Puneet Bindal Vs. The Manager, BSES, Yamuna Power Limited | Case No. 1871/1141/2020/07/6415-6416 | Dated:10-08-2022

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.

Phone-011-23216002-04,  Email: comdis.delhi@delhi.gov.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1871/1141/2020/07/6415-6416                   Dated:10-08-2022

In the matter of:

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

Versus

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

Date of Hearing: 08.08.2022

Present: Sh. Puneet Bindal, Complainant

        Sh. Gaurav Bindal, on behalf of the complainant

                Ms. Shweta Bist, DGM, Sh. Rajeev Ranjan,  Sr. Manager (Legal) and Sh. Imran Siddiqui,    Sr. Manager, on behalf of Respondent.

ORDER

The complainant, a person with more than 40% Spastic Cerebral Palsy vide email dated 20.06.2020 complained regarding non providing of new electricity connection at his residential address. BSES is issuing deficiency letters one after another.  The complainant further submitted that he visited the office of BSES many times but of no avail.  The office is also not accessible for PwDs.  The complainant also complained to the Vigilance Branch of the BSES regarding his grievance but they also do not respond.  He requested this Court to intervene.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 27.07.2020 and hearings were also held in this case. After hearing both the parties and due deliberations, the following orders dated 26.02.2021 were issued:-

(i)  Completion Certificate of the building be provided by the complainant from the MCD within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order to the BSES with copy to this office so that his request for electricity connection could be processed further by the BSES. 

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

(iii) BSES office should be made accessible and disable friendly. 

(iv) As the matter was pending before the Central Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) of BSES, it was recommended to await the final outcome and copy of the final order be submitted by the parties and after that if necessary, this court will take a call subsequently.

3. The complainant vide letter dated 12.03.2021 submitted copy of order dated 05.03.2021 passed by CGRF vide which it had been ordered that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as same parties and same cause of action and sub-judice before the State Commissioner.  The complainant requested this Court to restart the proceedings in this case as he has not yet been sanctioned new electricity connection and is being discriminated.  The complainant prayed that BSES be directed to provide the connection to the complainant, to penalise officials of the BSES for the harassment and discrimination caused to complainant and any other order this Court deems fit.  

4. The matter was again taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 24.03.2021.  Vide email dated 16.04.2021, respondent replied that:

(i) The present application of the complainant is nothing but abuse of process of this Hon’ble Commission and has been filed with malafide intention.   Apart from other clarifications, it is mentioned in the reply that regarding new electricity connection, the complainant has failed to give the completion certificate nor has carried out repairs so as to make the floor habitable and as such safe for electrification.

(ii) Regarding BSES office to be disable friendly, it is mentioned that they had already got necessary approvals for re-construction of office in order to make it disable friendly.

(iii) Regarding action by Vigilance Department of BSES, it is submitted that the inquiries and investigation on the complaints of the complainant had been conducted but the same can not be made public but if insisted upon, the same may be filed before this Court in a sealed cover.

5.    Reply of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant vide letter dated 16.06.2021.  The complainant vide email dated 22.06.2021 submitted that the ATR given by the respondent is unsatisfactory and requested to take the cognizance of factual background and reality and pass order in favour of complainant.

6. The respondent vide letter dated 06.08.2021 submitted additional reply.  It was submitted that the complainant was informed to get the floor repaired and get the wiring done as per the laid specification and was also asked to submit the completion certificate as per order dated 26.02.2021 passed by SCPD. However, complainant thereafter never approached BSES and BSES on its own visited the site for verification on 03.08.2021.  It was added that the first floor of the premises cannot be termed as electrified as the same is not only dangerous but also in violation of various provisions of DERC Supply Code, 2017 and CEA Regulations, 2010.

7. The complainant vide email dated 02.07.2022 again requested for intervention of this Court in the matter.  This Court got the site inspected by the Welfare Officer of this Court and a hearing was scheduled for 08.08.2022.

8. During the hearing, the complainant reiterated his submissions.  Respondent while reiterating its submissions, added that apart from property in a dilapidated condition, a dispute is pending in Civil Court regarding ownership rights in respect of the said property (floor) for which the complainant is requesting for electricity connection.  The complainant denied any litigation against him for ownership of the said floor.

9. It was observed that though the complainant had denied any litigation in his name but the fact that there is no litigation regarding ownership of the said property i.e. first floor in question can not be ignored.  

10. After due deliberation and discussion and taking into account the submissions of complainant and respondent and in view of the documents submitted by the respondent in respect of the litigation in the Civil Court in respect of the property in question, the case is closed in this court.   

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

           (Ranjan Mukherjee)

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities 

 

Ms. Himani Vs. The Director General, Directorate General of Health Services & Anr. | Case No. 2715/1024/2022/08/6396-6398 | Dated:08-08-2022

 

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@delhi.nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2715/1024/2022/08/6396-6398                                      Dated:08-08-2022

 In the matter of:

Ms. Himani,
D/o Shri Suresh Kumar Rajput,
Flat No.B-265, DA Flats,
Timarpur, Delhi-110054.
(E-mail-rajput.himani@gmail.com).          …… Complainant

Versus

The Director General, 
Directorate General of Health Services, 
F-17, Karkardooma,
Delhi – 110032.             .......Respondent No.1

The Medical Superintendent,
Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, 
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Rajpur Road, Delhi-110054.                                     .......Respondent No.2

 

ORDER

The complaint, Ms. Himani Rajput on behalf of her bedridden father Shri Suresh Kumar Rajput, a serving employee of Delhi Government, working in Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital as an Asstt. Section Officer filed a complaint under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for non reimbursement of medical expenses including Nursing Care Charges (Rehabilitations) as per Rule 6(1)(a) and Rule 7 of CS(MA) Rules 1944  for prolong treatment of her father, at his residence.

2. Shri Suresh Kumar Rajput, who became disabled due to (Brain Stroke) illness since 17.11.2018, is a case of Spastic Hemiparesis, aphasia post Cranio plasty and coiling of left ICA Aneurysm and Hematoma evacuation (Supra major Surgery).  The patient was on RT feed, wheel chair bound, on SPC and requires continuous Nursing Care, Speech Therapy and Physiotherapy.  Further, his right portion of body is paralytic and he is unable to move on his own.  He is also facing trouble to speak.  Reviewing his health conditions,  the doctor recommended him to have a full time (24 hours) trained Medical Attendant and Physiotherapist both at Hospital and at Home for attentive nursing care till his recovery.  It was also recommended by the doctors that all medicines are essential.

3. It is further informed that the complainant approached the concerned authorities many times to intervene and decide the matter considering the deteriorating health of her father and arrange the reimbursement of Nursing Attendant/ Nursing Care Charges, as per actual, for treatment at residence.  The claim, however, was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for Nurse/ Ayah Facility under CGHS for Domiciliary Rehabilitation.

4. Now the complainant approached this court and requested to direct the concerned authorities to release the following reimbursement:

     (a) The restricted amount of medical bill
     (b) Nursing Care Charges at residence as per actual
     (c) Physiotherapist Charges

The complainant also submitted that Delhi Government employees are covered under CS(MA)/CGHS/DGEHS Rules.

5. Shri Suresh Kumar Rajput is a High Support Need (HSN) person. Taking into account the submissions of the complainant and considering the deteriorating health of Shri Suresh Kumar Rajput, the Court recommends as under:-

(i) Legitimate Attendant Stipend, Caregiver Stipend, Nursing Fee, as admissible, as per existing norms and regulations, needs to be provided and be released immediately.  Further, respondents are directed to be more sensitive when they are dealing with claims for reimbursement of medical expenses of persons with disabilities like in this case where the person is on High Support Need (paralytic) and bedridden.

(ii) In the best interest of a High Support Need person with disability, Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, ASO may be considered to be shifted to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and provided a suitable accommodation preferably an independent room wherein his family and other relatives can look after him besides the hospital staff.

6. Action Taken Report be submitted within one week from the date of receipt of this order. 

7. Give under my hand and the seal of the Court this 08th day of August, 2022.  

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Pooja Rana Vs. The Principal, EDMC Pratibha Vidyalaya (Girls) | Case No. 2612/1101/2022/05/6114-6117 | Dated:21-07-2022

 

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-110002

Phone-23216001-04, Email: comdis.delhi@delhi.gov.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court

under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2612/1101/2022/05/6114-6117                        Dated:21-07-2022     

In the matter of:

Ms. Pooja Rana,
Teacher,
EDMC Pratibha Vidyalaya (Girls),
Dayalpur-1, Delhi.          ………………..Complainant

Versus

The Principal,
EDMC Pratibha Vidyalaya (Girls),
Dayalpur-1, Delhi.     ... ..…………..Respondent 

Date of Hearing :   19.07.2022 

Present:   Ms. Pooja Rana, Complainant

                          Ms. Poonam Rani, Principal, Respondent. 

ORDER

A complaint dated 12.04.2022 of Ms. Pooja Rana, working as teacher on contract basis in EDMC Pratibha Vidyalaya (Girls), Dayalpur-I, Delhi is received from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 11.05.2022 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act.  The complainant submitted that the toilets at EDMC School, Dayalpur-I was not accessible for Children with Special Needs/PwDs and often the toilet for PwDs of the school remains locked.  Thus, not available for use causing difficulties for students.  This has been one of the main reasons for absenteeism  and school drop out specially for the girl students with special needs.   

2. The matter was taken up with Director of Education, East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC), The Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara North Zone, EDMC and the Principal, EDMC Pratibha Vidyalaya (Girls), Dayalpur-1, Delhi vide  Show Cause Notice dated 24.05.2022.  

3. The Principal, EDMC Pratibha Vidyalaya (Girls), Dayalpur-1, Delhi vide reply received in this Court on 24.06.2022 submitted that toilet block in the school is available for PwD children constructed according to prescribed norms by the Building Department of EDMC.  The toilet was kept locked temporarily keeping in view the security and cleanliness, also to ensure that no outsider uses the toilet and no untoward incident occurs. The toilet is not kept closed permanently.  There are 16 toilet blocks out of which 7 are earmarked for Children with Special Needs and PwDs.  It was further submitted that the complainant had not complained about these problems in writing or orally to the school authorities.  It was assured by the incharge school that any problem that occurs are taken care of immediately.

4. The reply of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant for submitting rejoinder, if any.  The complainant vide rejoinder received in this Court on 29.06.2022 submitted that why only the toilet for meant CWSN or PwDs are kept closed ?  She alleged that CWSN and PwDs are discriminated and added that out of 16 toilets in the school, not even a single one have ramp for easy accessibility of PwDs and in addition the toilets are always dirty.  Cleaning of toilets are a must. She also alleged that the principal pressurizes her to take her complaint filed in this court back and is not signing the papers relating to extension of her contract as a teacher.  The principal also threatens to transfer her from the present school.

5. Taking into account the reply of the respondent and rejoinder of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 19.07.2022.  During the hearing, the complainant reiterated her submissions and further added that there is a student named ‘Arti’, who uses a wheel chair and finds it difficult to use the toilet as there is a makeshift ramp made in one toilet, which even is not proper. The toilets for PwDs at new building of the school always remains locked.  Commode (Indian Style) in the toilet is broken and when Incharge was contacted for this problem, she misbehaved with the complainant and threatened to transfer her.  Also there is no drinking water facility in the school.   The R.O. procured was never installed.  All the students and teachers have to bring own water.  She also alleged that incharge of the school Mrs. Poonam Rani is local of the area and lives nearby the school and she often goes to her house for break, having tea snacks, lunch etc. 

6. Respondent submitted that as far as cleaning of toilets is concerned, there is only one sweeper in the school for the class rooms and 16 toilet blocks.  She has brought this aspect to the notice of higher authorities without any solution so far.   She also submitted that R.O. is not working at present but will be installed/repaired soon.

7. After listening to both sides and due deliberations on the subject, it is observed by the Court that school faces severe crunch of sweepers to keep the school premises and the toilet blocks clean. There may be a tendency to keep some toilets locked to avoid overuse by some individuals.   Taking into consideration the genuine grievance of the complainant and the reply submitted by the respondent, the following orders are made:-

(i) Commissioner(MCD) / Deputy Commissioner(MCD) should take cognizance of lack of cleaning manpower of the school with almost 4000 students attending daily.  Area Sanitary Inspector should be directed to supplement cleaning manpower for couple of hours per day and the services of local sweepers of the area should be diverted to the school to keep the toilet blocks spick and span.

(ii) For Children with Special Needs/PwDs, it is recommended that Western Style Commode be provided in the toilets of the school and in all other MCD schools to facilitate the CWSN and PwDs which is basic need and MCD being a civic body should be able to resolve such basic needs of the students and teachers without much difficulty.

(iii) Respondent Principal is directed to ensure that the toilets for Children with Special Needs/PwDs are accessible, clean and not locked.   

(iv) Respondent Principal is also directed to install the R.O. or get the R.O. repaired, if need be and the same be made functional immediately so that there is no scarcity of drinking water for students and staff of the school.

(v) Regarding the transfer of the complainant – if that is done with administrative requirement and procedure, this Court does not want to interfere but it needs to be ensured that such decisions are not the outcome of mere diversionary tactics adopted to silence the voice demanding justice for a group (in this case for Children with Special Needs).  Concerned authorities may also take due notice of some other factors brought out by the complainant against the incharge and deal with the same as deemed fit.

8. The case is closed with the above recommendations and action taken be intimated to this court within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

9.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 21st day of July, 2022. 

 (Ranjan Mukherjee)

      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to:-

1. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Civic Centre, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi-110002.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara North Zone, MCD, Keshav Chowk, G.T. Road, Near Shyam Lal College, Shahdara, Delhi 110032.

SUO-MOTU regarding accessibility to Hospitals | Case No. 2552/1101/2022/04/5783-5846 | Dated: 30-06-2022

 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-110002

Phone-23216003-04,   Email : comdis.delhi@delhi.gov.in

Case No. 2552/1101/2022/04/5783-5846                        Dated: 30-06-2022

In the matter of :

SUO-MOTU regarding accessibility to Hospitals        ....Petitioner

Versus

As per enclosed list  (65 respondents)                       ..........Respondents

ORDER

        Several complaints were received in this Court wherein it was brought to the notice by several persons with disabilities about difficulty with respect to ‘Accessibility’ to hospitals in NCT of Delhi for receiving treatment/healthcare. There are many obstructions/barriers/ encroachments by squatters/ vendors/ illegal parking etc. at the entrance of several hospitals. Local Bodies, Local Police and Traffic Police besides the hospital authorities are responsible for providing easy and safe accessibility to PwDs as per the RPwD Act, 2016 which is also true for general public mainly for senior citizens, women and children.

2. Section 25(1)(b) of the RPwD Act, 2016  mandate that the appropriate Government and local authorities shall take necessary measures for the PwDs to provide “barrier-free access in all parts of Government and private hospitals and other healthcare institutions and centres.”  

3. It is the duty of all the road owning agencies, traffic police and local police including the hospital authorities to make entrance to all hospitals encroachment free including removal of all illegal parking.  All entry and exit points of hospitals have to be declared “No Hawking and No Vending zones with Zero Tolerance towards any type of blockage to accessibility. 

4. It has been often seen that  in and around of several hospital premises, besides entrances are crowded/blocked with relatives, caregivers and attendants of patients who are unable to afford boarding and lodging being poor or from the BPL category.   

5. Section 80 (b) of the Act provides that State Commissioner shall  inquire, suo motu or otherwise deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and safeguards available to them in respect of matters for which the State Government is the appropriate Government and take up the matter with appropriate authorities for corrective action.

6. A suo motu cognizance was taken under Section 80 of the Act and the respondents were accordingly directed to show cause vide notice dated 04.07.2022 followed by reminders dated 11.05.2022 and 27.05.2022 as to why the existing built environment meant for public use in the National Capital Territory of Delhi should not be made fully accessible and made completely encroachment free for persons with disabilities as mandated in the Act, the Rules and the guidelines.  

7. Inspite of reminders, some authorities/hospitals did not respond which includes the civic authorities like MCD, PWD.  This Court has taken a very serious view of it.  Attention of all concerned is invited to Provision of Section 93 of the Act which is reproduced below:-

93. “Whoever, fails to produce any book, account or other documents or to furnish any statement, information or particulars which, under this Act or any order, or direction made or given thereunder, is duty bound to produce or furnish or to answer any question put in pursuance of the provisions of this Act or of any order, or direction made or given thereunder, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees in respect of each offence, and in case of continued failure or refusal, with further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day, of continued failure or refusal after the date of original order imposing punishment of fine.”

8. In response to the instant Suo Motu & show cause notice, most of the hospital authorities have responded that Accessibility for PwDs inside the hospital premises  are being maintained and various other services are also being provided to facilitate PwDs.  Helpers also have been deputed on the entry/exit gates of the hospital to help the PwDs.  However, with respect to encroachment on footpaths in front of the hospitals and surrounding areas of the hospital, civic authorities/police authorities are responsible to remove it and the hospital authorities  are continuously writing to these authorities for removing the illegal encroachment.  Concerned civic authorities and police authorities have been repeatedly requested to  remove illegal squatters/vendors.

9. Police/Traffic Police authorities replied that during last year i.e. in 2021, a total 14,617 e-challans & 34,729 VoCA(Violation on Camera App.) notices were issued and during current year, 4096 e-challans and 11,700 VoCA notices were issued till 20.04.2022 against the violators in front of  Essential Service i.e Primary Health Centres, Civil Hospitals, Schools, Railway Stations and Bus Stops . The Road Safety programmes for sensitising other stakeholders like Bus- Drivers, commuters, students and other road user etc. regarding the captioned matter would be done by the Road Safety Cell of Delhi Traffic Police. Further, Delhi police Including Delhi Traffic Police will ensure that accessibility of the Persons with Disabilities would be barrier free. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that Delhi Police regularly writes letters to Civic Agencies to remove encroachment from the footpaths and carries out Joint Drives on regular basis for removal of encroachment.

10. This court did carry out survey of some of the hospitals and it was observed that entrance and exist points were not fully accessible and the footpaths around the hospitals were encroached by vendors and hawkers etc. and vehicles were also parked on the footpaths, blocking right of way for PwDs  & others as well.   

11. It is also brought to the notice of all that In pursuance of the provisions of the above-mentioned Sections, Department of Law, Justice & Legislative Affairs, vide notification No.1/19/2018-Judl/.Supdtlaw dated 19.08.2019, has designated the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-02 in each District within the jurisdiction of Delhi as Special Court to try the offences under the RPwD Act, 2016.  Also, Department of Home, vide notification No.8/237/2019/HP-II/4610-4623 dated 28.11.2019, had conferred the powers of Special Public Prosecutor under the Act upon each of the Additional Public Prosecutors attached with the Courts of ASJ-02/Special Courts/Designated Courts, designated as Special Public Prosecutor to deal with cases under RPwD Act, 2016.  

12. It is stressed that accessibility is one the major components of the RPwD Act, 2016 which needs to be implemented in true letter and spirit.  The implementing agencies should work towards this aspect diligently and in a time bound manner.  

13. There is no doubt that Civic Agencies have to play the most vital role in making this  barrier and encroachment free environment for Persons with Disabilities in a time bound manner.  Keeping in view the replies by the hospital authorities and the current state of affairs on ground zero, following recommendations are made:- 

(i) Implementing the “Accessibility aspect with reference to RPwD Act, the Civic authorities need to refresh the time line, as earlier one fixed on 15th June 2022, has expired.  It is felt that an extension of 45 days i.e. 30th July 2022 should be the effective date vide which all civic bodies, MCD, PWD, NDMC, Delhi Cantonment Board, DUSIB etc. are not confirm compliance to this Court. It is to make sure that all encroachments are removed from the approach roads and entrance of all the Hospitals in NCT of Delhi and thereafter this exercise need to be repeated for all public places such as markets, Malls, Cinema Halls, Places of Worship etc.

 (ii) Inspections at random shall be carried out by SCPD to assess the accessibility outside hospitals and removal of encroachments.  Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District of MCD will organize the joint inspection at appropriate places at the given date, time & place by this Court. He will personally ensure the presence of the concerned Ex, Engineer, AE, JE of MCD/PWD, SHO, Traffic Police personnel and other concerned authority at the inspection spot.

 (iii) The area/footpath etc. outside Hospital is to be taken care by civic authorities but at the same time, Hospital authorities should continuously monitor the work for barrier free accessibility to PwDs in respective hospitals.

(iv) Hospital authorities apart from writing to civic authorities should follow up them regularly to keep the Hospital entrance and exit encroachment free at all times, through security guards of the hospitals to facilitate the PwDs.

(v) Department of Social Welfare/DUSIB should try to increase the number of Rain Baseras and should also explore the possibility of shifting the people from around the Hospital premises to the Rain Basera. DUSIB should help people with proper accommodation, toilets etc. and area should also be earmarked for charity (Food Distribution).  They should also try to make a temporary arrangement for stay for the attendants/ caregivers/relatives of the patients admitted in the hospitals. 

13. This court be informed of the action taken by all the concerned respondents within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of RPwD Act, 2016.  

14. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 4th  day of June, 2022. 

  (Ranjan Mukherjee)

                             State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

List of Respondents in Case No. 2552/1101/2022/04 

1. The Commissioner of  Police, GNCT of Delhi, 2nd Floor, MSO Building Police Headquarter, ITO Delhi-110002

2. The Special Commissioner of Police (Traffic), 3rd Floor, Tower-1, Delhi Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi – 1100001. (Email-     splcp-traffic-dl@nic.in).

3. The Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, 9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, JLN Marg,New Delhi -110002.

4. The Commissioner ,North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 4th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi -110002

5. The Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation,419, Udyog Sadan, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi -110096

6. The Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, GNCT of Delhi, Punarwas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002. 

7. Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, 12th Floor, MSO Building, I. P.Estate, New Delhi: 110002.

8. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Aruna Asaf Ali Govt Hospital, 5, Rajpur Road, Govt of NCT of Delhi,  Delhi -110054.

9. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Acharyaashree Bhikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar, Delhi 110015.

10. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Attar Sain Jain Hospital, Lawarence Road, New Delhi 110035

11. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Govt of NCT of Delhi, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi 110085.

12. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Bhagwan Mahaveer Hospital H-4, 5 Pitam Pura, Delhi 110034.

13. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital Jahangir Puri, New Delhi 110033

14. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Central Jail Hospital Jail Road, Hari Nagar, New Delhi 110064

15. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalaya Govt of NCT of Delhi, Geeta Colony, New Delhi 110031.

16. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Dadadeb Mother & Child Hospital Nasirpur near Dabrimore Janakpuri, New Delhi 110018.

17. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital Hari Nagar, New Delhi 110064.

18. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Delhi State Cancer Institution Dilshad Garden Delhi 110095.

19. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Dr Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan Karkardooma, Delhi 110032.

20. Medical Superintendent / Director, Dr N.C.Joshi Hospital Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005

21. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Guru Nanak Eye Center  Maharaja Ranjit Singh Marg, New Delhi 110002

22. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Govind Ballabh Pant Hospital(G.B.P.H) Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Delhi 110002

23. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Guru Govind Singh Govt Hospital Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi 110027

24. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Chaudhary Brahm Prakash Ayurved Charak Sansthan Vill. Khera Dabar, Najafgarh, New Delhi 110073.

25. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Nehru Homeopathic Medical College B- Block, Defence Colony, New Delhi-24

26. The Medical Superintendent / Director, B.R.Sur Homeopathic Medical College Nanakpura, Moti Bagh, New Delhi 110021.

27. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Ayurvedic & Unani Tibbia College & Hospital Ajmal Khan Park, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.

28. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Health Centre Cum Maternity Hospital Kanti Nagar, New Delhi 110051.

29. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Jag Parvesh Chander Hospital Shastri      Park, New Delhi 110031

30. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital Mangol Puri, New Delhi 110083

31. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Satyawadi Raja Harish Chandra Hospital Narela, New Delhi 110040

32. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hospital Govt of N.C.T of Delhi, East Patel Nagar,  Delhi 110008

33. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Rao Tula Ram Memorial Hospital Jaffar Pur, New Delhi 110073

34. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital Govt of N.C.T of Delhi, Tahirpur, New Delhi 110064

35. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Poor House Hospital Beggers Home G.T.B Nagar, New Delhi 110009

36. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences M.A.M.C.J.L Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110002

37. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017

38. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Maharishi Balmiki Hospital Pooth Khurd, New Delhi 110039

39. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Lok Nayak Hospital Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110002

40. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital(L.B.S) Khichri Pur, New Delhi 110091

41. The Medical Superintendent/Director, Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital C-2B, Janakpuri,  New Delhi 110058

42. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (I.H.B.A.S) Shahdara, New Delhi 110095

43. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences(I.L.B.S) Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110057

44. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital(G.T.B.H) Shahdara, New Delhi 110095

45. The Medical Superintendent / Director ,Maharishi Valmiki Infectious Diseases Hospital (MVID), Kingsway Camp, New Delhi-110009.

46. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Rajan Babu Institute of Pulmonary Medicine & Tuberculosis, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi – 110009.

47. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Hindu Rao Hospital, Malka Ganj, Delhi-110007.

48. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Kasturba Hospital, Near Jama Masjid, Daryaganj, Delhi-110002

49. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Girdhari Lal Maternity Hospital Ajmeri Gate, Near Police Station, Kamla Market Delhi - 110006 

50. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Swami Dayanand Hospital, Shahdara North Zone,  C-Block, Dilshad Garden, Delhi- 110095

51. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Shyama Prasad Mukjerjj Chest Hospital, 146, Patparganj Rd, Patparganj, MayurVihar, New Delhi, Delhi 110091

52. The Medical Superintendent / Director, PoornimaSethi Multi Speciality Hospital, Dd Block, Kalkaji Road, Kalkaji, near Nehru Place Sub Post Office, New Delhi, Delhi 110019

53. The Medical Superintendent / Director, SDMC Lajpat Nagar Colony Hospital, Veer Savarkar Marg, Block L,  Lajpat Nagar II, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi 110024

54. The Medical Superintendent / Director, SDMC's Mata Gujri Hospital, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018.

55. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Safdarjung Hospital, Ansari Nagar East, near to AIIMS Metro Station, New Delhi, Delhi 110029

56. The Medical Superintendent / Director, PGIMER Dr. Ram ManoharLohia Hospital, Baba Kharak Singh Rd, near Gurudwara Bangla Sahib, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Type III, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

57. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Lady Hardinge Medical College & Smt. SuchetaKriplani Hospital Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg,  DIZ Area, Connaught Place, New Delhi, Delhi 110001

58. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Kalawati Saran Children’s Hospital, C- 604, Connaught Circus, Bangla Sahib Rd, DIZ Area, Connaught Place, New Delhi, Delhi 110001

59. The Medical Superintendent / Director, National Institute of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases, Sri Aurobindo Marg Near Qutub Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi, Delhi 110030

60. The Medical Superintendent / Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Sri Aurobindo Marg, Ansari Nagar, Ansari Nagar East, New Delhi, Delhi 110029

61. The Medical Superintendent / Director, Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute, University of Delhi, Vijay Nagar Marg, Art Faculty, University Enclave, New Delhi, Delhi 110007

62. The Medical Superintendent / Director, ESI HOSPITAL, Basai Darapur, New Delhi, Delhi 110015

63. The Medical Superintendent / Director, ESIC Hospital, Okhla, Maa Anandmayee Marg,Okhla Ph-I,, Delhi-110020

64. The Medical Superintendent / Director, ESIC Hospital, Dr KN Katju Marg, Opp HP Petrol Pump, Sector 15, Sector 15A, Rohini, New Delhi, Delhi 110089

65. The Medical Superintendent / Director, ESIC Hospital, Jhilmil, Block D, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi, 110095.

   

SUO-MOTU Regarding “Earmarking of parking slots for PwDs ” Vs. Commissioner MCD & 7 Others | Case No. 2543/1101/2022/03/5763-5768 | Dated:28-06-22

 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-110002

Phone-23216001-04, Email: comdis.delhi@delhi.gov.in

Case No. 2543/1101/2022/03/5763-5768 Dated:28-06-2022

In the matter of :

SUO-MOTU Regarding “Earmarking of parking slots for PwDs ”

Versus

As per enclosed list ..............  8  Respondents

ORDER

Specific parking slots for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) have to be mandatorily earmarked. Signages to that effect are also required to be displayed accordingly in the parking lots by the concerned controlling authorities. In this regard (Hon’ble High Court Delhi, Order dated 11.02.2015 in WP(C) No. 1977/2014) may also be referred.

2. Section 41(1)(a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides that:- 

41.   “(1) The appropriate Government shall take suitable measures to provide,— (a) facilities for persons with disabilities at bus stops, railway stations and airports conforming to the accessibility standards relating to parking spaces, toilets, ticketing counters and ticketing machines.”

 3. All parking lot owning agencies/Departments needs to adhere to the RPwD Act, 2016 and instructions issued by Hon’ble High Court Delhi in this regard.

4. Section 80 (b) of the RPwD Act, 2016 provides that State Commissioner ;

“shall inquire, suo motu or otherwise deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and safeguards available to them in respect of matters for which the State Government is the appropriate Government and take up the matter with appropriate authorities for corrective action.”

5. A suo motu cognizance was taken under Section 80 of the Act and the respondents were accordingly directed vide notice dated 29.03.2022 followed by reminders dated 11.05.2022 and 27.05.2022 to confirm this court the earmarking of parking slots by the concerned agencies alongwith display of signage boards accordingly and also enclose photographs for evidence for each parking lot.

6. In response to notice, all the respondents furnished the reply except PWD and DDA.  This Court has taken a very serious view of it.  Attention is invited to Provision of Section 93 of the Act which is reproduced below:-

93. “Whoever, fails to produce any book, account or other documents or to furnish any statement, information or particulars which, under this Act or any order, or direction made or given thereunder, is duty bound to produce or furnish or to answer any question put in pursuance of the provisions of this Act or of any order, or direction made or given thereunder, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees in respect of each offence, and in case of continued failure or refusal, with further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day, of continued failure or refusal after the date of original order imposing punishment of fine.”

7. MCD, NDMC, DCB and DMRC submitted that they have earmarked parking lots for persons with disabilities and also instructed the controlling authorities/ contractors to maintain it and properly display the signages to this effect.  They have also enclosed photographs to this effect.  Traffic Police has informed that the parking sites/lots are allotted and maintained by civic bodies such as MCD, NDMC, DUSIB etc.  Delhi Traffic Police only conveys feasibility report to these agencies from traffic point of view as and when asked by them.  Further, the matter regarding providing accessibility in the Government Office building also pertains to civic agencies.

8. It is observed that there is not sufficient parking lots earmarked for PwDs and there is also lack of signages.  Attention of all is invited to the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Design Accessibility in India 2021 issued by Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Govt. of India.  According to these guidelines the number of parking lots should be earmarked in the following manner:-

Number of Vehicle Parking Units	Number of Accessible Parking Lots
For 50 parking lots (1-50)	1
Next 50 lots (51-100)	1
Every subsequent 200 lots or any part thereof	1

9. Keeping in view the replies and photographs submitted by the respondents and the state of affairs in respect of earmarking of parking lots by the concerned agencies, the following are recommended:-

(i) No. of parking lots should be earmarked in accordance with the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Design Accessibility in India 2021.

(ii) Parking management should ensure keeping the reserved lots unoccupied except in any emergency.

(iii) Parking lots should be fully accessible for PwDs.  International Symbol of Accessibility should be clearly marked at the accessible parking lots.

(iv) Proper sign boards should be displayed at relevant places and these should not be obstructed by a vehicle parked in the designated lot.

(v) It should be ensured that parking management staff is sensitised and trained towards the needs of persons with disabilities, elderly and others. 

10. This court be informed of the action taken by all the concerned respondents on the recommendations as above within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of RPwD Act, 2016.  

11. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court  this  28th day of June, 2022. 

  (Ranjan Mukherjee)

                             State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

 

List of Respondents

1. Now, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
2. The Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, 9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi -110002
3. The Commissioner,North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 4th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi -110002
4. The Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation,419, Udyog Sadan, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi -110096
5. The Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council, Palika Kendra, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. .
6. The CEO, Delhi Cantonment Board, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt-10.
7. Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, 12th Floor, MSO Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi: 110002.
8. Managing Director, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Lane, Barakhamba, New Delhi, Delhi 110001.
9. The Special Commissioner of Police (Traffic), 3rd Floor, Tower-1, Delhi Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi – 110001. (Email-     splcp-traffic-dl@nic.in).

Yogesh Pal Vs. Institute for the Blind, | Case No. 2484/1111/2022/01/5653-5654 | Dated:14-06-22

 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-110002

Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@delhi.gov.in

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

Case No. 2484/1111/2022/01/5653-5654                 Dated:14-06-22 

In the matter of:

Sh. Yogesh Pal
S/o. Sh. Ram Swaroop Pal,
Institute for the Blind,
Panchkuian Road, New Delhi-110001
(e-mail: yogeshpal2562@gmail.com) ......…..Complainant

Versus

The Administrative Secretary,
Institute for the Blind,
Panchkuian Road, 
Near R.K. Ashram Metro Station,
Opp. Pillar No. 24, New Delhi-110001
(e-mail: ifbblindschool@gmail.com ) ………..Respondent

Date of Hearing: 14.06.2022

Present: Sh. Yogesh Pal, Complainant

Sh.  Shivendra Kumar, Administrative Secretary on behalf of respondent

ORDER

The complainant, a person with visual impairment vide email dated 17.01.2022 filed a complaint under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act regarding discrimination by the respondent.  The complainant submitted that he is studying in the institute since 2015 and residing in the hostel of the institute.  Further, whenever any friend comes to meet him and wants to stay with him, the school authorities do not allow while they are permitting others to do so. Thus, he requested to intervene and stop the discrimination by the Institute.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 27.01.2022 followed by reminders dated 18.02.2022, 22.03.2022 and 12.05.2022.  In response Vice Principal of the Institute for the Blind vide letter dated 12.05.2022 submitted that the Institute is providing free of cost education to blind students upto class 8th  and free hostel facility to the blind students.  He further informed that complainant brings his friends to his room without any information or intimation to the institute.  Most of them are the students who are expelled from other institutes and are involved in bad habits.  The complainant was repeatedly asked to refrain from such activities but he never listened to the staff and also misbehaved with the management. Thus, in order to protect other students from the bad influence of such outsiders, authorities have prohibited entry of the visitors of complainant. They also brought above facts to the notice of the Sh. C.K. Chaturvedi, Retired Additional District Judge who had been appointed as Receiver on 25.10.2019 by the Hon’ble District Court, Saket for managing the affairs of the above Institute.

3. As the complainant was not satisfied with the reply of the respondent which was forwarded to him, a hearing was scheduled on 14.06.2022.  The complainant reiterated his submissions and added that he should not be discriminated by Institute / School Management as they are permitting other students to let their guests stay with them but only his guests/friends are prohibited in hostel. 

4.   After due deliberation and discussion, it is observed by the Court that the complainant should cooperate with the authorities of the Institute by mending his behaviour and following all the rules / bye laws framed by the Institute in order to maintain discipline.  However, taking an empathetic view in the matter and request of the complainant, it is recommended that no such discrimination should be done by respondent in case of complainant and he should be treated on similar grounds as made for others.  Thus, Respondent is also advised to adopt an empathic approach towards the complainant and other visually impaired students / inmates residing the Institute and maintain a uniformed policy for all.  

5. The case is closed with the above recommendations and action taken be intimated to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.

6. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 14th day of June, 2022.  

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee) 

                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Chander Shakher Taneja Vs. DC(West Zone) SDMC & Anr. | Case No.2580/1101/2022/05/5597-5599 | Dated:08-06-2022

 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.2580/1101/2022/05/5597-5599                Dated: 08-06-22

In the matter of:

Sh. Chander Shakher Taneja
Through Email cs.taneja29@gmail.com                …………..Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner(West Zone), 
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
290,Road Number 28, Nehru Nagar, 
Shivaji Place, Basai Dara pur New Delhi-110027     ...............Respondent No.1

The SHO, 
8, Kirti Shikar, 
District Centre, Janakpuri, 
New Delhi-110058.                                            ............Respondent No.2

Date of hearing:   07.06.2022

Present: Sh. Chander Shakher Taneja, Complainant

Sh. T.P. Puri, AE, West Zone on behalf of Respondent No.1

Sh. Somesh, ASI on behalf of Respondent No.2

ORDER

The complainant, a person with 60% locomotor disability filed a complaint vide email dated 28.04.2022, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, regarding unauthorized & illegal construction by his neighbour at ground floor.

2. The matter was taken up with the South DMC vide letter dated  04.05.2022 with a copy to SHO, Janakpuri. However, no response was received from the respondents and therefore a hearing was scheduled on 07.06.2022.  

3. During the hearing, complainant reiterated his submissions and stated that he is the owner of LIG Flat No. 51 B (First Floor), Block A5B/A5C, (opp. Possangi Pur Village), Janak Puri, New Delhi 110058.  The current owners of LIG Flat No. 51A (Ground Floor), Block A5B/A5C, (opp. Possangi Pur Village), Janak Puri, New Delhi 110058  are doing unauthorized construction.  They have constructed the new structure with complete coverage of the front veranda with “lenthil/lantter” for commercial purpose. The construction is in process and completely “altering/changing” the structure in an objectionable manner which will weaken the structure affecting the safety, security, and privacy. When the construction is complete, it will “alter” the structure of the building and weaken it and will endanger the safety, security, and privacy of the occupants of our building.  He requested for kind assistance and intervention to stop the unauthorized construction, remove the illegal structure, safeguard his right to use and access his property and also the safety, security and privacy of the occupants of the building.  

4. Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 07.06.2022 filed during the hearing submitted that on receiving the complaint, the site was inspected and after inspection, action u/s 343/344(i) of the DMC Act vide file No. EE(B)-II/WZ/UC/22/167 dated 17.05.2022 was initiated and a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Owner/Occupier.  As no reply was received, Demolition Notice was also issued.  Further, sealing action u/s 345A of the DMC Act was also initiated and will be taken earliest after following due process of law, as per DMC Act.

5. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 24.05.2022 filed during the hearing submitted that a letter was sent to MCD on 19.05.2022 regarding the construction.  Thereafter a visit of site was done but there was no worker at the site.

6. Taking into account the actions so far taken by Respondent No.1, the case is closed in this Court with the direction to Respondent No. 1 to submit ATR to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act. 

7. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 07th day of June, 2022.  

(Ranjan Mukherjee) 

                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Sanjay Kumar Vs. Spice Jet Ltd. | Case No. 2467/1111/2021/12/5565-5566 | Dated: 06-06-2022

 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-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. 2467/1111/2021/12/5565-5566                          Dated:06-06-2022 

 In the matter of:

Sh. Sanjay Kumar
H.No. 140, Pocket-12,
Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi-110086                                       ……..…Complainant
(E-mail: sanjayjakhar1977@gmail.com)

Versus

Ms. Tinha Sethi,
Nodal Officer, 
Spice Jet Ltd.,
319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, 
Gurgaon-122016.
(E-mail: nodalofficer@spicejet.com)                        ……………Respondent

ORDER

1. The complainant, a person with more than 70% locomotor disability, filed a complaint dated 26.12.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act regarding harassment and non refund of his claim of Rs. 18195/- by Spice jet Airlines.  The complainant submitted that he alongwith his family members planned to visit Sringar from Delhi.  When he reached the entry gate, it was closed citing that he was late.  He requested the staff over there to let him and his family board the plane as it was still there but they refused.  He further added that he had to pay an amount of Rs. 18,195/- to take another flight.  He requested vide e-mails to the company for refund of Rs.18,195/- but they have not taken suitable action.  He approached this court for refund of his money and for action against the company for misbehavior with a person with disability.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 28.12.2021 followed by reminders dated 09.02.2022 and 06.04.2022. However, no response was received from the respondent and this Court has taken a serious view of it.  A hearing was scheduled on 07.06.2022.  

3. In the meantime, the complainant vide email dated 02.06.2022 informed that he had entered into an agreement with the respondent vide which the respondent had agreed to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Only) towards full and final settlement and satisfaction of the complainant.  The complainant further requested with thanks to close the case.  This was confirmed over the telephone from the complainant.

4. Keeping in view the above, the case is closed in this Court with the direction to the respondent to respond the communications from the Courts in a time bound and appropriate manner.  The respondent is also directed to be more sensitised towards persons with disabilities. 

5. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 6th day of June, 2022.  

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee) 

                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Aman Kumar Vs. The Commercial Manager, Anand & Company | Case No. 2381/1024/2021/10/5440-5442 | Dated: 27-05-2022

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.2381/1024/2021/10/5440-5442              Dated:27-05-2022

In the matter of:

Sh. Aman Kumar
R/o D-684, Gali No. 31, Amar Colony, 

East Gokalpur,  

Delhi-110094.                  ……….Complainant                            

Versus

The Commercial Manager,
Anand & Company, 
3rd, Shop No. 309, Vashisth Complex, 
Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Sikander pur Market,
Sikanderpur, Gurgram (Haryana)-122002.
Email: aanandandco@gmail.com                      ...............Respondent 

Date of Hearing: 26.05.2022

Present: Sh. Aman Kumar, Complainant.

Sh. Harpreet S. Nagpal alongwith Sh. R.S. Nagpal, Advocate on behalf of Respondent.

ORDER

The complainant, a person with 40% locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 29.09.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act and alleged that he had worked with M/s Anand & Company for a long period from 01/09/2001 to 15/06/2018 as Lift Operator but the Company had terminated his services w.e.f. 15.06.2018, which was after expiry of his ongoing contract with the company.  The above company did not pay him due gratuity for 17 years 08 months 15 days and bonus for 18 months.  He informed that his wife is also a person with disability and his family is facing great financial constraints, thus, he requested this Court for getting payment of his outstanding dues from the Company. 

2. The matter was taken up with respondent vide letter dated 24.12.2021  followed by reminder dated 17.02.2022  for submission of their comments. However in the absence of any response from respondent the case was fixed for hearing on 26.05.2022 and both parties submitted their respective facts as under:

(i) Complainant reiterated his written submission and again requested for clearance of his outstanding dues with regard to bonus and gratuity.

(ii) Representative of Respondent filed their written submission during hearing & informed that the Company was providing outsourced maintenance services to the State Trading Corporation of India (STC) i.e. the principal employer in the case.  Upon determination of the maintenance contract award to the respondent by the State Trading Corporation of India (STC) w.e.f. 15.06.2018, complainant was directed to report for duty on different sites but he never reported for duty and also not approached the respondent for employment.  Further the respondent could not release the due payment of bonus and gratuity to its respective employees, including complainant on the ground that the State Trading Corporation of India (STC) had not released the due payment to the Company yet.  The representative of the respondent however, agreed that the Company is ready to pay the due amount relating to bonus and gratuity to the complainant if the principal employer – State Trading Corporation of India clears the bills. 

3. After due deliberations and discussion on the case, the court recommended as under:

(i) Court observed that complainant is entitled to get his outstanding dues from the respondent  thus respondent is directed to ensure that  the payment of outstanding dues with regard to bonus and gratuity be made to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 

(ii) Though there is no direct linkage of the State Trading Corporation of India but the Court desires that the State Trading Corporation of India being Principal Employer in the instant case should clear the long pending dues and bills of the Respondent M/s Anand and Company enabling them to pay the same to their respective employees including the PwD - complainant.  However, this is not to be linked to release of payment to the PwD Complainant. 

4. The case is disposed of. 

5. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 27th day of May, 2022.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to:-The CMD, State Trading Corporation of India Limited (STC), Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110001 w.r.t. the Para 3(ii) of the Order.

Durgesh Mishra Vs. The Director, Directorate of Education | Case No. 2569/1024/2022/04/5412-5413 | Dated: 25-05-2022

 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-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. 2569/1024/2022/04/5412-5413                 Dated: 25-05-2022

In the matter of:

Sh. Durgesh Mishra
Flat No.42, Krishna Apartment, 
Block BH(East), Shalimar Bagh, 
New Delhi-110088. ............Complainant

                                                      Versus

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

ORDER

The complainant, a person with 70% locomotor disability and a TGT (English) in a school under Dte. of Education vide complaint received from the Office of Chief Commissioner of PwDs on 13.04.2022 (e-mail), under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, alleged that he was not being paid the Transport Allowance (TA) at the double the normal rate as per Govt. of India Rules since his joining Dte. of Education and thus deprived of the right as a person with disability.  CCPD also forwarded the same complaint vide e-mail dated 18.04.2022 which was received by their department from an NGO Toshiyas, Bihar.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 19.04.2022 followed by reminder dated 04.05.2022. Head of the GBSS School, Shalamar Village on behalf of DOE vide letter dated 12.05.2022 replied that the complainant joined DOE on 27.08.2020 as TGT (English) under “General Category” through DSSSB.  On 26.12.2020, complainant applied to change his category from General to P.H. for which the file was forwarded before the Director of Education for change of category with the recommendation to consider the request of the complainant.  As per the rectification in the MIS online system of DOE, the category “PH/Ortho” was accepted by the department on 14.09.2021 and accordingly the benefit of double TA was released to the complainant w.e.f. 01.09.2021.  

3. The reply sent by the HOS, GBSS School, Shalamar Village was sent to the complainant vide this office letter dated 17.05.2022.  The complainant was not satisfied with the said reply.  The HOS was contacted on telephone and the issue was discussed at length and it was stressed that there is no fault of the complainant if the online system of the office of respondent approved the request of the complainant at a later date. 

4. After perusing the complaint, the reply submitted by the respondent and discussion with the HOS, it was observed that the complainant requested the respondent for change of category from “General” to “Ph-Ortho” on 26.12.2020 which was accepted by the respondent on 14.09.2021.  In view of this, it is recommended that the complainant be provided the benefit of double the Transport Allowance with effect from the date he informed/requested for change of category to “PH-Ortho”.

5. This court be informed of the action taken by the respondent within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of RPwD Act, 2016 i.e. 26.12.2020.  

6. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 25th day of May, 2022. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities

Babu Lal Gurjar Vs. DCP Outer District & Anr. | Case No.2477/1111/2022/01/5310-5312 | Dated:18-05-2022

 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@delhi.gov.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.2477/1111/2022/01/5310-5312                Dated:18-05-22

In the matter of:

Sh. Babu Lal Gurjar,
3060, 2nd Floor, Mahindra Park,  
Rani Bagh, New Delhi-110034.
(Email: babu21383@gmail.com)                                  …………Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,  
Outer District, 
Guru Harkrishan Marg, Maulana Azad Society,
Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitam Pura, 
New Delhi-110034.                       ........... Respondent No. 1

Smt. Poonam & Relatives
(as stated in complaint),
B-268, Jwalapuri, Near Amalwas School,
New Delhi-110087. ........... Respondent No. 2

Date of hearing:   17.05.2022

Present: Sh. Babu Lal Gurjar, Complainant

Sh. Kishore Kumar, ASI, CAW Cell, PS Pitam Pura on behalf of Respondent No. 1

Smt. Poonam, Sh. Kamal Kumar, Sh. Hari Chand and Sh. Rakesh Tanvar, Advocate, on behalf of Respondent No. 2

ORDER

The complainant, a person with more than 40% locomotor disability, filed a complaint dated 29.12.2021, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act.  The complainant vide his complaint submitted that he is being continuously harassed mentally, physically and financially by his wife Smt. Poonam and his in-laws.  He requested this Court to interfere and save him from the torture by his wife and in-laws. 

2. The matter was taken up with Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 12.01.2022 followed by reminders dated 17.02.2022 and 06.04.2022.  However, no response was received.  Therefore, a hearing was scheduled on 17.05.2022.  Respondent No. 2 was also impleaded.

3. During the hearing, the complainant reiterated his submissions and alleged that he fears threat of life by his wife Smt. Poonam and his in-laws.  Representative of Respondent No. 1 submitted reply dated 10.05.2022 during the hearing.  It was informed that Smt. Poonam wife of the complainant had filed a complaint dated 06.12.2021 in CAW Cell and alleged that the complainant is demanding a dowry of Rs.15 lakhs and a car.  As the demand of the complaint was not fulfilled, he started mental and physical torture to Smt. Poonam.  The concerned ASI of CAW Cell tried to counsel both the parties and explained the legal position in the matter.  Next date of hearing in CAW Cell is 20.05.2022.  It was also submitted in the reply that the complainant had also filed complaint in PS Rani Bagh dated 19.09.2021 and 01.11.2021 against his wife Smt. Poonam and his in-laws which was investigated and not substantiated and was closed.

4. The Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.2 filed reply dated 17.05.2022 during the hearing.  Vide reply, it was submitted that the allegations made by the complainant were baseless, false, frivolous and misguiding.  It was also added that Smt. Poonam had filed a case of Domestic Violence Act U/s Cr.PC 125 in the Hon’ble Rohini Court and the next date of hearing in this case is 23.06.2022. Further, CAW Cell had also about to finalize FIR against the complainant U/s Cr. PC 498A, 406 and other sections which were filed by Smt. Poonam.  It was alleged that the complainant had filed the present complaint just to divert the ongoing proceedings in the above mentioned cases.  Further, it is the complainant who is threatening  Smt. Poonam, demanding dowry and torturing her in every possible way and is also having extra marital affairs for which a CD was attached with the reply.  It was further alleged by Smt. Poonam that the complainant is disabled in certificate only.  He walks easily without stick on uneven roads and using this as a tool to save him.

5. After considering the submissions of the complainant & respondents and due deliberations and discussion, the Court observed that the allegations made by the complainant are not substantiated and as the matter is sub-judice in the Hon’ble Rohini Court and CAW Cell and the Court will decide the matter and it is to be abided by all concerned, the case is closed in this Court.

6. The Court further directs the complainant not to pressurise his wife and family especially when the case is sub-judice.  The Court also directs the representative of Respondent No.1 to ensure that nobody threatens the complainant and take immediate action if any incident reported by the complainant.

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

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee) 

                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Mohak Kumar Vs. The Director, Directorate of Education & Anr. | Case No.2255/1011/2021/07/5319-5321 | Dated:18-05-2022

 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.2255/1011/2021/07/5319-5321              Dated:18-05-2022

In the matter of:

Sh. Mohak Kumar,
S/o Parmesh Kumar,
173, Nehru Apartments, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019. …………….Complainant                            

Versus

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

The Secretary,  
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092                   ...............Respondent No. 2

Date of Hearing: 17.05.2022

Present: Sh.Parmesh Kumar, F/o Sh. Mohak Kumar alongwith Sh. Rajan Mani, Advocate for Complainant.

Sh. A.K. Bhardwaj, S.O., Sh. Dhiraj Tanwar, DA on behalf of Respondent  No. 1.

Sh. V.P. Jha, Dy. Secretary, DSSSB  and Sh. K.K.Singh, SO on behalf of Respondent No. 2

ORDER

The complainant, a person with 50% intellectual disability filed a complaint dated 28.06.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act and alleged that Directorate of Education had forwarded a requisition for filling up of 434 vacancies of Assistant Teacher ((Primary), Post Code 42/21, which was advertised by DSSSB vide Advertisement No. 02/21 dated 12.05.2021 but no reservation was granted to persons with intellectual disability in spite of the fact that the post of Assistant Teacher (Special Education) and Teacher Primary were identified for persons with intellectual disability as per S.No. 1556-1557 respectively of the list of identified posts issued vide Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India’s notification No. 38-16/2020-DD-III dated 04.01.2021.    

2. Complainant vide subsequent complaint dated 08.04.2022, had further alleged that  the DSSSB had already conducted recruitment exam for the above Post Code 02/21 on 07.03.22 in which the complainant was denied his right to avail the services of a scribe on production of his Medical Certificate.  Thus the respondents had not only denied him benefit of reservation and scribe but also had denied the equal opportunity to participate in the selection process for the above post code.  

3 The complaint dated 28.06.2021 was taken up with respondent No. 1 & 2 vide Notice dated 08.07.2021 followed by reminders dated 31.08.2021,18.02.222 & 09.03.2022 & 25.03.2022. Subsequent complaint dated 08.04.22 was taken up with the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.04.2022.  

4. DOE vide letter dated 27.12.2021 informed that the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) is not identified for Intellectual disability which is identified under Program Support Teacher at S.No. 509 under Group B.  Further the particular S.No. 1556 & 1557 of notification dated 04.01.2021 is meant for the post of Asstt. Teacher (Special Education) and Teacher Primary (all subject and Special Education) that too under the Group C but the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in DoE, GNCT is under Group B. 

5. Complainant vide rejoinder dated 08.02.22  submitted that the reply furnished by respondent is legally incorrect and unsustainable in view of the stipulation in Note 5 of the M/o of Social Justice and Empowerment Notification dated 04.01.2021 which states as follows:

“Note 5: If a post having identical nature and place of job with respect to any identified post, the post should be construed to be identified even if the post has a different nomenclature and / or is placed in a different group.”

Therefore,  it was submitted that the post of Asstt. Teacher (Primary) advertised by the respondent is also identified for persons with intellectual disabilities.  The posts at Sr. No. 1556 & 1557 are the relevant entries in the notification dated 04.01.2021 corresponding to the post advertised by the Respondent and the fact that the posts at Sr. No. 1556 & 1557 are listed in Group C whereas the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) advertised by the Respondents is a Group B post, is not relevant in view of the stipulation provided in Note 5 hereinabove.

6. However in the absence of any satisfactory reply furnished by Respondent No. 1 i.e. the DOE and non-submission of any reply by Respondent No. 2 i.e. the DSSSB, a hearing was scheduled on 17.05.2022 and all parties submitted their respective facts as under:

(i) Advocate appeared for Complainant reiterated his written submissions and requested that a  Special Recruitment Drive be conducted within next three months for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) to be reserved for persons with intellectual disabilities, including six current vacancies and calculated backlog vacancies and respondents be directed to design a special selection process accommodating the particular needs of persons with intellectual disabilities and designed in consultation with experts in the field of intellectual disability which may include specially designed aptitude tests and in-person evaluations having regard to the cognitive and behavioural limitations of persons with intellectual disabilities. He further claimed that reservation for persons with disabilities in the advertisement dated 12.05.2021 must be made according to the prevailing law as on that date.  He also referred Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement dated 07.07.2010 in the case of Ravi Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India (2010) 7 SCC 626 vide which SC held that delay in identification of posts for any category of disability would not exempt that category from reservation, but rather the vacancies would need to be reserved and filled after the posts are identified for that category. 

(ii) Representative of Respondent No. 1 reiterated their written submission given on dated 27.12.21 and added that the department had found the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) more suitable and identical as per S.No. 509 and their PBR Committee also recommended the same. 

(iii) Representatives of Respondent No.2 vide submission dated 12.05.22 informed that the complainant had  appeared for the examination held for above Post Code 42/21 on 07.03.222 in Ist Shift at Centre IDZ1 GT Karnal Road, Delhi.  As per record complainant had applied under the category of UR (PH/VH) and the allegation levelled by complainant is factually incorrect that he was not allowed to avail the service of scribe.  Board had followed all the  guidelines for conducting written examination for persons with disabilities issued by the Govt. of India from time to time and it had also been mentioned at Clause No. 15 of general instructions for candidates to be appeared in online examination for the year 2022 vide No. F.55(302)/Exam/DSSSB/2021/10 dated 04.01.2022.  Further after examining the record of the said centre it was revealed that scribes were allowed to the PwD candidates in accordance with OM Dated 26.02.2013 issued by the M/o Social Justice & Empowerment as a proof details of two PwD candidates having Roll No. 111504200032 and 111504200012 were attached.  It was further informed that as per reports of the examination functionaries deployed at the centres on the date of examination, no such incident was mentioned as claimed by complainant that he had not been allowed to avail facility of scribe on 07.03.22.  For the allegation of complainant that he was being forced to wait at the centre till completion of the examination it was informed that as per practice in the Board no such permission is allowed except in case of medical emergency.  

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

(i) Court has observed that respondent No. 1 should have considered existing guidelines / instructions relating to reservation for persons with intellectual disabilities.  

(ii) Court also agreed with the fact that category of posts as mentioned at Sr. No. 1557 as per M/o Social Justice and Empowerment GOI’s notification dated 04.01.2021 should not have been debarred by Respondent No.1 in the instant case.  Though it was brought out by Respondent No. 2 i.e. DSSSB that in the instant case, the complainant had wrongly filled the disability category as VH while it was intellectual disability for him. Upon questioning it was replied that as there was no provision of intellectual disability in the “Online” form thus, VH category was written.  In any case this was not justified and the complainant was advised from refraining to use wrong category of disability in future.  Thus, it is recommended that Respondent No. 1 should consider and initiate the process of conducting a ‘Special Recruitment Drive’ in future for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in connection with persons with intellectual disabilities if such vacancies are still existing or lying vacant. It should also be ensured that the above Special Recruitment Drive be designed and conducted with the help of some domain experts / professionals in the field of intellectual disabilities in order to provide all the reasonable accommodations to persons with intellectual disabilities.

(iii) Respondent No. 1 & 2  are also advised to conduct training programmes for their personnel for sensitization and awareness  of RPwD Act, 2016 and instructions / guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment  and Govt. from time to time so that persons with disabilities including persons with intellectual disabilities are not discriminated or deprived of their entitlements.

(iv) Court does not find the plea of complainant justifiable as there is no evident proof that he was not allowed to avail the service of scribe by respondent No. 2 as complainant appeared for the above examination under the UR (PH/VH) category instead of the fact that his medical certificate belongs to Intellectual Disability.

8. The case is disposed of. 

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

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities