Smt. Saroj Kumari Pal Vs. Dte of Education | Case No. 4/1372/2016-Wel./CD/ 317-318 | Dated: 05.05.2017

Case Summary:

Employment: Complainant submitted that her disability hadn’t been uploaded in the computer record despite her request and that her pay had not been stepped up on par with her junior. Respondent submitted that as per her HOS, the Complainant is getting all admissible benefits and that her record has been updated. The case regarding her pay had been submitted to HQ along with the relevant documents. Respondent also submitted that the junior in question was on examination found to be senior to the Complainant. Complainant submitted the name of another TGT junior to her getting more pay than her. Respondent submitted that the stepping up of pay is possible only if the senior and junior belong to the same gender, and this junior was male.

Recommendations: Complainant advised to give the name of her junior in receipt of higher pay within one month of order, and respondent to examine and take a decision on the same within 3 weeks as per relevant circulars/instructions.

Rules/Acts/Orders:

Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi’s Circular No. 38(11)/P&PF/Vol.I/619-938 dated 11.07.2013

Order / Judgement: 

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. 4/1372/2016-Wel./CD/ 317-318                                   Dated: 05.05.2017

In the matter of:

Smt. Saroj Kumari Pal,

TGT Hindi, ID -20071220,

Govt. Co.Ed. Vidyalaya,Mehram Nagar,

Delhi-110037.                                                                                  .……… Complainant     

SCH Code- 1720003.

                                                                          Versus

The Director,

Directorate of Education,

GNCT of Delhi, Old Sectt.,

Delhi-110054.                                                                                         …...…Respondent

 

Present                         Smt. Saroj Kumari Pal,   Complainant.

Ms. Omeshwara Singh, DDE(South West-A), Ms. Alpana Kumar, HOS, Mehram Nagar, Sh. Ved Prakash Singh, Supdt. on behalf of Respondent.

Date of hearing:            02.05.2017

            

ORDER

                  Smt Saroj Kumari Pal, a person with 41% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 08.08.2016 raised two issues (i) that her disability had not been uploaded in the computer record despite her request dated 04.08.2014; (ii) that stepping up of her pay at par with her junior had not been done.  Although the complainant had not enclosed a copy of her Disability Certificate, the complaint was taken up with the Directorate of Education, vide letter dated 18.08.2016. 

2.               Office of the Spl. Director of Education referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Education, Distt. (South West-)vide letter 23.08.2016. Thereafter, two  reminders dated 07.10.2016 & 30.11.2016 were issued by this Court.

3.               The DDE(South West-A) vide letter dated 08.12.2016 informed that as per the HOS, Smt. Saroj Kumari Pal is getting all the benefits as admissible as per rules.  Her service book has been updated and details of her disability certificate have also been entered.  Her case regarding stepping up of salary and entering the disability details in computer record had been submitted to the HQ along with all the documents.  The HOS has also been advised to send reminders for updation of  computer records. Thereafter a hearing was held on 23.01.2017.  The representative of the respondent submitted a written statement dated 21.01.2017 alongwith the details of the complainant that had been entered in the computer record. It has  further been stated that she has been receiving all the benefits which are to be given to  differently abled persons like double transport allowance, enhanced benefit of availing  CL and rebate in income tax etc.

4.               As regards the stepping up of her pay the complainant had requested for stepping up of pay at par with Smt. Shashi Bala TGT Hindi with seniority no. 4693.  The complainant’s seniority is 4310. After examination of the case, it was noticed that the seniority of the complainant was actually lower than that of Smt. Shashi Bala who had been issued two seniority numbers i.e. 3838 & 4693. As per corrigendum dated 19.01.2017 issued by the Establishment-III Branch seniority of Smt. Shashi Bala has been fixed at 3838 and hence the complainant is not eligible for stepping up as requested by her. The respondent further submitted that the school authorities have denied any misbehaviour with complainant and she is being treated with dignity and respect.

5.               The respondent was advised to submit the copy of the order vide which the complainant had been treated as a person with disability. The said order dated 12-15/07/2013 was submitted by the representatives of the respondent.  The complainant vide her letter dated 06.03.2017 submitted that in the same school, Sh. Ganraj, TGT(SST), who is junior to her is getting more pay than her. She also submitted that all the new teachers who joined after her i.e. 09.08.2007, are getting Rs. 17140/- whereas she is getting less pay than him.

6.               During the hearing on 02.05.2017, the complainant stated that she could not attend the hearing on 23.01.2017 as she did not get the notice of hearing dated 21.01.2017.  She got the notice dated 09.03.2017 by post through her school Principal.  Sh. Shyam Singh Pal Husband of the complainant requested that he may be permitted to present the case of her wife. The same is allowed and he stated that the case of stepping up of Smt. Saroj Kumari Pal should be settled expeditiously as there are so many junior teachers who are getting more pay than her. He also submitted that while OH has been mentioned against the name of Smt. Saroj Kumari Pal, her category as `General’ without suffixing OH to it is not right as in case of some other teachers, their vertical category has been mentioned with their horizontal category. However, the representatives of the respondent submitted that personal details of the complainant have been uploaded in the computer like other employees with disabilities. No discrimination in this regard has been done to the complainant. They showed the details of one Sh. Manoj Kumar 20100283 who is also a person with locomotor disability and belongs to general category in the phone. Perusal of the same indicates that his personal details and that of the complainant have been filled in the same format. This seems to be in order unless any evidence to the controversy is produced by the complainant.   In any case, no additional benefit is likely to accrue to the complainant by suffixing OH to `General’ in her service details.

7.               With regard to stepping up of pay, the representatives of the respondent submitted that the stepping up of pay is possible if the senior and junior belong to the same gender and same subject.  Therefore, the stepping up of pay of the complainant w.r.t the pay of Sh. Ganraj would not be possible as he is a male teacher.

 8.              In the light of the submissions of the parties as brought out above, the complainant is advised to give the name of her junior who is in receipt of higher pay than her within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  On receipt of complainant’s request for stepping up of her pay, the respondent shall examine the same and take a decision on it within 03 weeks in accordance with the relevant circulars/instructions issued in this regard such as Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi’s Circular No. 38(11)/P&PF/Vol.I/619-938 dated 11.07.2013 and ensure that the complainant does not get harassed.  Action taken in the matter be intimated to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under the RPwD Act, 2016.

           

The matter is disposed of accordingly.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 5^th  day of May,2017.     

                                                              (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                                             State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Bigan Prasad Vs. Dte of Education | Case No. 4/1258/2016-Wel./CD/ 86-87 | Dated: 27.04.2017

In the Court of 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 Persons with Disabilities

(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]

Case No. 4/1258/2016-Wel./CD/ 86-87                                       Dated: 27.04.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Bigan Prasad,

16 D, Pkt- D II, Kondli Gharoli,

Mayur Vihar, Phase-III,

New Delhi-110096.                                                           ……… Complainant     

                                                    Versus

The Director,

Directorate of Education,

GNCT of Delhi,

Old Sectt., Delhi                                                                 ……...…Respondent

            

Present:                        Sh. Bigan Prasad, Complainant

Sh. Sanjay Chaturvedi, Dy.Director (Education) Zone-II  East on behalf of Respondent

Date of hearing:            13.04.2017

ORDER

                  The above named complainant, a person with blindness submitted a complaint which was received on 27.04.2016 regarding his harassment by Sh. Ganesh Prasad, Principal of the Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, New Kondli, Delhi.  He submitted that he was working as T.G.T.(Social Science) in Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, New Kondli till 09.12.2014.  He alleged that Sh. Ganesh Prasad, Principal of the School had given average grading to him in his Annual Confidential Report despite 95-100 per cent result. He also alleged that Sh. Bharat Singh, PGT (Geography) and Sh. Ram Prakash Pathak, TGT(Sanskrit) used to insult him by calling him names.  He was transferred based on fake documents. He was treated dies non despite being present in the school and his salary of one day was deducted.  He further alleged that Staff Secretary and many other teachers of the school used to be absent and the Principal used to send the attendance register to their houses to mark their attendance.  He represented to the senior officers but there was no action. Instead, he was transferred from the school.

2.               The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 17.05.2016.  The Head of  Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, New Kondli vide his letter dated 02.01.2017 addressed to Dy. Director(Z-II), Shakarpur with copy to this Court inter alia submitted that Sh. Began Prasad was treated as dies non on 27.10.2014 and his salary was deducted on the basis of no work no pay.  There was no post of Staff Secretary as claimed by the complainant and the then Principal Sh. Ganesh Prasad denied having abused or insulted him.  Sh. Bharat Singh, PGT (Geography) and Sh. Ram Prakash Pathak, TGT(Sanskrit) also denied having insulted the complainant vide their written statements. 

3.               This Court forwarded the letter dated 02.01.2017 to the complainant for his comments vide letter dated 24.01.2017. However, the complainant did not submit any comments. 

4.               In response to Notice of hearing dated 15.12.2016, Dy. Director(Education), District East  vide his letter 10.02.2017 submitted as under:-

“Point No. 1:  

The official, Mr. Bigan Prasad was earlier posted in Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, New Kondli, Delhi. The then Reporting Officer, the Principal of the school had given him the Average Grading in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the work & conduct of the teacher for the Year 2013-14. The then  Reviewing Officer, the Deputy Director of Education (Zone-II), Shakarpur, Delhi upgraded the Grading as Good in the ACR of the official. Copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure-I.

            As per the letter issued by the MHA vide No. 4-14017/2/76 dated 15.07.1976 where the Reviewing Officer disagrees and gives his own remarks, such remarks would be treated as final and only those would be taken into account by the DPC etc. Copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure-II.

Therefore, the Grading in the Annual Confidential Report of Mr. Bigan Prasad is Good and not Average.  It is pertinent to mention here that the official has already been promoted to the post of PGT (Political Science) and is posted at SBV, Dallupura, Delhi.

Point No. 2:

Mr. Bigan Prasad has leveled charges of misbehavior against Mr. Bharat Singh, PGT (Geography) and Mr. Ram Prakash Pathak, TGT (Sanskrit). The present Head of the School inquired into the matter and found that they never insulted and misbehaved with Mr. Bigan Prasad. Both the officials have denied such allegations. The statements of Mr. Bharat Singh, PGT (Geography) and Mr. Ram Prakash Pathak, TGT (Sanskrit) are enclosed herewith as Annexure-III.

Point No. 3:

As per the Employee’s Details, the official Mr. Bigan Prasad is residing at 16-D, Pocket D 2 Kondli Gharauli, Mayur Vihar-III, Delhi-96 and the official was transferred to GBSS, Kondli Gharauli which is nearer to his residence and more convenient & logical, keeping in view the visual impairment of the official. It is also humbly submitted that the transfer of the official was not done on false documents but was an administrative decision keeping in view the convenience of the official.

Point No. 4:

The HOS during the inspection of classes found that Mr. Bigan Prasad did not take any classes on 27.10.2014. A Memorandum was issued to the official vide No. GBSSS/NK/14/56 dated 03.11.2014. The copy of the Memo is enclosed as       Annexure-IV.

The official submitted his reply but was not found satisfactory by the HOS and another Memo was issued to the official vide No. GBSSS/NK/14/573 dated 12.11.2014. The copy of the Memo is enclosed as Annexure-V.

As per the Sub Rule (6) of the Rule 11 of the CCS (Classification Control & Appeal) 1965, “ absence  of officials from duty without proper permission or when on duty in office, they have left the office without proper permission or while in the office, they refused to perform the duties assigned to them is subversive of discipline. In cases of such absence from work, the Leave Sanctioning Authority may order that the days on which work is not performed be treated as Dies Non i.e. they will neither count as service nor be construed as break in service. This will be without prejudice to any other action that the Competent Authorities might take against the persons resorting to such practices”.

            As per point no.(iii) of sub rule (7) of the Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, the day can be marked as Dies Non  by the Leave Sanctioning Authority when the official remains in office, but refuses to perform duty assigned to him.” The copy of the Rule is enclosed as Annexure-VI.

It is pertinent to mention here that the Higher Authorities were also apprised of the matter and the Competent Authority i.e. Director (Education) accorded the approval that the Leave Sanctioning Authority may order for Dies Non. As the official did not perform his duty on 27.10.2014 he was treated Dies Non for that day.

Accordingly the salary of the official for one day i.e. 27.10.2014 was deducted from the salary of November 2014 for not performing his duties.

Point No.5:

The then HOS had informed that there was no post of Staff Secretary in the school and he never insulted or misbehaved with Mr. Bigan Prasad.

It is submitted that no injustice was done to Sh. Bigan Prasad, now PGT (Political Science).  Had any such incident taken place in the school, the Higher Authorities would have taken strict action against the defaulters.  It is assured that interest and welfare of the people with special needs is always taken care of by the authorities concerned and zero tolerance is maintained while dealing with such complaints.”

5.               During the hearing on 20.03.2017, Sh. Sanjay Chaturvedi, Dy. Director(Education), Zone –II reiterated the contents of the letter dated 10.02.2017 and 18.03.2017 and added that the decision of the concerned Principal to treat the complainant as dies non on 27.01.2014 was later referred to Director, Education and Vigilance.  No infirmity was found   in the decision of the Principal.  He was the leave sanctioning authority for the complainant and hence was competent to order the days on which work was not performed to be treated as dies-non.  He also produced the relevant file including the note sheets. 

6.               The copies of the letter dated 10.02.2017 as also the copy of letter dated 18.03.2017 which reiterated  the contents of the letter dated 10.02.2017 were handed over to the complainant as the same had not been supplied to him by the respondent.

7.               The complainant during the hearing submitted that Principal Sh. Ganesh Prasad was biased against him.  The Principal himself had directed to show the answer sheets of the students on 27.10.2014, which was the 1^st working day after Dusshera holidays & half yearly examination break. He complied with the directions of the Principal and showed the answer sheets of the students of the classes he used to teach.  On that day, he also submitted the award list to the Examination Deptt. The complainant submitted a list of students of class 6^th G, E & & 7^th E   having signatures and statements that  Sh. Bigan Prasad taught them social studies on 27/10/2014 and he also explained to them.  To this, the representative of the respondent stated that the said papers/documents were not available in the relevant file.  A copy each of the three lists was handed over to the representative of the respondent during the hearing.  As per the complainant,  he had submitted all those papers at the time of submission of his  replies.  He suspected that those papers may have been removed from the record by vested interests. 

8.               In the light of the submissions of the parties, more particularly the additional documents submitted by the complainant,  the respondent was advised to have the matter investigated by  an officer of appropriate level and submit the report within 20 days.  Both the parties were directed to come with complete record on the next date of hearing so that the case could be disposed off.

7.               On the next date of hearing on 13.04.2017,  the representative of the respondent submitted a copy of letter no. DE/47(4)(3)/DDE(E)A/17/2923 Dated 12.04.2017. The said letter inter-alia states that in compliance with the direction of this court vide record of proceedings dated 23.03.2017, an enquiry committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi,  Dy Director of Education (Zone-II), Shakarpur, Delhi and Smt. Anshu Bhardwaj, HOS, Govt. Girls Secondary School, Mayur Vihar –III, Delhi & Smt. Geeta Arora, Vice-Principal, Sarvidaya Kanya Vidhalaya, Kalayanpuri, Delhi as its member. The Committee also obtained the written statements of the students of the aforesaid classes. As per the statement of 06 students ( then students of class VII-E & now of class X), Mr. Bigan Prasad taught Social Studies in the Academic Year 2014 and showed the Answer-sheets of Summative Assessment-1. But 11 students of the then class VI-E (now of class IX) have stated that Mr. Bigan Prasad used to teach Social Science but he did not show/display any answer-sheet. Instead of him, Mr. Mohan Singh, TGT showed the answer-sheets to them.  The letter further states that  13 students of then class VI-G (now students of class IX) have submitted that their class teacher showed / displayed the answer sheet in their class. They have also made some negative remarks about Mr. Bigan Prasad. Thus, out of 30 students, only 06 students (20%only) admitted that the answer sheets were shown but majority of the students (80%) denied that the answer-sheets were displayed by Mr. Bigan Prasad.

10.             Based on the statements and Inquiry Report, the respondent has concluded that Mr. Bigan Prasad did not attend the class on 27.10.2014 and was accordingly treated on Dies Non by the Leave Sanctioning Authority without break in service for failing to perform the noble duty of a teacher and for failing to look after  the interest & welfare of the students of the school.

11.             The complainant submitted that on 27.10.2014 he was in the school and a large number of students have stated that he was present in the classes and showed the answer sheets to the students.  Therefore, treating him dies-non is not justified.

12.             The complainant was asked  whether he ever submitted the copies of the three sheets containing the list of students of class 6^th G & E and 7^th E with their signature dated 27.10.2014 which he produced on the last date of hearing on 20.03.2017. He could not produce any proof of having submitted the said papers to the respondent or to this court ever since  he submitted the complaint in April, 2016. A perusal of the report submitted by the respondent on 13.04.2017 and the statements dated 10.04.2017 of the student who were in class 7^th E, 6^th G & E in 2014 shows that while 6 students of class 7^th E have stated that the complainant showed them the answer sheets and taught them well through out the year, 24 students of class 6^th G & E have stated that the complainant himself did not show the answer sheets to them.  So the position as emerges is that the complainant did attend the school on 27.10.2014, but as per the documents made available, while he showed the answer sheets to students of one class, he himself does not seem to have shown the answer sheets to the students of two classes.

13.             In the absence of any supporting documents against the stated position and the reasonable efforts having been made to ascertain the facts as above, the complainant has not been able to support his statement that he was present in all these classes on 27.10.2014 and that action under Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 11 of the CCS(CCA)Rules 1965 could not have been taken. In the circumstances, Director of Education may take a view on the report of the committee and consider whether in the light of the factual position as has emerged, treating 27.10.2014 as dies-non can be avoided by deducting leave from the complainant’s account.  A decision may be taken within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and the complainant  be informed about the decision.

14.             As regards allegation that Sh. Bharat Singh and Sh. Ram Prakash Pathak insulted him and called him names is concerned, both of them have denied the allegation.  They have also questioned the veracity of the allegation made after two years of his transfer in the absence of any proof or evidence, which indeed is difficult to produce in such cases.  Be that as it may, such incidents should be brought to the notice of the concerned authorities without loss of time to enable them to take effective action. The authorities should include a module on issues concerning persons with disabilities in all the foundation/ induction/ refresher training programmes of all the teachers and employees besides organising workshops from time to time to update their knowledge and for sensitising the employees.

                  The matter is disposed of accordingly.   

                  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 27th day of April 2017.     

                                                                                       

                                                                                                  (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                   State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Ranvir Singh Chauhan Vs. Secretary DH&FW | Case No. 4/628/2014-Wel./CD/78-79 | Dated: 21.04.2017

  In the Court of 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 Persons with Disabilities

(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]

     

Case No. 4/628/2014-Wel./CD/78-79                                                  Dated: 21.04.2017

In the matter of :  

             

Sh. Ranvir Singh Chauhan

Flat No. -2 Nursing Hostel

Jag Parvesh Chander Hospital                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ………Complainant            

                        Versus

The Secretary                                                          

Department of Health & Family Welfare

9^th Level, Delhi Secretariat,

I.P. Estate New Delhi 02.                                                 ………...…Respondent

Date of Hearing : 10.04.2017                                            

Present :               Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma,  Dy. Secretary  For respondent,                                                  Health and Family Welfare.

                              Sh. Ranvir Singh Chauhan, Complainant

                                                                                               

                                                                ORDER

                  This Court in para 5 of its order dated 23.03.2015 inter-alia observed  that the Department of Health & Family Welfare could not produce  any order/Notification of Govt. of NCT of Delhi relating to conversion of the post of  Staff Nurse and Nursing Sister to Group B. There is a provision of maintaining a one hundred point reservation roster for promotion which reportedly is not being maintained by the concerned department.  Therefore the rule of three percent reservation in promotion to the persons with disabilities is also not being followed in the Department.  The Respondent was therefore directed  to maintain 100 points roster for promotion in Group C since 1996, compute the backlog vacancies and then fill them up through special DPC in a time bound manner . The Respondent was also directed to file Action Taken Report by Ist July, 2015.

2.               As the Action Taken Report was not filed by the respondent department, the complainant submitted a representation which was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 5.11.2015. Thereafter a number of correspondences have been exchanged besides holding personal hearings.

3.               During the hearing on 11.04.2017,  the representative of the respondent submitted a copy of letter No.F.8/288/H&FW/Nursing/2016/461 dated 10.04.2017  Annexure ‘A’  to the said letter inter-alia states as under:

                  “Three percent of the vacancies in case of promotion to Group D and Group C posts in which the element of direct recruitment, if any, does not exceed 75%, shall be reserved for persons with disabilities of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision, (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) loco motor disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each disability.
                  As regards the clarification related to Group of the posts, it is submitted that Recruitment Rules are notified under proviso to Article 309 or any specific statutes for post(s) prescribing inter-alia the method of recruitment and eligibility for such recruitment. Recruitment Rules are subordinate legislation and so, they are statutory in nature. Therefore, the changes brought out by any relevant instructions have to be incorporated in the Recruitment Rules/Service Rules by suitable amendments from time to time (P-296/C). Further, Administrative Department vide para 270n/f has clarified as Class-III,  Non-gazetted, Non-Ministerial, which is equivalent to Group-C and relevant provision for quantum of reservation is mentioned at point No.2 (ii) on page-63/N.
                  In view of the above the file may be returned to Administrative Department with the advice to take appropriate action as per the guidelines issued by DoPT,  GoI vide O.M. dated 29.12.2005.”

4.               The complainant submitted that despite order dated 23.03.2015 of this court, he has not been promoted to the post of Nursing Sister.

5.               It is observed that the operation of the order dated 23.03.2015 of this court has  not been stayed and has remained unactioned for more than two years. The Respondent has also not produced any additional facts and the order dated 23.03.2015 stands.  It is also observed that the letter dated 10.04.2017of the respondent indicates that  as per the opinion of the Services Department, the post of Nursing Sister, the post to which the complainant has sought promotion against a reserved vacancy for persons with disabilities, is classified as class III  Non-gazetted, Non-Ministerial post i.e Group C  and  DOP&T’s OM dated 29^th December, 2005 provides for reservation of vacancies for persons with disabilities in promotion to Group C posts.

6.               It may also be pertinent to invite the attention of the respondent that Hon’ble High Court of M.P Bench at Indore  vide order dated 12.01.2015( copy enclosed) in W.P (S) no.439/2004-Chandra Shekhar Sharma Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd & Anr held inter-alia as under :

                  “In my opinion, when any judicial order is passed by any authority empowered to pass and judicial order any law then it is legal obligation of the party against whom such order is passed to see that such an order is implemented in accordance with the directions contained therein. No efforts should be made to avoid its implementation. It is only when such an order is set aside by the higher courts such as appellate court, revisionary court or writ court, as the case may be then the question of its implementation does not arise. In all other cases so long as an order validly passed in exercise of judicial power conferred by some Act and is holding the field, It must be implemented by the parties without any delay.”

7.               In light of the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent is advised to implement the order dated 23.03.2015 without any further loss of time and ensure that the rights and entitlements due to the complainant are not denied by delaying the process when the rules, instructions etc. on the subject are very clear.   

                  The matter is disposed of accordingly.

                  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 21^st  day of April, 2017.     

     

                                                                                           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                                            Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities