Dr. Bharat Prasad Yadav Vs. Dept of Urban Development | Case No. 4/1043/2015-Wel/CD/ 501-502 | Dated: 12.05.2017

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. 4/1043/2015-Wel/CD/ 501-502                                    Dated: 12.05.2017

In the matter of:

Dr. Bharat Prasad Yadav,

Rashtriya Pragya Drishti Sansthan,

B-421,Trilokpuri,

Delhi-110091                                                                                    .……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus

Principal Secretary,

Department of Urban Development,

Delhi Secretariat,

New Delhi-110001.                                                                               …...…Respondent

 

Present                           Dr. Bharat Prasad Yadav,   Complainant.

None on behalf of Respondent.

Date of hearing:            08.05.2017

            

ORDER

                   On perusal of the documents available in the case file it is observed that the complaint filed by Dr. Bharat Prasad Yadav, Secretary, Rashtriya Pragya Drishti Sansthan, who is a person with blindness,  was closed upon receipt of replies of the Department of Urban Development (Unauthorised Colony Cell) dated 01.09.2014 and 10.08.2015 that the unauthorised colony bearing registration number 1255 namely Louis Braille Vihar, Madan Pur Dabas was not eligible for regularization.

2.               Upon receipt of further communication from the complainant dated 03.09.2016, the matter was taken up again with the Department of Urban Development and Dy. Commissioner of Police, Outer District. After exchange of a number of correspondence with the respondents and the complainant, it is revealed from the reply dated 30.01.2017 submitted by Department of Urban Development that the Rashtriya Pragya Drishti Sansthan had filed a Writ Petition WP(C) No. 8567 of 2010 in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi seeking appropriate directions to GNCTD to expedite the process of regularisation of  the colony namely Louis Braille Vihar, colony.  The operative para of the judgement dated 04.08.2014 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has been reproduced as under:-

“The operating para 6 pertaining to regularization of the unauthorized colony in the Judgement dated 04.08.2014 of the High Court of Delhi reads “Although, the receipt of the letter dated 24.10.2011 and the show cause notice is disputed by the petitioner, nonetheless, the moot question that needs to be answered is whether Louis Braille Vihar Colony complies with the condition of regularization namely that on the cut of date i.e. 08.02.2007, the un-built area of the said colony was less than 50%.  The petitioner has not produced any material which could indicate that this finding of respondent No. 1 that as on 08.02.2007, the built up land comprising the Louis Braille Vihar Colony was less than 50% is erroneous.  The respondent has also produced a letter dated 07.12.2012 of Geospatial Delhi Ltd., which is a specialised company involved in scientific mapping of geographical areas.  The said letter indicates that the area of the colony is 14780.21 Sq. Meters and the built up area in 2007 was 31.23% of the total area of the colony.  Thus, undisputedly the petitioner’s colony Louis Braille Vihar having registration No. 1255, does not comply with the requirements of the regulations framed for regularisation of unauthorised colonies.  Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner for expediting the process of regularisation cannot be granted”

3.               The respondent Department has further mentioned that the Urban Development Department has proposed amendment in the procedure of regularisation of unauthorised colonies and submitted to the Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India.  The information sought by Govt. of India is being compiled.  The unauthorised colonies shall be processed for regularisation after issue of notification by the Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India. . 

4.               It is observed that the complainant should have mentioned in his complaint that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had pronounced a judgement on the issue.

5.               During the hearing on 08.05.2017, the complainant submitted that the members of the Bhagya Vihar Residential Association had removed the sign board of Louis Braille Vihar and erected the sign board of Bhagya Vihar, G-Block.  He prayed that they should not be allowed to do so as the owner of the land namely, Sh. Mohinder Singh had given the land to the Society for building up the Louis Braille Vihar on 16^th April 2003.  The complainant was advised to file a complaint with the local Police Station for appropriate action.  In case that the concerned authorities do not take action as per law, he may file a fresh complaint before the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.

           The matter is disposed of accordingly.

           Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 12^th day of May,2017.     

                                                                                                                         (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                                  State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Anitya Narain Mishra Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 4/1248/2016-Wel./CD/ 503-504 | Dated: 12.05.2017

Case Summary:

Employment: Complainant with 40% locomotor disability was working as LDC from 01/02/06 in DCA office Shahdra. He alleged that North Delhi Municipal Corporation had not included his name in the list of LDCs for promotion to the post of UDC, despite being the senior most LDC. He became eligible for promotion to the post of UDC in Feb, 2011 itself. The representatives of the respondent reiterated that the case for promotion to the post of UDC (SSA) in respect of the complainant along with other eligible employees was under process.

Directions: Hold a DPC; and if necessary, a review DPC to consider the complainant for promotion to the post of UDC from the date he became due in accordance with the rules & relevant instructions. Compute the reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities in promotion as well as direct recruitment in various Groups based on separate 100 - points vacancy based reservation rosters and take immediate action to fill the backlog of reserved vacancies in accordance with the instructions issued by DOP&T vide their OM No 36035/3/2004-Estt(RES) dated 29.12.2005

Rules/Acts/Orders:

-         DOP&T’s O.M No.36035/8/89-Estt (SCT) dated 29.11.1989

-         DOP&T’s OM No. 36035/3/2004-Estt(RES) dated 29.12.2005

Order / Judgement: 

In the Court of  the 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. 4/1248/2016-Wel./CD/ 503-504               Dated: 12.05.2017

In the mater of :

Sh. Anitya Narain Mishra

LDC/DCA Office, Shahdara North Zone

Shahdara, New Delhi – 110032.                   …………Complainant                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                           Versus

The Director

North Delhi Municipal Corporation

11^th Floor, Civic Centre

Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre

New Delhi  110002.                                    .................Respondent

Date of hearing:                      05.05.2017

Present:                                   Sh. Ashok Verma, S.O, North Delhi Municipal Corporation

                                                Sh. Vijay Pandey, ASO North Delhi Municipal Corporation

                                                Sh. Anitya Narain Mishra, Complainant.

ORDER

              The above named complainant with more than 40% loco,motor disability vide his complaint dated nil  received on 29.04.2016, submitted that he was working as LDC w.e.f  01.02.2006 in DCA office Shahdra.  He alleged that North Delhi Municipal Corporation  had not included his name in the list of LDCs  for promotion to the post of  UDC, despite being  the senior most LDC.  Further no LDC with disability has been promoted.

2.           The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 06.05.2016 followed by reminders dated 26.05.2016, 04.07.2016, 19.10.2016, 03.11.2016 and 24.01.2017. The respondent, vide letter dated 15.11.2016 informed that the case of the complainant for promotion to the post of UDC was under process.  Thereafter a hearing was scheduled on 17.03.2017 which was reschedule on 05.05.2017. 

3.           During the hearing on 05.05.2017, the complainant reiterated that  the eligibility for promotion to the post of UDC is 5 years services as LDC. He was promoted to the post of LDC in February, 2006. He became eligible for promotion to the post of UDC in Feb, 2011 itself. As per him, promotions to the post of UDC were made in 2011 and therefore he should have been promoted in 2011 as he is the senior most LDC with disability in all the three MCD.

4.           Had he been given the benefit of reservation for persons with disabilities, he would have been due for promotion to the post of Head Clerk now.  He also alleged that  reservation in promotion has not been implemented  in any of the MCD.

5.           The representatives of the respondent reiterated  that the case for promotion to the post of UDC (SSA) in respect of the complainant along with other eligible employees was under process. The DPC could not be held due to model code of conduct in connection with the elections to MCD.  As soon as the date for DPC is fixed, the complainant will be considered, They also clarified that after 2011 DPC for promotion to the post of UDC was held in 2016.  They however did not give the information on whether any person with disability was considered against a reserved vacancy. Sh. Ashok  Verma, S.O added that reservation for persons with disabilities was ensured after his joining while promoting Group D employees  to the post of  LDC in March, 2017.

6.           It is observed that this case was taken up with North Delhi Municipal Corporation & East Delhi Municipal Corporation on 6.5.2016 and is pending since then. If the complainant had indeed become eligible for promotion to the post of UDC in 2011, he was likely to be promoted in that year or closely thereafter being the senior most among LDC s with disabilities in MCD. In that case, there is apparent deprivation on account of not considering the complainant for promotion against a reserved vacancy for a long period of time.  The respondent must be aware that Govt of India had decided to provide reservation for persons with disabilities in Group C & D posts filled by promotion way back in 1989 vide DOP&T’s O.M No.36035/8/89-Estt (SCT) dated 29.11.1989. It is a matter of concern that despite Five reminders to the respondent, even essential details of the case have not been made available leave alone any relief to the complainant. As per the instructions issued by the DOP&T from time to time, separate vacancy based reservation rosters are to be maintained for promotion of persons with disabilities against reserved vacancy in each group. The detailed instructions as amended from time to time on maintenance of rosters and effecting reservation for persons with disabilities are contained in OM No. 36035/3/2004-Estt(RES) dated 29.12.2005.

7.           In light of the above, the respondent is advised to take the following actions without any further loss of time:

(i)  Hold a DPC; and if necessary, a review DPC to consider the complainant for promotion to the post of UDC from the date he became due in accordance with the rules & relevant instructions by 31^st May, 2017 and promote the complainant, if found fit,  by 7^th June, 2017.

(ii)  Compute the reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities in promotion as well as direct recruitment in various Groups based on separate 100 - points vacancy based reservation rosters and take immediate action to fill the backlog of reserved vacancies in accordance with the instructions issued by DOP&T vide their OM No 36035/3/2004-Estt(RES) dated 29.12.2005 and as modified from time to time an action taken report be submitted to this court within three month from the date of receipt of this order.

The matter is disposed of accordingly.

             Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 12^th day of  May, 2017          

         

                                                                                       (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                                State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Suo motu Vs. Commissioners | Case No. 4/520/2013-Wel/CD/ 326-329 | Dated: 09.05.2017

Case Summary:

Employment: Complainant raised the issues of regularization of leprosy cured daily wager safaikarmacharis and the appointment of leprosy cured persons against the 3% reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities. After a course of communications with the respondents, NDMC reported regularizing all the pending cases, while EDMC and SDMC reported that the regularization process was under progress. Complainant expressed concern over the long time the process has taken. In response, the Court recommended that SDMC and EDMC are requested to do the needful by 31 May 2017.

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. 4/520/2013-Wel/CD/  326-329                                   Dated: 09.05.2017

Case No. 4/1110/2015-Wel/CD/

In the matter of:

Suo Motu

                                                                          Versus

Commissioner,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

4^th Floor, Dr. SPM Civil Centre,

New Delhi-110002.                                                                    .......Respondent No. 1

Commissioner,

South Delhi Municipal Corporation,

9^th Floor, Dr. SPM, Civil Centre,

JLN Marg, New Delhi.                                                                .......Respondent No.2

Commissioner

East Delhi Municipal Commissioner,

419, Udyog Sadan Patparganj Industrial Area,

Delhi.                                                                                          ...…Respondent No. 3

 

Case No. 4/1170/2015-Wel/CD/

Sh. Bimbadhar Sethi, General Secreatary, Vandematram Swasth Kusht Rogi Majdoor Punarvash Sangthan Vs Commissioner, North DMC.

Case No.4/1171/2015-Wel/CD

Sh. Bimbadar Sethi,  General Secreatary, Vandematram Swasth Kusht Rogi Majdoor Punarvash Sangthan Vs Commissioner, SDMC & EDMC.

Date of hearing:            08.05.2017

Present:        Sh. Bimbadhar Sethi, General Secretary, Sh. Akela Anand, Chairman,Indrajeet, Member on behalf of Vande Matram Swasth Kusht Rogi Majdoor Punarvash Sansthan, on behalf of Complainant.

                 

Sh. Rambir Singh SO, Jasvinder Kumar, UDC on behalf of DEMS/North Delhi Municipal Corporation  and  Sh. G.S. Pandey, LDC on behalf  of  DEMS/  South Delhi Municipal Corporation.

         

ORDER

                 

Shri Bimbadhar Sethi, Secretary, Vandematram Swasth Kusht Rogi Majdoor Punarvash Sangthan  in his letters dated 12.08.2013 (two letters)  raised the following issues:-

(i)            Regularisation of 286 Leprosy Cured Daily Wager Safai Karamcharis; and

(ii)          Appointment of Leprosy Cured Persons in the Municipal Corporations against 3% reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities.

2.     The Office of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities took the suo-motu cognizance of the matter and took up with the respondents vide letter dated 19.09.2013.  Subsequently, Ex-MLA, Sh. Vir Singh Dhigan also brought the above issues to the notice of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.  Sh. Bimbadhar Sethi filed two more complaints on the same issue. 

3.   After a series  of  exchange   of  communications  with   the     three Municipal Corporations namely North Delhi Municipal Corporation, South Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal Corporation and a number of hearings, the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) vide letter dated 20.01.2017 informed that all the 74 Leprosy Cured D/W SKs of NDMC engaged upto 31.12.2003 had been regularised as per policy approved by the Competent Authority. As on January, 2017, there was no pending case for regularisation. 

4.  The East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) vide letter dated 8.01.2017 informed that a proposal for regularisation of services of 36 Leprosy Cured D/W SKs had been put up for consideration and adoption of the House of EDMC.  They will be regularised after the proposal is approved by the House. 

5.  Similarly, the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) vide letter dated 07.12.2017 informed that 23 Leprosy Cured D/W SKs are awaiting regularisation and the process for their regularisation has been initiated. 

6.    During the hearing on 08.05.2017, Sh. Bimbadhar Sethi confirmed the number of Leprosy Cured Persons awaiting their regularisation  as mentioned above.  However, he and the accompanying persons were concerned about the long time that the process has taken. They further raised the issue of appointment of more Leprosy Cured Persons against the quota of reserved vacancies.  They further pointed out that those who were engaged as daily wagers after 31.03.2003, are proposed to be regularised from the current date, which  will amount to discrimination.

7.    The representative of NDMC and SDMC reiterated their written submissions and clarified  that the decision about the date of regularisation is  taken at the Corporation’s level. 

8.     As the complaint for regularisation of services of the Leprosy Cured D/W SKs is pending since 2013, the SDMC and EDMC are directed to do the needful by 31^st May 2017 and submit a report by 2^nd June, 2017.

9.      As identical issues are involved in Case No. 4/1110/2015-Wel/CD, Case No. 4/1170/2015-Wel/CD & Case No.4/1171/2015-Wel/CD and the parties are also the same, the said cases also stand disposed of in terms of this order.

10.   The question of the date of regularisation of those who were engaged as daily wagers after 31.03.2003 is the subject matter of another case No. 4/1481/2016/Wel/CD and will be dealt separately.

           The matter is disposed of accordingly.

           

            Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 9^th  day of May,2017.     

(T.D. Dhariyal )                                             

  State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

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

Case Summary:

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

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

Rules/Acts/Orders:

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

Order / Judgement: 

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

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

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/1372/2016-Wel./CD/ 317-318                                   Dated: 05.05.2017

In the matter of:

Smt. Saroj Kumari Pal,

TGT Hindi, ID -20071220,

Govt. Co.Ed. Vidyalaya,Mehram Nagar,

Delhi-110037.                                                                                  .……… Complainant     

SCH Code- 1720003.

                                                                          Versus

The Director,

Directorate of Education,

GNCT of Delhi, Old Sectt.,

Delhi-110054.                                                                                         …...…Respondent

 

Present                         Smt. Saroj Kumari Pal,   Complainant.

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

Date of hearing:            02.05.2017

            

ORDER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

           

The matter is disposed of accordingly.

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

                                                              (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                                             State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities