Dr. Alok Kumar Bhuwan Vs. Director, Deptt. of Social Welfare | Case No.1010/1093/2019/07/5506-5518 | Dated:18.09.2019

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundri Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi.

Phone-011-23216002-04, 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.1010/1093/2019/07/5506-5518                   Dated:18.09.2019

In the matter of:

Dr. Alok Kumar Bhuwan,

Managing Secretary,

Manovikas Institute for Higher Education,

60-A, Radhey Puri Extention–I,

Swami Dayanand Marg,

Near Jagatpuri Crossing, Delhi-110051.         …………..Complainant

          

Versus

The Director,

Department of Social Welfare,

GLNS Complex,

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

ORDER

The above named complainant filed a complaint dated 27.06.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act and submitted that he applied twice for renewal of registration certificate of the society on 07.11.2017 and 12.03.2019 respectively and even after regular follow-ups with the Department of Social Welfare, his application for renewal of registration certificate is still pending. Due to unavailability of registration certificate, Manovikas Charitable Society has been unable to apply for any further grants and the significant number of persons with disabilities are deprived to avail the opportunities of services due to such delay.

2.     The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide Show Cause Notice dated 11.07.2019 followed by reminder dated 23.08.2019.

3.        The respondent vide their letter dated 05.09.2019 submitted as under:-

“1.The complainant Dr. Alok Kumar Bhuwan, Managing Secretary,  Manovikas Institute for Higher Education had applied for the first time for renewal of registration certificate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 on 07.11.2017.  At that time the Delhi Rules was not notified under the new Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.  Hence process of renewal of certificate of the said NGO was not initiated by this branch.

2. The Delhi Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018 was notified on 27^th December, 2018 and wide publicity was given through flashing advertisement in leading newspapers and on department website drawing attention to NGOs/Voluntary Organisations to apply for registration under the new Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

3. The said NGO applied for seeking registration under the new Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 on 12.03.2019 and the file of the NGO was sent to the concerned District Officer, East on 29.03.2019 for inspection and verification of the NGO for issuing registration certificate under the RPwD Act, 2016.

4. The file of the said NGO was received from the District Officer, East on 05.04.2019, however, the file was returned back to the concerned District Officer, East on 09.04.2019 to carry out inspection of the said NGO with at least one Gazetted Officer in the team as per guidelines.

5. The file of the said NGO was received in this branch on 12.07.2019 from the concerned District Officer, East recommending the case fit for issuing registration Certificate under the RPwD Act, 2016.

6. In the meantime file was sent o the Law Department, GNCTD for seeking their advice/clarification on the matter of issuance of certificate of registration under Rule 21 of the Delhi RPwD Rules, 2018 since post of Joint Director, Technical and Spl. Director in the Department of Social Welfare is lying vacant, as to who will be the competent authority who is next in the hierarchy.  The Law Department clarified that word hierarchy denotes ascending chain of power or authority and hence the Director (SW) shall be the competent authority.  The file was received from the Law Department, GNCTD back on 30.07.2019 to this Department.

7. The case of the said NGO was accordingly put up for the approval of Director, Social Welfare, who is the competent authority next in the hierarchy on 06.06.2019.

8. After the approval of the competent authority, the NGO, Manovikas Charitable Society, 60-A, Radhey Puri Extension-I, Swami Dayanand Marg, Near Jagatpuri Crossing, Delhi-51 has been issued Registration Certificate under Rule 22(8)(a) of the Delhi Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018 on 27.08.2019 for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 26.08.2019 to 25.08.2024.”

4.        The respondent also submitted copy of the registration certificate issued to the complainant alongwith their reply dated 05.09.2019 with a copy to the complainant.

5.        The complainant vide his letter dated 12.09.2019 has submitted as under:-

“1. The process and time line of the notification of the Delhi Rules on RPD Act, 2016 was not informed by the Department to Manovikas Charitable Society therefore we were not aware of the action taken on the first application submitted for registration on 07.11.2017.  The set of application was pending in the Department for 595 days as on we proceed the application in this Court.

2. The organisation was waiting for the reply and status of action taken on the first application even after the notification of Delhi Rules and advertisement to save environmental avoid multiple wastage of papers and manpower.

3. In the reply of Para 4 to 8, the process of the second application, dated 12.03.2019 is described and due to lack of inter-departmental coordination our application took more than 104 days as on date of Complaint to this Court and 164 days to issue the Registration Certificate.  Under The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, clause of Chapter IX of 51(2) grant of certificate of registration to the applicant within a period of ninety days was not fulfilled.

4.  The Registration Certificate issued on dated 27 August, 2019 having secretarial errors like the Department’s Name is not mentioned on the top and the rubber stamp of the Competent Authority is inappropriately placed.  While applying to any other Department Agency including international Organisations, this Registration Certificate may criticize.

5. Trust, after intervention of this Court and with provided Registration Certificate the Manovikas Charitable Society shall be able to apply for any further grants and significant number of persons with disabilities shall be able to avail the opportunities of services.”

6.        As the registration certificate has been issued, the complaint is disposed of with the recommendation that the respondent department may re-issue the registration certificate with appropriate corrections as pointed out by the complainant.

7.        Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 18^th day of September, 2019. 

           (T.D. Dhariyal)

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Vijay Yadav Vs. Director, Delhi Council for Child Welfare | Case No. 4/1362/2016-Wel/CD/1570-71 | Dated: 22.08.2017

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. 4/1362/2016-Wel/CD/1570-71                 Dated: 22.08.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Vijay Yadav,

72-B, Gali No.11,

Vidyapati Nagar, Mubarakpur Dabas,

New Delhi-110081.                                                 .……… Complainant     

                                                       Versus

The Directors and Others,

Delhi Council for Child Welfare,

Quadasia Bagh, Yamuna Marg,

Civil Lines, Delhi-110054.                                          …...…Respondent

 

Date of hearing:     08.08.2017

Present                   Sh. Vijay Yadav, Complainant.

Dr. Sandhya Bhalla, Sh. S.K. Mishra  on behalf of Respondent.

            

ORDER

              The above named complainant who is the father of Master Ronak, a person with 50% mental retardation (intellectual disability) vide his complaint received on  03.08.2016, submitted that  Master Ronak was visiting Bal Vikas Kendra, Nithari Centre for exercises. Ronak’s mother complained against the Speech Therapist Ms. Neelam as she was using the same spoon to feed honey to different children.  Because of her complaint, Ms. Neelam and Ms. Sheela told the mother of Ronak that there would not be any improvement by exercises and therefore, an Arc plate should be fixed. As per their advice, they took Master Ronak to ESI Hospital, where the doctor told them that there was no need for Arc Plate.  The mother of Master Ronak who was being provided the therapies in the morning was asked to bring him in the afternoon after 2.00 pm. They also approached the higher authorities of Delhi Council for Child Welfare for providing therapies and other services to Master Ronak in the morning as he goes to Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya in the morning which is 2.5 kms from their house.  Taking the child to Nithari Centre for therapies again would be too much for him as the total travel would be around 10  kms.  The complainant further alleged that on 22.07.2016 Ms. Sheela mishaved with his wife and son and pushed them out of the Centre. He therefore, requested that action should be taken against Ms. Sheela for mental torture, etc.

2.           The complaint was taken up with the respondent and the concerned District Social Welfare Offficer, Deptt. of Social Welfare was directed to conduct an inquiry and submit a detailed report vide communication dated 12.08.2016.

3.           The DSWO(North West-I) vide her report dated 29.08.2016 submitted that she alongwith Superintendent Sh. D. Ram and CDPO, Smt. Savita Malik visited Nithari Centre on 23.08.2016 and observed the following:

“1.          Bal Chetna Nithari Centre is a programme of DCCW which supports mentally and physically challenged children from financially weak families at Nithari Centre.2.           On the day of vist rice with black Channa was being served to the beneficiaries.
3.           27 Number of beneficiaries were there in the centre.4.           Sign Language instructor, physiotherapist, special educator and speech therapist with their helpers were there.
5.           Master Ronak was not coming to the Centre since 2^nd May, 2016.  Visit was being made to his home on 17^th May, 2016 and 14^th June, 2016 and they were informed by the neighbours that they had gone to their native place.
6.           Master Ronak aged 12 years has been integrated with normal children of Sarvodaya Kanya Vidalaya with the help of DCCW.
7.           This is the policy of the centre that children who are enrolled in school will come between 2 pm to 4 pm at the centre.8.           Master ronak was allowed to come in the morning on the insistence of his mother for 06 months.  He is not deprived off from coming to the centre but is directed to come at the suitable time i.e. (2 pm to 4 pm).9.           Land ownership is of the Chopal which has been given to DCCW for running the Nithari Centre.10.         Regisgration is of the year 1964.11.         License for Pallana is being taken from the Department of WCD.12.         Grand in Aid for Aaganwadi Centre is being taken from Deptt. of WCD.13.         The fee for each beneficiary varies between Rs/ 10- Rs. 100/- per month depending upon the economic condition of the family.
14.         Written statement of staff is enclosed for the day ie. 22.07.2016.”

4.           As per the written statement of the staff and parents, Master Ronak was being provided special education, speech therapy and physical therapy at the Centre in the morning.  As per the rules, Master Ronak was asked to take OPD services from 2.00 to 4.00 PM.  The parents were not bringing Ronak to the Centre at any fixed time and were also disturbing other children who were taking therapies from the Centre regularly.  Master Ronak attended the Centre for 11 days in April, 2016, one day in May, 2016 and he was absent in the entire month of June, 2016. On 17.05.2016, the staff visited his home as per the rules, as there was no written information. The house was found locked and the neighbors informed that they had gone to their home town.  On 19.7.2016, Master Ronak’s mother brought him to the Centre at 12.00 noon and he was given the therapy. His mother was told by the Special Educator to speak to the supervisor as Master Ronak had  not gone to the Centre for the last two months without information.  On 22.07.2016, Master Ronak was brought to the Centre at 11.45 AM. His mother  asked them to provide physical therapy to Master Ronak when the Supervisor asked Ronak’s mother about the timings for therapy, she got annoyed and used derogatory language and threatened that she will get the centre closed.

5.           The complainant submitted his rejoinder on 07.10.2016, whereafter a hearing was scheduled on 08.08.2017.

6.           During the hearing on 08.08.2017, the parties reiterated their written submissions.  The complainant submitted that his son Ronak who is 14 years old was going to nearby Sarvodaya Kanya  Vidyalaya which is over at 12.00 Noon.  Travelling from school to his house and again to the Nithari Centre for therapies at 2.00 PM would be too much for the child.  Therefore he insisted that the Centre should make adjustments to provide required therapies at least from 1.00 PM.  He also stated that Master Ronak was not getting any therapy after July 2016. 

7.           The representatives of the respondent clarified that the Delhi Council for Child Welfare started functioning since 1948 and started  Bal Chetna Programme which was a community based rehabilitation service for providing  therapies, physiotherapy and special education, etc. since 2002.  All the parents were informed about the policy vide circular dated 04.01.2014 that the  children of above 12 years and those who have been integrated in the school  would  be provided the facilities between 2.00 PM to 4.00 PM at the centre. The said circular also mentioned that the parents of such children would have to bring their children to the centre and take them back. The special permission that was given to Master Ronak to attend the therapies for 15 minutes in the morning was to train his mother to phase out from the programme. This kind of accommodation is not possible to provide as they have to accommodate the needs of other children who are also registered with the organization. They also clarified that the facilities are being provided out of the funds that are raised by the Organisation on its own and no Government grant whatsoever, is provided for the services in question.  It is not possible to make such an arrangement in the forenoon or at 1.00 PM as that is the lunch time break for the children and the teaching staff.  However, they are prepared to give priority to Master Ronak at 2.00 pm to be the first child to get the therapies. The Organisation is not registered under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.  However, they plan to register the Organisation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.  They also stated that all the professionals / therapists have RCI approved qualifications and are also registered with RCI.

8.           From the records mae available  by the parties, it is observed that the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act,  2016) or any instruction do not obligate the respondent to provide the services to the son of the complainant or other children during a particular slot of time. Since the respondent has not denied any services to Master Ronak between 2.00 PM to 4.00 PM and are willing to attend to him on priority at 2.00 PM, the complainant may avail the services during the period it is reasonably feasible  for respondent to provide the same in the interest of Master Ronak. However, the respondent may consider if it is possible to make further accommodations for provding the therapies / training to Master Ronak.

9.           The respondent is directed to register under Section 51 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in accordance with the Rules that the Social Welfare Department, Govt. NCT of Delhi may frame and notify.

10.         The complaint is disposed of accordingly.

11.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 22^nd  day of August, 2017.

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities