Thursday, June 1, 2017

Dr. Satendra Singh Vs. Chief Engineer PWD & Anr | Case No. 4/1039/2015-Wel./CD/ 625-627 | Dated: 31.05.2017


Case Summary:

Accessibility: Complainant brought to notice certain deficiencies in accessibility in GTB hospital, and that no action has been taken despite his complaints to various authorities. Following communications with Respondent No. 2 beginning on 22.07.2015, the Respondent submitted that alterations and solutions were being made to all of the deficiencies pointed out by the Complainant. Complainant on 03.08.15 informed that he had not gotten any updates on his case. On 26.08.16 Respondents submitted that the work on the life was ongoing and that the work on making the toilets more accessible has already been completed.


Recommendations: Court noted that the Complainant has been asking for basic accessibility features in the hospital since 2012 and that it should have received serious attention much sooner. Respondent No. 1 is advised to complete left installation within 3 months of order receipt. Respondent No. 2 is advised to conduct an accessibility audit of the hospital and facilities and submit the report to the court within one month of the order, and take action to implement audit recommendations within three months thereafter.



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. 4/1039/2015-Wel./CD/ 625-627                                   Dated: 31.05.2017

In the matter of:

Dr. Satendra Singh,
Coordinator Enabling Unit,
University of Delhi,
Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital,
New Delhi-110095.                                                                            .……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus
The Chief Engineer (Health Maintenance Zone)
Public Works Department,
GNCT of Delhi,
2nd Floor, MSO Building ,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.                                               …...…Respondent No.1.

The Medical Superintendent,
G.T. B. Hospital, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095.                                                                  ........................Respondent No.2

Date of hearing:            29.05.2017         

Present:                          None for Complainant and Respondent No. 2.
Sh.Pradeep Sabharwal, Asstt. Engineer (Elect.) & Sh. A.K. Jain, Asstt. Engineer(Civil) on behalf of respondent No.1.

ORDER

                  Dr. Satendra Singh, Asstt. Professor of Physiology, UCMS & GTB Hospital, University College of Medical Sciences & Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital (GTBH) who is also a Coordinator, Enabling Unit, EOC & Chairman, Equality and Diversity Committee brought out the following issues vide his complaint dated 1st July, 2015:
(i)               The Conference Hall of GTB Hospital  which also has library on first floor and Medical Education Unit on second floor, is inaccessible as there is no lift.(ii)              Canara Bank Branch and Post Office of GTB Hospital are on the first floor, which are not accessible to persons with disabilities, elderly and pregnant women.
(iii)             Toilets in Conference Hall need to be made accessible and some toilets need grab bars and to be made wheel chair user friendly.
2.               Dr. Satendra Singh, who himself is a person with locomotor disability further submitted that he has written countless letters to various authorities including Health Minister in his capacity as Coordinator  of the Disability Unit but nothing has happened.

3.               The complaint was taken up with the Medical Superintendent, GTB Hospital vide communication dated 22.07.2015 followed by a number of communications.  Whereafter, the case was scheduled for hearing on 09.11.2015.  Medical Superintendent, GTB Hospital vide letter dated 04.11.2015 informed that the administrative approval and expenditure sanction for providing a lift at the library had been approved on 24.07.2015 and the tender process has been started by the Public Works Department (PWD).  The preliminary estimate for one Hydraulic lift for persons with disabilities at Canara Bank and the Post Office has also been sanctioned.  The work of renovation of toilets and library block at each floor of Conference Hall are also being made accessible for persons with disabilities including wheel chair users. Work is likely to be completed by the end of 2015.  He also informed that the Grab bars have been fixed in the toilets in the college building.

4.               The complainant vide his email dated 3rd August, 2015 informed that he had not got any update for his cases and requested that the proceedings may be resumed in this case and the other two cases bearing No. 4/967/2015 - Dr. Satendra Singh Vs DDCA on inaccessible Kotla Stadium and Case No.4/838/2014 Dr. Satendra Singh Vs IT and Health Deptt. on inaccessible websites of hospital of Delhi. This Court sought the status from the respondent who submitted the following information vide letter dated 26.08.2016 :
(i)               The status with regard to installation of the lift was as intimated vide letter dated 04.11.2015.
(ii)              There was a need to shift the Medical Education Unit on the 2nd Floor of Library Block in order to construct the lift.
5.              The status report dated 06.01.2017 signed of Chief Engineer, HMZ, PWD informed that the work for ‘Providing the structure for lift for Barrier free building under scheme for implementation of persons with disabilities Act (SIPDA) for UCMS Library Building and Canara Bank in GTB Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi have been awarded vide No. 54 (807)/BPD B-221(N) 2016-17/753 dated 08.11.2016 (Civil).  The work of lift installation for persons with disabilities has been awarded vide No. 54(91)/2015-16/764 dated 14.03.2016 (Electrical) and execution of work is in progress and likely to be installed by 30.10.2017.

6.               On 29.05.2017, the representatives of Chief Engineer, Health Maintenance Zone(HMZ) informed that the work relating to the installation of the lifts is under progress as scheduled.  The Department is taking all steps to complete the work as soon as possible. Rest of the works like renovation of toilets, making them disabled friendly, etc. have already been completed. 

7.               As the complainant has been asking for basic accessibility features in the hospital since  2012, the same should have received a more serious attention of the concerned authorities and the action to make the provisions more expeditiously should have been taken by all concerned.    As the Civil work has been completed and only installation of the lifts for which order has already been placed, remains respondent No. 1 is advised to complete the installation of the lifts within three months from the date of receipt of this order and inform this Court as required under Section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016.
                 
8.               Respondent No. 2, i.e. Medical Superintendent, GTB Hospital is advised to conduct an accessibility audit of the hospital and the other facilities in the hospital, residential area, etc. through an Access Audit Team comprising of trained experts, a Civil Engineer / Architect who should submit the access audit report within one month from the date of receipt of this order and take appropriate action to implement the recommendations of access audit team within three months thereafter and submit the report to this Court.

           The matter is disposed of accordingly.

           Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 31st  day of May,2017.     


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


Pradeep Kumar Kaushik Vs. DCP, Delhi Police | Case No. 4/1488/2016-Wel./CD/ 623-624 | Dated: 31.05.2017




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. 4/1488/2016-Wel./CD/ 623-624                                   Dated: 31.05.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik,
C-2/213, Sultan Puri,
New Delhi-110086.                                                                            .……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Outer District, Delhi Police,
Pitampura behind Police Lines,
Delhi-110034.                                                                                              ..…Respondent
 
Date of hearing:            30.05.2017         

Present:                          Sh. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, Complainant.
                                          None on behalf of Respondent.

ORDER

                  The complaint dated Nil in respect of above named complainant, who is a person with 60% locomotor disability was received vide letter dated 10.12.2016 from  National President, Federation of Disabled Rights, G-32, Mangolpuri, New Delhi-110083.  The complainant submitted that one Sh. Anil Kumar, who lives in front to his house at Krishan Vihar, Delhi was creating problem for him by making complaints to various departments and obstructing the labourers who were engaged by him to construct his house. 

2.               The Complaint was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Outer District  vide letter dated 10.01.2017 followed by reminders dated 20.02.2017 and 20.03.2017. As there was no response, a hearing was scheduled on 30.05.2017.

3.               As the notice of hearing dated 18.04.2017 was received back, the complainant was contacted on telephone, who appeared for hearing and submitted that the local Police called him to the Police Station to inquire into his complaint. By that time he had already sold his house and therefore he submitted to the Police in writing to close his case.  He submitted that the complaint filed before the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities may also be closed.  Accordingly, the complaint is closed.

                  The contents of this order and major provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 were read over to the complainant for his information and understanding.
                  The matter is disposed of accordingly.
            Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 31st day of May,2017.     


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


Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Rakesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, DSSSB | ase No. 4/1308/2016-Wel./CD/ 603-604 | Dated: 30.05.2017


Case Summary:

Employment: Complainant appeared for LDC Combined Examination under SC (PH-OH) category, but was not selected despite vacancies being there in SC, PH-OH and Unreserved categories. Respondent submitted that the cutoff for PH-OH category was 126.25 marks and that the Complainant had only obtained 96.5 marks. Complainant contended that another candidate with a score of 109.75 had been included in the final list so this contention was incorrect. Respondent then submitted that this candidate came under the PH-VH category, which had a different cutoff mark. Respondent elaborated that persons with disabilities who did not avail of the relaxation for their disability would be adjusted against vacancies for their respective vertical (General, OBC, SC) categories, due to which cutoff marks may go lower. However, no chance is expected for people with disabilities in the OH category as they have already been filled. Respondents also submitted documentation detailing he selection process. In light of the fact, it was ruled that the complainant hasn’t been denied the benefit of reservation. 


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. 4/1308/2016-Wel./CD/ 603-604                                   Dated: 30.05.2017
Case No. 4/1485/2016-Wel/CD

In the matter of:

Sh. Rakesh Kumar,
Ward No.-15, Naya Tola Madhopur,
Bakitiyar, Patna,
Bihar-803212.                                                             .……… Complainant     

                                                             Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, New Delhi-110092.                              …...…Respondent
 

Date of hearing:            26.05.2017         

Present:                          None for Complainant.
Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Dy.Secretary and Sh. Anil Agarwal, Grade-I  on behalf of respondent.


ORDER

                  Sh. Rakesh Kumar, a person with 45% locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 15.06.2016.  He submitted that he appeared in the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) Combined Examination for LDC Post Code 48/12 under the Roll No. 20000040 under SC (PH-OH) category. He also passed skill test and his documents were verified. However, in the result Notice No. 391 published on 08.06.2016, his name did not appear although 4 vacancies were reserved for PH-OH, 11 for SC and 28 were unreserved.  As per the Govt. of India’s rules, he should be given reservation in all the three quotas. 

2.               The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 19.07.2016.  A copy of his complaint was also received from the Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 21.07.2016 and another from Department of Social Welfare vide letter dated 29.08.2016. One of his complaints was registered as Case No. i.e. 4/1485/2016-Wel-CD. As the subject matter in both the cases is same, this order will dispose of both the said cases.

3.               The respondent vide letter dated 22.09.2016 informed that written examination for the post code 48/12 Delhi Jal Board, 52/12 Rajya Sainik Board & 68/12 Services Department of GNCTD was conducted on 16.11.2014. Candidates upto 109.75 marks for UR/OBC/SC categories were shortlisted for appearing in type writing skill test. The complainant had applied under SC-PH(OH) category for the post of LDC in Delhi Jal Board.  He obtained 96.5 marks in the written examination.  For Delhi Jal Board, cut off  marks for PH-OH category were 126.25.  Since the complainant had obtained 96.5 marks in the written examination he was not selected.

4.               The complainant had submitted another complaint dated 23.1.2016 wherein he mentioned that  the Roll No. 20000005 with a score of 109.75 was included in the final merit list and hence the statement that the cut off marks for PH-OH were 129.75, was incorrect. 

5.               In view of the submissions of the complainant that the information supplied by the respondent was incorrect, a hearing was scheduled on 26.05.2017.  The respondent vide letter dated 18.05.2017 reiterated that the cut off  marks for final result under the post code for PH-OH category were 126.25 for the post of LDC in Delhi Jal Board (Post Code 48/12), whereas the complainant had obtained 96.5 marks in the written examination. Therefore, he was not selected.  The respondent further clarified that the candidate bearing Roll No. 20000005 was selected under PH-VH category for which  the cut off marks were different.   It has further been stated that the result of PH vacancies is being reviewed to ensure norms of horizontal reservation as laid down in the reservation policy.

6.               The representatives of the respondent during the hearing further elaborated that the persons with disabilities who were selected on their own merit without availing any relaxation as a person with disability, will be adjusted against the vacancies for their respective vertical categories i.e. General, OBC, SC.  Some dossiers have also been received back from the user Departments.  Due to which the result will need to be recast. Consequently the cut off marks are likely to be lower.  However,  in case of the complainant who applied for post code 48/12 (LDC in Delhi Jal Board) no change is expected  as all the reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities in OH category have already been filled as on date.  They assured that the relevant instructions with regard to reservation for persons with disabilities will be strictly followed and no injustice will be done to the complainant.

7.               The representatives of the respondent also produced relevant record including all the relevant data in respect of candidates with locomotor disability.  It is observed from the record made available that the complainant appeared at Sl.No. 40  in the list of total 45 persons with locomotor disability (PH-OH). A separate merit list of the candidates with locomotor disability has been drawn for all the vacancies in three post codes i.e. 48/12, 52/12 & 68/12.  Thereafter, the candidates are picked up in the order of their merit amongst the OH category against the reserved vacancies in the post code for which they had applied. For example the complainant who had applied only for post code 48/12,  would be considered  only for post code 48/12. In the said post code- 48/12, out of 319 vacancies, 5 were reserved for OH, 6 for VH and 6 for HH category.    So the complainant at Sl.No. 40 of the merit list has no chance to be selected. 

8.               In the light of the facts mentioned above, the complainant has not been denied the benefit of reservation in accordance with the instructions on the subject.

           The matter is disposed of accordingly.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 30th day of May,2017.     


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



Ajmer Singh Vs. Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 4/1173/2016-Wel/CD/ 601-602 | Dated: 30.05.2017



\
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. 4/1173/2016-Wel/CD/ 601-602                                    Dated: 30.05.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Ajmer Singh,
Head Clerk, Language,
North DMC, 16th Floor, Civic Cenre,
New Delhi-110002.                                                                         .……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus
The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
New Delhi-110002.                                                                      …...…Respondent No.1
 
Date of hearing:            23.05.2017
Present                           Sh. Ajmer Singh, Complainant.
Sh. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Asstt. Commissioner, CED,
Sh. M.K. Singh, Asstt. Section Officer, CED on behalf of Respondent No.2.             
ORDER

                   The above named complainant, a person with above 40% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 02.12.2015 submitted that he was appointed as LDC in MCD on 13.07.1983 against a reserved vacancy for persons with disabilities.  He was promoted to the post of UDC on 02.05.1997 on adhoc basis although he should had been promoted in the year 1994.  He was regularised as UDC on 09.06.2003.  He further stated that LDCs who were promoted as UDC on adhoc basis through departmental test in the year 1997, had been regularised in December, 1997.  He was promoted to the post of Head Clerk w.e.f. 01.06.2011 counting his service as UDC from 09.06.2003 instead of 1997. Consequently he did not get complete benefit of being a person with disability as per Govt. of India’s instructions.  He requested that the respondent may be directed to give him seniority in the post of UDC from the year in which vacancy had arisen and promote him to the post of Head Clerk accordingly. 

2.               The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 16.02.2016 followed by reminders.  The North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Central Establishment Deptt. vide letter dated 15.07.2016 informed that the complainant was promoted to the post of UDC under PH Quota on adhoc basis under the departmental promotion (seniority-cum-fitness) basis in the year 1997.  He was promoted to the post of Head Clerk (Category  `B’) on regular basis vide office order dated 01.06.2011.   The respondent further submitted that the issue of regularisation of promotions to the post of UDC in respect of LDCs promoted during 1995, 1996 and 1997 was pending in the Tribunal (PB)  and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and there was no provision of reservation under Physical Handicapped quota to Group B posts. 

3.               Upon considering the reply of the respondent and rejoinder dated 27.07.2016 of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 23.05.17.  During the hearing the representatives of the respondent submitted that vide circular No. S.O.–IV/DA-VII/CED/NDMC/2017/1266 dated 31.01.2017 Sh. Ajmer Singh has been promoted to the post of UDC on regular basis w.e.f. 02.05.1997 and his seniority has been re-fixed in the post of UDC at serial No. 2036A below Smt. Swarn Kumari and above Smt Chitra. Further action to promote the complainant to the post of Asstt. Section Officer (previously Head Clerk) has already been taken and vigilance clearance has been sought vide letter dated 22.05.2017. A copy of the said letter has been taken on record.  Thereafter, the DPC would be held and the complainant would be promoted.  

4.               The complainant submitted that he is satisfied with re-fixation of his seniority in the post of UDC and has requested the respondent for promotion to the post of Asstt. Section Officer and Section Officer.  He requested to expedite his promotion to the next higher grades.

5.               DoP&T, Govt of India had introduced reservation for persons with disabilities in the posts filled by promotion vide their OM No. 36035/08/89-Estt(SCT) dated 20th November, 1989.  The complainant therefore was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of UDC after he became eligible for promotion to that post in accordance with the then relevant recruitment rules subject to his position in the seniority list amongst the similarly placed LDCs with disabilities. He should have been considered by the DPC that was held immediately after he became eligible for promotion to the post of UDC. 

6.               Now that the respondent has refixed his seniority in the post of UDC to his satisfaction, the respondent is advised to hold the DPC / review DPC, as the case may be for promotion to the next higher grades, within one month from the date of receipt of this order and promote the complainant from the date he would have been eligible for such promotions in accordance with the rules / instructions on the subject.  This Court may be informed of the action taken in the matter within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

7.               During the hearing of this case and other such cases it has been observed that there is a need for training of officers / staff on the issues concerning the rights of persons with disabilities in general and the benefits available to them under various schemes of the Government and their implementation in particular. In the light of this, the respondent may arrange training workshops for the officers and staff of North Delhi Municipal Corporation alongwith South Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal Corporation.  The Office of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities will extend whatever  support it can.

                  The matter is disposed of accordingly.

                  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 30th day of May, 2017.     


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