Wednesday, January 19, 2022

Deepak Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shahdara District | Case No. 3000/1111/2021/07/3752-54 | Dated: 19-01-2022

 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-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. 3000/1111/2021/07/3752-54                             Dated: 19-01-2022

In the matter of:

Sh. Deepak Gupta
S/o. Sh. Raman Chand Gupta,
3700-D/8, Gali No. 6-7,
Shanti Mohalla Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031.
(e-mail: ygyashgupta9718@gmail.com)                 .....Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Shahdara District,
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shalimar Park, 
Delhi-110032.                                       .....Respondent


Date of Hearing:  18.01.2022

Present: Sh. Deepak Gupta, Complainant.

Ms. Ritu Sharma, Property Dealer

Sh. Rajneesh, SHO Krishna Nagar appeared on behalf of Respondent.


ORDER

Sh. Deepak Gupta father of Ms. Vaishnavi, a child with 100% mental illness filed a complaint dated 22.07.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 herein after referred to as the Act, regarding harassment by the property owner and property dealer. 

2. The complainant Sh. Deepak Gupta stated that his 16 years old daughter Ms. Vaishnavi is a child with 100% mental and physical illness.  In 2018, he was looking for a one-room set on rent to stay. Thereafter, a property dealer named Ms. Ritu introduced him to Manoj Gupta as property owner and he decided to take his one room-set with a security of Rs. 2.5 Lacs. After this, a security agreement was executed between him and Smt. Megha Gupta, wife of Manoj Gupta on 29.01.2018 in respect of one-room set in property number X/3774/4, Gali No. 08, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi for a period of 11 months and the agreed security amount of Rs. 2.5 Lac was paid by him to the landlord. On 01.04.2018, when he along with his family members went to move in the said property, Manoj Gupta & his family members did not allow his family to enter the house due to the disability of his daughter. After some time, Manoj Gupta gave the said flat to another person. The complainant alleged that the property owner Sh. Manoj Gupta, did not allow him to live in that property on account of his PwD child who is lap bound being disabled which is a clear act of discrimination.  He did not refund his security amount of Rs. 2.5 Lacs till date in spite of repeated requests. He requested appropriate action in the matter. 

3. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 27.07.2021 & followed by reminder dated 14.09.2021, 18.10.2021 and 23.11.2021. In response, the respondent vide letter dated 25.10.2021 received on 26.11.2021 informed that an enquiry into the matter was conducted through ACP/Gandhi Nagar. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and no Police action is warranted in the matter. 

4. The complainant vide his rejoinder dated 15.12.2021 submitted that no action was taken by the respondent in this matter and the case was wrongly termed as civil in nature. This is the case of social stigma, harassment, cruelty and discrimination against a child with disability. The complainant again requested that appropriate action be taken against accused persons. A hearing was scheduled on 18.01.2022. 

5. Complainant reiterated his written submission and added that he has faced great agony, mental torture because of discrimination, ill-treatment of his PwD child and non-payment of security amount  by the Property Owner and his family.  He again requested for strict action against the alleged persons.

6. Ms. Ritu Sharma, Property Dealer who settled the deal between Property Dealer and complainant was also of the view that Sh. Manoj Gupta is behaving very arrogantly and he refused to return back the security amount to the complainant after several requests made by her also.

7. SHO, Krishna Nagar, Sh. Rajneesh appeared on behalf of respondent also submitted that the alleged person Sh. Manoj Gupta is not cooperating in the matter despite of local Police’s intervention.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 3 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act mandates “Equality and non-discrimination -(1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity equally with others. (2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to utilise the capacity of persons with disabilities by providing appropriate environment. (3) No person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (4) No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty only on the ground of disability. (5) The appropriate Government shall take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities”.

9. The court observed that the accused persons - Sh. Manoj Gupta / Smt. Megha Gupta has acted wrongfully and shown arrogance as well as ignorance besides lack of empathy towards the daughter of complainant, who is a child with 100% mental illness and physical disability and thereby flouted the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 with discrimination, prejudice and insensitivity. 

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

(i) Property owners -  Sh. Manoj Gupta / Smt. Megha Gupta are directed to return back the amount of  Rs. 2.5 lacs  deposited by complainant as security deposit with interest @10% to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.  Failing which, respondent/local police is directed to lodge FIR against the Property Owners – Sh. Manoj Gupta / Smt. Megha Gupta   particularly violating Section 92 (a) and other sections of the RPwD Act,2016  & Rules and further produce the case before the concerned Additional Session Judge -02 designated as Special Court vide Notification No. 1/19/2018/Judl./Suptlaw/1499-1507 dated 19.08.2019 to try the offences under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016 for imposing strict punishment as an example (copy enclosed). 

(ii) It is also recommended that Sh. Manoj Gupta and his family members should amend their attitude towards the persons with disabilities and it should also be made mandatory for them to apologise to the parents of child in writing for their wrong doing. 

11. The complaint is disposed of with the above recommendations.

12. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19th day of January, 2022. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Encl:As above

Copy to :- Sh. Manoj Gupta & Smt. Megha Gupta (Property Owners), R/o X/3774/4, Gali No. 8, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.







Ms. Sanju Prasad Vs. The Director Department of Women and Child Development | Case No.2386/1014/2021/10/3750-51 | Dated:19/01/2022

 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.2386/1014/2021/10/3750-51 Dated:19/01/22

In the matter of:

Ms. Sanju Prasad, 
H.No. K-277, SouravVihar, Jaitpur,
Badarpur, Near Vatika Public School,
New Delhi-110044                                            ...……….Complainant

Versus

The Director
Department of Women and Child Development, 
Government of NCT of Delhi,
MaharanaPratap ISBT Complex,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006                        ................Respondent 

Date of Hearing: 18.01.2022

Present: Ms. Sanju Prasad, Complainant

Ms. Anita Gaur, Sr. Supdt. and Ms. MagdaliviPute, CDPO on behalf of Respondent 

ORDER

    Ms. Sanju Prasad, a person with 50% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 05.10.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act, alleged that she had been wrongly terminated from the service of Aganwadi Worker, harassed by C.D.P.O & not paid the salary from February, 2021. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 07.10.2021 & followed by reminder dated 27.10.2021. The respondent vide reply dated 08.11.2021 informed that the termination order dated 22.06.2021 was issued to the complainant on the basis of the following facts:-

(i) Ms. Sanju Prasad, Ex. AWW after receiving nutrition (THR) for AWC No. 17, ICDS Jaitpur project locked up the centre, but remained absent on the day of distribution of THR i.e. 18.02.2021 resulting in non-distribution of THR amongst of the ICDS beneficiaries as per schedule. 

(ii) Ms. Sanju Prasad, Ex. AWW was found indulging in objectionable behaviour using insulting & derogatory language towards her colleagues& seniors amounting to insubordination & disobedience.

(iii) Taking a sympathetic view of her disability, Ms.Sanju Prasad, AWW was warned to mend her behaviour & improve her conduct thereby ensuring smooth & timely delivery of ICDS services in the greater interest of target beneficiaries under the ICDS Scheme. The transfer order for Ms.Sanju Prasad from ICDS Badarpur was also issued, giving her an opportunity to mend her behaviour. 

(iv) Ms.Sanju Prasad Ex. AWW denied to receive the transfer order and misbehaved with CDPO Jaitpur. It is therefore, evident that Ms.Sanju Prasad was not found suitable to continue as an Anganwadi Worker as she was found involved in dereliction of duty and misbehaviour with colleagues as well as seniors. 

(v) Therefore, as per the decision taken by the Competent Authority, the services of Ms. Sanju Prasad AWW of ICDS Jaitpur Project were terminated, in the greater interest of ICDS Scheme.

3. It was also informed by the CDPO, Jaitpur that the due honorarium in respect of Ms.Sanju Prasad, Ex. AWW had been paid as per norms by the Department. Hence, there is no pending payment in respect of the complainant and in case the complainant has any document in support that she had been denied payment despite being on work, she can always show the same to the Department which can be settled. 

4. The complainant vide rejoinder dated 30.11.2021 clarified the points submitted by the respondent.  Respondent vide e-mail dated 28.12.2021 submitted that the department had already conveyed its decision.  A hearing was scheduled on 18.01.2022. 

5. During the hearing, the complainant reiterated her submissions and submitted that she received the THR on 18.02.2021 and could distribute it to some households as she was not well and her helper was absent w.e.f. 17.02.2021 to 26.02.2021 without any information.  CDPO broke the lock of the centre on 25.02.2021 and after that she was not allowed to enter the centre.  She further submitted that she had not received the salary after February, 2021 and she had never misbehaved with her seniors and colleagues. Her husband had also lost his job due to Covid-19 and requested to restore her service.

6. The representatives of the respondent also reiterated their submissions and submitted that the complainant uses insulting and derogatory language towards her colleagues and seniors amounting to insubordination and disobedience.  Regarding payment of salary, it was informed that she attended the office till February, 2021 for which the salary had been paid.  It was also informed that the complainant had not returned the office property under her possession i.e. Smart Mobile Phone, Sim Card, SD Card, Office Registers, Toys and other related records.  All these facts were also brought to the notice of Joint Secretary, M/o Women & Child Development, Govt. of India vide theirletter dated 11.11.2021.

7. After due deliberation and discussion, it was noted by the Court that the complainant apart from being a person with disability is also passing through a mental trauma due to which she is finding it difficult to shoulder the responsibilities entrusted with her service.  Taking an empathetic view in the matter and the financial & mental condition of the complainant, it is recommended that:-

(i) The respondent may consider the continuation of service in the department to the complainant with lesser responsibility so that she can perform her duty efficiently taking into account her physical and mental condition and also she can earn her livelihood with dignity. 

(ii) The complaint is advised to improve her behaviour and isdirected to hand over the office property under her possession to the department immediately.

8. This court be informed of the action taken on the above recommendations within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.

9. The complaint is disposed of with the above recommendations.

10. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 18th day of January, 2022.

(Ranjan Mukherjee)
  State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities