Friday, August 18, 2017

Suman Kumari Vs. Commissioner SDMC & Anr. | Case No. 4/1409/2016-Wel/CD/1531-33 | Dated: 17.08.2017




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. 4/1409/2016-Wel/CD/1531-33           Dated: 17.08.2017

In the matter of:

Ms. Suman Kumari,
C-36, Mundela Kala, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110073.                                                 .……… Complainant     

                                                         Versus
The Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Dr. S.P.M.  Civic Centre,
J.L.N. Marg, New Delhi-110002.                              …...…Respondent
 
The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
J.L.N. Marg, New Delhi-110002.
        
ORDER

              The above named complainant, a person with 60% locomoter disability vide her complaint dated 08.09.2016 submitted that she was transferred by the Director (Local Bodies) from North Delhi Municipal Corporation(NDMC) to South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) vide order dated 13.07.2016.  However neither she was being allowed to join SDMC nor NDMC was taking her back.

2.           SDMC vide letter dated 31.10.2016 informed that the issue pertaining to inter Corporation transfer is being examined, therefore no staff can be allowed to join in SDMC.  Director Hospital Admn./North and East DMC have been requested not to relieve any para-medical staff from their respective Corporations.

3.           As there was no communication from the complainant, she was contacted on telephone and she informed that she has been taken back by NDMC on an order of Central Administrative Tribunal where she had filed an O.A.    She also confirmed that she had received all her dues and   requested to close the case. 

4.           Although a written intimation as advised has not been received from the complainant, in view of the above mentioned facts of the case, the matter is closed.

5.           Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 17th day of August, 2017.

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




Daya Swaroop Vs. Executive Director DTTDC | Case No. 1(372)/ GRV/12-13/CD/1527-28 | Dated: 17.08.2017




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. 1(372)/ GRV/12-13/CD/1527-28                        Dated: 17.08.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Daya Swaroop,
H.No.-D-11, Gali No. I,
Sanjay Mohalla, Dhanewali Road,
Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053.                                    .……… Complainant     

                                                         Versus
The Executive Director,
DTTDC, 2nd Floor, ISBT,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.                                 …...…Respondent
 

Date of hearing:    11.08.2017                                     
Present                    Sh. Daya Swaroop, Complainant.
Sh. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Manager (Admn.)
on behalf of Respondent.
            
ORDER

              The above named complainant, a person with blindness vide his complaint received on 05.03.2013 submitted that he was allotted a PCO Booth at ISBT Kashmere Gate by DDA in the year 1983 and he was operating the booth since then from the same location.  However, due to the work of renovation of ISBT Kashmere Gate, the location of the PCO Booth has been changed and new shop allotted to him by draw of lots is near the toilet which is beyond the reach of customers.  The rent of the shop has been increased from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 556/- per month. The complainant has requested that a new shop may be allotted to him at a location with maximum foot fall.

2.           The matter was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 10.12.2013 and 24.12.2013. 

3.           In his detailed submission dated 21.09.2013, the complainant stated that the shop No. 29 allotted to him faces a pillar of about five feet width which covers the shop and the water from the toilets also enters the shop.   The prayer of the complainant is that if no other suitable shop could be allotted to him he may be allowed to operate from the old location (PCO Booth).  The complainant stated that shop no. 29 is not suitable for a blind person to carry business activities and that he had not unilaterally taken over the possession of Shop No. 29.  The complainant submitted that it was well within the knowledge of the officials that the complainant had taken over possession of shop no. 29 and was carrying business activities of selling water and beverages and other eatables.  In January 2014 the complainant was fined Rs.  5000/- for selling unauthorized items and for encroaching some area in the premises.  The complainant was served a notice on 21.02.2014 and threatened that he would be thrown out of shop no. 29 if he did not stop selling anything other than packaged water.  In such a situation it has become impossible for the complainant to earn his livelihood.  The complainant stated that he was suffering harassment at the hands of the officials and prayed that the complainant be allotted a shop at an appropriate location at a concessional license fee.  He also requested that he may not be harassed and permitted to trade additional items to earn his livelihood as the provision under Section 43  of the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 provides for preference in setting up of business etc. to persons with disabilities.

4.           The respondent vide letter dated 11.02.2014 submitted that the complainant was allotted a PCO booth / kiosk at ISBT Kashmere Gate under PH Quota.  As a result of renovation of ISBT all the shops etc. were reallotted through draw of lots held on 17.10.2012.  The shop No. 68 at Arrival Block was offered to the complainant but he did not take over the possession of the offered  shop.  After his repeated requests  shop no. 29 was allotted to him in place of shop no. 68.  All the reasonable demands of the complainant had been accepted by the respondent in as much as that the complainant was permitted additional viable trade.  The demand of the complainant relating to allotment of shop no. 37 however was not acceptable as the shop was not meant for allotment to a PCO licensee. The electric supply was not disconnected on 30.12.12.  The meter was misplaced by the licensee in May 2013.   The respondent further stated that the complainant had encroached upon area not allotted to him which was encouraging other allottees to indulge in such illegal activities. Toilet water did not come inside his shop  as alleged by him.  The complainant had encroached upon area outside his allotted shop and stored items even upto wall of the toilet.  After renovation of ISBT out of 59 shops eleven shops have been allotted to persons with disabilities of whom three were persons with blindness.  A uniform rate of license fee of Rs. 285/- for a limited period of three years would be charged from old licensees of ISBT Kashmere Gate. The other shopkeepers have filed WP(C) 2572/2013 in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi with a prayer not to allow their existing trades especially eatables and bottled mineral water to the PCO holder licencees. 

5.           After hearing the parties and perusal of the record, the then Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities examined the complaint with reference to Section 40 & 43 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 which are reproduced as under:

Section 40: “The appropriate Governments and local authorities shall reserve not less than three per cent. in all poverty alleviation schemes for the benefit of persons with disabilities”.
Section 43: “The appropriate Governments and local authorities shall by notification frame schemes in favor of persons with disabilities, for the preferential allotment of land at concessional rates for- (a) House; (b) Setting up business; (c) Setting up of special recreation centers; (d) Establishment of special schools; (e) Establishment of research centers; (f) Establishment of factories”.

6.           It is observed from the copies of the notes of April 2014 from respondent’s file No. DTIDC/2012-13/307/Pt.File that the complainant had also presented his case before the then Minister of Road Transport and Highways, Shri Oscan Fernandes on 05.04.2014.  The facts of the case were presented to him by the respondent. A report was also  submitted by the respondent to the Lt. Governor of Delhi.

7.           As the final order had not been passed and there was no communication with respect to the matter, one more hearing was scheduled on 11.08.2017.

8.           During the hearing on 11.08.2017, the complainant reiterated his written submissions and stated that he should be re-allotted his original shop as he is not able to sell enough goods and earn his livelihood from the new shop i.e. Shop No. 29.  He however stated  that he is not being harassed by the authorities for selling other goods than the packaged water.   The complainant added that the policy to allot shops / PCO booths etc. to persons with disabilities was mooted by the Govt. to enable them to earn their livelihood.  Therefore there should be no need for re-allotment of the shops to persons with disabilities through tenders. 

9.           The representative of the respondent, in addition of reiterating the written submissions on record stated that the complainant had approached Tis Hazari Court who stayed the eviction of the complainant from shop No. 29 and directed that the ex-parte status quo order shall continue till next date of hearing vide  order dated 15.02.2017. Some other shop allottees with disabilities had also approached the Hon’ble High Court against their eviction from their respective shops on expiry of the agreement.  The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 22.07.2016 directed that no coercive action would be taken against the complainants in WP  (C) 6335/2016  in the matter of Seema Tiwari and Others Versus GNCT of Delhi and Others.  Hon’ble Civil Judge (Central) Tis Hazari Court directed the complainant to approach Hon’ble High Court as a similar matter was before the Hon’ble High Court.  The complainant has now filed W.P. (C) 6436/2017 in the Hon’ble High Court, the said Writ Petition has been listed for hearing on 16.08.2017. The representative of the respondent also submitted that the new allottees of the shops at ISBT, Kashmere Gate need to pay an amount of Rs. 1.00 lac to 2.00 lac per month whereas allottees with disabilities need to pay only Rs. 400 to 800/- per month.

10.         In the light of the facts and circumstance of this case, more particularly the fact that the complainant has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi where similar petitions are also under consideration, the complaint with the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities is closed.

11.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 17th day of August, 2017.

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



Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Suo Motu Vs. Director, Deptt. of Training & Technical Education | Case No. 4/1590/2017/Wel./CD/1484-86 | Dated: 14.08.2017



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. 4/1590/2017/Wel./CD/1484-86                                 Dated: 14.08.2017

In the matter of:

Suo Motu

                                          Versus                          

The Director
Department of Training & Technical Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Muni Mayaram Marg, Pitampura,
New Delhi-110088.                                              ………...…Respondent


ORDER

          Society for Self Employment, Department of Training & Technical Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi published an advertisement in the Hindustan Times dated 29.04.2017 for admission to various courses.  In the said advertisement, the respondent mentioned that percentage of reservation of seats for different categories will be followed as per Govt. rules.  The respondent however, did not mention that 5% of the seats will be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities in accordance with Section 32 of the Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, herein after refer to as the Act.  Section 32 is reproduced below:-

Section 32. “(1) All Government institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent Seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.
 (2) The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given an upper age relaxation of five years for admission in institutions of higher education.”

2.       Suo-Moto cognizance of the said advertisement was taken under Section 80(b) of the Act and the respondent was directed to Show Cause as to why he/she should not issue a corrigendum indicating therein that not less than 5% of the seats shall be reserved for the persons with benchmark disabilities in accordance with Section 32 of the Act within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.  The respondent was further directed that if a corrigendum was not required to be issued, he/she may submit his/her version of the case and appear before this Court at 11:30 a.m. on 20.05.2011.

3.       The respondent vide letter dated 18.05.17 informed that the advertisement in question was for admission to vocational skill based modular courses and percentage of reservation of seats for different categories will be followed as per Government Rules.  It was further stated that Society for Self Employment is not covered u/s 32 of the Act as they are conducting courses for short term skill development which mainly cater to the school dropouts and youths from unorganized sector.  Therefore, a corrigendum may not be required.  Thereafter the respondent also discussed the matter on phone and subsequently, vide letter dated 30.05.2017 submitted that necessary provision for reservation had been added on the website.  The respondent however, reiterated that the Society for Self Employment is not covered u/s 32 of the Act as it is not offering higher education. 

4.       Some of the certificate, diploma and skill based courses may not seem to be covered by the definition of ‘higher education’ as understood in general parlance.  The Act does not define the expression ‘higher education’.  To our knowledge, there is no single definition of ‘higher education’.  As per Oxford English Dictionary, higher education means ‘education to degree level or equivalent provided at universities or collages’.  According to Cambridge Dictionary higher education means, ‘education at a college or university where subjects are studied at an advanced level.  As per Collins English Dictionary, higher education means ‘education and training at colleges, universities, poly-techniques, etc. Dictionary.com(http://www.dictionary.com/browse/higher-education) defines higher education as, ‘education beyond high school specifically that provided by colleges and graduate schools, and professional schools.’   In light of this, any education and training beyond high school can be covered in the definition of higher education albeit for a limited purpose of meaningful and positive interpretation of a beneficial provision of the Act.

5.       Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to look at Section 31(2) of the Act which provides, “the appropriate Govt. and local authorities shall ensure that every child with benchmark disability has access to free education in an appropriate environment till he attains the age of 18 years” in order to appreciate the indent and the spirit of the provisions.  Section 16(1) mandates the appropriate Government and the local authorities to admit children with disabilities without discrimination and provide education and opportunities for sports and recreation activities equally with others.  An expansive interpretation of the provisions of the socially beneficial Act such as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is necessary in order to realize the intended outcomes of the provisions made therein.   Section 32 of the said Act as mentioned above provides for reservation of seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.  The purpose of making such provisions is to do away with various barriers and facilitate education of persons with benchmark disabilities.  In this light, therefore, children with disabilities who wish to go for some skill development training should either get admission, if eligible or they should be given the benefit of reservation of seats.  

6.       Anticipating this kind of situation, Office of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has requested Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Govt. of India to issue appropriate instructions for providing reservation of seats as mentioned in Section 32 of the Act or admitting applicants with benchmark disabilities without discrimination as per the provisions of Section 16 of the Act.  Irrespective of the instructions from Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, respondent is advised to continue providing reservation to persons with benchmark disabilities in admission to various courses in appreciation of the spirit of the Act.  The matter is disposed of accordingly.

7.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 10th  day of August, 2017.     


 (T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Copy to the:
1.   Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, 5th Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan Complex, Lodhi Road, Delhi-110003, for kind information pl.
2.   Secretary, Directorate of Social Welfare, GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate, Delhi for kind information pl.





Saturday, August 12, 2017

Sudeep Kumar Dubey Vs. Principal, J.P.M. Sr. Sec. School for the Blind | Case No. 4/1295/2016-Wel./CD/ 1476-77 | Dated: 11.08.2017

Case Summary

SPECIAL SCHOOLS UNDER THE DISABILITIES ACT; EDUCATION OF CHILDREN & RCI AFFILIATED QUALIFICATION OF TEACHERS APPOINTED IN SPECIAL SCHOOLS – Complainant, a former employee of the respondent organisation filed this complaint wth allegations that respondent school was unauthorizedly  running a Multi Handicapped Unit with blind students of the same school while school has been accorded permission to run 10+2 level school for blind children only. He claimed labeling children with blindness as multi-handicapped infringed their rights. He also claimed violation of the norms of Education Department by not appointing the RCI registered teachers and misused the grant received from more than one source for the students shown in Multi-Handicapped Unit.

Held, respondent school fulfils all parameters of registration under the RPWD Act verified by Department of Social Welfare; Running additional unit to meet the specific needs of students with blindness with additional disabilities is not against the provisions of the Act; Investigations revealed schools was not getting grant from Delhi Govt for the Multi Handicapped Unit, thus there was no substance in the allegations of misuse of funds; No primary stakeholders, i.e. parents of students with disabilities raised any objection to the additional unit nor the complainant who served in the school from 1998 onwards raised any objection ever; the Education Deptt also didn’t specify conditions of RCI qualifications for special schools, though the school had substantial RCI trained teachers on rolls. Court felt the derogatory terms like handicapped need to be avoided which Respondent agreed. Court observed that precious time of all concerned was spent on what appears to be more of a dispute with the administration and less to help protect the rights of children with disabilities in question.  A positive suggestion to the management by the complainant who happens to be a former employee of the umbrella organisation could perhaps have been a better way to bring about improvements, where required. Case disposed off.

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. 4/1295/2016-Wel./CD/ 1476-77                          Dated: 11.08.2017 
In the matter of:

Dr. Sudeep Kumar Dubey,
Assistant Professor, DD College of Special Education (V.I)
University of Delhi, L.B.S. Marg,
New Delhi-110003.                                                                        .……… Complainant     
                                                                          Versus
The Principal,
J.P.M.Sr. Sec.School for the Blind,
Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg,
New Delhi-110003.                                                                            …...…Respondent
 

Date of hearing:           04.05.2017 & 20.06.2017

Present                         Dr. Sudeep Kumar Dubey, Complainant alongwith
                                      Sh. Prakash Khandelwal, Advocate.

Sh. K.J. Kuriyan, Principal, JPM Sr. Sec. School on behalf of Respondent.

           
ORDER

                  Dr. Sudeep Kumar Dubey submitted a complaint dated 09.05.2016 to the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt. of India, who forwarded it  to the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 15.06.2016 as the issue pertained to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.  The complainant  submitted that  J.P.M.Sr. Sec. School for the Blind has been accorded recognition and is given  grant by the Directorate of Education to run classes upto 10+2 for Blind boys.  The school was unauthorizedly  running a Multi Handicapped Unit with students of the same school.  He questioned as to how the students who were primarily admitted to the school catering for single disability could be labelled as multi handicapped and how could they again be with single disability after intervention for certain period. The relief sought is to correct the serious academic lacuna on the part of the school & future of the students should be protected. 

2.               The complainant vide another letter dated 01.06.2016 addressed to the Member Secretary, Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) pointed out that out of 18, only 7 teachers were RCI registered in the said school to take care of educational needs of the visually impaired students.   The Member Secy.,RCI forwarded the said complaint to this Court vide  his  letter dated 23.06.2016.  The complaints were taken up with the respondent vide letters dated 30.06.2016 and 23.01.2017. 

3.               The respondent vide letters dated 14.07.2017 and 03.03.2017 submitted that  the Blind Relief Association (B.R.A.)is running the unit for the blind children with additional learning disability.  The complainant himself is associated with B.R.A. since 02.09.1998 i.e. the date he joined as an Asstt. Teacher in JPM SS School for the Blind and now he is trying to create confusion by falsely alleging that the school is running a multi-handicapped Unit.  The respondent further submitted that  B.R.A. has appointed two qualified teachers to give individualized attention to weaker students till they complete elementary education which is mandatory obligation as per RTE Act 2009.   Based  on the psychological assessment report and in consultation with the parents, the school counsellor and concerned teachers refer  a student to the unit for additional personalized care, training and remedial teaching for a few periods either during the school timings or before /after school hours.  For administrative reasons the B.R.A. has named the Unit as “Unit for Blind Children with Additional / Multiple Disabilities”.  The expression “Multiple Handicapped” is being used for administrative purposes only. The respondent also enclosed the psychological assessment reports from VIMHANS in respect of five children.  The said reports indicate the score of those children of various parameters such as verbal comprehension, freedom from distractibility index and verbal I.Q.  The respondent inter-alia has concluded that the entire effort is to provide additional educational support to the weaker students and remedial teaching under the care of qualified teachers who have been working in the unit since 1994.  Therefore, the allegation that the unit is created just for the benefit of such staff has no base.  But the fact of the matter is that the complainant had taken his students to that unit for teaching practice and has picked up a personal dispute with one staff in that unit.  The respondent also stated that no parent has ever made any complaint against that unit or any teacher and that the concerned parents have consented for the remedial teaching and have cooperated with the teachers. 

4.               The respondent further submitted that the complainant, who has been working in the organisation since September 1998, has never ever raised any objection to the extra care being given to the unit. On certain administrative grounds,  the entry of the complainant in the school premises had been banned, which perhaps was the reason for making baseless complaint against the school. The respondent also submitted that no child has been deprived of his right, rather the school strengthened  to ensure that the rights of children are protected and they are served accordingly. Therefore Section 62 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 did not come into force.

5.               In his reply dated 03.03.2017, the respondent submitted the list of 18 teachers alongwith their educational qualifications, Central Rehabilitation Registration (CRR) allotted by the RCI to the registered rehabilitation professionals or the status thereof as the complainant had sought the information about the RCI numbers of the teachers working in the school.

6.               The respondent has responded to the  issues raised by the complainant in his rejoinder dated 26.08.2016.  Many of the issues therein pertained to the internal administrative matters of the school/organisation and disputes between the staff, which is not relevant as far as the issue at hand to be considered by this Court is concerned.

7.               The complainant also submitted a detailed rejoinder dated 26.08.2016.  Thereafter the case was listed for hearing on 04.05.2017. During the hearing, the parties were informed that the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities is mandated to perform specific functions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) which had come into force w.e.f. 19th April, 2017.  Section 80 of the said Act which is relevant to the issue, provides that the State Commissioner shall “inquire, suo motu or otherwise deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and safeguards available to them in respect of matters for which the State Government is the appropriate Government and take up the matter with appropriate authorities for corrective action”.   State Commissioner is also mandated to monitor utilisation of funds disbursed by the State Government for  the benefit of persons with disabilities.

8.               In the light of the above provisions, the learned counsel for the complainant was asked to spell out the violation of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, by the respondent and bring out how the respondent has infringed the rights of children with disabilities studying in the school and also to substantiate the allegation of mis-utilisation of funds disbursed by the State Government.      
           
9.               The learned counsel stated that the respondent had violated the terms and conditions of Section 51 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 under which the respondent was allowed to run the said school.  Secondly the rights of the children with blindness have also been infringed by labelling them as multi-handicapped.  Further, the respondent has also violated the norms of Education Department by not appointing the RCI registered teachers and misused the grant received from more than one source for the students shown in Multi-Handicapped Unit besides providing wrong information to misguide this Court.

10.            The respondent reiterated his statement as to how the multi handicapped unit was set up in the year 1984 and has evolved over the years.  He stated that the purpose of the said wing is to support children with blindness who lack in academic performance. Since the intention was to support such children with additional qualified staff, the expression used for the unit did not matter much.  Initially the unit was known as `Slow Learner Unit’. Gradually it was changed to ‘Children with Additional Disabilities’ and ‘Children with Learning Disabilities Unit’ and now in record, the expression ‘Children with Multiple Disabilities Unit’ is being used. However, the organisation is willing to change the expression to be in harmony with the existing law based on the reasonable suggestions.

11.            With regard to the norms for qualification of the teachers, the respondent stated that they are following the clause stipulated by the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi.  The copy of registration certification of B.R.A. duly renewed under the  Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2017  has also been submitted with the reply dated 14.07.2016.  Further, the Directorate of Education has not prescribed any clause that required all the teachers in the school to be RCI registered.

12.            After hearing the parties, the complainant was advised to submit a summary of his rejoinder dated 26.08.2016, which  was submitted by him on 08.05.2017 through his Counsel Sh. Prakash Khandelwal.  In the said summary, the complainant has submitted as under:

                  “The respondent has established Multiple Handicapped Unit(MHU) without approval of Directorate of Education, Delhi Govt. and without registration of new unit from the competent authority as envisaged under rule 45(1) DSEAR 1973 and section 51 of PwD Act, 1995.

                  The respondent is labelling visually impaired students with single disability  as Multi handicapped.  They are registered not only in JPM Sr. Sec. School for the Blind but also in MHU. Thus, the respondent is getting funds for the same group of students from Delhi Govt. and as well as from foreign financers like Military Order of Collar Charitable Foundation, print out of the website is on record in your file.  This is a case of financial embezzlement and corruption.

                  For underscoring the financial implication of the above, the respondent has concealed correct number of students from your goodself.  They are stating that only five students are enrolled in MH Unit whereas at other places they are showing number of such students as 15.  Funds coming for the benefits of students are being siphoned off in favour of vested interests of those who are occupying managerial positions in the organisation. Teachers who are recruited for MHU are most of the time deployed to teach in JPM School. Thus the students of MH Unit are left unattended and their interest is being damaged instead of uplifting their career prospects.

                  A specialized institution i.e. VIMHANS has given assessment reports, in which it is recommended that the students enrolled in MH Unit should be provided social and communication skills.  For enhancing social and communication skills among the said students, they are not allowed to mingle and communicate with other students who possess normal communication skill, they are isolated and left unattended.  Keeping them in a pull out program will further deteriorate their social communication skills and habits.

                  Ms. Meena Dinesh had published her dissertation for her M.Ed Spl.Educ(VI) and in the   dissertation same students have been shown as multiple handicapped.  She has been recruited specially for MH Unit and has given wrong information knowingly about them.  For this her degree of M.Ed may be declared void.  For this your goodself may establish coordination with IGNOU as envisaged in 61(a) of PwD Act, 1995.”

13.            Directorate of Education was requested to intimate the following by 15th June, 2017:

(i)             Whether JPM Sr. Sec. School for the Blind is being disbursed any fund by the state government for the benefit of persons with disabilities if so the details of such grant indicating the purpose / items for which such grant is being given.
(ii)           Number of students and the year wise amount of grant for the last three years. 
(iii)          Whether Govt. of NCT of Delhi has prescribed any norms for the teachers in such schools such as teachers pupil ratio and the qualifications of the teachers to take care of educational needs of visually impaired students

14.            Blind Relief Association (BRA) was also advised to submit the status and its version with respect to Multiple Handicapped Unit by 15th June, 2017.


15.            In compliance of the ROP dated 26.05.2017, Blind Relief Association (BRA) vide letter dated 12th June, 2017 submitted the status and its version as under:

1.    Established in 1994. The Blind Relief Association, Delhi has been serving in the field of education, vocational training and rehabilitation of the visually impaired persons since over seven decades.
2.    The Association is duly registered under Section-52 of the PWD Act, 1995 with the Department of Social Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi.
3.    Established and run by the Blind Relief Association, Delhi, Jormal Periwal Memorial (JPM) School for the Blind is a government-aided school under the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi.
4.    The Multiple Disability Unit is being run by the Association as a special support service since 1986 for the benefit of J.P.M. School Students who require individual attention in academic and co-curricular activities.
5.    In this Unit, remedial classes are held for children referred by the School who are found considerably lagging in studies and require personal grooming.  The Unit provides individualized attention and additional learning support to them.
6.    No Government fund is received by the Blind Relief Association to pay salaries/ honorarium to the staff working in and facilities made available to the Unit.”

16       On the next date of hearing on 20.06.2017, none appeared from the Directorate of Education who were advised to submit the information positively by 17th June,2017.

17.      Vide letter dated 30.06.2017, Directorate of Education intimated the year wise and head wise details of funds disbursed to JPM Sr. Sec.School for the Blind, which is reproduced below:
S.No.
Head of Account
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
1.
GIO-General to Aided Schools for free supply of Text Books
124741
118881
134320
2.
GIA-General to Aided Schools for free supply of Text Books (SCSP)
16800
-
-
3.
GIA-General to Aided Schools for free supply of Uniform
137700
132900
137600
4.
GIA- General to Aided Schools for free supply of Uniform (SCSP)
16225
-
-
5.
GIA-General to Aided Schools for free supply of stationery to OBC/Minority students2
46000
87000
-
6.
GIA-General to Aided Schools for free supply of stationery to SC/ST students
18000
35000
-
7.
GIA-General to Aided Schools for Merit scholarship to SC/ST students
8000
28660
-
8.
GIA-General to Aided Schools for Merit scholarship to OBC/min.
46000
86860
-
9.
GIA-General to Aided Schools for Disabled students (IEDSS-CSS) – Reader Allowance
43200
172500
(69 Students)
175000
(70 Students)
10.
GIA- General to Aided Schools for Disabled students (IEDSS-CSS) – Escort Allowance
-
-
210000
(70 Students)

            Directorate of Education also intimated “Directorate of Education  does not have norms for appointment of teachers in such schools.  However, requirement of such aided schools are assessed in the light of guidelines issued by RCI and
Govt of India from time to time. Further, the Directorate of Education is following the educational qualification for Special Educators as has been prescribed by Rehabilitation Council of India.”


18.      It is observed from the registration  certificate given by the Social Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi that the B.R.A. Delhi has been registered under Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 with conditions inter-alia requiring B.R.A. to provide the inmates of the institution the wholesome and sufficient food, adequate housing accommodation sanitary in conditions, proper medical care and treatment, facilities and recreation and literary education and vocational or professional training.  I do not see any violation of the conditions of Registration of Certificate as alleged by the complainant in using the expression  ‘Multi-handicapped Unit’ and admission of students to the school and the support being provided in the said multi-handicapped unit. 

19.      Special arrangement for children with visual impairment, who need additional support does not infringe their rights as long as the needed support is being provided to such children.  It is a fact that educational and other services for all the persons with disabilities in our country are neither adequate nor of the desired standard.  In such a scenario, the institutions / organisations in the  government and in the non-government sector that are providing the services, should be encouraged as long as they abide by the law.

20.      It is not to deny the fact that the use of derogatory expressions for addressing any disability or persons with disabilities, etc.  must be avoided.  While  the concept of disability is evolving, organisations working in the sector should keep pace with the changes that are taking place around the world.  Therefore, the respondent may consider substituting the expression for the Unit by an appropriate expression which is in line with the disability specific legislation particularly the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in consultation with the stateholders, especially the primary stakeholder.   The complainant can also give his suggestions.   The respondent was also positive about it during the hearing. In fact,  this court has recommended to the Govt. that the use of expressions ‘handicapped’, ‘mentally retarded’ ‘deaf and dumb’ etc. be discontinued in all official correspondence / Govt. reports and also in all educational institutions / schools and NGOs working in disability sector in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and same be replaced by the expression defined / used in  the Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 vide letter No. F. 5/1662/2017/Wel/CD dated 10.07.2017. In this context, it would be apt to mention that Govt. of India recently changed the name of the “Department of Disability Affairs” as “Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities” as well as the names of the National Institutes for various disabilities  under that Department. There is always scope for improvement. Even best can be better. Therefore the B.R.A.  and JPM Sr. School for the Blind are expected to continue to provide improved services to the children and adults with disabilities. It is also important to note the statement of the respondent that none of the parents of children being provided the support in the Unit, who are the primary stakeholders, have complained.

21.      The complainant raised the issue of financial embezzlement and corruption in his rejoinder citing the contents in the website of MOC Foundation which mentions that in 2003, the trustees of MOC Foundation decided to extend assistance to BRA by providing funds for a special class for blind children with learning disabilities and the trustees continue to support BRA, sponsoring special classes for disabled children, contributing towards operating costs and IT projects, in addition to the ongoing Braille and cassettes sponsorship. Although the complainant had not mentioned about it in his original complaint, yet  keeping in view the scenarios of the allegation, it was decided to look into it.  As the complainant had not given any documents on whether the BRA had received funds for the above purposes from Govt. of NCT of Delhi also, the relevant information was sought  from  Directorate of Education.  From the information supplied by the Directorate of Education vide letter 30.06.2017, it is seen that the Directorate of Education has not provided the funds to JPM Sr. Sec. School for the Blind for sponsoring special classes for children with disabilities contributing towards operational costs, IT projects and ongoing Braille and cassettes sponsorship for which MOC Foundation is stated to have been providing the funds.  This Court also deputed its Assistant Accounts Officer and a Welfare Officer to check the records of JPM Sr. Sec. School for the Blind in order to see whether the funds being received by the school from Directorate of
Education were being utilised for the purposes these were granted. The said officers inspected the records of the school on 17.07.2017 and after examining the records and documents, they have reported that the JPM School is fully aided by the Education Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.  95% of the salary of school staff is paid by Govt. and 5% by the School Management.  All the staff is being paid salary as per the pay commission report and same as the staff of Education Department and the salary is being transferred to their Bank accounts directly by the Education Department.  The Education Department directly transferred the funds to the Bank accounts of the students studying in the school.  They did not find any financial irregularities or embezzlement or any lapse or unauthorised use of funds by the school. It has thus been observed that the allegations have been labelled without proper supporting documents.

22.                        As regards the request of the complainant for declaring M.Ed Spl.Edu.(VI) degree of Ms. Meena Dinesh as void, he may, if advised  approach the concerned University and not  this Court.  It is also noted that the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI)  is mandated to regulate the rehabilitation education and the quality of education of rehabilitation professionals and personnel in the country. RCI has not prescribed norms for special schools.

23.                        In the light of the findings stated above after a detailed examination of the complaint vis-a-vis the documents and the inspection, I am constrained to observe that precious time of all concerned was spent on what appears to be more of a dispute with the administration and less to help protect the rights of children with disabilities in question.  A positive suggestion to the management by the complainant who happens to be a former employee of the umbrella organisation could perhaps have been a better way to bring about improvements, where required.  

                  The complaint  is disposed of accordingly.

            Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 11th day of August, 2017.     
           
           (T.D. Dhariyal)
                                        State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities