Sunday, December 17, 2017

P.S. Dhama Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr | Case No. 4/1348/2016-Wel./CD/3366-68 | Dated:16.12.2017




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-23216002-04, Telefax: 23216005
[Vested with power of Civil Court under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]

Case No. 4/1348/2016-Wel./CD/3366-68                                    Dated:16.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. P.S. Dhama,
President, Joint Front of PwD & OBC Teacher’s Association Delhi,
G-63, MCD Colony Dhaka, Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi-110009                                                                 ……… Complainant     
                                                                     
Versus
The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
4th Floor, SPMC Civic Centre,
New Delhi-110002                                                                      ....…Respondent

The Director,
Central Establishment Department,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
New Delhi -110002.                                                                     ........Respondent

            
ORDER
       
                  The above named complainant, a person with 40 % locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 19.07.2016 submitted that he is working as Principal in School of North Delhi Municipal Corporation (North DMC).  He was transferred out under some conspiracy on 03.11.2015.  The entire staff and parents requested for cancellation of his transfer.  However, the then Dy.Director(Education) relieved him on 04.12.2015 and suspended him without giving him any opportunity.  He was again suddenly transferred on 18.07.2017 and was relieved on the same day. He further submitted that he is entitled to be transferred to a place close to his house as per the instructions. However, he was being discriminated against and harassed.  He also submitted that he had filed a complaint before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and this Court as his grievances were not redressed by the senior officers of  MCD.  Because of his complaint, the Corporation had to fill the back log of reserved vacancies in the post of Principal.  He also alleged discrimination in the matter of look after charge and Current Duty Charge on the ground of his disability.   He requested that his relieving order dated 18.08.2016 should be set aside. 

2.               The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 05.08.2016 followed by reminders dated 10.10.2016 and 29.11.2016.  The respondent submitted an Interim Report on 05.11.2016 and stated that on the basis of complaints of two female teachers, a memo dated 29.06.2016 was issued to the complainant.  After considering the facts of the matter, the competent authority ordered his transfer immediately to a boys school.  He was therefore, transferred and relieved to MCPS Wazirpur Industrial Area, C-II vide order dated 18.07.2016.  The complainant was suspended on 04.01.2016 for disobedience of official orders, misconduct and obstruction of official work while working as Principal in MCPS Dheerpur.  He was later on reinstated and posted in MCPS, Parmanand Colony on 14.01.2016.  As regards his promotion to the post of School Inspector,  the respondent submitted that it was in the ambit of Central Establishment Department / North DMC.  All his representations were forwarded to DDE(Admn.) Education Deptt., North DMC for further necessary action. The said post is a Group A Post.

3.               The respondent vide letter dated 14.02.2017 added that the Look After Charge (LAC) of School Inspectors is purely a temporary arrangement to deal with the shortfall of school Inspectors for the smooth functioning of the Department. Under the North DMC, the charge of LAC has been assigned to senior most eligible headmasters as all the School Inspectors-LAC working with North DMC are senior  Headmasters than the complainant.  The EDMC or SDMC have their own arrangement. Seniority of Headmasters of three DMCs is common and is being finalized.  As regards request of the complainant for transfer to EDMC, the same is done on mutual basis which  was under the jurisdiction of Director Local Bodies. The respondent further informed that a departmental enquiry was pending against the complainant and his promotion to the post of SI can be considered only after the enquiry in the case is over and the RRs to the post are notified.

4.               A copy of the reply of the respondent was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 06.03.2017 at his address – G-63, MCD Colony Dhaka, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi followed by  reminder dated 02.08.2017 vide which he was advised to  submit his comments if any, by 10.08.2017 failing which the case would  be closed. Till date no response whatsoever has been received from the complainant.  In view of this, the complaint is closed.

                  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 13th day  of December, 2017.     



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









Saturday, December 16, 2017

Hakim Singh Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 4/1690/2017-Wel./CD/ 3413-14 | Dated: 15.12.2017



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-23216002-04, Telefax: 23216005
[Vested with power of Civil Court under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]

Case No. 4/1690/2017-Wel./CD/ 3413-14                                   Dated: 15.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Hakim Singh,
R/o C1/384, Gali No.-19.
Harsh Vihar, Delhi-110093.                                                       …………… Complainant      
                                                                     
Versus
The Commissioner,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
419 Udyog Sadan,
Patparganj Industrial Area,
Delhi-110096.                                                                              ……...…Respondent

Date of Hearing : 13.12.2017

Present:       Sh. Hamim Singh, Complainant
Sh. A.K. Singh, Asstt. Commissioner, Sh. Deepak Panchal, Licensing Inspector on behalf of EDMC.
            

ORDER
       
                  The above named complainant, a person with above 40 % locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 28.02.2017 received from Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 12.07.2017 submitted that he is a poor person with disability.   He was allotted a Chalta Firta PCO by Delhi Government financed by the Delhi SC/ST/OBC, Minorities and Handicapped Development Corporation Ltd.  in 2004.  He was being troubled by East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) Officials and requested to intervene and ensure that he was allowed to ply his PCO booth and make his living from the same.

2.               The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 22.08.2017 followed by reminder dated 31.10.2017.  As there was no response from the respondent, a hearing was scheduled on 13.12.2017.

3.               During the hearing on 13.12.2017, the complainant reiterated his written submissions and added that the mobile PCO booth which was seized, has since been released after payment of requisite fine.  However, he is not able to operate and conduct any business for the last three months.  Thus, he has been deprived of his livelihood and he requested for immediate relief.

4.               The representatives of the respondent filed a written submission dated 13.12.2017 which reads as under:

                  “It is stated that the issue has been examined and it has been found that Sh. Hakim Singh was selling tobacco items at the exit gate of Anand Vihar Bus Terminal. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had directed EDMC in WPC No. 1346/2015 and CM 35024/2016 dated 02.02.2017 regarding alarming level of Air Pollution at Anand Vihar and its surrounding area to conduct massive encroachment removal drive and to remove all the encroachments from Anand Vihar Bus terminal, footage bridge and its adjoining areas with the assistance of local Police. In compliance   of the above directions issued by the Hon’ble Court massive encroachment removal programmes were carried out at Anand Vihar in the supervision of sh. A.K. Singh, Asstt. Commissioner of the area.
                  During the programme, all temporary encroachments were removed from footpath, service roads and foot over bridge at Anand Vihar Bus Terminal between entry and exit point of ISBT, Anand Vihar, Delhi except members of case no. W.P. (C) No. 5617 of 2016 titled as “Mahila Howkers Vs DM Shahdara and Others” wherein  Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has directed not to take any coercive steps against the members of the petitioner / association.
                  It is submitted that the complainant sh. Hakim Singh was not a petitioner in the above case.  Moreover, he was not sitting at the permitted stretch.  He was an unauthorised hawker /vender in Anand Vihar Area.  He used to sale gutka, bidi and other tobacco items in front of Anand Vihar Railway Station exit gate in his vehicle/van.  His vehicle / van was standing on the metalled road causing traffic congestion leading  to air pollution.  He was always creating hindrance in Departmental Encroachment removal drive and create nuisance. 
                  In view of the above it is stated that Sh. A.K. Singh, Assistant Commissioner was discharging his duties and allegations of Sh. Hakim Singh is fabricated, false and baseless and hence it is requested that the above Show Cause Notice may be dropped.”

5.               The representatives of the respondent also showed a recorded video showing the complainant lying under the tyre of a truck during one office encroachment removal drive. Sh. A.K. Singh, Assistant Commissioner added that the drive to remove the encroachment from the area is a continuous process in compliance with the directions of  Hon’ble High Court  and it is not possible to allow the complainant to operate his mobile PCO  booth.  Only those persons who were the petitioners in the above mentioned W.P. before the Hon’ble High Court have been allowed to do squatting in the earmarked area a sketch of which is mentioned in the said Order dated 31.01.2017.

6.                The complainant, who is a person with disability states that he has no other source of livelihood and  he himself used to conduct the business through that mobile PCO booth, which the representative of the respondent confirmed to have seen him selling items himself.  Considering his situation, merely because the complainant was not the one of the petitioners before the Hon’ble High Court, he should not be deprived of his only source of livelihood and the concerned authorities should consider his case with compassion. 

7.               In the light of the above, the respondent is advised to allow the complainant squat from his mobile PCO booth which was allotted to him by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi in 2004,  from a spot within the identified area.  The complainant assures that he will not sell any restricted items and will peacefully earn his livelihood. 

                  Sh. Deepak Panchal, Licensing Inspector, EDMC will identify by 18th December, 2017 the spot where the complainant can put his mobile PCO booth   and the complainant can start his business from the said date.  An ATR be submitted to this Court by 22.12.2017.  The ATR can also be submitted through email  at  comdis.delhi@nic.in.

8.               The complaint is disposed of in terms of the above advice / directions.

                  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 15th day  of December, 2017.     




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










Kamal Kant Aggarwal Vs. Chairman Navyug School Education Society & Anr | Case No. 4/970/2015-Wel./CD/3415-17 | Dated:15.12.2017




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-23216002-04, Telefax: 23216005
[Vested with power of Civil Court under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]

Case No. 4/970/2015-Wel./CD/3415-17                                      Dated:15.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Kamal Kant Aggarwal
Room No. 210, Electrical Block
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi -110059                                            ....................Petitioner

Versus

Sh. Naresh Kumar
The Chairman
Navyug School Education Society,
3rd Floor, Palika Kendra
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001                                          ............Respondent

Smt. Vidushi Chaturvedi
The Director
Navyug School Educational Society
Head Office, N.P. Primary School,
Hanuman Road, New Delhi -110001                                             ...........Respondent

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 40% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 20.04.2015 submitted that he participated in recruitment process with roll no. NTWTH-1619 for the post of TGT (Work Experience) in Navyug School Education Society (NSES) as a candidate with disability.  NSES accepted the order of Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities in case No. 331/1011/09-10 that 5 vacancies were for PH Category.

2.  Although he had secured 49.8% marks and he was the only candidate with disability, yet he was not given the appointment.  He therefore, requested to direct the respondent to appoint him without any delay and with benefit of seniority and back wages. 

3.  The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 08.05.2015 followed by reminder dated 19.06.2015. 

4.  The Respondent vide letter dated 03.07.2015 informed that during the hearings before the Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities, it was submitted that the complaint would be considered for appointment as and when vacancies of TGT (Work Experience) would become available against direct recruitment quota as the RRs provided for filling the post of TGT 20% by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion.  There were 8 sanctioned posts of TGT (Work Experience) and all were filled up. Therefore, the case of the complainant would be considered for appointment on availability of vacancy against the direct recruitment quota. 

5.   The case was heard by the then Commissioner on 12.08.2015, 07.09.2015, 12.10.2015 and 10.12.2015.  After a number of exchange of correspondence, the respondent vide letter dated 15.03.2017 informed that the competent authority had approved the appointment of the complainant as TGT (Work Experience) against a vacancy reserved for persons with disabilities during the recruitment drive 2008-09 subject to completion of formalities. The office order dated 20.02.2017 also mentioned that the complainant would be given notional seniority on the post of TGT (Work Experience) equivalent to his immediate junior.  However, he will be given financial benefits from the date of his appointment/joining.

7.    The complainant vide his e-mail dated 16.04.2017 informed that he had not yet been given final appointment and therefore his case may not be closed till his final appointment.

 8.    As the complaint was pending for more than two years and there was no further communication from the complainant, he was contacted on his given mobile No. 8802303439 on 08.12.2017.  He informed that he had been given the offer of appointment.  However, as his pay was not protected and he has joined a post in DRDO, he did not wish to join NSES. 

9.   In view of the above, the complaint is closed and disposed off, accordingly.

10.    However I am constrained to observe that the concerned authorities took unusually long time to decide a matter involving the entitlement of a person with disability despite the directions/observations of statutory authorities and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in his favour. The case deserved to be fast tracked and a decision taken as expeditiously as possible.  On the contrary it took 8 long years.  This is a case which compels one to get an impression that there is too much resistance amongst the functionaries to extend even the legitimate entitlements and the right to persons with disabilities.  It is unfortunate that a person with disability had to struggle for such a long period of time and was made to run from pillar to post. In such a scenario, many a hapless person with disabilities may prefer to forego their entitlements in the face of such resistance as the trade off would be too much to bear.  It is expected that with the coming into force of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 from 19.04.2017 which also has provisions for punishment for contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules or Regulations made there under, all concerned authorities/functionaries shall avoid situations as observed in this case and make efforts to comply with the provisions of the Act in letter and spirit and be more sensitive towards persons with disabilities.

10.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 13th day of December, 2017.

(T.D. DHARIYAL)
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Thursday, December 14, 2017

Shubhachu Kishor Vs. Sunny | Case No. 4/1115/2015-Wel./CD/3377-78 | Dated: 13 Dec 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-23216002-04, Telefax: 23216005
[Vested with power of Civil Court under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]

Case No. 4/1115/2015-Wel./CD/3377-78                                    Dated: 13.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Shubhachu Kishor
15/18, Ist Floor, Old Rajender Nagar
New Delhi -60                                                                             …….... Petitioner     
                                                                     
Versus

Sh. Sunny
52/22, Old Rajender Nagar
Opposite to Vajiram & Ravi Instt.
New Delhi -60                                                                            …….... Respondent   

ORDER

                  The above named complainant, a person with 45% locomotor disability vide his complaint received on 22.09.2013 submitted that he was cheated of Rs.2000/- by a person named Sunny, broker.  He requested for recovery and return of Rs. 2000/.  The complaint was taken up vide communication dated 22.09.2015 followed by reminder dated 02.11.2015 directing Sh. Sunny to appear.  He appeared before the then Commissioner on 22.09.2015. Thereafter the matter was taken up with Dy. Commissioner of Police, Central District vide communication dated 16.11.2015.

2.  Additional DCP, Central District vide letter dated 16.11.2015 informed that as per the report of SHO, Rajender Nagar, during the course of enquiry, the complainant was asked to produce the documents in support of his complaint but he was unable to provide any document. Sh. Sunny was also interrogated and denied any transaction with the complainant.  He also refused to give any statement.  In absence of any documents related to the alleged transactions, no Police case was made.  However, the contact number of the beat staff was provided to the complainant and the concerned beat staff has also been directed to keep in touch with the complainant. 

3.  The Action Taken Report of the Police was sent to the complainant who vide his another complaint dated 3.2.2016 reiterated his allegations which was also referred to DCP, Central District vide letter dated 9.2.2016.  SHO, Rajender Nagar informed that fresh complaint was identical to the earlier one which was duly enquired and the report was submitted.  Therefore, no separate police enquiry was needed. 

4.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in light of the fact that there are no supporting documents in connection with the alleged transactions.  The law enforcing agency has also indicated its inability to proceed further in the absence of any evidence.  Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings in the matter.  The case is accordingly closed.

4.  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 13th day of December, 2017.
        

(T.D. DHARIYAL)
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities



                       




Subhash Chandra Chauhan Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 4/1014/2015-Wel/CD/3359-60 | Dated: 13.12.2017




In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
                                                                                                                   
Case No. 4/1014/2015-Wel/CD/3359-60                                     Dated: 13.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Subhash Chandra Chauhan
H-4, Dhaka Colony
MCD Flats, Delhi                                                                            ..............Petitioner
                                                      Versus

Sh. Madhup Vyas
Commissioner
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre
New Delhi -110002                                                                         ..............Respondent

Date of Hearing: 08.12.2017
                 
                           
ORDER

                  The above complainant, a person with blindness vide his complaint dated NIL received on 23.06.2015 submitted that he is working in North Delhi Municipal Corporation and living in Quarter No. H-4, Dhaka Colony.   He wanted to change his quarter from H-4 to G-52 or G-25 or any quarter on first floor due to certain circumstances.  He had requested the concerned department vide his applications dated 01.04.2015 and 15,.05.2015.  When he enquired, he was informed that there was no vacant quarter.  Whereas so many quarters were vacant in G Block.

2.  The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 25.06.2015 followed by reminder dated 24.07.2015 and 10.08.2015.  The then Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities heard the matter on 10.09.2015, 10.12.2015, 29.10.2015 and 26.11.2015.  On the last hearing the then Commissioner directed the representatives of the respondent (Sh. Rajesh Dogra, Superintendent) to submit further progress reports.  However, despite another communication dated 4.3.2016, neither the respondent submitted any progress report nor has the complainant pursued his case.  On 08.12.2017, the complainant was contacted on his given telephone No. (886029798 and 9868386264).  While there was no response from telephone No. 886029798, the other telephone No. 9868386264 was switched off. 

3.  As per the compendium of allotment of government residence (in general pool Rules, 1963 and Guidelines,   persons with disabilities (locomotor disabilities, mental retardation and persons with cerebral palsy)are entitled to be considered for discretionary out of turn allotment of GPRA against 5%of vacancies occurring in each type of house in a calendar year on medical grounds alongwith persons suffering from various diseases. 

4.  As per para 2, E of DOP & T’s O.M. No. 6035/3/2013 –Estt.(RES) dated 31.03.2014,  Directorate of Estates may give preference to persons with disabilities for providing accessible residence from the place of posting and they may be preferred for allotment of ground floor residence.  Possibility of existing accommodation being renovated to make them conveniently accessible to persons with disabilities be explored by the Directorate of Estates.

5.     As this case is pending for nearly two and a half years and the complainant has not pursued the case, possibly because the concerned authorities not being considerate enough, if his request for change of government quarter has not yet been acceded to, it will be expedient to dispose off the complaint with the direction to the respondent to consider the request of the complainant in accordance with the policy of Directorate of Estates, Government of India if the same is applicable to the employees of North Delhi Municipal Corporation and DOP & T’s instructions mentioned above and inform him of the decision within three months from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this court as required under Section 81 of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act,2016.

6.  The complaint is disposed off accordingly.

7.  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 13th day of December, 2017


(T.D. DHARIYAL)
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities