Thursday, March 7, 2019

Suo Motu Vs. Commissioner, Deptt of Trade & Taxes | Case No. 716/1011/2019/02/1134-1135 | Dated: 06.03.2019



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

Case No. 716/1011/2019/02/1134-1135                       Dated: 06.03.2019

In the matter of:

Suo Motu
    
Versus
The Commissioner,
Department of Trade & Taxes
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
3rd Floor, Vyapar Bhawan
IP Estate
New Delhi-110002.                                                        ...…Respondent


Date of hearing:        01.03.2019

Present: Sh. Amiya Kumar Shukla, GSTO (HR) alongwith Sh. B. Chander, ASO for respondent.
   
ORDER
Dr. Ram Kishan, a person with locomotor disability vide his email dated 30.01.2019 submitted that Department of Trade & Taxes under Govt. of NCT of Delhi has invited applications for Data Entry Operator (DEO) on contract basis.  However, reservation for persons with disabilities in the said recruitment has not been provided.
2.       The matter was taken up with the respondent vide show cause-cum-hearing notice dated 05.02.2019 under the Provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’.
3.       Department of Trade & Taxes, Human Resource Branch vide letter dated 18.02.2019 submitted as under:
“1)       This department does not recruit DEOs directly; instead they are outsourced through some Private Agency selected through GEM (Govt. e-Marketplace) Portal.
2)         Currently, the DEOs are being outsourced through GA Digital Web word Pvt. Ltd. Company through Gem Portal after observing all codal formalities as per GFR. Previously DEOs had been outsourced through ICSIL company.
3)         List of candidates who are registered with them is forwarded by the company after verifying their educational certificates, ID Proofs and character antecedents etc. based on the educational and other requirements provide by the department.
4)         Thereafter a typing test of these candidates is conducted in the Computer Lab of this department wherein typing speed of 30 wpm has been set as criteria for selection of eligible candidates.  They are deployed in this department according to Merit list.  The current duration of the contact is 1.2.19 to 30.11.19.”
4.       During the hearing on 01.03.2019, the representatives of the Department clarified that 131 posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) are vacant in the Department.  The recruitment to the post of LDC is made by the Services Department through DSSSB.  Due to unavailability of LDCs and with the approval of Services Department, DEOs are being appointed on outsourced basis.  As the Department does not directly recruit reservation is not being provided.  They also clarified that DEOs’ appointments are initially for 10 months which may be extended.  The agency through which the DEOs are recruited, may change.
5.       From the submissions of the respondent Department, it is seen that the appointments of DEOs through outsourced agency are being made against the vacancies in the sanctioned posts.  Had these posts been filled through DSSSB, reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities would have been made.  Merely because the nature of appointment and the agency through which the candidates are recruited, are different from the usual ones, persons with benchmark disabilities cannot be denied their right to reservation as provided under Section 34 of the Act which is reproduced below:
“34. Reservation.—(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:—
(a)       blindness and low vision;
(b)       deaf and hard of hearing;
(c)        locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d)       autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;
(e)       multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:
Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time:
Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section.
(2)       Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability:
Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government.
(3)       The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit.”

6.       Ministry of Home Affair’s O.M. No. 27/4/67(II)-Estt.(SCT) dated 24.09.1968 which is reproduced below also provides that reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be made in all temporary appointments except appointments which are to last for less than 45 days:
“Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No.27/4/67(II)-Estt.(SCT),
dated the 24th September, 1968, to all Ministries/Departments, etc.

Subject:-Recommendation No. 18 of the Working Group to study the progress of measures for land allotment to Scheduled Castes and their representation in services-Reservation in temporary appointments.
The Working Group under the Chairmanship of Shri M.R. Yardi, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs to study the progress of measures for land allotment to Scheduled Castes and their representation in services has inter-alia made the following recommendation:-
Recommendation No. 18
“Rules of reservations should also be extended to purely temporary posts.  This would give an opportunity to Scheduled Castes applicants appointed against short term vacancies to gain experience which will facilitate their absorption later in regular vacancies.”
2.         Accordingly to existing orders, reservations are made for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in all temporary appointments except those which are to last for less than 3 months.  The recommendation of the Working Group has been considered and it has been decided that the aforesaid reservation orders should in future apply to all temporary appointments which are to last 45 days or more.  Accordingly, with effect from the date of issue of this O.M., reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be made in all temporary appointments except appointments which are to last for less than 45 days.
3.         Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all authorities under them.
4.         This issues with the concurrence of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in so far as persons serving under him are concerned.”
7.       A plain reading of Section 34 of the Act indicates that reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities is not linked to long term, short term or regular appointment.  The only condition is that the provision of the said reservation would not be applicable to appointments made by promotion. The manner and the agency through which such appointments are made to fill the vacancies in the posts are not relevant.
8.       One of the objectives of making a provision for reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities is to economically empower them and to ensure that they lead a life of dignity on equal basis with others.  It is implicit in the provision under Section 34 of the Act that they get their share in the employment opportunities/appointments that are available to other members of public. Therefore, irrespective of whether the appointments are made on long term, short term, regular or by whatever nomenclature these are referred to, the quota that has been earmarked for persons with benchmark disabilities in the statute, must be provided to them.  Therefore, every Govt. establishment is mandated under Section 34 of the Act to reserve not less than 4% vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities against the appointments made by them in the posts in that establishment.  For the purpose of computing the reserved vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities, a running roster as prescribed by DoPT in their OM no. No. 36035/02/2017-Estt. (Res) dated 15.01.1998, should be used. 
9.       In view of the above, the respondent should place the demand accordingly with the recruiting agency/ supplier of DEOs and ensure that the prescribed percentage of vacancies are reserved and filled up by persons with benchmark disabilities as mandated in Section 34 of the Act.
10.     As appointments on short term basis/on contract/outsourced basis are being made in various Departments against the sanctioned posts, a copy of this order is being marked to Secretary, Services Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi with the request to issue appropriate instructions to all the concerned for reservation of vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities against all the appointments made in the sanctioned posts for a period of 45 days or more.
11.     Action taken report on the above mentioned recommendations be submitted to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act.
12.     The complaint is disposed off.
13.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 06th day of March, 2019.     




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

Copy to :
Secretary, Services Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 7th Level, B-Wing, Delhi Secretariat, I. P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 (email: secservices@nic.in) for information and necessary action on para 10 of the order.

Saturday, March 2, 2019

Ram Kumar Rai Vs. DCP(Central District) Delhi Police | Case No. 594/1111/2018/10/1097-1099 | Dated: 01.03.2019




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
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. 594/1111/2018/10/1097-1099                    Dated: 01.03.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Ram Kumar Rai,
4/2595, Beadon Pura,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.                     ……………..Complainant

Versus

The Dy.Commissioner of Police,
(Central District),
Police Station Daryaganj Complex,
New Delhi-110002.                                            ..…………..Respondent

Date of hearing:    26.02.2019
Present:            Sh Ram Kumar Rai Complainant alongwith Sh. Deepak Dewan Advocate,
                                 Sh. Satyapal, Inspector, on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER
 The above named complainant, a person with 88% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 05.10.2018 submitted that he runs a PCO booth near Karol Bagh Police Station allotted to him by MCD under  the quota reserved for persons with disabilities.  He learnt that Sh. Jang Bahadur, a person with disability who had also applied for a PCO booth, was not allotted the same.  He also came to know that Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi in connivance with some employees of MCD had got the PCO booths meant for persons with disabilities transferred in the name of his relatives and friends based on forged documents.  Most of such PCO booths have been allotted at the residential address of Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi.  He discussed this matter with the Viklang Sahara Samiti and a civil case has been filed in the Tis Hazari Court which is pending.  He also informed some television channels about the PCO booth scam.   Scrutiny of the papers in respect of Sh. Jang Bahadur revealed that the PCO booth which was allotted in the name of Sh. Jang Bahadur was being run by Sh. Nand Lal Ahuja, who claimed that Sh. Jang Bahadur had sold the PCO booth to him.  The fact as per the complainant is that neither Sh. Jang Bahadur sold the PCO booth nor he can do so as per the rules. 

2.      The complainant alleged that Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi has got a number of PCO booths of disability quota allotted to the members of his family and friends and has given them on rent to those who are not persons with disabilities @ Rs. 50,000/- per month.  The complainant has further alleged that Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi has offered money to him and Sh. Jang Bahadur for withdrawing their complaints / cases failing which, he has threatened them of dire consequences.  The complainant therefore requested that appropriate action be taken against Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi and his associates and he be provided police protection.

3.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent, who vide letter dated 16.01.2019 informed that:
“An enquiry into the matter was got conducted through ACP/ Karol Bagh.  During the course of the enquiry, it is revealed that in this regard in the complaint of Sh. Jang Bahadur, S/o Sh. Sodan Singh, R/o I*-27, Vijay Vihar, Rohini, Delhi a case vide FIR No. 199/13 dated 25.08.2013 u/s 420/468/471/474/34 IPC has already been registered at PS Karol Bagh.  The present complainant is also a witness in this case.  The accused Vishnu Kumar is reported to be the key person in to the matter.  Co-accused namely Nand Lal Ahuja was arrested in this case on 27.08.2018.  In pursuance of NBW and charge sheet against him has also been filed in the Court.  Accused Vishnu Kumar is also not cooperating in the investigation and deliberately avoiding to join the investigation in the case.  Hence proceedings u/s 82 Cr.PC has been initiated against absconder / accused.  Anticipatory bail application of the accused Vishnu Kumar has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Court.
Further as far as the allegations regarding, threat, section 506 IPC has already been added in the case.  Statement of the complainant Sh. Ram Kumar Rai has been recorded in which he expressed his satisfaction over the action taken by police.  Further investigation of this case is in progress.  All possible efforts are being made to arrest the accused persons Vishnu Kumar.”

4.      Thereafter the case was fixed for hearing on 25.01.2019 and during the hearing Sh. Narayan Ojha, Sub Inspector submitted a status report dated 19.01.2019 forwarded by ACP, Karol Bagh.  As per the report, the allegations in the FIR, against the individuals involved in this complaint namely, Sh. Vishnu Kumar and Sh. Nand Lal Ahuja who were involved in getting the PCO booths allotted to persons with disabilities transferred in the name of other persons based on forged documents, have been found to be true.  While Sh. Vishnu Kumar is right now absconding, Sh. Nand Lal Ahuja was arrested on 27.08.2018 and the charge sheet has been filed in the Court.  As Sh. Vishnu Kumar is not cooperating in the investigation, proceedings under section 82 of CrPC have been issued.  Section 506 (2) IPC has also been added in the case.  As investigation of the case is in progress and all efforts are being made to arrest Sh. Vishnu Kumar and the matter is also sub judice in various courts, no purpose would be served by keeping this complaint pending and it may be filed.
5.      The complainant who was accompanied by Sh. Deepak Dewan, Advocate, submitted that there are about 13 more PCO booths allotted to persons with disabilities but have illegally been transferred / mutated in the name of persons without disabilities.  As the complainant had not submitted the names of allottees with disabilities and the supporting documents, Sh. Deepak Dewan, advocate stated that he would file a brief synopsis alongwith relevant documents by 04.02. 2019.
6.      The complainant submitted that the people who are involved in the illegal transfer of PCO booths continue threatening him of dire consequences, if he did not withdraw the complaint.  They have also given him life threat. The complainant submitted the synopsis dated 30.01.2019 containing the names of the accused persons and those, whose PCO booths under the quota for persons with disabilities were got transferred / mutated by the said Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi in connivance with the MCD officials whose names have also been mentioned in the synopsis.
7.      During the hearing on 26.02.2019, the complainant who appeared with Sh. Jang Bahadur reiterated his written submissions and added that he and Sh. Jang Bahadur are being frightened by Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi and others.  The complainant submitted that he fears for his life and requested that he be provided police protection.

8.      As per the status report dated 19.01.2019 submitted by ACP, Karol Bagh the complaint is listed for hearing in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court for declaring Sh.  Vishnu  Kumar   Sindhi as proclaimed offender since he has not been cooperating in the investigation and is absconding.   Sh. Satpal, Inspector informed that as  Sh. Jang Bahadur is a resident of I-27, Vijay Vihar, Phase-II near Rohini Sector-5, Delhi, any action with regard to police protection to him will be taken by the concerned Police station of that District.         As regards, Sh. Ram Kumar Rai, Karol Bagh Police Station will take appropriate action.

9.      The matter with regard to the allegation that Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi and others got the PCO booths allotted under the quota of persons with disabilities illegally transferred / mutated in connivance with MCD officials has been registered as Case No.760/1083/2019/02 based on the synopsis and taken up with the concerned authorities separately.  

 10.   In the light of the above, the respondent is advised to take appropriate action to ensure security of Sh. Ram Kumar Rai.  As regards the security of Sh. Jang Bahadur, DCP, Rohini District, Police Station Begam Pur Complex, Delhi-85  under whose jurisdiction Police Station Vijay Vihar falls, is advised  to ensure that Sh. Jang Bahadur, S/o Sh. Seodan Singh is not physically harmed by Sh. Vishnu Kumar Sindhi and others.

11.    The case is disposed of.

12.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 1st day of March, 2019.



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

Copy to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Rohini District, Police Station, Begam Pur Complex, Delhi-85.





Thursday, February 21, 2019

Anup Sagar, Halla Bol Times Vs. Director, Deptt of Social Welfare | Case No. 414/1092/2018/08/947-949 | Dated: 20.02.2019




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
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 414/1092/2018/08/947-949                        Dated: 20.02.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Anup Sagar, Chief Editor,
Halla Bol Times (Complainant)
Ms. Rubi (Victim)
hallaboltimes@gmail.com                                    .……… Complainant     

                                 
                                                    Versus
The Director,
Department of Social Welfare,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.                                            …...…Respondent No.1


The District Social Welfare Officer,
(North East District),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Sanskar Ashram, Dilshad Garden
Delhi-110095.                                                     ........Respondent No. 2
 

Date of Hearing:     19.02.2019

Present:                   None for  Complainant.
Sh. Avinash Chander, Supdt. on behalf of respondent No. 2.
ORDER
           
Sh. Anup Sagar, Chief Editor of Halla Bol Times vide his complaint dated 15.06.2018 addressed to the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities enclosed a copy of a representation dated 12.06.2018 of Ms. Ruby addressed to Hon’ble LG, Delhi. The said representation was received in this Court on 06.08.2018 from the court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 18.07.2018.  In the said representation, it has been mentioned that Ms. Ruby, D/o Mohd. Niyaz Khan R/o H.No. F-7, Mata Vaishnao Colony, Tahirpur, Nandnagri, Delhi is 24 year old and is a student of M.A. She has  42% locomotor disability.  She has further submitted that she was getting the disability pension of Rs. 1000/- per month from the Department of Social Welfare, which has been stopped w.e.f. January, 2013.  She requested that her disability pension should be re-started.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide Notice dated 08.08.2018, reminder dated 19.09.2018 and followed by hearings on 05.12.2018, 29.01.2019 and 19.02.2019.  After the hearings, it transpires that Ms. Ruby was getting disability pension as well as RCL pension and therefore, her disability pension was stopped.  However on 21.11.2019 Sh. Anup Sagar of Halla Bol Times who was contacted on his telephone, stated that the statement of the respondent was factually incorrect as Ms Ruby was not getting RCL pension.   In view of the conflicting statements, Director(SW) and DSWO(North East) were directed to submit the documents in support of the statement that Ms. Ruby has been receiving RCL pension as well as disability pension.  The complainant was also directed to submit by 19.02.2018 the documents in support of his contention that Ms. Ruby did not receive two pensions. It was made clear in the RoP dated 31.01.2019 that if the supporting documents were not received by 19.02.2019, the complaint would be disposed of based on the available record and the matter was listed for hearing on 19.02.2019.

4.      On 19.02.2019, Sh. Avinash Chander, Supdt., DSWO(North East) appeared and submitted a copy of letter dated 13.07.2018 of the Office of Supdt., RCL Tahirpur addressed to the DSWO(North East) intimating that as on 13.07.2018 Ms. Ruby was not an RCL beneficiary.  This does not clarify whether Ms. Ruby was in receipt of two pensions i.e. RCL and disability pension. He also made a written submission that if recovery amount of Rs. 85,500/- as raised by the then DSWO(NE) vide letter dated 22.09.2016 is deposited by Ms. Ruby, D/o Mohd Niyaz Khan then her disability pension would be re-started. 

5.      As Sh. Anup Sagar was not present, the Ms. Ruby  was contacted on her given telephone which was attended by her father Mohd. Niyaz Khan, who stated that Ms. Ruby indeed was getting RCL pension as well as disability pension.   He further stated that the pension  Ms. Ruby received has already been spent on her education, etc.  and therefore it is not possible for them to refund Rs. 85,500/-.  He stated that Ms. Ruby was eligible for one of the two pensions from the period the pension was stopped.  Since she has not been getting any pension for the last 6 years her disability pension should be started without recovery. 

6.      The parties have not submitted any rules / guidelines as to how the cases of this nature are to be dealt. Mohd. Niyaz Khan, father of Ms. Ruby has therefore been advised to make a representation to Director (Social Welfare) for consideration of his request as per the relevant rules / guidelines.

8.      The complaint is disposed of.

9.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 20th  day of February, 2019.     


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

             



Shyam Lal Vs. Director, Deptt of Social Welfare | Case No. 718/1092/2019/02/942-944 | Dated:20.02.2019




In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundri Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi.
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 718/1092/2019/02/942-944                       Dated:20.02.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Shyam Lal,
H.No.31, Chandu Park,   
Chandan Nagar, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi – 110051.                                                       .............. Complainant
                                               
Versus
The Director,
Department of Social Welfare,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.                                 ….…...…Respondent  No.1

The District Social Welfare Officer,
(East District)
GNCT of Delhi,     
Block No.10, Geeta Colony, 
Delhi-110031.                                                  ……...…Respondent No.2

Date of Order: 19.02.2019

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with above 40% cerebral palsy vide his email dated 23.01.2019 submitted that he applied for disability pension but even after visiting the office of Social Welfare East District, Geeta Colony more than 15 times he has not been sanctioned the pension.  He alleged that he is wandering from pillar to post and there is no one to listen to him. 
2.       The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide show cause-cum-hearing notice dated 05.02.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ and a hearing was scheduled on 19.02.2019.
3.       Another case no. 648/1092/2018/12 in which the District Social Welfare Officer (East) was a respondent, was listed for hearing on 18.02.2019. Sh. Ahsan Zafar, Welfare Officer, office of Social Welfare (East District) appeared in that case.  In order to avoid another hearing on 19.02.2019 in this case, he was advised to intimate the status of the pension case of Sh. Shyam Lal before closing hours of 18.02.2019.
4.       Sh. Ahsan Zafar, District Social Welfare Officer (East) vide his email dated 19.02.2019 has informed that on scrutiny of the application of Sh. Shyam Lal, it has been found that he has not properly uploaded all the required documents namely, 5 years resident proof of Delhi, Adhaar Card, Income declaration, Bank passbook etc.  The complainant was telephonically informed on 15.02.2019 to submit the documents.  The said documents had not been submitted till 18.02.2019.
5.       This Court also informed the wife of complainant on the given telephone number that someone should visit the Office of DSW (East) and meet Sh. Ahsan Zafar, Welfare Officer alongwith the original and photocopies of the documents on 19.02.2019.  She was also told to contact this court on telephone No. 23216001-2 in case of any difficulty.
6.       On 19.02.2019 when Sh. Shyam Lal was contacted on his telephone, his wife informed that the legible copy of disability certificate was sent to the East District, Social Welfare Office and the same has been uploaded.  Sh. Ahsan Zafar, who was also contacted on telephone confirmed receipt of the document and informed that the disability pension will be sanctioned by 20.02.2019 and will be online transmitted to FAS Branch.
7.       In light of the above action, the complaint is disposed of with the recommendation that the disability pension of the complainant be released alongwith arrears to his bank account by 31.03.2019.  An action taken report be submitted to this Court as required under Section 81 of the Act.
8.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 20th day of February, 2019. 




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




Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Ajit Kumar & 8 others Vs. DSSSB | F.No.717/1014/2019/02/929-930 | Dated: 19.02.2019




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


F.No.717/1014/2019/02/929-930                    Dated: 19.02.2019

In the matter of:

1.        Sh. Ajit Kumar (ajitkumar.kumar1989@gmail.com),
2.        Ms. Sujata,
3.        Sh. Vivek,
4.        Ms. Geeta,
5.        Sh. Nitin Kumar,
6.        Sh. Vinod Kumar,
7.        Sh. Parveen Kumar,
8.        Sh. Mahesh Kumar, and
9.        Sh. Munazza.                                                     ……Complainants

Versus

The Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
F-18, Institutional Area
Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092.                                                              ..…Respondent
         

ORDER

The above named complainants, Sh. Ajit Kumar and 08 others personally appeared on 04.02.2019 and submitted a representation stating that DSSSB vide Notice no. 760 dated 01.02.2019 have published the cut off marks for uploading e-dossiers.  As per para 4 of the said notice, 93 vacancies have been shown for PH (OH), whereas SDMC vide their letter no. D/ADE/Admn./ Edu./HQ/SDMC/2018/1435 dated 14.09.2018 had informed DSSSB that 133 vacancies were reserved for PH (OH).  The said letter was also referred to in para 13 of the common order dated 09.10.2018 in case no. 44/1011/2017/11 & six other cases. 

2.       The complainants requested that e-dossiers of PH (OH) be called for 133 vacancies for the post of Teacher (Primary) instead of 93 and cut off marks be determined accordingly.

3.       Secretary, DSSSB was requested to give an audience to Sh. Ajit Kumar & others and do the needful under intimation to this Court before 14.02.2019.

4.       Secretary, DSSSB vide letter No. 2(164)/P&P/DSSSB/2017/ 1186/1077 dated 12.02.2019 has informed that 40 unfilled vacancies of post code 70/09 has been added to the post code 01/18 and accordingly the vacancies of OH category have now been increased to 133 (93+40) and a corrigendum dated 11.02.2019 has also been issued. 

5.       In light of prompt action by Secretary, DSSSB, the matter is disposed off and closed.

6.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19th day of February, 2019.
  

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