Virender Singh H/o Smt. Pooja Kumari Vs. The Commissioner SDMC | Case No. 1302/1024/2019/11/3043-44 | Dated:22/02/2021

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-02

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

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under

the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016)

Case No. 1302/1024/2019/11/3043-44 Dated:22/02/2021

In the matter of:

Shri Virender Singh H/o Smt. Pooja Kumari,
(E-mail: virender_dewan@yahoo.com)            …………..Complainant 

Versus

The Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th Level, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002.                   ………..Respondent 

Date of hearing: 19.02.2021

Present: Sh. Virender Singh, Complainant

Ms. Angoori Bai Meena, SI, Education Department, SDMC on behalf of respondent. 

ORDER

            Shri Virender Singh H/o Smt. Pooja Kumari, a person with 93% locomotor disability vide email dated 08.11.2019 submitted that his wife, Smt. Pooja Kumari is working as Primary Teacher in South Delhi Municipal corporation and she is entitled to the benefit of Rs. 3000/- per month as Special Allowance for child care for women with disabilities as per Circular/Order dated 16.08.2017 of Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India. The allowance shall be payable from the time of the child’s birth till the child is two years old.  So far, SDMC has not granted Special Allowance for child care to his wife and also not granted arrears on account of clearing her probation period.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 27.11.2019 and followed by reminders dated 28.02.2020, 06.07.2020 and 04.06.2020.  

3. A hearing was scheduled for 19.02.2021.  The court noted with displeasure that the Deputy Director concerned of SDMC did not attend the hearing and directs the Commissioner and Deputy Director that the concerned senior officer (HOD) should attend the Court. 

4. It was confirmed by the representative of the respondent that the arrear on account of probation period has been sanctioned and arrear on account of Special Allowance for child care has been processed and has been sent to finance functionaries of SDMC.

5. It was recommended that amount in respect of both the arrears be disbursed to the complainant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and an Action Taken Report be submitted.

6. The case was disposed with the above recommendation. 

7. Give under my hand and the seal of the Court this 22nd day of February, 2021.

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

 

Akhand Pratap Singh Vs. Secretary DSSB & Anr. | Case No. 1763/1014/2020/01/3040-42 | Dated :22/02/2021

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

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

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1763/1014/2020/01/3040-42 Dated:22/02/2021

In the matter of:

Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh,
Kh. 13/10 & 13/1,
H.No. 13, UGF, Gali No.14,
Bhagat Colony, West Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi-110084.
(E-mail-akhandpartapsingh@gmail.com)      … Complainant

Versus

The Secretary, 

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 
FC-18, Institutional Area, 
Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092. .......Respondent No.1

The Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
J.L.N. Marg, New Delhi-110002.          ......Respondent No.2

Date of hearing: 19.02.2021

Present: Sh. Akhand Partap Singh, Complainant,  

Sh. Biju Raj, Deputy Director and Sh. Satish Kanojia, Section Officer, DSSSB on behalf of respondent No.1

Sh. R.K. Kalra, Asstt. Law Officer, SDMC on behalf of respondent No.2

ORDER

        The complainant, a person with 40% post burn contracture of left hand with deformity vide his complaint dated 27.01.2021 submitted a complaint regarding his pending candidature for the post of Asstt. Law Officer in SDMC.

2. A hearing was scheduled on 19.02.2021.  Representative of the respondent No.1 informed that the complainant had filed an O.A. before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal in this case and a hearing has been scheduled for 23.02.2021. 

3. In view of the submission of the respondent No.1, the case is kept in abeyance till the Hon’ble CAT herd the case and final verdict is passed.  Final verdict of the Hon’ble CAT be submitted to this Court by the parties.

4. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 22nd day of February, 2021.  

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Sushma Rani Vs. DCP East District, Delhi & 3 others | Case No.907/1111/2019/05/3010-3014 | Dated:19/02/2021

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

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

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.907/1111/2019/05/3010-3014                 Dated:19/02/2021

In the matter of:

Ms. Sushma Rani,

A-25, Gali No. 5, ChanderVihar,

Delhi-110092. ……Complainant

Versus

The DCP,

East District,

6B, I.P. Extension, Patparganj,

Delhi-110092. …..Respondent No. 1

Smt. Anjana Chauhan,

C-7/53, Jagatpuri Extension,

Near G.T.B. Hospital,

Delhi-110093. ….Respondent No. 2

(impleaded on 05.08.2019)

Sh. Chehtan Chauhan,

C-7/53, Jagatpuri Extension,

Near G.T.B. Hospital,

Delhi-110093. ….Respondent No. 3

(impleaded on 05.08.2019)

Sh. Surjan Singh Chauhan,

C-7/53, Jagatpuri Extension,

Near G.T.B. Hospital,

Delhi-110093. ….Respondent No. 4

(impleaded on 05.08.2019)

ORDER

        The above named applicant, Smt. Sushma Rani w/o Sh. Jaipal Chauhan, a person with more than 40% locomotor disability had filed a complaint dated 17.05.2019, received on 21.05.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act.The Complainant submitted that her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Ms. Anjana Chauhan and her relatives interfered in her marital life, mistreat, insult, intimidate her and no action was taken on her complaint by the police.

2. The complaint was taken up with the respondent(s) vide notice dated 30.05.2019 with the advice to send action taken report by 27.06.2019. 

3. On 19.12.2019, during the hearing the complainant was contacted on telephone and reiterated her written submission in her complaint and the rejoinder to the report of DCP, East District.  As per her, the report was not true.  She had been advised to submit the grounds/supporting documents/evidence, if any. 

4. Ms. Anjana Chauhan and Sh. Surjan Singh Chauhan (respondent no. 2 & 4) were appeared and denied the allegations. They had also submitted the written reply on behalf of respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 alongwith a copy of each for the complainant.  The complainant had requested that she will get the said replied collected by hand from this Court. 

5. Sh. Sanjay Sondhi, SDM HQ5, Revenue Department was also appeared and reiterated that Divisional Commissioner is not an essential party in this matter as already submitted. The issue before the Divisional Commissioner had no connection with this complaint and therefore Divisional Commissioner might be removed from the array of respondents. The same was accepted and the Divisional Commissioner was removed from the array of respondents. The memo of parties was accordingly changed. 

6. After hearing the parties, it was observed that the case before the Divisional Commissioner was an appeal of the mother of the complainant against the order dated 01.01.2019 of District Magistrate (East) directing SHO (Mandavli) to shift Ms. Anjana Chauhan (respondent no. 2 in this case) to her matrimonial home. The case which was reported to be pending in Karkarduma Court also had no relation with this case as that case relates to a family dispute between the parties.

7. It was made clear that the complainant herein had alleged infringement of her right as a person with disability and abuse, intimidation and threatening etc. by respondent no. 2, 3 & 4 in violation of Section 92 of the Act. 

8. DCP, East District (respondent no. 1) was therefore directed to investigate the matter and submit a fresh report strictly with reference to the complaint dated 17.05.2019 filed by the complainant and rejoinder submitted by her on 12.12.2019 on the report of the Police. 

9. In response to above direction an ATR dated 14.08.2020 was received from ACP/PG, East Delhi on 17.08.2020, which is reproduce as under:

“In this connection, it is submitted that as per the report of ACP/MadhuVihar. During the course of enquiry, E.O./ASI Sunil Kumar, PS MadhuVIhar visited the house of complainant and met her and her husband namely Jaipal Chauhan.  But the complainant refused to give her statement regarding her complaint and she stated that she will send her statement by post. She further stated that 2 years ago, her sister-in-law namely Anjana Chauhan came to her house and quarreled with her but the complainant did not make any complaint. About this incident, the complainant had no evidence or recording. After receiving her statement by post which she deposed that she made a complaint to the office of “The Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities” on 17.05.2019 and the commission directed the local police for conducting an enquiry into the matter. In her statement dated 23.03.2020, Anjana Chauhan, Chetan Chauhan and Suranjan Singh Chauhan had used to harass her. But she wants an action against them for the torture done by them in the past. She further stated that if they harass her in future, she will make a complaint against them.”

10. Taking into considerations of fact/reply received from Police Authority, it is recommended that if at any stage, the complainant is abused, insulted, intimated, humiliated, assaulted or force is used against her by any person, she should report the matter to the SHO who shall immediately take appropriate action under the law. It should also be noted that a person with disability may not always be able to provide evidence for such incidents. The concerned police officers therefore should use best of their skills and resources to ensure that the rights and the dignity of persons with disabilities like the complainant who are extremely vulnerable, are protected. 

11. The complaint is disposed of. 

12. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19thday of February, 2021.

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Pardeep Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi | Case No. 1915/1141/2020/08/2979-80 |Dated:17/02/2021

 

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

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

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1915/1141/2020/08/2979-80 Dated:17/02/2021

 

In the matter of:

Sh. Pardeep Kumar, 

C-12/511, Yamuna Vihar,

Delhi-110053.

(E-mail :- pardeeparora4759@yahoo.com)         …… Complainant

Versus

The Chief Engineer,

Irrigation and Flood Control Department,

Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

L.M. Bund Office Complex, Shastri Nagar,

 Delhi-110031.

(e-mail:- ceifcd@gmail.com)   .......Respondent 

Date of hearing: 16.02.2021

Present: Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Complainant

Sh. Vivek Chauhan, Executive Engineer(Civil), Sh. Ashok Kumar, Executive Engineer(P&D) and Sh. Rajeev Dawar, D/Man,  on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The main issues of the complainant were that his degree was not being accepted by the Irrigation and Flood Control Department, GNCT of Delhi.  Secondly, his registration fee of Rs.10,000/- deposited was not returned and thirdly his registration was not being done under appropriate category by the department.  

2. A hearing was scheduled on 16.02.2021.  After due discussion and deliberation of all the relevant rules position alongwith the complainant and the officials of the I&FC Department, it was clarified that the degree of the complainant was recognized by the department and that the fee of   Rs. 10,000/- so deposited by the complainant has duly been returned to him. 

3. On the issue of registering the complainant under Class IV category, the officials explained that as per existing rules and policy, Sh. Pardeep Kumar can only be registered under Class V category and not under Class IV category as was demanded by the complainant.

4. Keeping in view the submissions given by the representatives of the respondent, Sh. Pardeep Kumar was advised to apply under Class V category alongwith the requisite documents.  Representatives of the respondent were recommended to process his case expeditiously and submit the Action Taken Report.

5. The case was disposed with the above recommendation. 

6. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 17th day of February, 2021.  

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Sh. Neeraj Gupta & Anr Vs. The Director of Education (Sports Branch), Delhi | Case No. 1872/1143/2020/07/2970-71 | Dated:17/02/2021

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

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

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1872/1143/2020/07/2970-71 Dated:17/02/2021

 

In the matter of:

Sh. Neeraj Gupta and Sh. Akshay Parashar

(E-mail :- neerajgupta0011@gmail.com)      … Complainants

Versus

The Director,

Directorate of Education,

(Sports Branch),

Chhatrasal Stadium, Model Town,

Delhi-110009.

(e-mail:- ddesportsdelhi@gmail.com)     ......Respondent 

Date of hearing: 16.02.2021

Present: Sh. Neeraj Gupta and Sh. Akshay Prashar, Complainants

                        Ms. Asha Aggarwal, Deputy Director (Sports) on behalf of the         respondent.

ORDER

        The said complaint was received from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt. of India vide their letter dated 13.07.2020. Sh. Neeraj Gupta and Sh. Akshay Prashar, persons with 80% and 50% locomotor disability vide complaint dated 16.03.2020 were aggrieved as they represented Delhi in  Paralympic sports organized by Paralympic Committee of India (PCI).  They submitted that they participated in championships organised by ISFCP (Indian Sports Federation Cerebral Palsy), Apex Body of PCI and have won many medals but no prize money was ever paid to them.  It was revealed that according to sports policy of Delhi Government, cash incentive is given to the medal winning players duly recognised by Government of India/Paralympic Committee of India/Indian Olympic Association. 

2. A hearing was scheduled on 16.02.2021.  Both the parties put forward their view points. During the hearing, Sh. Rahul Swamy, Chief Administrator, PCI was contacted on his mobile number and after due discussion and diligence, it was agreed that both the aggrieved complainants would report to PCI office on 18.02.2021 and their certificates would be appropriately signed by the PCI which would be acceptable to the Dte. of Education , GNCT of Delhi. 

3. Both the complainants were directed to meet Shri Rahul Swamy and submit the signed certificates to the Dte. of Education on 19.02.2021 and Ms. Asha Aggarwal, Deputy Director (Sports) was directed to process their case expeditiously and submit the Action Taken Report.

4. The case was disposed with the above recommendations. 

5. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 16th day of February, 2021.

  

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Suo Motu Verus Joint Secretary & Chief Administrative Officer, Min. of Defence, Govt of India & Chairman, NDMC | Case No. 908/1108/2019/05/9203-9204 | Dated 31.12.2019

Synopisis

In the instant case, certain accessibility deficiencies in the National War Memorial at India Gate, New Delhi built by the Ministry of Defence and inaugurated by the Hon'ble Prime Minister in Feb 2019 were brought to the notice of the Court in form of an email attaching a detailed report of an access audit conducted by Shri Subhash Chandra Vashishth of the memorial. It was also shared that Mr. Vashishth had been following up with the concerned Senior Officials of the National War Memorial, however, they were reluctant to undertake any improvements and were not responding to the audit recommendations.

This Court took up the matter Suo Motu with the Joint Secretary & Chief Administrative Officer, Min. of Defence, Govt of India & Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council under whose jurisdiction the memorial has been built and registered as Case No. 908/1108/2019/05/9203-9204 | Dated 31.12.2019.

Mr. Vashishth was requested to be amicus curiae in the matter to assist the court as an expert and Court also roped in expert from the visually impaired sector for necessary guidance to the respondents to make the National War Memorial Accessible in light of Section 44 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.  

In due course, the Defence ministry worked out a plan of action in consultation with the accessibility experts and prepared short term, mid term and long term goals to gradually achieve accessibility at the Memorial.

Ms. Reshma Parveen Vs. Directorate of Education & Seven Others | Case No. 824/1014/2019/04/9072-84 | Dated: 31.12.2019

Introduction

In a significant stride toward inclusive education, the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Delhi, issued a detailed and progressive order on December 31, 2019, in the matter of Ms. Reshma Parveen vs. Educational Authorities of NCT of Delhi (Case No. 824/1014/2019/04/9072-84). This case highlights the systemic gaps in the recruitment of Special Educators (SETs) in Delhi’s schools and underlines the urgent need to provide equitable education to children with disabilities as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

Notably, this order was subsequently referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others [W.P. (C) No. 876 of 2017, decided on 28 October 2021], while addressing the critical issue of recruitment and deployment of Special Educators across India. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar relied on the findings and directions of the State Commissioner’s order to strengthen the national discourse on inclusive education.

Background of the Case
Ms. Reshma Parveen, a CTET-qualified Special Educator with a 58% locomotor disability and RCI registration, brought to the Court’s attention a critical implementation failure: despite a 2009 Delhi High Court direction requiring two Special Educators per school, most of Delhi’s 5700 government schools still do not have even one.

Her demands included:

• Permanent recruitment of at least two Special Educators (Primary) in each school.

• Immediate deployment of contractual or guest Special Educators as a stop-gap.

• Proper employment opportunities for trained Special Educators.

• Quality education access for children with disabilities.

Key Submissions from Respondents

Various agencies presented fragmented and incomplete responses:

• North DMC: Claimed recruitment was the South DMC's responsibility. 700 posts had been forwarded to DSSSB.

• Delhi Cantonment Board: Had only contractual Special Educators—none permanent.

• NDMC: Trained 38 teachers, but had no regular Special Education cadre.

• EDMC: Operating with 92 SETs across 354 schools, with cluster-model plans due to shortfall.

• Directorate of Education: No sanctioned posts at primary level, though 2048 SET posts exist at higher levels. SETs often deployed for cross-disability roles without RCI-sanctioned training.

• RCI: Objected to DoE's practice of deploying unqualified teachers across disability types, citing violation of Section 13 of the RCI Act.

• NCTE: Failed to respond to key questions regarding qualification and eligibility frameworks.

Expert Opinions and Key Observations

Recognizing the complexity and lack of a standard formula for teacher deployment, the State Commissioner Mr. Dhariyal convened consultations with education and disability experts. Highlights include:

• No clear norm exists on the required number of SETs per school.

• Disability-specific teacher-pupil ratios were recommended:

  • 1:8 for VI, HI, Cerebral Palsy

  • 1:5 for ID, ASD, SLD

  • 1:2 for Deafblind and multiple disabilities

• While the cluster model was viewed as a temporary fix, it was unanimously emphasized that RCI-approved qualifications (D.Ed. for primary, B.Ed. for higher levels) must be maintained.

• The system must treat SETs at par with general teachers, with the ability to teach all students.

Directions & Recommendations by the SCPD Court

The State Commissioner, Mr. TD Dhariyal invoking powers under Section 75 of the RPwD Act, issued wide-ranging, time-bound directives:

1. Creation of two SET posts per school, with specialization across all RCI-recognized disabilities.

2. Deployment strategy based on disability-wise student data and appropriate teacher-student ratios.

3. Conversion of general teaching posts into SET posts where feasible.

4. Establishment of resource centers in schools or clusters (within 2–3 km radius).

5. Reform of recruitment rules and service conditions to enable SETs to teach children with and without disabilities.

6. Curriculum reform:

   • NCTE to integrate compulsory modules on sign language, Braille, and inclusive pedagogy in B.Ed./D.Ed.

   • NCERT to provide online training on the Swayam platform.

7. Mandatory training for in-service teachers on disability inclusion.

8. Ministry of Education to issue model guidelines on inclusive education for replication nationwide.

On RCI’s concern, the State Commissioner clarified that RCI registration is not required for every teacher, but orientation and training in inclusive practices is essential for all.

Reference in Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, while deciding Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others (W.P. (C) No. 876 of 2017), explicitly referred to this 2019 order of the State Commissioner. The Apex Court recognized its evidentiary and policy value in demonstrating the gaps and practical measures needed to ensure educational rights of children with disabilities under Article 21A of the Constitution and the RPwD Act. The reference in a constitutional bench decision highlights the legal relevance and persuasive authority of orders passed by State Commissioners under Section 75 of the Act.

Conclusion and Impact

This comprehensive and well-reasoned order is a landmark in administrative jurisprudence on inclusive education. It not only addresses the staffing gaps in schools but also provides a blueprint for systemic reform in teacher training, resource allocation, and policy coordination across departments.

The State Commissioner’s reliance on multi-stakeholder consultation—from experts to implementing agencies—and the insistence on a rights-based, data-driven, and disability-specific strategy reflects the spirit of the RPwD Act and India's commitment under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

As the order awaits compliance reports from authorities, it becomes an essential resource for disability rights advocates, policy makers, and educators seeking to ensure every child with a disability in Delhi—and across India—gets the education they are entitled to.

Read the order embedded below: