Saturday, May 27, 2017

Surya Narayan Vs Chairman, NDMC | Case No. 4/1260/2015-Wel/CD/ 579-580 | Dated: 26.05.2017




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. 4/1260/2015-Wel/CD/ 579-580                                    Dated: 26.05.2017

In the matter of:

Sh Surya Narayan,
Code No. 300971,
Moti Bagh, Horticulture Department,
New Delhi-110021.                                                                         .……… Complainant
                                                                        Versus
The Chairman,
New Delhi Municipal Council,
Palika Kendra,  Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001.                                                                       .……… Respondent     

                                                                          

Date of hearing:            15.05.2017

Present:                          Surya Narayan, Complainant             
                                         Sh. Sharad Kumar, Joint Director & S.K. Sharma, Sr. Asstt.
                                         A&H, Deptt. of NDMC on behalf of Respondent.

             
ORDER

                   The above named complainant, a person with 60% locomotor disability in left upper limb and left lower limb, vide his complaint received on 03.05.2016 submitted that he has been working as Mali in New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC)  for the last 27 years. In the year 2011, a list of 109 successful candidates who qualified the written examination and the Interview-cum-Trade Test for the post of Choudhary was issued.  He was at Sl. No. 84.  As per him, 36 Malis have been promoted as Head Malis and as he is the  only Mali with disability, he should be promoted.  The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 17.05.2016.

2.               Separately, the respondent vide letter No. SO(A&H)/710/SA-II dated  02.05.2016 submitted that the NDMC had invited applications to fill up 22 backlog vacancies of Mali under disabled quota i.e. 10 nos. for VH, 10 nos. for HH and 02 nos. for OH (One leg).  Some of the applicants had submitted the disability certificates against two posts identified for OH(One Leg).  The respondent sought a clarification whether the applicants who were not covered under  OH (One Leg) category could be considered for the post of Mali. The Office of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities informed the respondent that NDMC should follow the guidelines as per identified posts.

3.               After exchange of a number of correspondence and hearings, the respondent vide letter dated 09.03.2017 submitted as under:
                  The post of “Choudhary” in NDMC is equivalent to the post of “Head Mali” at serial no. 51 of  annexure-C of the above instructions and same is to be filled up in P.H. quota in OH category which is identified for a persons with one leg (OL) affected whereas Sh. Surya Narayan, the complainant herein suffers from Post Encephalitic left sided hemi-paresis.
                  In other words, while the post is identified only for a person with one leg affected, the disability of Sh. Surya Narayan is such that the entire left part of the body  i.e. lower as well as upper limb is affected.
                  A clarification in this regard was sought from the office of CCPD through this Office letter dated 09.06.2016 in this case which was replied to by the office of CCPD through its letter dated 12.08.2016 stating that the department should follow guidelines as per identified post.
                  In order dated 10.02.2017 of the Office of CCPD as mentioned above, the above issue which was brought to the notice through the oral submissions has not been addressed.  It may be appreciated that if Sh. Surya Narayan is to be given promotion, in the first instance, a decision will have to be taken by the competent authority to relax the eligibility criteria for the post of Choudhary, which being a policy decision affecting the rules of recruitment would come under the domain of the executive.  It may also be appreciated that for considering any such proposal the competent authority would require to know the reasoning on the basis of which the office of CCPD has reached to the conclusion that the post of Choudhary may be filled up by recruiting a person whose both limbs are affected whereas the instructions provided otherwise.
                  Further it is noted that the office of the CCPD in its order dated 10.02.2017 has directed to give promotion to Sh. Surya Narayan from the due date, a term which may lead to different interpretations.  It is stated that till date the prescribed norms render Sh. Surya Narayan as ineligible for the post of Choudhary.  Even if it is presumed that taking into account the reasoning to be given by the Office of CCPD, the competent authority decides to relax/revise the norms, legally such decision will be effective from a prospective date only.
                  It is also to be stated that since the post of Malis and Choudharies occur in various departments of Central Governments and Local Self Governments, such a decision will have wider ramifications.
                  In view of above, the Office of CCPD is requested to have a re-look on the issue and pass a Speaking Order.”

4.               Upon considering the above contention, it was decided to hold a hearing on 15.05.2017.  During the hearing, the representatives of the respondent reiterated their written submissions and added that the duties of the Choudhary are slightly different from that of Mali.  The area of work of Choudhary is much wider than a Mali who is required to work at a particular location.  Furthermore,  the post of Choudhary is not identified for persons with disabilities in one leg as well as in the arm.

5.               I do observe that the issue deserved to be examined in the Office of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in more depth and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, the relevant notification and instructions of the appropriate Government before conveying its views.  I have perused the record and the relevant provisions of the legislation and the Government’s instructions on the subject which are mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs.

6.               As per DoP&T’s instructions contained in OM No. 36035/3/2004/Estt/Res dated 29th December, 2005 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 percent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness and low vision, (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the post identified for each disability.  The representative of the respondent clarified during the hearing that the post of Choudhary is to be filled 100% by promotion.

7.               Para 3 of the above mentioned OM provides that reservation for persons with disabilities shall be computed on the basis of total number of vacancies occurring in all Group C & D posts as the case may be.  Para 15 of the said OM provides for earmarking points 1, 34 & 67 of the roster in each cycle of 100 points for persons with disabilities.  Govt. of India introduced reservation for persons with disabilities in the posts filled by promotion vide O.M.No. 36035/08/89-Estt(Sect)  dated 20th November, 1989.  Therefore, the respondent was required to reserve vacancies for persons with disabilities in Group C posts, to which the post of Choudhary belongs, from November, 1989.  

8.               The posts suitable for persons with disabilities were identified by DoP&T in 1986.  Thereafter, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India have reviewed the list and the latest one was issued vide notification dated 29th July, 2013.  Note 2, 3 & 4 of the said notification read as under:

“Note 2: The list of posts being notified is not an exhaustive list. The Ministries, Departments, Public Sector Undertakings and the autonomous bodies may further supplement the list.
Note 3: If a post is already held by a person with disability, it shall be deemed to have been identified.
Note 4: If a post is identified in the feeder grade, the post in the promotional grade should also stand identified”.

9.               As per  the list of identified posts issued vide the said notification, Head Mali appearing at Sl.No. 51 of the list, is identified for OL, HH, LV, B.  Physical requirement for the post are - ST= Standing, W= working, MF= manipulation by fingers, PP= pulling and pushing, L=lifting, BL=bending. The work conditions are – work performed mostly outside.  Incumbent should be functionally able to complete the assignment task efficiently with aids and appliances whenever necessary.

10.             Admittedly, the complainant qualified the written examination and interview- cum-trade test in the year 2011.  The complainant has been working as Mali for more than 27 years.  Therefore, the post of Mali shall deem to have been identified for persons with disabilities in lower limb and in the upper limb. The duties of Choudhary are stated to be different from that of a Mali,  to the extent that a Choudhary would have to move around for supervising the work of other Malis. The additional disability is in his upper left arm, which  would not in any way affect his efficiency to perform his work. As the post of Choudhary is a feeder grade for Mali, the former should also stand identified for the person with disability in lower limb and in the upper limb in accordance with Note 4 of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s notification dated 29th July, 2013. Therefore,  the complainant  should have been considered for promotion to the post of Choudhary, if his statement that he is the only Mali with disability is true.

11.             In the light of the above mentioned position and if the statement of the complainant that 36 malis out of the list of 109 have already been promoted and he is the only Mali with disability is true, in my opinion, a grave injustice has been done to the complainant by not promoting him to the post of Choudhary alongwith the first batch of Malis.  Any delay in his promotion now would amount to perpetuation of injustice.  I therefore, recommend that Sh. Surya Narayan be promoted to the post of Choudhary from the date he should have been promoted in accordance with the above mentioned instructions of DoP&T and the Notification of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment within one month from the date of receipt of this order with all consequential benefits as per rules and inform this Court of the action taken within three months 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 26th  day of May,2017.     


                  This order be also sent by email to the respondent at sks741965@gmail.com.


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


Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs. CMD, DTC | Case No. 4/ 1606/2017 -Wel/CD/ 577-578 | Dated: 26.05.2017





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/ 1606/2017 -Wel/CD/ 577-578                                  Dated: 26.05.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma/
Smt. Sudesh Sharma,
WB 118,
Shakarpur, Delhi-110092                                                               .……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus
The Chairman-Cum- Managing Director,
Delhi  Transport Corporation,
DTC Headquarter,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.                                                           …...…Respondent
 

Date of hearing:            16.05.2017

Present                           Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Complainant.
Sh. P.K. Singhal, Dy. Manager (Personnel) and Sh. Raja Ram, Accountant, on behalf of Respondent.
             
ORDER

                   Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma, a person with 80% locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 25.06.2015 alleging harassment by his Depot Manager Sh. Balraj Singh at Hasanpur Depot. The said complaint, which inter alia related to his deployment in the depot, was disposed of by the then Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide order dated 25.08.2015. The Depot Manager had then informed in writing on 21.08.2015 that Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma had been deputed in the general office of the Depot on table duty on the seat of LTC claim and specialized Medical Claims of the employees.  After a year, a complaint dated 11.09.2016 from Smt. Sudesh Sharma, wife of Sh. A.K. Sharma addressed to the Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities was received through that office vide their letter dated 03.10.2016.   The said complaint  was taken up with the CMD, DTC vide communication dated 10.11.2016 from the same case file No. 3/1033/2015-Wel/CD.  In her complaint Smt. Sudesh Sharma, submitted that her husband had been transferred to Rajghat Depot-I on fabricated administrative grounds under Sh. Balraj Singh who had been harassing him at Hasanpur Depot.   She prayed that her husband be transferred to Hasanpur Depot which was close to her house.

2.               Since this is a fresh complaint it is being assigned a new case number.

3.               The Dy. Manager (Personnel), DTC vide letter dated 06.10.2016 submitted that the complainant was physically and mentally fit and has disability in his hands. He had been making complaints to the Office of Chief Minister, Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and other higher level.  Similar two disciplinary cases were pending against him. In another case, he was warned. The respondent further has submitted that Sh. Sharma had also manhandled  an Assistant Foreman and departmental action had been initiated against him.  Despite these actions, Sh. Sharma had not stopped this type of activities which was vitiating the environment in the Depot. In case he had not been transferred, some untoward incident might have occurred. He was transferred from Hasanpur Depot to Rajghat Depot-I on 17.08.2016. Through another letter dated 13.02.2017, Dy. Manager (Personnel), DTC informed  Sh. A.K. Sharma that his request for transfer from Rajghat I to Hasanpur or East Vinod Nagar cannot be considered with reference to his representation dated 23.11.2016.        Thereafter hearings were scheduled on 23.11.2016 and 22.03.2017. However, the proceedings could not be conducted in the absence of either parties.   Next hearing was scheduled on 16.05.2017. 

4.               On 11.05.2017, the complainant informed that on 01.05.2017, he was asked to take over the charge of Livery Section by Manager(Mechanical).  It  is also mentioned in the letter that Sh. Sharma had asked for the charge of livery section in writing and was directed to make a list of all the items in the livery section for which he has been given an assistant.  It was further stated that in case he had any problem he would be given some other person to assist him. As per the letter he had also  requested to provide him the complete duties as Incharge Livery, he should be given proper training and that it was  not possible for him to make the list of items and take the charge. On 02.05.2017 Sh. Sharma informed Manager(Mechanical) that he had not been provided any assistant fitter.  

5.               On 04.05.2017, the Depot Manager informed him that he had been transferred to Rajghat-I on administrative grounds.  Therefore he cannot be transferred to any other Unit for two years as per the transfer policy.  On the other hand Sh. Sharma had been transferred to East Vinod Nagar Deport on 03.05.2017 by Dy. Manager (PLD), DTC HQ.  On 08.05.2017, the Deport Manager Rajghat-I suspended the complainant based on the report of Sh. Kishan Lal Maurya, Foreman on the ground that on 19.04.2017 & 01.05.2017 Sh. Sharma was deputed to Livery Section but he refused to take over the charge of that section in front of Sh. K.L. Maurya, Foreman and Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Fitter.  The Depot Manager concluded that Sh.Sharma was not interested to do any work.  Sh. Sharma vide his letter dated 11.05.2017 alleged that Sh. Balraj Singh, Deputy Manager was harassing him by suspending him.

6.               During the hearing on 16.05.2017, the representative of the respondent submitted that Sh. Sharma has already been transferred from Rajghat-I to East Vinod Nagar on 03.05.2017.  Personnel Deptt. will pursue the matter with the concerned authorities to get him relieved at the earliest. All his record and pending disciplinary cases will automatically be transferred to the new independent depot authority i.e. Dy. Manager (East Vinod Nagar) and hence his grievance will automatically be resolved. The representative of the respondent also gave a written statement to this effect which was taken on record.

7.               From perusal of records made available by the parties, it is observed that the concerned officer in the respondent’s Corporation was apparently prejudicial to the interest of Sh. Sharma as he was posted to Rajghat Deport-I from Hasanpur Depot under the same Sh. Balraj Singh, Deputy Manager with whom Sh. Sharma’s relations were not at all cordial and Sh. Sharma had complained against him. Transfer of Sh. Balraj Singh to Rajghat Depot-I within 15 days of the posting of Sh. Sharma to that Deport as his superior officer would also seem a deliberate attempt to settle the scores with Sh. Sharma for filing complaints.  The sequence of events from Ist May, 2017 to 08.05.2017, when Sh. Sharma was placed under suspension also go on to point to an attempt to put Sh. Sharma under mental pressure and to  harass him.  It is a common practice that a person handing over the charge gives the list of items to the person taking over the charge.  This was not done in case of Sh. Sharma  as is seen from the letter of Manager(Mechanical) dated 01.05.2017 and letters of Sh. Sharma and his suspension order dated 08.05.2017. The actions on the part of the concerned official seem to be an attempt to implicate Sh. Sharma and then take departmental action against him, which is clear violation of the provisions of the Act and the instructions of Government.  The entire episode for last two years has brought to the fore, a case of insensitivity and a revengeful attitude towards a person with disability which needs to be addressed by the concerned authority in Delhi Transport Corporation.  

8.               It is brought to the notice of respondent that DoP&T vide their OM No. 36035/3/2013/Estt.Res dated 31st March, 2014 have issued guidelines for providing certain facilities in respect of persons with disabilities who are already employed in Govt. for efficient performance of their duties. The said OM, among other things provides that as far as possible, the persons with disabilities may be exempted from the rotational transfer policy/transfer and be allowed to continue in the same job, where they would have achieved the desired performance. Further, preference in place of posting at the time of transfer/promotion may be given to the persons with disability subject to the administrative constraints. The practice of considering choice of place of posting in case of persons with disabilities may also be continued. To the extent feasible, they may be retained in the same job, where their services could be optimally utilised.          

9.               It is also important to note that Section 89 of the RPwD Act, 2016 provides, “Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule made thereunder shall for first contravention be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and for any subsequent contravention with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees.  Section 92.(a) of the said Act, also provides that whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.”

10.             In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and a careful examination of the documents made available, it is recommended  that the respondent should personally ensure that the transfer order dated 03.05.2017 in respect of Sh. A.K. Sharma, Fitter is implemented without any delay and that he is not harassed thereafter.  It should also be ensured that the complainant is not posted to work under Sh. Balraj Singh to avoid recurrence of such disputes / complaints. A report be sent to this Court by 5th June,2017. The respondent is also advised to organize workshops / programmes on rights of persons with disabilities and the issues concerning them for officers and the employees of DTC. The matter concerning grievances of Sh. Sharma be also investigated keeping in view the entire facts including those brought out above and it be ensured that Sh.Sharma is not harassed. He should be allowed to work in a congenial environment.  This Court be informed of the action taken in the matter within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD) Act, 2016.
          
The matter is disposed of accordingly.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 26th  day of May,2017.     


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


Thursday, May 25, 2017

Smt. Rita Vohra Vs. Dte of Education | Case No. 4/1242/2016-Wel/CD/ 565-567 | Dated: 24.05.2017

Case Summary:

 Education: Complainant submitted that a number of facilities were denied to their late son while he was in school, that he was denied admission in any stream despite being the recipient of the excellence in education award, and that the school hadn’t recognized their son’s excellence even after his passing. Respondent No. 1 conducted an enquiry and issued a show cause notice to the school. Respondent No. 2 denied the allegations made by the Complainant and submitted that she did her best to provide a congenial environment to Master Anant Vohra. It was also brought to notice that an earlier case had been filed before the Chief commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in 2016, on which appropriate directions were issued. The Court noted that as it had emerged during the hearing, there is a need to take issues concerning children with disabilities more seriously and with more sensitivity.


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. 4/1242/2016-Wel/CD/ 565-567                                    Dated: 24.05.2017

In the matter of:

Smt. Rita Vohra,
146-B, DDA Flats, Gulabi Bagh,
Delhi-110007.                                                                           ……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus
The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat,
New Delhi-110054.                                                                   …...…Respondent No.1
 
The Principal,
R.B.Ram Roop Vidya Mandir Co-ed.
Sr. Secondary School,
Near Railway Under Bridge,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007.                                                         …….Respondent No.2

Date of hearing:            19.05.2017
Present                           Sh. Atul Vohra  for  the Complainant.
Sh. Pramod Katiyar, DDE  & Sh. Pramod Kumar, DD  on behalf of Respondent No. 1 & Dr. Rita Devi, Officiating Principal on behalf of Respondent No.2.
            
ORDER

                   During the hearing on 19.07.2017, Sh. Atul Vohra reiterated the written her submissions and submitted the following list of facilities / accommodations that were denied to their Late son Master Anant Vohra:

(i)            Proper sitting arrangement;
(ii)          Proper wash room facility;
(iii)         Medical facility;
(iv)         Writer facility;
(v)          Relaxation in class work / home work and project work; 
(vi)         Facilities in accordance with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s OM dated 26.02.2013;
(vii)        Clean environment in the class room.

2.               The complainant also stated that because of untidy environment in the school,  a snake had entered the class room which frightened Master Anant.  She also pointed out that despite being winner of the excellence in education award, 2016 his son was not given admission in any stream in the school due to which they were forced to take the TC.  Shri Atul Vohra also stated that the parents expected some recognition of their son’s excellent academic performance despite his 82% disability atleast after his death by the school like display of write up about him and his vision to assist “Stephen Hawking”. 

3.               Dr. Pramod Katiyar, the representative of respondent no.1 submitted that after the preliminary inquiry report dated 22.06.2016 of Dr. Dharmbir Singh, Principal of Dhanpat Mal Virmani Sr. Secondary School  on the complaint lodged by Smt. Rita Vohra, an indepth inquiry committee was instituted through an inquiry committee comprising Mrs. Kiran Chopra, Principal SKV (Malka Ganj), Sh. Devender Kumar, Vice Principal (SBBM Shankracharya Marg) and Sh. Bhartendu Mishra, Spl. Edu. Teacher (SBBM Shankracharya Marg) which submitted its detailed inquiry report on 28.02.2017.   Dr. Katiyar also stated that he personally interacted with almost all the teachers in the school and based on the detailed inquiry report of the committee as well as his interactions, he has submitted an Action Taken Report to the Competent Authority.  A Show Cause Notice under the provisions of DSEAR, 1973 has been issued to the said school and the reply of the school is awaited.  He also added that the Directorate will support the case of children with disabilities and the initiatives that may be taken by the School and the parents of Late Master Anant Vohra. 

4.               The representative of the respondent No.2 Ms. Rita Devi, the officiating Principal also submitted response dated 19.05.2017, the contents of which are as under:

1.    I have taken over the charge of officiating Principal w.e.f. 28.02.2015 ater the sad demise of Late Sh. Ram Chander Dhankhar,  Ex-V. Principal.
2.    Master Anant Vohra was admitted in this school in class VII in the year 2012-13 and attended the school upto 21st march, 2016 i.e. the date of the last paper of SA-II exam of class-X. 
3.    On the request of his mother Ms. Rita Vohra SLC was issued to him on 25.06.2016.  The SLC was collected by Ms. Rita Vohra herself on the same day.
4.    Master Anant Vohra was a student of this school from 2012-16 and no complaint was ever registered by him or his parents before the starting of SA-III, Examination of Class-X, in March 2016.
5.    During SA-II examinations facility of writer, extra time and presence of mother in the school premises was provided to master Anant Vohra according to the CBSE rules and regulations vide their letter dated 27.02.2016, 07.03.2016 and 14.03.2016.
6.    On 27.04.2016 Ms. Rita Vohra again submitted a representation to the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities And an enquiry was conducted by the Directorate of Education, Delhi in this regard.
7.    Again Ms. Rita Vohra filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Sarojini House, Bhagwan Dass Road, ND under case No. 6237/1041/2016/D290.
8.    On 28.01.2017 another departmental enquiry was conducted by Mrs. Kiran Chopra Principal, SKV Malka Ganj, Delhi.
Question of Mental and Physical torture does not arise because keeping in mind the students condition and considering his convenience and comfort a classroom and an examination room near the ramp on the ground floor was allotted to him.
Further I would like to inform you that as per the suggestions of the Enquiry Committee the toilet for differently abled children and ramp has been now modified with railings and holdings.
Hence the allegations made by Ms. Rita Vohra are false, baseless and fabricated with motives best know to her.  The school authorities did not err in any manner and extended maximum co-operation within permissible limits.  Hence the undersigned may please be exonerated from frivolous allegations being levelled by the mother of the student.

5.         Ms. Rita Devi  also submitted that she on her part did her best to ensure a congenial environment for Late Mater Anant Vohra and assisted his mother who used to accompany him to the school and also sit with him in the class.

6.         From the papers submitted by the parties, it is observed that the complainant had filed a complaint on the issue before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities also in April, 2016. The Chief Commissioner vide order dated 01.09.2016 observed that the issue in the matter was not involved relating to the violation of any provisions of the Act and Government instructions but it was about creating barrier free environment, awareness and sensitizing  the people. After hearing the parties, he directed as under:-

“(i)       The Respondent No. 1, Directorate of Education, Government NCT, Delhi is directed to ensure that every child with a disability has access to free education in an appropriate environment till he attains the age of 18 years, endeavour to promote the integration of students with disabilities in the normal schools and issue appropriate instructions to all the schools in this regard.
(ii)          The Principal, R.B. Ram Roop Vidya Mandir Senior Secondary School, respondent  no.2 is directed to ensure that appropriate facilities/reasonable accommodation be provided to the complainant. She should also issue instructions to staff to be sensible while handling with student with disability.

(iii)         The parents of the child are also directed to co-operate with school authorities so that the school authorities can provide the support to children as per their limitations.”

7.         In view of the fact that the issues pertaining to denial of facilities as mentioned in Para 1 of this order to late Master Anant  had been looked into by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and appropriate order was also passed. As emerged during the hearing, there is need to take the issues concerning children  with disabilities more seriously and with greater sensitivity by all concerned especially by the school functionaries. As was discussed during the hearing, the way forward for the parties at this stage, when unfortunately late master Anant Vohra is no more,  is to utilize their respective experiences of handling and educating a child with severe disability like Late Master Anant Vohra, in a more positive manner by working together to develop Sh. R.B. Ram Roop Vidya Mandir  Co-ed Sr. Secondary School as one of the model disabled friendly school in all respects besides working towards making the environment more congenial and equalizing for the children with disabilities and creating awareness amongst stakeholders with a view to bringing about positive and attitudinal   changes.
                
       The matter is disposed of accordingly.

      Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 24th  day of May,2017.     


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