy Director (North),

Directorate of Education,

Lucknow Road, Delhi-110054               .......…Respondent No.2

Date of Hearing: 19.02.2021

Present:  

Sh. Nathu Ram Nishad, Vice-Principal, Complainant.

Sh. Ramesh Chand Kataria, Asstt. Section Officer, on behalf of Resp. No. 1 & 2.

ORDER

1. The State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities expressed his displeasure on the fact that  in spite of summons being served to the Director (Education),  no senior official from the Education Department was present during the hearing and instead a comparatively lower officer of the rank of Asstt. Section Officer, Sh. Ramesh Chand Kataria was sent to attend the court’s hearing.

2. During the hearing, representative of the respondent submitted reply dated 18.02.2021, copy of the same has also been handed over to the complainant. Vide which it was informed that the grievance of the complainant regarding pseudonymous complaint dated 24.10.2019 has been redressed completely as the complaint was formally filed.  

3. On perusal of above reply it is revealed that the respondent only dealt with one aspect of this complaint.   The complainant sought relief mainly on the following two points:

(i) Quashing of his APAR 2018-19 written by Sh. Y.K. Sharma, Retd. Principal,  which is not correct as per existing rules,  as he wrote his APAR in revengeful and malafide intentions;  

(ii) Grant of MACP-II.

 4. In light of the above, the following directions are made:

(i) The APAR of the complainant for the year 2018-19 written by Sh. Y.K.Sharma, Retired Principal should be quashed.

(ii) With regard to grant of MACP-II to the complainant, which is pending since 25.01.2020, respondent is directed to submit an ATR within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.

(iii) APAR for the year 2018-19 of the complainant should not be considered as a negative point for his promotion in due course.

(iv) Respondent No. 1 is also directed to constitute the District-wise Grievance Redressal Committees as per Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 consisting of persons with disabilities including visually impaired persons for looking after of such genuine complaints. An action taken report in this regard be submitted by 26.02.2021.

5. The case is disposed of with the above recommendations.

6. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19th  day of February, 2021. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Virender Singh H/o Smt. Pooja Kumari Vs. The Commissioner SDMC | Case No. 1302/1024/2019/11/3043-44 | Dated:22/02/2021

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-02

Phone-23216002-04,  Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under

the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016)

Case No. 1302/1024/2019/11/3043-44 Dated:22/02/2021

In the matter of:

Shri Virender Singh H/o Smt. Pooja Kumari,
(E-mail: virender_dewan@yahoo.com)            …………..Complainant 

Versus

The Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th Level, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002.                   ………..Respondent 

Date of hearing: 19.02.2021

Present: Sh. Virender Singh, Complainant

Ms. Angoori Bai Meena, SI, Education Department, SDMC on behalf of respondent. 

ORDER

            Shri Virender Singh H/o Smt. Pooja Kumari, a person with 93% locomotor disability vide email dated 08.11.2019 submitted that his wife, Smt. Pooja Kumari is working as Primary Teacher in South Delhi Municipal corporation and she is entitled to the benefit of Rs. 3000/- per month as Special Allowance for child care for women with disabilities as per Circular/Order dated 16.08.2017 of Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India. The allowance shall be payable from the time of the child’s birth till the child is two years old.  So far, SDMC has not granted Special Allowance for child care to his wife and also not granted arrears on account of clearing her probation period.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 27.11.2019 and followed by reminders dated 28.02.2020, 06.07.2020 and 04.06.2020.  

3. A hearing was scheduled for 19.02.2021.  The court noted with displeasure that the Deputy Director concerned of SDMC did not attend the hearing and directs the Commissioner and Deputy Director that the concerned senior officer (HOD) should attend the Court. 

4. It was confirmed by the representative of the respondent that the arrear on account of probation period has been sanctioned and arrear on account of Special Allowance for child care has been processed and has been sent to finance functionaries of SDMC.

5. It was recommended that amount in respect of both the arrears be disbursed to the complainant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and an Action Taken Report be submitted.

6. The case was disposed with the above recommendation. 

7. Give under my hand and the seal of the Court this 22nd day of February, 2021.

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

 

Akhand Pratap Singh Vs. Secretary DSSB & Anr. | Case No. 1763/1014/2020/01/3040-42 | Dated :22/02/2021

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 under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1763/1014/2020/01/3040-42 Dated:22/02/2021

In the matter of:

Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh,
Kh. 13/10 & 13/1,
H.No. 13, UGF, Gali No.14,
Bhagat Colony, West Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi-110084.
(E-mail-akhandpartapsingh@gmail.com)      … Complainant

Versus

The Secretary, 

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 
FC-18, Institutional Area, 
Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092. .......Respondent No.1

The Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
J.L.N. Marg, New Delhi-110002.          ......Respondent No.2

Date of hearing: 19.02.2021

Present: Sh. Akhand Partap Singh, Complainant,  

Sh. Biju Raj, Deputy Director and Sh. Satish Kanojia, Section Officer, DSSSB on behalf of respondent No.1

Sh. R.K. Kalra, Asstt. Law Officer, SDMC on behalf of respondent No.2

ORDER

        The complainant, a person with 40% post burn contracture of left hand with deformity vide his complaint dated 27.01.2021 submitted a complaint regarding his pending candidature for the post of Asstt. Law Officer in SDMC.

2. A hearing was scheduled on 19.02.2021.  Representative of the respondent No.1 informed that the complainant had filed an O.A. before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal in this case and a hearing has been scheduled for 23.02.2021. 

3. In view of the submission of the respondent No.1, the case is kept in abeyance till the Hon’ble CAT herd the case and final verdict is passed.  Final verdict of the Hon’ble CAT be submitted to this Court by the parties.

4. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 22nd day of February, 2021.  

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Sushma Rani Vs. DCP East District, Delhi & 3 others | Case No.907/1111/2019/05/3010-3014 | Dated:19/02/2021

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 under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.907/1111/2019/05/3010-3014                 Dated:19/02/2021

In the matter of:

Ms. Sushma Rani,

A-25, Gali No. 5, ChanderVihar,

Delhi-110092. ……Complainant

Versus

The DCP,

East District,

6B, I.P. Extension, Patparganj,

Delhi-110092. …..Respondent No. 1

Smt. Anjana Chauhan,

C-7/53, Jagatpuri Extension,

Near G.T.B. Hospital,

Delhi-110093. ….Respondent No. 2

(impleaded on 05.08.2019)

Sh. Chehtan Chauhan,

C-7/53, Jagatpuri Extension,

Near G.T.B. Hospital,

Delhi-110093. ….Respondent No. 3

(impleaded on 05.08.2019)

Sh. Surjan Singh Chauhan,

C-7/53, Jagatpuri Extension,

Near G.T.B. Hospital,

Delhi-110093. ….Respondent No. 4

(impleaded on 05.08.2019)

ORDER

        The above named applicant, Smt. Sushma Rani w/o Sh. Jaipal Chauhan, a person with more than 40% locomotor disability had filed a complaint dated 17.05.2019, received on 21.05.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act.The Complainant submitted that her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Ms. Anjana Chauhan and her relatives interfered in her marital life, mistreat, insult, intimidate her and no action was taken on her complaint by the police.

2. The complaint was taken up with the respondent(s) vide notice dated 30.05.2019 with the advice to send action taken report by 27.06.2019. 

3. On 19.12.2019, during the hearing the complainant was contacted on telephone and reiterated her written submission in her complaint and the rejoinder to the report of DCP, East District.  As per her, the report was not true.  She had been advised to submit the grounds/supporting documents/evidence, if any. 

4. Ms. Anjana Chauhan and Sh. Surjan Singh Chauhan (respondent no. 2 & 4) were appeared and denied the allegations. They had also submitted the written reply on behalf of respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 alongwith a copy of each for the complainant.  The complainant had requested that she will get the said replied collected by hand from this Court. 

5. Sh. Sanjay Sondhi, SDM HQ5, Revenue Department was also appeared and reiterated that Divisional Commissioner is not an essential party in this matter as already submitted. The issue before the Divisional Commissioner had no connection with this complaint and therefore Divisional Commissioner might be removed from the array of respondents. The same was accepted and the Divisional Commissioner was removed from the array of respondents. The memo of parties was accordingly changed. 

6. After hearing the parties, it was observed that the case before the Divisional Commissioner was an appeal of the mother of the complainant against the order dated 01.01.2019 of District Magistrate (East) directing SHO (Mandavli) to shift Ms. Anjana Chauhan (respondent no. 2 in this case) to her matrimonial home. The case which was reported to be pending in Karkarduma Court also had no relation with this case as that case relates to a family dispute between the parties.

7. It was made clear that the complainant herein had alleged infringement of her right as a person with disability and abuse, intimidation and threatening etc. by respondent no. 2, 3 & 4 in violation of Section 92 of the Act. 

8. DCP, East District (respondent no. 1) was therefore directed to investigate the matter and submit a fresh report strictly with reference to the complaint dated 17.05.2019 filed by the complainant and rejoinder submitted by her on 12.12.2019 on the report of the Police. 

9. In response to above direction an ATR dated 14.08.2020 was received from ACP/PG, East Delhi on 17.08.2020, which is reproduce as under:

“In this connection, it is submitted that as per the report of ACP/MadhuVihar. During the course of enquiry, E.O./ASI Sunil Kumar, PS MadhuVIhar visited the house of complainant and met her and her husband namely Jaipal Chauhan.  But the complainant refused to give her statement regarding her complaint and she stated that she will send her statement by post. She further stated that 2 years ago, her sister-in-law namely Anjana Chauhan came to her house and quarreled with her but the complainant did not make any complaint. About this incident, the complainant had no evidence or recording. After receiving her statement by post which she deposed that she made a complaint to the office of “The Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities” on 17.05.2019 and the commission directed the local police for conducting an enquiry into the matter. In her statement dated 23.03.2020, Anjana Chauhan, Chetan Chauhan and Suranjan Singh Chauhan had used to harass her. But she wants an action against them for the torture done by them in the past. She further stated that if they harass her in future, she will make a complaint against them.”

10. Taking into considerations of fact/reply received from Police Authority, it is recommended that if at any stage, the complainant is abused, insulted, intimated, humiliated, assaulted or force is used against her by any person, she should report the matter to the SHO who shall immediately take appropriate action under the law. It should also be noted that a person with disability may not always be able to provide evidence for such incidents. The concerned police officers therefore should use best of their skills and resources to ensure that the rights and the dignity of persons with disabilities like the complainant who are extremely vulnerable, are protected. 

11. The complaint is disposed of. 

12. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19thday of February, 2021.

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Pardeep Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi | Case No. 1915/1141/2020/08/2979-80 |Dated:17/02/2021

 

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 under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1915/1141/2020/08/2979-80 Dated:17/02/2021

 

In the matter of:

Sh. Pardeep Kumar, 

C-12/511, Yamuna Vihar,

Delhi-110053.

(E-mail :- pardeeparora4759@yahoo.com)         …… Complainant

Versus

The Chief Engineer,

Irrigation and Flood Control Department,

Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

L.M. Bund Office Complex, Shastri Nagar,

 Delhi-110031.

(e-mail:- ceifcd@gmail.com)   .......Respondent 

Date of hearing: 16.02.2021

Present: Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Complainant

Sh. Vivek Chauhan, Executive Engineer(Civil), Sh. Ashok Kumar, Executive Engineer(P&D) and Sh. Rajeev Dawar, D/Man,  on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The main issues of the complainant were that his degree was not being accepted by the Irrigation and Flood Control Department, GNCT of Delhi.  Secondly, his registration fee of Rs.10,000/- deposited was not returned and thirdly his registration was not being done under appropriate category by the department.  

2. A hearing was scheduled on 16.02.2021.  After due discussion and deliberation of all the relevant rules position alongwith the complainant and the officials of the I&FC Department, it was clarified that the degree of the complainant was recognized by the department and that the fee of   Rs. 10,000/- so deposited by the complainant has duly been returned to him. 

3. On the issue of registering the complainant under Class IV category, the officials explained that as per existing rules and policy, Sh. Pardeep Kumar can only be registered under Class V category and not under Class IV category as was demanded by the complainant.

4. Keeping in view the submissions given by the representatives of the respondent, Sh. Pardeep Kumar was advised to apply under Class V category alongwith the requisite documents.  Representatives of the respondent were recommended to process his case expeditiously and submit the Action Taken Report.

5. The case was disposed with the above recommendation. 

6. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 17th day of February, 2021.  

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Sh. Neeraj Gupta & Anr Vs. The Director of Education (Sports Branch), Delhi | Case No. 1872/1143/2020/07/2970-71 | Dated:17/02/2021

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 under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1872/1143/2020/07/2970-71 Dated:17/02/2021

 

In the matter of:

Sh. Neeraj Gupta and Sh. Akshay Parashar

(E-mail :- neerajgupta0011@gmail.com)      … Complainants

Versus

The Director,

Directorate of Education,

(Sports Branch),

Chhatrasal Stadium, Model Town,

Delhi-110009.

(e-mail:- ddesportsdelhi@gmail.com)     ......Respondent 

Date of hearing: 16.02.2021

Present: Sh. Neeraj Gupta and Sh. Akshay Prashar, Complainants

                        Ms. Asha Aggarwal, Deputy Director (Sports) on behalf of the         respondent.

ORDER

        The said complaint was received from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt. of India vide their letter dated 13.07.2020. Sh. Neeraj Gupta and Sh. Akshay Prashar, persons with 80% and 50% locomotor disability vide complaint dated 16.03.2020 were aggrieved as they represented Delhi in  Paralympic sports organized by Paralympic Committee of India (PCI).  They submitted that they participated in championships organised by ISFCP (Indian Sports Federation Cerebral Palsy), Apex Body of PCI and have won many medals but no prize money was ever paid to them.  It was revealed that according to sports policy of Delhi Government, cash incentive is given to the medal winning players duly recognised by Government of India/Paralympic Committee of India/Indian Olympic Association. 

2. A hearing was scheduled on 16.02.2021.  Both the parties put forward their view points. During the hearing, Sh. Rahul Swamy, Chief Administrator, PCI was contacted on his mobile number and after due discussion and diligence, it was agreed that both the aggrieved complainants would report to PCI office on 18.02.2021 and their certificates would be appropriately signed by the PCI which would be acceptable to the Dte. of Education , GNCT of Delhi. 

3. Both the complainants were directed to meet Shri Rahul Swamy and submit the signed certificates to the Dte. of Education on 19.02.2021 and Ms. Asha Aggarwal, Deputy Director (Sports) was directed to process their case expeditiously and submit the Action Taken Report.

4. The case was disposed with the above recommendations. 

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

  

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities