Raj Kumar Singh Vs. Dte of Education & Anr. | Case No. 1929 /1024/2020/09/1333-1335 | Dated:26-08-21

 

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. 1929 /1024/2020/09/1333-1335                      Dated: 26-08-21

In the matter of:

Shri Raj Kumar Singh,
SE-321, Shastri Nagar,
Ghaziabad, U.P.-201002.
(Email ID: - rajkumarsingh335@gmail.com)                    ..…………..Complainant

Versus

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

The Principal/HOS,
DAV Public Sr. Secondary School, 
Jangpura, New Delhi-110014              ………….Respondent No.2

Date of hearing: 24.08.2021

Present: Sh. Raj Kumar Singh, Complainant

Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Asstt., DOE on behalf of Respondent No.1

Sh. Kiran Bage, Vice Principal and Sh.  Sunil Kumar, ASO , DAV, SSS, Jangpura on behalf of Respondent No. 2

ORDER

The complainant, a person with 52% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 23.08.2020 submitted that he is eligible for the benefits of 1st financial up-gradation under MACP scheme, 2008 w.e.f. 05.08.2018 but no benefit is given to him till now. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondents vide letter dated 03.09.2020 and followed by reminders dated 05.11.2020, 25.03.2021 and Show Cause Notice dated 05.07.2021.

3. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 20.07.2021 submitted that the 1st Financial up-gradation under MACP Scheme could not be granted to the complainant as his ACR for the year 2015-16 is pending for review. A letter dated 16.03.2019 had been sent to DDE Zone-25, South East.  Also, ACRs of the complainant for the years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 are ‘Average’ and ‘Good’ respectively i.e. below benchmark and file in this regard is under submission for further process to DDE Zone-29, South East sent vide letter dated 07.09.2020. Further action will be taken after receipt of the reply.

4. Vide rejoinder dated 23.07.2021, the complainant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply of respondent No. 2 as he was not communicated his ACR appraisal.  

5. A hearing was scheduled on 24.08.2021. The complainant submitted that the above mentioned grading in his ACR for the relevant years should have been communicated to him within prescribed time limit. The school authorities had not followed the relevant rules. The complainant also mentioned about a similarly placed case in which grading of ACR was reviewed from ‘Average’ to ‘Very Good’ on the basis of un-communicated adverse grading in ACR. 

6. The representative of Respondent No. 1 pleaded that ‘Average’ and ‘Good’ grading of ACR is not adverse and hence could not be communicated to the complainant. Representative of Respondent No. 2 mentioned about a Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2017 issued to the complainant regarding refusal to teach ‘Chemistry’ to the students of Science Stream Classes XI & XII besides his routine periods as an internal arrangement for the time being as there is shortage of teaching staff.

7. The complainant submitted that he had already requested the HOS, DAV Senior Secondary School, Jungpura vide his letter dated 14.09.2017 that he was not comfortable with the subject as he is PGT Physics and M.Sc in Physics and not in Chemistry. He tried to teach the Chemistry but failed to do the justice to students and therefore requested to relieve him from this subject. He never refused to take the classes of ‘Chemistry’ and took the classes for the complete year. 

8. After due deliberations and discussion held, the court is of the opinion that enough caution has not been exercised in this particular regard.  The crux is that the complainant has not given the benefit of MACP which should have been granted to him. In view of the above, the case is disposed of with the following recommendations:- 

(i) Respondent No. 2 should process the case for grant of first financial up-gradation under MACP scheme with effect from the restrospective date it was due to the complainant, after following the procedure/rules. 

(ii) DoE should take into consideration the vacant posts of teaching staff in the school and arrange to fill the same urgently.

9. An action taken report is to be filed post actions accomplished. 

10. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 25th day of August, 2021.

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Avinash Mahavra Vs. Directorate of Education, Delhi | Case No. 2166/1023/2021/03/1328-1329| Dated: 26-08-21

 

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. 2166/1023/2021/03/1328-1329 Dated: 26-08-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Avinash Mahavra, 
Flat No. 125, Village & Post Office Sanaut,
Delhi-110040

Email: avinash.mahavra@gmail.com                        ………Complainant

Versus

The Director
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110054.

Email: diredu@nic.in                                                ………..Respondent 

Date of Hearing : 24.08.2021

Present: Sh. Avinash Mahavra, Complainant.

Sh.  Rahul Dev, Legal Assistant,  Sh. Pradeep Kumar HOS, GBSSS, Narela alongwith Sh. Rajesh Malik appeared on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

      The complainant, Sh. Avinash Mahavra, a visually impaired person has filed a complaint dated 12.03.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act and alleged that he has been harassed and misbehaved by Sh. Pradeep Dahiya, HOS, Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School Narela. His monthly salary was not paid on time and his annual increment, which was due in the month of January, was also intentionally granted in the month of February by HOS, GBSSS, Narela Delhi. Thus, he requested to take strict action against the HOS, GBSSS, Narela. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 08.04.2021 for submission of their comments. HOS, GBSSS Pkt-2, Sector-A6, Narela  vide his reply dated 16.06.2021 submitted that the salary of complainant was prepared well in time after receipt of his Last Pay Certificate from the previous school on 30.11.2020,   though his previous school also paid his salary timely on monthly basis.  Further the students did not show any interest in the particular subject (Sanskrit) taught by complainant, this was the reason for which the students could not be enrolled in Class-XI for this subject in session 2020-21.  With regard to increment of complainant, a general message was forwarded among the staff members through Whatsapp for giving information and it was also discussed during staff meeting, but the complainant did not inform the school about his increment in the month of Jan.2021.  However, his increment & arrear was already paid in the month of Feb.2021.   Complainant was asked to check the examination papers being single Lecturer Sanskrit teacher in school, for this he was asked to take help form other colleagues.  There was no such intension of harassing him. 

3. The complainant vide his rejoinder dated 24.07.2021 (received through e-mail) inter-alia submitted that he was unable to read  Whatsapp message being visually impaired, thus he was being harassed for increment and suffered two months i.e. January and February’ 2021 and finally get the benefit of increment in March’ 2021. Neither any colleague was asked to help him nor was he asked to take help from them for checking examination papers. He submitted that the HOS intentionally forced the undersigned to take transfer from this school to any other school. He again prayed for conducting proper inquiry by the higher authorities in the matter. 

4. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 24.08.2021.  

During the hearing,    Sh. Avinash Mahavra, Complainant was present. Representatives of Respondent were also present. Complainant inter-alia added that he has suffered financially due to delay in grant of annual increment and he should not be discriminated in School by HOS in future. 

5. HOS, GBSSS Pkt-2, Sector-A6, Narela vide his written submission dated 23.08.2021 pointed out that the Service Book of complainant was not available at the time of increment in the month of January, 2021 the same was received on 01.07.2021.  Even though, his annual increment was granted in the month of February 2021 without availability of his Service Book. 

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

(i) As the HOS, GBSSS Pkt-2, Sector-A6, Narela has already granted annual increment to the complainant and disbursed the same with arrear, no further action is required in this regard. 

(ii) HOS, GBSSS Pkt-2, Sector-A6, Narela is hereby directed to take care of the fact that the complainant should not be discriminated in any manner and he should be provided all kind of co-operation and support by school authorities for discharging his duties efficiently.

(iii) With regard to complainant’s grievance towards enrolment of Class XI students for Sanskrit subject, HOS, GBSSS Pkt-2, Sector-A6, Narela was advised that the potential of complainant should be utilised to the fullest and school students should be inspired to take Sanskrit as a subject. 

(iv) Court has taken serious view on the issue of late submission of Service Book of complainant from previous school. Thus, Court also directs Education Department to take care of such lackadaisical approach adopted by various schools comes under its jurisdiction while sending personal record like Service Books. etc of officials from one place of posting to other.  Respondent should issue necessary guidelines to all in order to avoid such delays in future.

7. Accordingly, the case is disposed of. 

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

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

 

 

Suo Motu Vs. The Director Delhi Fire Services & Eight other Departments | Lead Case No. 939/1015/2019/06/1269-1277 | Dated:19-08-21

 

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.

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]

1. Case No. 939/1015/2019/06 /1269-1277 Dated:19-08-21

In the matter of:

Suo-Motu                                      ………..Complainant

Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Delhi Fire Services HQ,
205-1205, New Barakhambha Road,
Connaught Lane, Barakhambha,
New Delhi-110001.                         .................Respondent

2.Case No. 957/1015/2019/06

In the matter of:

Suo-Motu                                                ………..Complainant

Versus

The Pr.Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
9th Level, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.                        .………..Respondent 

3. Case No. 956/1015/2019/06

In the matter of:

Suo-Motu                                                   ………..Complainant

Versus

The Registrar,
O/o The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Old Court Building, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001.                              .………..Respondent 

4.Case No. 926/1015/2019/06

In the matter of:

Suo-Motu                                                    ………..Complainant

Versus

The Director,
Higher Education,
5 Sham Nath Marg, Prema Kunj,            
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054.                       .………..Respondent 

5.Case No. 922/1015/2019/06

In the matter of:

Suo-Motu                                 ...........Complainant

Versus

The Pr. Secretary,
Health & Family Welfare Department,
9th Level, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.                    ........Respondent

6. Case No. 960/1015/2019/06

In the matter of:
Suo-Motu                                                           ………..Complainant

Versus

The Chairman, 
New Delhi Municipal Council,
Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg, 
GNCT of Delhi,
New Delhi-110001.                                 .………..Respondent 

7.Case No. 963/1015/2019/06

In the matter of:

Suo-Motu                                                    ………..Complainant

        

Versus

The Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Centre,
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002.                       .………..Respondent 

8.Case No. 964/1015/2019/06

In the matter of:

Suo-Motu                                                   ………..Complainant

Versus
The Commissioner,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
419, MCD, Udyog Sadan, 
Patparganj Industrial Area,
Patparganj, Delhi-110092                         ………..Respondent 

9. Case No. 980/1015/2019/06

In the matter of:

Suo-Motu                                                  ………..Complainant

Versus

The Secretary,
Directorate of Training & Technical Education, 
Purvi Pitampura, Muni Maya Ram Marg, 
Block RU Pitampura, Delhi-110034                 .………..Respondent 

Date of hearing: 16.08.2021

Present: List enclosed at Annexure - I.       

ORDER

As per Section 21 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), Rule 8 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (RPwD Rules) and Rule 12 of the Delhi Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018 (Delhi RPwD Rules), every establishment shall notify the “Equal Opportunity Policy” and register a copy of the said policy with the State Commissioner.

Section 2(k) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act provides as under:

“Government establishment” means a corporation established by or under a Central Act or State Act or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a local authority or a Government Company as defined in Section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 and includes a Department of the Government.

2. In view of the above provisions of the Act and the Rules, all the Pr.Secretaries/ Secretaries/HODs of Government of GNCT of Delhi and Local Bodies were to initiate appropriate actions vide letter No. F. 5/1766/2017-Wel/CD/5134-5292 dated 13.02.2018 followed by reminders dated 15.06.2018 & 18.01.2019 and were advised as under:

(i) For implementation of the Equal Opportunity Policy (EOP) and draw the same in all Departments / Organisations and establishments under jurisdiction and to register the same with the State Commissioner; and 

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

3. Publication and registration of Equal Opportunity Policy is mandatory under the Act and contravention of any provision of the Act and the Rules made thereunder is punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 10000/- and for any subsequent contravention fine shall not be less than Rs. 50000/- but may extend to Rs. 5 Lakh, a Suo-Motu cognizance vide Notice 03.08.2021 was taken up with the respondents regarding notification and registration of Equal Opportunity Policy by the Govt. Establishments and Private Establishments and all were directed to appear for  hearing on 16.08.2021 under Section 82 of the Act.  

4. A joint hearing was held on 16.08.2021 at 11.30 AM with all the   respondents mentioned above, for respective organisations which have not drawn and forwarded copies of Equal Opportunity Policy to this Office till date.

5. None appeared on behalf of the Office of the Registrar Co-operative Societies, which is noted with concern.  Registrar, Co-operative Societies may please note and ensure drawing of the EOP and forward the same to the Office of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.   List of participants is enclosed at Annexure-I.

6. State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (SCPD) also took the opportunity to deliberate and brief about the aim, objectives and need of implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, in true spirit.    It was explained that the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 was welfare based whereas the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a ‘Right’ for all PwDs.  Numbers of different disabilities included in this Act have been increased from 7 to 21.  All the 101 Sections of the present Act are mandatory except 4 Sections.  Provision of Penalties and non-implementing the various provisions of the Act were also brought to the notice of all. 

7. SCPD has also pointed out the Equal Opportunity Policy framed by Department of Social Welfare, GNCT of Delhi for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 03.06.2019.  Similarly this Office has also framed its Equal Opportunity Policy vide letter dated 24.07.2019.  It was advised that both the EOPs can be taken as a ‘Model’ by other departments while framing their EOPs.  Both policies are readily available on this Office website i.e. http://discomm.delhi.gov.in/ for downloading for reference.

8. Representative of Department of Training and Technical Education informed that they forwarded copy of their EOP and consolidated list of Institutes (Govt. & Pvt.) in respect of Grievance Redresaal Officers (GROs) to this Office on 13.08.2021 for information and record as desired. 

9. Representative of Urban Development Department informed that they too have forwarded copy of their Equal Opportunity Policy on 12.08.2021.  

10. Representative of East Delhi Municipal Corporation also submitted that EDMC has already prepared their Equal Opportunity Policy and submitted copy of the same during the hearing, which has been taken on record. 

11. Representative of Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital Shastri Park, Delhi also filed copy of their Equal Opportunity Policy sent on 23.07.2019, copy of which also taken on record. 

12. Some representative of various hospitals requested for clarity on the issue of submitting their EOPs separately or through their Head Office i.e. Health & Family Welfare Deptt.  Similar queries were also raised by Department of Higher Education and Department of Training and Technical Education. In this regard, it was clarified that initially every major department has to frame its EOP and also to ensure framing of separate EOPs by respective subordinate Offices.  Thus, every prime department will circulate necessary instructions / directions to all their subordinate offices/establishments for framing and submitting their EOPs directly to the Office of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.

13. In the light of the above, the following recommendations are made:

(i) It is mandatory for every Department to frame an EOP and register the same with the Office of State Commissioner unless it is excluded from the definition of a “Government Establishment” as given in Section 2(k) of the RPwD Act, 2016.

(ii) All the respondent Departments except Department of Training and Technical Education, Urban 

(iii) Development Department and East Delhi Municipal Corporation are hereby directed to send a copy of their Equal Opportunity Policy (EOP) to this Department by 10.09.2021 (10thSeptember,2021).  

(iv) All the Respondent Departments are also directed to send  list of private establishments registered with or connected to their department / organisation alongwith their full addresses and contact details in soft copy by 10.09.2021.

14.     Accordingly, above cases are disposed of.

15. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 18th day of  August,  2021.

          

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities 

Annexure-I : Attendance Sheet

Respondent Departments:

1. Department of Health & Family Welfare

Dr. Yogesh Kataria, Nodal Officer for matters relating to PwDs (H&FW Deptt.)
Dr. G.C. Malik, Nodal Officer for PwDs (Pd. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital)
Dr. B. Kanhar, Consultant (Ortho), Disability incharge, (Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital)
Dr. V.P. Khari, Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital
Dr. Chetan Ray, CMO, G.B. Pant Hospital
Dr. Neeta Wardhan, Professor, Lady Hardinge Medical College
Dr. Namita, (CP Disability Branch), Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital
Ms. Meena Jain, Asst. Director, Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital
Dr. Monalisa, CMO, MRD Deptt. Safdarjung Hospital
Ms. Satya, Medical Record Officer, Safdarjung Hospital
Dr. Ritu Verma, Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital
Dr. Krishan Dev, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital
Dr. Mondeep, IHBAS
Dr. N.S. Khurana, Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital

2. South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Sh. Muktamay Mandal, Addl. Director (Education)

Sh. Raman Kumar

Sh. C.S. Mangla

 3. Delhi Fire Services

Sh. Rajinder Atwal, Divisional Officer

4.  Directorate Of Training & Technical Education

Sh. B.S. Negi, Dy. Director (Trg.) TTE HQ

Sh. Vipin Kumar, JTA

Sh. Upreti, STA

 5. New Delhi Municipal Council

Sh. K.C. Raju, Director (Personnel) 

6. East Delhi Municipal Corporation

Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Asst. Commissioner

Sh. O.P. Jha, EE

Sh. Indervir Singh, AE (R)

7. Directorate of Higher Education

Sh. Vinay Kaushik, Dy. Director

Sh. Yagdutt Sharma, ASO

8. Urban Development Department

Sh. K.C. Surender, Add. Secretary

Sh. Rajesh Ranjan, Dy. Secretary

9. O/o Registrar Co-operative Society

None Present

Rajendra Prasad Vs. Directorate of Education | Case No.1836/1024/2020/06/1233-1234 | Dated:12/08/21

 

In the Court of the 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-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.1836/1024/2020/06/1233-1234        Dated:12/08/21

In the matter of:

Sh. Rajendra Prasad, TGT (Retd.),
C-731, Type-C, Delhi Administration Flats,
Timarpur, New Delhi-110054.
(E-mail ID: rajendra.prasad8191@gmail.com)         ............Complainant
                                                     

 Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.                         ……......Respondent

Date of Hearing: 11.08.2021

Present: Sh. Rajendra Prasad Complainant 
Sh. Triloki Nath, Advocate alongwith Complainant
Dr. Pradip Kumar Mundra, HOS, SBV, Timarpur and
Ms. Anupama, UDC on behalf of respondent

ORDER

Sh. Rajendra Prasad, TGT(Retd.), a person with 100% visual impairment vide complaint dated 16.06.2020 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, alleged that he has been harassed and discriminated by Dr. P.K. Mundra, HOS, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya (SBV), Govt. of NCT of Delhi. He stated that his full retiral benefits have not been paid by the HOS deliberately.   

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 29.06.2020 and followed by various reminders. Vide reply dated 14.12.2020, respondent stated that a preliminary investigation was taken up and it was found that he was granted re-employment in July, 2020 (a point raised by complainant as discriminatory but not substantiated).  Further, partial service benefits were also given to him. The payment of remaining service benefits, if admissible as per rules, was under process at District/School level. 

3. The complainant vide rejoinder dated 08.03.2021 submitted that his six month gratuity had still not been paid.  Vide email dated 07.06.2021 received from DoE (IEB), submitted the following:-

a) As per authority letter issued by PAO-IX vide No. PAO-IX/PEN/59/2020/2239-40 dated 26.04.2021, additional amount of gratuity for Rs 556043/-is payable by the bank. Therefore, no bill submitted in PAO is required from school. 

b) After his retirement, his service book remained under movement in connection with counting of his past service etc. and was still in Distt. North for his pay fixation on Re- employment. 

c) For leave encashment of 5 days as mentioned by Sh. Rajendra Prasad, if admissible it will be paid as & when his service book is received in school. 

d) Payment of group Insurance already paid along with other retirement benefits vide bill no UTGEGIS-32  dated 28.05.2020 amounting to Rs. 12196/-.

4. The complainant was not satisfied with the reply of the respondent.  A hearing was scheduled on 11.08.2021.  Both the parties reiterated their submissions before the Court.  The complainant expressed unhappiness regarding the attitude of the HOS towards him while in school and subsequently.

5. The court took a serious view on the issue of any type of harassment and discrimination on the part of the HOS.  The HOS explained that he did not ever want to be discourteous to Sh. Rajendra Prasad and always holds him with due respect but if by any chance inadvertently he has felt otherwise and taken offence of his behaviour or approach he was ready for unconditional apology for the same. Thereafter, the HOS Dr. Pradip Kumar Mundra apologised to the complainant before the Hon’ble Court and begged to be excused if he had hurt him in any way. 

6. Regarding balance financial benefits, the HOS submitted that he had received the complete papers yesterday (i.e.10.08.2021) only and will settle all his dues immediately.

7. The court directed HOS to immediately settle all the financial dues of the complainant and an action taken report be submitted to this court within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

8. The case was disposed of with the above recommendation. 

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

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner of Person with Disabilities

Rachna Vs. The Principal Mt. Columbus School & Anr. | Case No. 1284/1111/2019/11/1230-1232 | Dated:12/08/21

 

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-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. 1284/1111/2019/11/1230-1232              Dated:12/08/21

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 

Mukesh Sharma Vs DSSSB & Anr. | Case No. 2220/1011/2021/06/1201-1203 | Dated: 11/08/21

 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.2220/1011/2021/06/1201-1203 Dated: 11/08/21

In the matter of:

Sh. Mukesh Sharma
(Email:mukesh31881@gmail.com)                          ………Complainant

Versus

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

The Director,
Directorate of Education,
GNCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.           .............Respondent No.2

Date of Hearing: 10.08.2021

Present: Sh. Biju Raj, Dy. Secretary, DSSSB on behalf of Respondent No. 1

Sh. S. Nand Kumar, S.O, DoE on behalf of Respondent No. 2

ORDER

Sh. Mukesh Sharma, a person with 100% hearing impairment filed a complaint vide email dated 29.05.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act and alleged that DSSSB vide advertisement dated 12.05.2021 advertised the posts of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) wherein no reservation was granted to persons with hearing impairment.

2. The case was taken up with the respondents vide show cause notice dated 08.06.2021.  Respondent No.1 vide their reply dated 05.07.2021 submitted that Board makes recruitment as per the requisitions received from the indenting departments.  The indenting department maintains the reservation roster pertaining to all categories including PwD Category candidates and accordingly send the requisition to DSSSB.  It was further submitted that Directorate of Education has also certified that the requirements of RPwD Act, 2016 and policy relating to reservation for persons with the benchmark disabilities have been taken care of while sending requisition. Thus, Respondent No. 2 is responsible for identification and fixation of reserved categories posts and any anomaly that arises with respect to this aspect. 

3. A hearing was scheduled on 10.08.2021.  Vide submission dated 09.08.2021, Respondent No. 2 submitted that the requisition of 11,139 posts of TGT/TGT (MIL) was sent to DSSSB vide Letter dated 26.06.2020 and additional 926 posts on 14.01.2021 (online) and hard copy on 17.02.2021. The department completed the process of forwarding the requisition to DSSSB by 14.01.2021 (Online), whereas the notification No.38-16/2020- DD-III, issued by Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment dated 04.01.2021 catered for some additional relaxation for some categories of PwDs.  Regarding non-implementation of notification dated 04.01.2021 in the current requisition, it was submitted that the requisition was sent to the DSSSB on 26.06.2020 i.e. well before the issue of said notification. The requisition of additional posts of TGT/TGT(MIL) was sent to DSSSB on 14.01.2021 (Online) & hard copy on 17.02.2021. 

4. The case was discussed and deliberated upon with the representatives of DSSSB and Directorate of Education in the absence of the complainant, notwithstanding for whatsoever reasons, he was not present. 

5. Plea of the Directorate of Education was that even as per the latest Notification No.38-16/2020- DD-III dated 04.01.2021 issued by Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, post of TGT would not be suitable for 100% hearing impaired PwDs. It was further added that there can be some relaxation in this category but it will be very difficult for the person with 100% hearing impairment to communicate with the students in the class. Hence, this category was not included in the advertisement. 

6. The court accepts the plea of Directorate of Education and advises the complainant  to  apply for the post suitable for him. 

7. The complaint was disposed of.

8. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 11th day of August, 2021.  

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

                                State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

  

Munazza Vs. DSSSB & Anr. | Case No.1828/1014/2020/06/1208-1210 | Dated:11-08-21

 

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, 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.1828/1014/2020/06/1208-1210 Dated:11-08-21 

In the matter of:

Ms. Munazza, 
House no.1830, Ist Floor, 
Agha Jaan Street, Kalan Mahal, 
Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002                      …………Complainant

Versus

The Chairman, 
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma
Delhi-110092.                                     ........... Respondent No.1
     
The Chairman
New Delhi Municipal Council
Palika Kendra, Parliament Street
New Delhi-110001                                                     ........... Respondent No.2

DOH: 10.08.2021

Present: Sh. Shamsuddin,  husband of the complainant Ms. Munazza.

Sh. Biju Raj E, Dy.Secretary, DSSSB appeared on behalf of respondent No.1,  

Sh. Shiv Kumar Jt. Dirctor (Education) appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2.

ORDER

The above complainant Ms. Munazza, a person with locomotor disability vide her email dated 16.06.2020 submitted her issue relating to  pending candidature for the post of Asstt. Teacher (Urdu), Post Code 60/14 in PH/OBC category.  

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent No. 1 & 2 vide letter dated 22.06.2020 for submission of their comments. A reply was received from Dy. Secy. (DSSSB) on 31.08.2020 vide which it was informed that the Board had declared the result of the post code 60/14 vide Result Notice 467 dated 21.06.2019 and as per policy the waiting panel constituting of all the candidates above minimum qualifying marks in their respective category for the post code 60/14 was valid for the period of one year i.e upto 20.06.2020.  The applicant alongwith other such qualified candidates in respective categories was part of the waiting panel.  However, as per existing Services Department, GNCT of Delhi Circular No 16(3)/DSSSB/2007-S-III/1268 dated 13.06.2019, waiting panel for the post code 60/14 expired on 20.06.2020.  Further, as per the query of the applicant regarding display /uploading of waiting panel is concerned, the Board only displays roll numbers of the provisionally nominated candidates in the concerned Result Notice.  

3. Joint Director (Education, NDMC vide their reply dated 24.09.2020 submitted para-wise reply as under:

(i) 16 Nos. Of candidates have joined till 20.06.20 (UR-05), OBC-11), total 05 OBC candidates have not accepted offer of appointment and 22 candidates presented for document verification.

(ii) Para 2 & 4 does not pertain to NDMC.

(ii) No waiting list has been provided by DSSSB.

4. To resolve the matter with jurisprudence and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 10.08.2021.   During the hearing, Sh. Shamsuddin, husband of the complainant Ms. Munazza appeared to present the case. Representatives of Respondent No. 1 &  2 were also present.

5. Complainant vide her rejoinder dated 24.06.2021 also stated that validity of the waiting panel was extended vide DSSSB letter No. F16(3)/DSSSB/2007/S-III/267 dated 01.02.21 but her result is still awaited.   

6. During the hearing, all the parties submitted facts as under:

(i) Complainant reiterated the written submissions and added that she should have also been given the benefit of extension as given to candidates of waiting panel whose validity expired between 24.03.2020 to 31.05.2020 i.e. during the period of lockdown, which was been extended upto 31.12.2020 due to Covid -19.  

 (ii) Representative of Respondent No. 1 reiterated their written submissions and added that the extension of validity of waiting panel due to Covid-19 was given with the approval of Hon’ble Lt. Governor as the Chairperson of Delhi Disaster Management Authority as a one-time measure not to be quoted as a precedent in view of the lockdown imposed during COVID-19 pandemic. He further added that extension of waiting panel is a policy matter and per existing policy waiting panel for the post code 60/14 had already been expired on 20.06.2020. 

(iii) Representative of Respondent No. 2 has added that DSSSB recommended 27 candidates for this post code 60/14 on 15.10.2019 & 09.01.2020.  However, name of complainant Ms. Munazza did not figure in the list.  Accordingly NDMC issued appointment letters to all  27 candidates.  However, 07 candidates (including the PH category candidate) did not join and their dossiers have been returned to DSSSB in November 2020 with the request to recommend name from reserved panel.

7. After due deliberations and discussion on the case, the court recommends as under:

(i) The Court observed that as per existing orders the lockdown period was upto 31.05.2020, while in case of Ms. Munazza, validity of her one year’s waiting panel expired on 20.06.2020.  Thus, this Court does not find any valid reason to accept her plea as there is no discrimination in this case and it was done as per rule and the Court cannot change such rule or policies framed by government. 

(ii) The Court also insisted the need of filling up of posts of Assistant Teacher Urdu, in PH category if the posts are still lying vacant, NDMC being user department is also directed to start fresh process of filling up of such posts through DSSSB and the complainant Ms. Munazza could again try for the same.  

8. The case is disposed of. 

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 11th day of August, 2021.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs. DSSSB & Others | Case No.2206/1011/2021/05/1204-1207 | Dated: 11-08-21

 

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, 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.2206/1011/2021/05/1204-1207                  Dated: 11-08-21

In the matter of:

Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma
24, Radha Nagarm Buland Shehar
Uttar Pradesh-203001
Email:uannti2014@rediffmail.com                             ………Complainant

Versus

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

The Director
Directorate of Education
GNCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat
Delhi-110054                            ..........Respondent No.2

The Secretary
Department of Women and Child Development
(Government of NCT of Delhi)
Mahrana Pratap ISBT Complex,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006                                   ........... Respondent No.3

DOH: 10.08.2021

Present: Sh. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Brother of complainant Sh. Ajay Kr. Sharma.
Sh. Biju Raj E, Dy.Secretary, DSSSB appeared on behalf of respondent No.1,  
Sh. S.Nand Kumar, SO appeared on behalf of respondent 
No. 2.
Sh. K.S. Sehrawat, Dy.Director(WCD) appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3

ORDER

The above complainant Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma, a person with 48% hearing impairment vide his complaint dated 13.05.2021 alleged that the DSSSB advertised the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Natural Science) (Male) post Code 35/21 and Counsellor, post code 45/21, wherein no reservation was kept for persons with hearing impairment.  The said advertisement was not in accordance with the latest notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by the M/o of Social Justice and Empowerment.  Thus it was requested for an appropriate corrigendum to be passed in the matter enabling him to apply for the above posts. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 vide communication dated 18.05.2021 for submission of their comments. A reply was received from Dy. Secy, (DSSSB) on 24.06.2021 vide which it was informed that the Board makes recruitment as per requisitions received from the indenting departments.  The indenting department maintains the reservation roster related to all categories including PwD categories candidates and accordingly sends the requisition to DSSSB.  As per requisition dated 26.06.2020 and a letter dated 17.02.2021 for the post of TGT (Natural Science)(Male), Post code 35/21 the indenting department i.e. DOE  has identified 42 vacancies for PwD candidates and out of these,   22 vacancies were reserved for PwD (OH) and 20 vacancies for PwD(VH).  The user department identified the posts suitable for OH(OL), OH(BL), OH(OAL), OH(OA), VH(LV)and VH(B) persons.   Similarly for the post of Counsellor, requisition dated 29.11.2019 was received by the Board from Department of Women & Child Development for filling up of 50 vacancies.  Out of these 50 vacancies, indenting Department identified total 02 vacancies for PwD candidates and both these vacancies were reserved for PwD(OH).  The User Department identified the post suitable for OH(OL), OH(BL), OH(OA) and OH(LE) persons. Accordingly, DSSSB advertised the vacancies as per requisitions of indenting Departments and as per the indent for reserving posts for PwD categories / sub-categories.  

3. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 10.08.2021.  During the hearing, Sh. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, brother of the complainant Sh. Ajay Kr. Sharma, appeared to present the case as he was ill. Representatives of Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 were also present. 

4. During the hearing, all the parties submitted their respective facts as under:

(i) Complainant reiterated that the persons with HH category should also be given benefit of reservation as per latest notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by M/o Social Justice and Empowerment.

(ii) Representative of Respondent No. 1 reiterated that in compliance of this Court’s earlier directions,  DSSSB issued necessary instructions to all the Head of Departments vide their letter dated 05.07.2021 to send requisitions for filling up of vacancies strictly in accordance with the notification No. 38-16/2020-DD-III dated 04.01.2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India. 

(iii) Representatives of Respondent No. 2 & 3 also submitted their written submissions during the hearing which have been taken on record.

 5. After due deliberations and discussion on the case, the court recommends as under:

(i) The Court observed that Respondent No. 2 & 3 have not taken care regarding existing policy relating to reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities while forwarding their requisitions to DSSSB.  Thus, Respondent No. 2  i.e. the Directorate of Education is hereby directed to issue a corrigendum to grant reservation to persons with hearing impairment for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Natural Science) Male, Post code 35/21 as per existing provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016  and in accordance with the latest notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and immediately send it to DSSSB.    

(ii) Similarly Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Department of Women and Child Development is also directed to issue a corrigendum for giving reservation to persons with hearing impairment for the post of Counsellor, Post code 45/21 as per existing provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016  and in accordance with the latest notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and immediately send it to the DSSSB.    

(iii)  DSSSB is also directed to take further rectifying actions at their end on receipt of corrigendum issued by Directorate of Education and Department of Women and Child Development prior to conduct examinations for the above post codes so that the persons with HH category are not deprived of their entitlements.

6. The case is disposed of. 

7. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 11th day of August, 2021.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities