Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Ashwani Gupta Vs Dte of Social Welfare | Case No. 4/1268/2016-Wel/CD/ 3696-98 | Dated: 02.01.2018

Case Summary

Employment, Promotion, Roster for Promotion, 




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. 4/1268/2016-Wel/CD/ 3696-98                  Dated: 02.01.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashwani Gupta,
Room No. 6, FAS Branch,
Department of Social Welfare,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.                                                   .……… Complainant     
                                                      Versus
The Director,
Directorate of Social Welfare
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.                                                     …...…Respondent


ORDER

               The above named complainant a person with 90% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 04.05.2016 submitted that he acquired disability in a bomb blast. He joined Social Welfare Department in June 2005 in the post of Investigator as a person with disability as per the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on compensatory ground.   

2.           The complainant alleged that he was not considered for promotion to the post of House Father / Mother / Matron along with 12 investigators / Jr. Matrons who were promoted vide order dated 31.05.2013 although he was eligible and there were no other investigators with disability senior to him.  As per DoP&T OM No. 36035/3/2004/Estt./Res dated 29th December, 2005 the department is required to maintain a roster for effecting reservation for persons with disabilities.  However,  neither  any roaster is maintained nor the procedure is followed  for making such promotions.  He further submitted that the Department created 6 new posts of House Father / Mother / Matron.  As he had completed  five years service in 2010, he became eligible for promotion to the post of House Father / Mother and Matron and  to the next post of Welfare Officer on completion of 10 years of regular service.   He represented to the Department on 07.9.2015 and also submitted three reminders but had not received any response till date of his complaint. The complainant further added that the Department conducted three DPCs in 1991, 1999 and in 2013 with  long gap in between whereas as per the instructions, DPC should be held every year. 

3.           The complainant prayed that he should be considered for promotion from the date of his eligibility at the earliest as he was suffering financial loss as well as losing seniority.

4.           The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 16.05.2016 followed by reminders dated 15.06.2016 and 30.06.2016. 

5.           The respondent vide letter dated 28.06.2016 informed that the tentative seniority list had been issued for circulation for promotion to the post of House Father / Mother / Matron for receiving objections, if any.  Thereafter, the process for promotion would  be started after finalizing the seniority list.  The respondent vide letter dated 6th January, 2017 submitted a status report as per which the APARs in respect of four Investigators / Jr. Matrons including the complainant for the year  2014-15, 2015-16, 2015-16 were not available and the concerned  officers had been directed to get the APARs.  The process of promotion was  already under process and further action would  be taken on receiving the APARs. 

6.           The complainant vide his rejoinder dated 27.06.2017 requested for fixing a hearing in the case so that the same is disposed  of.  

7.           A hearing was scheduled on 24.08.2017.  During the hearing the representative of the respondent submitted an action taken report dated 23.08.2017 as per which the complainant  was promoted to the post of House Father vide Office order dated 04.08.2017. According to respondent,  the grievance of the complainant stood redressed.

8.           While the complainant confirmed that he had been promoted to the post of House Father, he submitted that his grievance still remained to be re-addressed in as much as he should have been promoted in the year 2010 when he become eligible for the post of House Father on completion of five years of regular service in the post of Investigator.  According to him, as per the instructions, every year a DPC should be held.  The first DPC after 2010 was held in the year 2013 and therefore, he should have been considered for promotion by the DPC held in 2013 against the reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities as Point No. 1 of the roster is to be reserved for persons with disabilities and he is the senior most Group ‘C’ employee with disability.   He also produced a copy of roster in respect of Group`C’ posts for direct recruitment.

9.           It was observed that as per Recruitment Rules notified vide Notification No. F. 21(13)/76-DSW/Estt. Dated 05.08.1988, the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron / Assistant Boarding/Supdt. in Directorate of Social Welfare are to be filled by promotion failing which by direct recruitment 100% from amongst Matron  & Investigator/Social Worker  with five years regular service in the grade.  The complainant completed five years regular service on 30.06.2010 and thus became eligible for consideration of promotion to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron / Assistant Boarding / Supdt. in the year 2010. As per the copy of roster produced by the complainant, he was  at Sl. No. 15 and the first person with disability amongst Group `C’ employees. 

10.         As per Para 2(ii)  of DoP&T’s OM No. 36035/3/2004-Estt.(Res) Dated 29th December’2005, reservation of three percent of the vacancies are required to be reserved for persons with disabilities in case of promotion to Group D and Group C posts in which the element of direct recruitment does not exceed 75%.

11.         As per Para 15 of the said OM, reservation for  persons with disabilities is to be computed based on a separate 100 points vacancy based reservation roster.  In the said 100-points roster, point No. 1, 34 and 67 are to be earmarked for persons with disabilities. This would be applicable till 18.04.2017 after which the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. 2016 provides for reservation of 4% vacancies.  It was, therefore observed that the complainant was entitled for consideration against point No. 1 of the roster for promotion by a DPC that was held after 30.06.2010.

12.         The representative of the respondent stated that he would have to look into the record in order to ascertain the availability of reserved vacancy for persons with disabilities, the details of the DPCs held after 30.06.2010 for the post of House Father and  whether the complainant could have been considered and promoted before 2017.  The respondent was advised to examine the matter and if it was found that the complainant was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron etc. before 2017, the relevant DPCs may be reviewed and if he is found fit by the DPC,  action to anti-date his promotion may be taken in accordance with the extant rules and the instructions of DoP&T on the subject.   Respondent was directed to submit an action taken report to this Court within 60 days.

13.         On the next date of hearing on 07.11.2017, the representative of the respondent sought adjournment as the concerned Dy.Director was not well. 
14.         The respondent vide letter dated 04.12.2017  informed that the case file of the complainant was  being sent to the Services Deptt. to seek their comments / advice whether the complainant could be given promotion against the roster point reserved for persons with disabilities based on the DPC held in 2013.  On 06.12.2017, the representative of the respondent added during the hearing that the case file had already been sent to the Services Deptt. on 04.12.2017 and action as per their advice would  be taken at the earliest.

15.         The complainant submitted that 14 Investigators were promoted to the post of House Father/ House Mother / Matron based on the DPC held in 2013.  There was no other person with disability in the feeder post and none was ever promoted against the reserved vacancy.  As he is the senior most person with disability, he was entitled to be promoted in 2013 against point  No. 1 of the Roster.  He also added that by doing so, no person would be adversely affected as a vacancy of House Father was kept unfilled on the directions of Hon’ble CAT. Therefore, his promotion should be anti-dated.

16.         Though the facts thus far made available, prima facie supported the case of the complainant  for his consideration in the DPC held in 2013, yet in order to be sure, the respondent was advised to submit the following information:

          (i)  Number of vacancies of House Father / House Mother / Matron filled year-wise by promotion since 20th November, 1989 when the reservation in promotion within Group D, from Group D to Group C and within Group C was introduced by DoP&T vide OM No. 36035/8/89/Estt.(SCT) dated 20.11.1989 till 2012.
          (ii) Number of vacancies of House Father / House Mother / Matron filled by promotion based on the DPC held in the year 2013.
         (iii) Whether any person with disability was ever promoted to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron against the reserved vacancy for persons  with disabilities between 20.11.1989 and 2013.
          (iv) A confirmation that no DPC was held for promotion to the post of House Father/ House  Mother / Matron between the date the complainant became eligible for the promotion in 2010 and  2013.

17.    The respondent submitted the following information vide letter dated 21st December, 2017:

(i)Information Sought
Number of vacancies of House Father / House Mother / Matron filled year-wise by promotion since 20th November, 1989 when the reservation in promotion within Group D from Group D to Group C and within Group C was introduced by DoP&T vide OM No. 36035/8/89/Estt.(SCT) dated 20.11.1989 till 2012

Information available as per record
From 20.11.1989
01

1990
02

1991
03 vacancies of 1989 (1) and 1990(2) were filled in 1991

1992
Nil

1993
Nil

1994
Nil

1995
01

1996
Same 01 vacancy of 1995

1997
01 vacancy of  1995-02 vacancy of 1997  Total =03


1998
Same 03 posts of 1995 (1)  & 1997 (2)

1999
03 posts of 1995 (1) and 1997 (2) were filled in 1999

2000
Nil

2001
Nil

2002
03

2003
Nil

2004
Nil

2005
Nil

2006
Nil

2007
Nil

2008
Nil

2009
Nil

2010
Nil

2011
Nil

2012
Nil
(ii)
Number of vacancies of House Father / House Mother / Matron filled by promotion based on the DPC held in the year 2013.

12
(iii)
Whether any person with disability was ever promoted to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron against the reserved vacancy for persons  with disabilities between 20.11.1989 and 2013
Nil
(iv)
A confirmation that no DPC was held for promotion to the post of House Father/ House  Mother / Matron between the date the complainant became eligible for the promotion in 2010 & 2013.
No DPC was held for promotion to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron between 2010 & 2013

18.         From the above table it is not clear whether the respondent filled up 17 vacancies of House Father/ House Mother / Matron or 06 vacancies from 20.11.1989 till the year 1999.  Thereafter 12 vacancies were filled in the year 2013. Thus, even if only 6 vacancies were filled till 1999, by the time the complainant became eligible in 2010, the roster had moved to 9th point and one vacancy was required to be earmarked for persons with disabilities.  Admittedly the complainant became eligible for promotion to the post of House Father/House Mother / Matron in accordance with the relevant RRs notified by Social Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in the year 2010 on completion of 5 years of regular service in the post of Investigator.  The complainant was the first and senior most person with disability to be considered for promotion to the said post.  As the first DPC was held in the year 2013, the complainant had a claim to be considered for promotion in that year  against point number 1 of the roster.  It is thus a clear case of deprivation of the entitlement of the complainant as he was considered and promoted only in August 2017.

19.         It  will be worthwhile to discuss the relevant instructions even at the cost of repetition  before making my recommendation.  DoP&T vide OM 36035/8/89-Estt.(Set) Dated 20.11.1989 decided that when promotions are being made within Group D, Group `D’ to `C’ and within Group `C’, reservation will be provided for three categories of disabilities namely Visually Handicapped (VH), Hearing Impaired (HI) and Orthopaedically Handicapped(OH).  The applicability of reservation would however, be limited to the promotions being made to those posts that are identified as being capable of being filled / held by appropriate category of disability.  Further, each of the three categories of persons with disabilities would be allowed reservation at 1% each. 

20.         DoP&T consolidated the instructions on reservation for persons with disabilities and issued the same vide OM No. 36035/3/2004-Estt.(Res) dated 29th December 2005. The relevant provisions of  Para 2, 13 and 15 of the said OM are reproduced as below:

“2.    Quantum of Reservation:

…………….(ii) 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 (Hi) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each disability.

13.     COMPUTATION OF RESERVATION: ……………all vacancies in promotion quota shall be taken into account while computing reservation in promotion in Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts. Since reservation is limited to identified posts only and number of vacancies reserved is computed on the basis of total vacancies (in identified posts as well as unidentified posts), it is possible that number of persons appointed by reservation in an identified post may exceed 3 per cent.

15.  EFFECTING RESERVATION - MAINTENANCE OF ROSTERS:

 (a) All establishments are required to maintain separate 100-point reservation roster registers in the format given in Annexure II for determining / effecting reservation for the disabled - one each for Group 'A' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'B' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'C' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'C' posts filled by promotion, Group 'D' posts filled by direct recruitment and Group 'D' posts filled by promotion.

(b) Each register shall have cycles of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into three blocks, comprising the following points: 1st Block - point No.1 to point No.33 2nd Block - point No. 34 to point No.66,  3rd Block - point No.67 to point No. 100.

(c) Points 1, 34 and 67 of the roster shall be earmarked reserved for persons with disabilities - one point for each of the three categories of disabilities. The head of the establishment shall decide the categories of disabilities for which the points 1, 34 and 67 will be reserved keeping in view all relevant facts.

(d) All the vacancies in Group C posts falling in direct recruitment quota arising in the establishment shall be entered in the relevant roster register. If the post falling at point no. 1 is not identified for the disabled or the head of the establishment considers it desirable not to fill it up by a disabled person or it is not possible to fill up that post by the disabled for any other reason, one of the vacancies falling at any of the points from 2 to 33 shall be treated as reserved for the disabled and filled as such. Likewise a vacancy falling at any of the points from 34 to 66 or from 67 to 100 shall be filled by the disabled. The purpose of keeping points 1, 34 and 67 as reserved is to fill up the first available suitable vacancy from 1 to 33, first available suitable vacancy from 34 to 66 and first available suitable vacancy from 67 to 100 by persons with disabilities.

(e) There is a possibility that none of the vacancies from 1 to 33 is suitable for any category of the disabled. In that case two vacancies from 34 to 66 shall be filled as reserved for persons with disabilities. If the vacancies from 34 to 66 are also not suitable for any category, three vacancies shall be filled as reserved from the third block containing points from 67 to 100. This means that if no vacancy can be reserved in a particular block, it shall be carried into the next block.

(t) After all the 100 points of the roster are covered, a fresh cycle of 100 points shall start.

(g) If the number of vacancies in a year is such as to cover only one block or two, discretion as to which category of the disabled should be accommodated first shall vest in the head of the establishment, who shall decide on the basis of the nature of the post, the level of representation of the specific disabled category in the concerned grade/post etc.

(h) A separate roster shall be maintained for group C posts filled by promotion and procedure as explained above shall be followed for giving reservation to persons with disabilities. Likewise two separate rosters shall be maintained for Group D posts, one for the posts filled by direct recruitment and another for posts filled by promotion.”

21.         It is not disputed that the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron etc. are identified suitable for persons with locomotor disability to which the complainant belongs. It is also not in dispute that the promotion post is a Group `C’ post to which reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities is applicable.

22.         In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as brought out above, the course of action for the respondent seems very clear to mitigate  the impact of the deprivation suffered by the complainant and hence it is recommended that the DPC held for  promotion to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron in the  year 2013 be reviewed and the complainant be considered against Point No. 1 of the  100 points reservation roster that should be  maintained for the  posts in Group `C’ without any further loss of time.   If the complainant  is found fit by the review DPC, he be promoted to the said post with all consequential benefits within three months from the date of receipt of this order and this court be informed of the action take  as required under Section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.   It is further recommended that the complainant be considered for promotion to the next higher post(s)  based on his seniority as per his position in the review DPC. 

23.         A copy of this order is being forwarded to Pr.Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

24.         The matter is disposed of accordingly.

25.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 01st  day of January,  2018.                                               


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

Copy to: The Pr. Secretary (Services), Services Department, 7th Level, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.











Ajay Kumar vs. CMO, DTC | Case No. 4/1029/2015-Wel/cd/3659-60 | Dated: 02.01.2018


Case Summary:

Employment; Transport Allowance, Disability Certificate- Complainant with 60% hearing impairment alleged that DTC was not accepting his disability certificate, denying him benefit extended by Govt. to persons with disabilities. Subsequent to notice to the respondent to show cause, the respondent submitted that the competent authority had approved the transport allowance to the complainant.

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. 4/1029/2015-Wel/cd/3659-60                   Dated: 02.01.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Ajay Kumar,
A.T.I,  T.No. 27665
DTC HQ, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi                                                                 ................ Petitioner

                                          Versus 

Chief Medical Officer,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Banda Bahadur Marg,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110009                               ………...…Respondent


                                                      ORDER

          The above named complainant, a person with 60% hearing impairment filed a complaint dated 10.07.2015 and alleged that Delhi Transport Corporation was not accepting his disability certificate issued by Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the same was being refused by the DTC Medical Board.  He was being denied all the benefits extended by Government to persons with disabilities.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent who vide letter dated 16.11.2015 informed that Competent Authority had approved the benefit of transport allowance to the complainant w.e.f. 05.05.2015 to 04.05.2020 i.e. upto the date of his superannuation.  The said communication was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 29.02.2016 for his comments. 

3.      As there was no response from the complainant he was contacted on his mobile on 15.12.2017.  He informed that he has got all his benefits from the department.  He has now retired from the service.  In view of this the complaint is disposed off.

4.      Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 02nd day of January, 2018.     
                                                                            
                                     (T.D. Dhariyal)
                                     State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Wednesday, December 27, 2017

Satpal Singh Vs. Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 4/ 1622/2017 -Wel/CD/3557-58 | Dated: 27.12.2017


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/ 1622/2017 -Wel/CD/3557-58                                   Dated: 27.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Satpal Singh,
Plot No. 13, MCD Flats, Phase-II,
Nimdi Cololny, Delhi-110052.                                                  .……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus

The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Dr.S.P.M. Civic Centre,
New Delhi-110002.                                                                               …...…Respondent


Date of hearing:         11.12.2017

Present                        Sh. Satpal Singh, Complainant.
Sh. B.R. Meena, S.O. Sh. Dinesh Ram, S.I., Sh. R. Purshottam, T.R., LDC on behalf of  Respondent.

ORDER
                 
The above named complainant, a person with 90% locomoter disability vide his complaint dated 11.04.2017 submitted that he was appointed as Assistant Librarian on 08.11.2010 in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200/- (GP Rs. 2400/-) whereas the Grade Pay of the post is Rs. 4200/-.  Other Assistant Librarians were getting Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- after implementation of 6th CPC.  As per the information obtained by him under the RTI, the Additional Director / PIO, North DMC vide letter No. D/ADE/Co-Ord./HQ/2014/1168 dated 30.01.2014 informed that Sh. Shiv Kumar Kapil, Narela Zone, Assistant Librarian was in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- plus Grade Pay Rs. 4600/-  and the complainant was also in the post of Assistant Librarian in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20800+ Grade Pay Rs. 2400/-.  The complainant also enclosed the pay fixation order in respect of Sh. Shivkumar Kapil, Assistant Librarian which indicates his GP as Rs. 4600/-.  The complainant submitted that he was working in the post of Assistant Librarian for the last seven years yet his request has not been considered.  He had requested for grant of GP of Rs. 4200/- to the Commissioner, North DMC on 04.01.2014 which was received on 07.01.2014 however, he has not been granted his entitled GP till date. He requested that he be given grade pay of Rs. 4200/- from the date of  his appointment as Assistant Librarian w.e.f. 08.11.2010 and promoted  to the next higher post.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated  12.06.2017 followed by reminder  dated 18.07.2017.  As there was no response from the respondent, a hearing was scheduled  on 24.10.2017. 

3.      During the hearing on 24.10.2017 none appeared on behalf  of the respondent. It was observed that the notice of hearing dated 12.06.2017 was sent to Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation by Speed Post alongwith the enclosures i.e. the copy of the complaint filed by Sh. Satpal Singh. However, the P.S. in North Delhi Municipal Corporation (North DMC) on 15.06.2017 recorded in the original notice that “enclosures have not been received” and therefore he decided to return the said original notice to the Dy.Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on the same day i.e. 15.06.2017.  Surprisingly, the envelope  in which the original Notice was received back on 28.06.2017 bore Speed Post Diary No. 926 dated 12.06.2017.  After receiving back the said original notice,  the enclosures containing 13 pages alongwith a copy of the Notice dated 12.06.2017 was again sent to North DMC vide this Court’s letter dated  18.07.2017.  However, still there was no response. That is how the hearing came to be scheduled on 24.10.2017.

4.      The concern of this Court that neither any response was received nor any one appeared to represent the Commissioner, North DMC on 24.10.2017  was conveyed to the Commissioner, North DMC  and he was requested to look into the matter personally and ensure that the complainant who is a  persons with 90% disability was not deprived of his right.   The possibility of a deliberate attempt by someone to delay / avoid submission of reply or taking appropriate action on the complaint of Sh. Satpal Singh was also pointed out as it is unusual for any recipient to return the original notice to the sender merely on the ground that the enclosures are not received.  Commissioner, North DMC was further requested to investigate the matter.

5.      The provision of Section 93 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which provides for punishment for failure to furnish information which may extend to Rs. 25000/- in respect of each offence  and in case of continued failure or refusal,  with further fine which may extend to Rs. 1000/- for each day of continued failure or refusal was also brought to the notice of Commissioner, North DMC vide record of proceedings dated 30.10.2017”.

6.      On the next date of hearing on 11.12.2017, representatives of the respondent submitted a letter dated 29.11.2017 as per which the complainant was appointed as School Attendant initially as daily wager and then regularised as such in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2260-60-3200 w.e.f. 01.04.1999.  He was appointed as Assistant Librarian in compliance of the judgement dated 11.12.2009 passed by the Hon’ble CAT in TA No. 1040/2009  in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 plus Rs.2400/- as Grade Pay w.e.f. 08.11.2010  as per advice of the Finance Department.  His request for grant of Grade pay of Rs. 4200/- is under consideration.   A copy of the said letter was given to the complainant during the hearing as the respondent had not supplied a copy of the same to him.

7.      The complainant submitted that as per Office Order No. D./6559/DDE/Edn./HQ/Admn.2016 Dated 15.02.2016, the pay scale prescribed for primary school teachers would apply to Asstt. Teachers (Nursery / Physical) Art & Craft and Music as also to the Resource Assistants in CRC, R.K. Puram and Assistant Librarians of the Department. The complainant also submitted that there are four Assistant Librarians in North DMC including him. While all the three Assistant Librarians have been granted the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- from retrospective effect, he is being denied the benefit.  He further stated that an Assistant Librarian in South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) is also getting the grade pay of Rs. 4200/-.

8.      Representatives of the respondents confirmed that the pay scale of Primary School Teacher in North DMC is Rs. 4200/-. However, while the pay scales of teachers were upgraded,  the same was not done in the case of Assistant Librarians etc. They also added that the pay scales of all the Assistant Librarians are to be decided by the House as it involves upgradation of the pay scale of Assistant Librarian in North DMC.

9.      On Perusal of the record, it is prima facie seen that the complainant was appointed as Assistant Librarian in 2010 on the directions of Hon’ble CAT and was given the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- whereas as per Communication No.  D/ADE/R&E/918 Dated 14.08.2013, the Grade pay of Assistant Librarian is Rs. 4200/-.  If that be so and in light of the fact that the all other Assistant Librarians in North DMC and South DMC have been granted the Grade pay of Rs. 4200/-, denial of  the same to the complainant clearly amounts to discrimination as  the respondent has not given any cogent reason and supporting documents justifying continued deprivation of an entitlement to the complainant who holds the post of Assistant Librarian on equal basis with other Assistant Librarians in the same establishment.  

10.    In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is directed to finalise the matter and grant the Grade pay of Rs. 4200/- to the complainant on equal basis with other Assistant Librarians and pay the arrears due to him within a month from the date of receipt of this order and ensure that the complainant is not subjected to any kind of discrimination and harassment on the ground of his disability and because he was approached this  Court for redressal of his grievances.  He may also be considered for promotion to the next higher post if eligible as per the relevant rules and instructions of DoP&T within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.

11.    I would like to reiterate that from the record perused during the hearing of this case, there were reasons to believe that the complainant’s case has been deliberately delayed at different stages.  It will be in the fitness of things for me to record my observation that the conduct and the conversation of the representatives appearing for the respondent with the complainant during the hearing was acrimonious and arrogant leaving the complainant frightened and scared of putting forth his submissions fearlessly in their presence. I,  therefore, recommend that the Commissioner, North DMC should personally look into the matter and peruse the relevant papers / files so that the decision in the matter is not delayed now and the complainant is not denied any benefit that he is entitled to under the rules and he is not made to run from pillar to post. It may also be ensured that the complainant is not subjected to any harassment.  The Action Taken Report be submitted to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this Order under intimation to the complainant as required under Section 81 of the Act.  

   The matter is disposed of accordingly.
  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 27th day of December,  2017.

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




Bhola Dutt Sati Vs. Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare | Case No. 4/888/2015-Wel./CD/ 3514-15 | Dated: 26.12.2017




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. 4/888/2015-Wel./CD/ 3514-15                           Dated: 26.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Bhola Dutt Sati,
RZ-09, Guru Harkishan Nagar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059.                                                ................ Petitioner

                                      Versus               
Secretary,
Department of Health & Family Welfare,
9th Level, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.                                    ………...…Respondent

   ORDER

          A complaint dated 02.12.2014 and 07.01.2015 of Sh. Bhola Dutt Sati were received from the court of Chief Commissioner on 28.01.2015 regarding non issuance of disability certificate.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 03.02.2015.

3.      The respondent vide letter number NDCL/1315/2014. GBPH/PGC (FPGC/2014/Annex.I/GBPH/598 dated 12.02.2015.  submitted that the grievance was against Janakpuri Super Specialty Hospital as Social Welfare Department had earmarked it as Medical authority for issuance of disability certificate for the resident of West Delhi where the complainant resides.

4.      This case was referred to Janakpuri Hospital and then IBHAS for neuro psychological assessments but was refused one or other pretext.  The complainant also not cooperated.

5.      The complaint was again called to attend Neurological OPD at GBPH and was advised OT/PT/Neuropsychological assessments.  OT assessment releaved 9.8 % ADL lost of function.  A comprehensive reply was submitted by GB Pant Hospital dated 21.10.2015.

6.      The complainant was also contacted on his given telephone No.917503540938 on 06.12.2017 and was informed about the contents of the letter and that since the medical authority has not found him to be a person with disability, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings further.

8.      Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 07th day of December, 2017.    

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


Paramjeet Kaur Sur Vs. Dte of Education | Case No. 4/1243/2016-Wel./CD/ 3512-13 | Dated: 26.12.2017




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. 4/1243/2016-Wel./CD/ 3512-13                         Dated: 26.12.2017

In the matter of:

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur Sur,
E2/32, Sector 15,
Rohini, New Delhi-110089.                            ................ Petitioner

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

           
                              ORDER

          The above named complainant, vide her complaint dated 19.04.2016 submitted that her daughter Garima Singh Sur aged 25 years is a person with Autism with an IQ of 40%.  She was studying at Kulachi Hansraj Manovikas Kendra School, Ashok Vihar, Delhi.  She has been discontinued from the School as she had attained the age of 25 years. 

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent, Directorate of Education vide letter dated 06.05.2016.  Vide letter 28.05.2016, the respondent submitted that the school is not a recognised school/ public institution under Education Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.  As such no action was possible at their end for redressal of the grievance of the complaint.  The complainant may therefore, be advised to approach the authority which had granted recognition to the said school (Kulachi Hansraj Manovikas Kendra).  The matter was then taken up with the Director, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 18.10.2016 and 28.11.2016 and meeting was held by Dy. Commissioner with the school authorities and complainant on 20.01.2017.  The representatives of the school added that there was no policy for continuing such children beyond 25 years.

3.      The Dy. Commissioner contacted the complainant on 06.12.2017 regarding admission of her daughter.  She informed that her daughter is studying in another school and also attending vocational training classes.  Kulachi Hansraj Manovikas Kendra, Ashok Vihar has refused to continue her daughter in their school as per the policy of the school.  She also requested to close the case.

4.      In view of the facts mentioned above, the case is closed and disposed off.  However there is need to study the entry and exit policy of such institutions and Department of Social Welfare needs to make appropriate arrangements for education and training of children with disabilities beyond the age of 18 years.

5.      Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 26th day of December, 2017.     
                                                                            
                                                                                       (T.D. Dhariyal )
                                 State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


View the digitally signed PDF Order here: