Bhanwar Kali Devi Vs. Commissioner North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 120/1021/2018/02 /2339-2340 | Dated: 21.05.2019

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 120/1021/2018/02 /2339-2340                     Dated: 21.05.2019

In the matter of:

Bhanwar Kali Devi,
N-9, Vijay Vihar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059                                                       ……Complainant

                                                 Versus

The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Dr. SPM Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002                                                        …..Respondent

Date of hearing: 15.05.2019

Present:             Sh. Krishan Kumar alongwith Sh. B.S. Yadav (Complainant)

                             Sh. Louis Daniel Kuzur (Admin. Officer) alongwith Sh. P.S. Rawat on behalf of the respondent

ORDER

          The above named complainant, a person with blindness vide her  application dated 13.12.2017 addressed to the Commissioner, North DMC with a copy to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities requested for grant of senior scale to her husband Sh. P.S. Chaudhary, who retired as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 31.07.1995.  Brief facts of the case are as under:-

     i.           Her husband Sh. P.S. Chaudhary was appointed in the erstwhile MCD as Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 27.06.1961 in the scale of Rs. 180-300 which was revised to 425-700 w.e.f. 01.01.1973.

     ii.         He was further granted selection scale of Rs. 500-900/- w.e.f. 01.07.1976.

    iii.         He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Elect.) on current duty charge basis vide Office Order No. F.1(318)/EAI/Engg./90/87/1048 dt. 30.07.1990, during Current Duty charge he continued to draw his own pay scale of selection grade of J.E.(E) granted to him on 01.07.1976.

  iv.          He retired on 31.07.1995 in his own pay scale of Selection grade of J.E.(E) granted to him on 01.07.1976.

    v.          MCD’s circular dated 18.10.1994 stated that Junior Engineers who had completed more than 15 years of service in the grade of J.E(E) as on 01.01.1991 were to be considered in the higher scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1991. 

  vi.         Her husband had completed more than 29 years as on 01.01.1991 and was eligible for grant of senior scale.As per the complainant, he was also clear from the vigilance angle, but was granted the senior scale due to him w.e.f. 01.01.1991.

2.      The complainant was taken up with the respondent and an Action Taken Report by 10.05.2018 was sought vide this court letter dated 12.04.2018 followed by reminder dated 11.06.2018, a show cause notice dated 18.10.2018 and another reminder dated 08.01.2019.  As there was no response, a hearing was scheduled on 12.03.2019. 

3.      On 12.03.2019, Sh. Krishan Kumar, son of the complainant appeared and submitted that many of the juniors of his father were granted the higher scale w.e.f. 01.01.1991.  But his father was denied the same.  Consequently, his mother, who is a person with blindness is, not getting revised monthly family pension.  He further submitted that his mother has been representing to the Commissioner, North DMC but there has not been any response.  He requested that the family pension of his mother should be fixed as per the revised pay scale and all the arrears of pay, enhanced pension and revised family pension may be paid to her.  He produced the following family pension documents in support of the claim of his mother. 

                     i.        Letter No. D/660/EEE-III/2015-16 dated 11.09.2015 of EE.(Elec.).III, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, O/o the EE(E).III, M.C.(P) School, Moti Nagar (East) New Delhi.

                    ii.        Copy of representation dated 29.07.1998 of Late Sh. P.S. Chaudhary, Retd. AE(E) addressed to Commissioner, MCD, Town Hall, Delhi.

                  iii.        Copy of U.O. Note No. D/HE-I/Engg./Estt./99/3386 dated 10.06.1999 & 14.06.1999 to Addl. Commissioner (Engg.), MCD, Town Hall, Delhi.

4.      As none appeared on behalf of the respondent, Commissioner, North MCD was requested to personally look into the matter and next date of hearing was fixed on 12.04.2019.

5.      On 12.04.2019, Sh. Atul Bhardwaj, EE(Elect.), SDMC submitted that late Sh. P.S. Chaudhary was working as AR(E), Najafgarh Zone and was getting his salary and retirement dues from ACA (Engineering) under unified MCD.  His service book and the personal file are not in the Office of EE (Elect.), SDMC.  As per record, the same were sent to ACA (Engineering), North DMC on 19.09.1990.  The issue of grant of pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1991 therefore needs to be resolved by North DMC. 

6.      The representatives of the respondent who appeared after the hearing, were advised to sort out the matter and submit an action taken report by 01.05.2019 and the matter was fixed for hearing 15.05.2019.

7.      In compliance with the directions vide ROP dated 15.04.2019, Administrative Officer, Engineering Department (Headquarter), North DMC vide letter dated 09.05.2019, a copy of which has been sent to the complainant, hassubmitted that after trifurcation of erstwhile MCD,  the office of EE (Elect.)-III/ Moti Nagar falls under the jurisdiction of West Zone i.e. South DMC.  They have, therefore requested the personal file and service book of Sh. P.S. Chaudhary from the office of EE (Elect.)-III/ West Zone, where he was last posted before his retirement.  The Accounts Department (Pension), SDMC has also been requested to provide his complete file and supporting documents and sincere efforts are being made to obtain the relevant records.  It may take 06 to 07 months to finalize the case and 07 to 08 months time has been sought to complete the process of granting higher pay in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1991 to late Sh. Chaudhary. 

8.      The representatives of the respondent, who appeared for the hearing,stated that once the records are available,all efforts will be made to finalize the matter within the shortest of possible time. 

 

9.      Sh. Krishan Kumar S/o Smt. Bhanwar Kali Devi, who appeared on her behalf, submitted that her mother is suffering from different diseases and remains in the hospital for about 10 days in a month.  They have written 14-15 letters to the concerned Department, but have not received any response.  He requested that the orders to finalize the case within 10 to 15 days should be passed. 

10.    From the interaction with the functionaries of North DMC and SDMC during the hearings of this case, it is observed that retrieval of old record may have been a challenge due to the fact that the offices for payment of salary of late Sh. Chaudhary and his deployment werestated to bedifferent and trifurcation of the erstwhile MCD may have contributed to it.  But the stalemate can not be allowed to continue indefinitely, as the complainant had submitted her representation on 05.05.2018 to SDMC and prior to that, Sh. Chaudhary had been representing to the concerned authorities.  Be that as it may, now that the responsible officers in whose possession the records are, have been identified, and keeping in view the situation of the complainant, the matter should be resolved on top priority.

11.    In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is recommended that fixation of pay of late Sh. Chaudhary, revision of his pension, revision of family pension of the complainant and payment of arrears of the pay/ pension/ family pension be finalized within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. 

12.    An Action Taken Report be submitted to this court as required under Section 81 of the Act.

13.    It is observed that a certificate that Smt. Bhanwar Kali Devi w/o Late Sh. P.S. Chaudhary has 100% visual disability, was issued by Prof. K.P.S. Malik, Addl. D.G. & HOD of Ophthalmology Safdarjung Hospital.  It bears the date of issue as 26^thday of March without mentioning the year.  The certificate is apparently very old and Sh. Krishan Kumar stated that she acquired blindness in the year 2008.  While there is no doubt about the disability of the complainant, Sh. Krishan Kumar is advised to contact and get a certificate of disability from any of the following 3 hospitals which are designated for issuing Certificate of disability for visual disability for West Delhi residents vide circular number F.No.24/Misc.Policy/Disability/DHS/ NHC/1039-45 dated 02.05.2019 of Health & Family Welfare (Department):

          (i) Deen Dayal Upadhya Hospital, Hari Nagar
          (ii) Guru Gobind Singh Govt. Hospital, Raghubir Nagar
          (iii) Sardar Vallab Bhai Patel Hospital, Patel Nagar

14.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 21^thday of May, 2019.

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

Vivek Mittal Vs. Dte of Education & Ors | Case No. 4/461/1023/2018/08/1655-1660 | Dated: 04.04.2019

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005,

Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/461/1023/2018/08/1655-1660                 Dated: 04.04.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Vivek Mittal,

WZ-634A/1, Sri Nagar,

Gali no.2, Delhi-110034.                                                  …… Complainant

                                     

Versus

The Principal,

Directorate of Education,

Old Secretariat,

Delhi-110054.                                                             .......Respondent No.1

The Director,

M/s Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd.,

DSM-340, DLF Tower, Shivaji Marg,

Najafgarh Road Industrial Area,

New Delhi-110015.                                                  .......Respondent No.2

The Central Provident Fund Commissioner,

Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation,

Head Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,

14, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi-110066.                                                    .......Respondent No.3

Date of hearing: 20.03.2019

Present:   Complainant on telephone.

                

                 Dr. Haresh Pandey, Vice Principal/HOS, SBV, BT Block, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi, on behalf of Respondent No.1

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 40% locomotor disability vide his complainant received on 21.08.2018 submitted that he was appointed as a computer teacher in GBSSS, BL Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi through a private company M/s Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd. W.e.f. 03.11.2015.  He was removed when the regular teacher joined.  During his engagement with the company and the school, he was in receipt of Rs.10,921/- p.m. which was reduced to Rs.9000/- p.m. by the company and in the last 2 months of his engagement, he was paid Rs.7780/- and Rs.8040/-.  He also stated that though he worked till April, 2018, he is being paid the provident fund.  He also stated that though he worked till April, 2018, he is being paid the provident fund only upto March, 2017.

2.       As per the salary slip issued by M/s Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd. for the month of April, 2017, the consolidated earnings of the complainant is shown as Rs.12662/- and after deduction of Rs.1741/- his net salary was Rs.10921/-.  As per the appointment order No. FDS/ICT/15-16/457 dated 31.10.2015 issued by  M/s Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd., the complainant was selected to work as school faculty/ teacher on contract basis for 9 months from the date of association which was extendable as per the requirement of the project and depending upon his performance.  It further says that during the contract period, the company will pay him Rs.11986/-.  He was advised to report for duty by 02.11.2015 in the allotted school.  M/s Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd. appointed the complainant for deployment in GNCT of Delhi school under Delhi ICT Project of TCIL with P.O. reference No. TCIL/15/1605/1/14-MM/099P.  He was relieved vide relieving order No.103 dated 28.04.2018 of GBSSS, BL Block, Shalimar Bagh on 28.04.2018.

3.       The complaint was taken up with Dte. of Education vide letter dated 05.09.2018 and 22.10.2018 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act.  A copy of the letter was also sent to the Labour Commissioner, GNCT of Delhi for necessary action.  Joint Labour Commissioner, District (West) vide letter dated 15.10.2018 informed the complainant that the teachers are not covered under the Minimum wages Act, 1948.  Hence, no action was warranted by that office.  As regards the provident Fund, they advised the complainant to pursue the matter with the Regional P.F. Commissioner, EPFO.  Thereafter, a hearing was held on 26.12.2018.  As no inputs were received from the Dte. of Education and M/s Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd., the matter was adjourned to 18.01.2019 and Central P.F. Commissioner, EPFO, Head Office was impleaded as respondent No.3.

4.       Dte. of Education vide letter dated 09.01.2019 submitted as under:-

“The Centrally sponsored scheme of ICT in schools was started in 2010 by MHRD.  The proposal of the Directorate of Education for coverage of 594 schools was approved by MHRD in Oct., 2010 and coverage of remaining 516 schools were approved in May, 2011 taking the total number of schools under ICT project to 1110.  A proposal from TCIL, a Govt. of India enterprise for implementing the project was received in July, 2011.  The Govt. of Delhi approved engagement of TCIL on nomination basis in July, 2012.  However, the vetting of the various clauses of the agreement the IT, Law & Finance Department was a protracted process and the agreement with TCIL could be signed on in Oct., 2013.

As per the clause No. 10 of the agreement the qualification prescribed for I.C.T. Faculty/Instructor is Graduation with PGDCA/BCA/MCA or other higher education from reputed institutions.  As per clause 541 of the governing agreement, which provides the indicative project cost to be reimbursed to TCIL, faculty salary (for ICT Instructors) has been calculated at the rate of Rs.9000/- per month.  There is no escalation clause in the governing agreement with respect to this reimbursable project cost.  Clause No.24 of the agreement provides that the rage of payment will remain consolidated for entire duration of 5 years i.e. agreement period.  These rates have been incorporated in the agreement on the basis of the costs submitted by TCIL.

Some clauses of the agreement in this regard are as under:-

Clause No.10 of the agreement provides that “The TCIL shall provide one full-time instructor at each school with the minimum qualification of basic graduation with PGDCA/BCA/MCA or other higher education from reputed institutions, the TCIL shall take complete resp0nsibility for the monthly remuneration to be paid to each faculty as per the guidelines of the scheme laid down by the MHRD prevailing during the period of implementation for this scheme.  The faculty shall be available for the entire duration of school hours.”

Clause No.11 of the agreement provides that the Directorate of Education has created 788 posts of PGT and 2016 posts of TGT Computer Teachers in the schools under the Directorate.  As and when the recruitment of computer teachers is done by DSSSB, the faculty provided by TCIL shall be replaced buy such permanent teachers.  The payment made to the TCIL shall be proportionately reduced for the replaced staff.

Further clause No.56(ff) of Governing agreement, states that The Directorate of Education will be under no legal obligations to provide any employment to any person of the TCIL during or after expiry of contract period and the department recognizes no employer-employee relationship between the department and the personnel deployed by the TCIL.

In view of the above it is clear that there is no employer-employee relationship between the department and the personnel deployed by the TCIL.

In view of above, it is requested that the instant Notice/Letter dated 27.12.2018 may kindly be recalled.

Sd/-

(K. MURUGAN)

JOIT DIRECTOR (CEP/CELL/IT)”

5.       None appeared on behalf of M/s Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd., respondent No.2 on 18.01.2019.  Respondent No.1 was advised to contact respondent No.2/the concerned functionary of the company and resolve the matter.

6.       None appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2 on 07.02.2019 also.

7.       On 20.03.2019, Dr. Haresh Pandey, Vice Principal/HOS, SBV, BT Block, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi  submitted that the school tried to contact the functionaries of M/s Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd. and also interacted on the mobile number of Sh. Y.K. Tripathi and Sh. Mukesh.  However, Sh. Tripathi disconnected the conversation immediately after learning about the matter.  He also submitted that MHRD project was being implemented by TCIL through M/s Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd. and the Directorate of Education or the school has no role to play as indicated in DOE’s letter dated 09.01.2019.

8.       The complainant who was heard on telephone, submitted that initially he had no idea about the number of organisations and the chain involved in his employment as a computer teacher/instructor in a Government of Delhi School.  He was able to find out that TCIL is implementing the MHRD project, which in turn hired M/s Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd.  for supplying the computer teachers in the schools.  As per his information, M/s Fourth Dimension Solutions Ltd. is on the verge of closure and they have not managed it properly and exploited persons like him.  He also stated that M/s Karvy Data Management Service Ltd. is also involved in the matter.

9.       Sh. Aashish K. Pandey of 4^th Dimension Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was contacted on telephone No.9810308903 during the hearing.  He informed that they were actually paying to the complainant more than the amount they were getting from TCIL.  Vide his e-mail dated 03.04.2019, he submitted that as per records, the complainant’s salary was cleared upto July, 2017 and as per his belief, the complainant was paid directly by TCIL for the months of August and September, 2017.  The project had been terminated after October, 2017.  As regards the provident fund contribution, the same is pending from March, 2017 to October, 2017 of all the ICT employees and the matter is pending before a separate court.

10.     From the information that could be gathered with lot of efforts in this matter, it seems that the Centrally Sponsored Scheme had some inherent implementation problems including selection of the implementing agency.  It also appears that there was no proper Grievance Redressal Mechanism in place especially in respect of persons with disabilities despite there being a mandate in the Act that every government establishment shall appoint a Grievance Redressal Officer and every government as-well-as private establishment shall publish Equal Opportunity Policy to ensure that persons with disabilities are not exploited and discriminated against.

11.     The scheme under which the complainant was appointed is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Nodal Ministry for the implementing agency i.e. M/s 4^th Dimension Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt. of India.  The complainant is therefore advised to make a representation to M/o HRD and TCIL who should examine his representation and ensure that all his dues are paid to him within two months from the date of receipt of his representation.  M/o HRD should also issue appropriate instructions to the implementing agencies to the effect that persons with disabilities are not exploited and issues concerning them should be handled promptly.

12.     M/o Corporate Affairs is advised to put in place a proper mechanism for creating awareness among the private companies to ensure that they do not discriminate against any employee with disability, publish Equal Opportunity Policy and comply with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.  An advisory should also be issued to all the private establishments in this regard.

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

14.     Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 4^th day of April, 2019.

(T.D. Dhariyal)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to:

1. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt. of India, A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110001.

Sat Narayan Vs. Managing Director, Delhi Transport Corporation | Case No. 600/1024/2018/11/1388-1389 | Dated: 19.03.2019

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005,

Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 600/1024/2018/11/1388-1389                Dated: 19.03.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Sat Narayan

H.No. 141/3, B-Block,

Gali No. 4, Dichaon Enclave,

Nangloi Road, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043                                                ................ Complainant

                                           Versus                          

Managing Director,

Delhi Transport Corporation,

DTC Headquarter,

I.P. Estate,

New Delhi-110002.                                               ………...…Respondent

Date of hearing:    13.03.2019

Present:      Sh. Sat Narayan, complainant in person.

                   Sh. Dhirendra Kumar, Depot Manager for respondent.

        

Order

The above named complainant, a person with 80% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 26.11.2018 submitted that he was working as Assistant Fitter in DTC.  He is struggling to get the transport allowance at double the normal rate.  The Depot Manager has refused to pay transport allowance as per his entitlement.  He requested that he should be paid transport allowance as per his entitlement.  As the complainant had not enclosed his certificate of his disability, he was advised to do so vide letter dated 17.12.2018 which he submitted on 31.12.2018. 

2.       The matter was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 03.01.2019 under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ with the direction to submit the version of the respondent within 15 days of the notice. 

3.       As there was no response, a hearing was schedule on 13.03.2019 vide notice dated 11.12.2018. In the meantime, the respondent vide letter dated 07.12.2019 submitted as under:

“Respected Sir,

I am in receipt of your show cause notice case No. 600/10242018/53 dated 03.01.2019 thereby action taken report on the complaint of above named employee of our depot.

In this connection, I would like to submit few lines for your sympathetic consideration please.

1.            That the above named complainant is working in our depot since July 2011 as a A/Fitter in the pay band of 5200 grade pay @ Rs. 2800.

2.            As per handicapped certificate issued from Civil Surgeon, Bhiwani (Haryana) he has been disabled since 07.11.2012 for which his entitlement for T.A. is made according to the Terms of Circular issued by Government of India vide OM No. 21(2)/200/EH(B) dated 29.08.2008 of Sixth Pay Commission and later on our DTC department issued circular vide Admi-1-7(42)/13/217 dated 22.03.17.

Accordingly as per terms and condition of the circular he has since been paid T.A. since 07.11.12 from the date he had been disabled, the details of paid amount are attached herewith as annexure “A” the copies of circular of 6^th pay commission and 7^th pay commission are also attached at Annexure “B” & “C” for your ready reference please.

In the end, I would say that no payment dues are pending from our side.

With warm regard.

Depot Manager

DTC.D.K. Depot N.Delhi”

          As per the statement enclosed with the reply, an over payment of Rs. 22,032/- has been made to the complainant which is to be recovered.

4.       During the hearing, the representative of the respondent reiterated the written submissions and added that the matter was examined and referred to DTC Head Quarter.  As per the advice/decision of the DTC (HQ), the due drawn statement was prepared.

5.       The complainant submitted that he does not understand the nuisances of the rules but as per the information gathered by him, the employees without disability of the same depot, i.e. DTC, Dichaon Kalan who were getting less pay than him as per Sixth Pay Commission, were being paid the transport allowance at the rate of Rs.1600/-, whereas he has been paid at the rate of Rs. 600/-.  He has submitted a copy of the list of 9 employees who were getting TA as per following table as on 26.10.2017:

“List of employees who are getting TA as on 26.10.2017

S.No.	Name of employee	Design	B.P.	D.A.	T/A
1.	Sh. Kanwal Singh	T.T.C.	49000/-	1960/-	Rs.7424/-
2.	Sh. Ranbir Singh	A.T.I.	49000/-	1960/-	Rs.7424/-
3.	Sh. Rishi Parkash	A.T.I.	50500/-	2020/-	Rs.7424/-
4.	Sh. Sukhbir Singh	Driver	28400/-	1136/-	Rs.7424/-
5.	Sh. SatyaParkash	Driver	28400/-	1136/-	Rs.7424/-
6.	Sh. Devinder Kumar	Cond.	26800/-	1072/-	Rs.7424/-
7.	Sh. Sant Singh	Fitter	42800/-	1712/-	Rs. 2784/-
8.	Sh. Ishwer Singh	A/fitter	42800/-	1712/-	Rs. 2784/-
9.	Sh. Sat Narain	A/fitter	42800/-	1712/-	Rs. 2784/-

Note:   Basic Pay & Dearness allowance-As per VII pay Commission Transport Allowance-As per VIth Pay Commission”

6.       As per the complainant and as confirmed by the representatives of the respondent, the employees at serial no. 4 to 6 were getting less pay than the complainant, but were being paid TA at higher rate.

7.       It is observed that this Court had, before it the similar complaint of Sh. Mir Singh, ATI which was registered as case no 4/1659/2017-Wel./CD and 4/1702/2017-Wel./CD and disposed off vide order dated 20.09.2017.  The operative part of the order is as under:

“6.        In my view, the DTC’s circular dated 22.03.2013 which is the reproduction of the Department of expenditure, Ministry of Finance, OM 21(2)/2008-E-II(B) dated 29.08.2008, provides that an employee below the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- who is in receipt of pay below Rs. 7440/- in a pay band, would be entitled to a Transport Allowance of Rs. 600+DA there on in A-1/A Cities.  Clause II of the said circular/OM provides that employees who draw grade pay below 4200/- but drawing the pay of Rs. 7440/- and above in a pay band would be entitled to a Transport Allowance of Rs. 1600+DA thereon in A-1/A Cities.  Since admittedly the complainant who is a person with locomotor disability, was drawing the pay of Rs. 9580/- i.e. above Rs. 7440/-, should have been paid the Transport Allowance at double the normal rate of Rs. 1600+DA thereon w.e.f February, 2009. 

7.         In view of the above, the respondent is advised re-examine the matter and pay the Transport Allowance to the complainant and other similarly placed employees with disabilities accordingly.  If the respondent still has any doubt about the interpretation of the OM dated 29.08.2008 of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure and DTC’s circular dated 22.03.2013, the respondent may get the same clarified from the Finance Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi/Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance expeditiously and take action accordingly.  The claim of the complainant for promotion to the post of Transport Inspector against a reserved vacancy for the persons with disabilities be considered in accordance with the instructions of DOP&T vide their OM No. 36035/3/2004-Estt(Res) dated 29.12.2005 and action taken in the matter be submitted within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.”

8.       While the ratio of the above decision should be followed in this case, the relevant rule position is being reiterated to facilitate timely relief to the complainant. 

9.       As per Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, OM No 21 (2)/2008-E.II(B) dated 29.8.2008, all employees are entitled to transport allowance w.e.f. 01.09.2008 as below:

Employees drawing grade pay of	Rate of Transport allowance per month
	In 13 cities classified as A-1/A earlier.	Other places
Grade pay of Rs. 5400 & above.	Rs.3200+DA thereon	Rs.1600+DA thereon
(i)        Grade pay of Rs.4200, Rs.4600 and Rs.4800 (ii)         Those drawing grade pay below Rs.4200 but drawing pay in the pay band equal to Rs. 7440 & above.	Rs.1600+DA thereon	Rs.800+DA thereon
Grade pay below 4200 and pay in the pay band below Rs. 7440.	Rs.600+DA thereon	Rs.400+DA thereon

10.     DTC has adopted the above OM and issued its own office circular no. Admin-I-7(42)/2013/217 dated 22.03.2013.  From the above circular, it is clear that employees who are in the grade pay of less than Rs.4,200/- and whose pay in their respective pay band is also below of Rs.7,440/-, are entitled to a transport allowance of Rs. 600/- p.m. plus DA thereon in A1/A cities.  Those employees who are in the grade pay of less than Rs.4,200/- but are drawing pay equal to Rs. 7440 and above in their respective pay band are entitled to a transport allowance of Rs. 1600/- p.m. plus DA thereon.  As per the copy of the payslip for the month of September, 2013 submitted by the respondent, the pay of the complainant was Rs.14,370/-.  The complainant was in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 2800/- since July 2011 as per DTC’s letter dated 29.01.2019/07.02.2019.  It is not disputed that employees with disabilities are entitled to transport allowance at double the normal rate.  Therefore, as the pay of the complainant was admittedly more than Rs.7,440/- in the pay band on 07.11.2012, he was entitled to transport allowance at the rate of Rs.3,200/- p.m. plus DA thereon in accordance with clause 2 of the DTC’s circular no. Admin-I-7(42)/2013/217 dated 22.03.2013 with effect from 07.11.2012 which, according to the respondent is the date the complainant’s disability certificate was accepted.  It is also observed that some employees junior to the complainant were getting more transport allowance than him.  This calls for a thorough examination of the payments made to the employees towards transport allowance.  While DTC may take appropriate action on this, payment of transport allowance at double the normal rate to the complainant as per his entitlement should be paid on priority. 

11.     In light of the above discussion, it is recommended that the transport allowance at double the normal rate @ Rs.3,200/- per month plus DA thereon be calculated on priority and paid to the complainant from the date he was entitled to. 

12.     Action taken report on the above mentioned recommendation be submitted to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act.

13.     The complaint is disposed off.

14.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19^th day of March, 2019.     

(T.D. Dhariyal)

             State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Encl.:  As above.