Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Ashwani Gupta Vs. Dte of Social Welfare | Case No. 4/1268/2016-Wel/CD/3696-98 | Dated: 02.01.2018



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. 4/1268/2016-Wel/CD/3696-98                   Dated: 02.01.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashwani Gupta
Room No. 6, FAS Branch,
Department of Social Welfare,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.                                                   .……… Complainant     
                                                      Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Social Welfare
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.                                                     …...…Respondent


ORDER

               The above named complainant a person with 90% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 04.05.2016 submitted that he acquired disability in a bomb blast. He joined Social Welfare Department in June 2005 in the post of Investigator as a person with disability as per the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on compensatory ground.   

2.           The complainant alleged that he was not considered for promotion to the post of House Father / Mother / Matron alongwith 12 investigators / Jr. Matrons who were promoted vide order dated 31.05.2013 although he was eligible and there were no other investigators with disability senior to him.  As per DoP&T OM No. 36035/3/2004/Estt./Res dated 29th December, 2005 the department is required to maintain a roster for effecting reservation for persons with disabilities.  However,  neither  any roaster is maintained nor the procedure is followed  for making such promotions.  He further submitted that the Department created 6 new posts of House Father / Mother / Matron.  As he had completed  five years service in 2010, he became eligible for promotion to the post of House Father / Mother and Matron and  to the next post of Welfare Officer on completion of 10 years of regular service.   He represented to the Department on 07.9.2015 and also submitted three reminders but had not received any response till date of his complaint. The complainant further added that the Department conducted three DPCs in 1991, 1999 and in 2013 with  long gap in between whereas as per the instructions, DPC should be held every year. 

3.           The complainant prayed that he should be considered for promotion from the date of his eligibility at the earliest as he was suffering financial loss as well as losing seniority.

4.           The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 16.05.2016 followed by reminders dated 15.06.2016 and 30.06.2016.
 
5.           The respondent vide letter dated 28.06.2016 informed that the tentative seniority list had been issued for circulation for promotion to the post of House Father / Mother / Matron for receiving objections, if any.  Thereafter, the process for promotion would  be started after finalizing the seniority list.  The respondent vide letter dated 6th January, 2017 submitted a status report as per which the APARs in respect of four Investigators / Jr. Matrons including the complainant for the year  2014-15, 2015-16, 2015-16 were not available and the concerned  officers had been directed to get the APARs.  The process of promotion was  already under process and further action would  be taken on receiving the APARs. 

6.           The complainant vide his rejoinder dated 27.06.2017 requested for fixing a hearing in the case so that the same is disposed  of.  

7.           A hearing was scheduled on 24.08.2017.  During the hearing the representative of the respondent submitted an action taken report dated 23.08.2017 as per which the complainant  was promoted to the post of House Father vide Office order dated 04.08.2017. According to respondent,  the grievance of the complainant stood redressed.

8.           While the complainant confirmed that he had been promoted to the post of House Father, he submitted that his grievance still remained to be re-addressed in as much as he should have been promoted in the year 2010 when he become eligible for the post of House Father on completion of five years of regular service in the post of Investigator.  According to him, as per the instructions, every year a DPC should be held.  The first DPC after 2010 was held in the year 2013 and therefore, he should have been considered for promotion by the DPC held in 2013 against the reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities as Point No. 1 of the roster is to be reserved for persons with disabilities and he is the senior most Group ‘C’ employee with disability.   He also produced a copy of roster in respect of Group`C’ posts for direct recruitment.

9.           It was observed that as per Recruitment Rules notified vide Notification No. F. 21(13)/76-DSW/Estt. Dated 05.08.1988, the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron / Assistant Boarding/Supdt. in Directorate of Social Welfare are to be filled by promotion failing which by direct recruitment 100% from amongst Matron  & Investigator/Social Worker  with five years regular service in the grade.  The complainant completed five years regular service on 30.06.2010 and thus became eligible for consideration of promotion to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron / Assistant Boarding / Supdt. in the year 2010. As per the copy of roster produced by the complainant, he was  at Sl. No. 15 and the first person with disability amongst Group `C’ employees. 

10.         As per Para 2(ii)  of DoP&T’s OM No. 36035/3/2004-Estt.(Res) Dated 29th December’2005, reservation of three percent of the vacancies are required to be reserved for persons with disabilities in case of promotion to Group D and Group C posts in which the element of direct recruitment does not exceed 75%.

11.         As per Para 15 of the said OM, reservation for  persons with disabilities is to be computed based on a separate 100 points vacancy based reservation roster.  In the said 100-points roster, point No. 1, 34 and 67 are to be earmarked for persons with disabilities. This would be applicable till 18.04.2017 after which the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. 2016 provides for reservation of 4% vacancies.  It was, therefore observed that the complainant was entitled for consideration against point No. 1 of the roster for promotion by a DPC that was held after 30.06.2010.

12.         The representative of the respondent stated that he would have to look into the record in order to ascertain the availability of reserved vacancy for persons with disabilities, the details of the DPCs held after 30.06.2010 for the post of House Father and  whether the complainant could have been considered and promoted before 2017.  The respondent was advised to examine the matter and if it was found that the complainant was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron etc. before 2017, the relevant DPCs may be reviewed and if he is found fit by the DPC,  action to anti-date his promotion may be taken in accordance with the extant rules and the instructions of DoP&T on the subject.   Respondent was directed to submit an action taken report to this Court within 60 days.
13.         On the next date of hearing on 07.11.2017, the representative of the respondent sought adjournment as the concerned Dy. Director was not well. 

14.         The respondent vide letter dated 04.12.2017  informed that the case file of the complainant was  being sent to the Services Deptt. to seek their comments / advice whether the complainant could be given promotion against the roster point reserved for persons with disabilities based on the DPC held in 2013.  On 06.12.2017, the representative of the respondent added during the hearing that the case file had already been sent to the Services Deptt. on 04.12.2017 and action as per their advice would  be taken at the earliest. 

15.         The complainant submitted that 14 Investigators were promoted to the post of House Father/ House Mother / Matron based on the DPC held in 2013.  There was no other person with disability in the feeder post and none was ever promoted against the reserved vacancy.  As he is the senior most person with disability, he was entitled to be promoted in 2013 against point  No. 1 of the Roster.  He also added that by doing so, no person would be adversely affected as a vacancy of House Father was kept unfilled on the directions of Hon’ble CAT. Therefore, his promotion should be anti-dated.

16.         Though the facts thus far made available, prima facie supported the case of the complainant  for his consideration in the DPC held in 2013, yet in order to be sure, the respondent was advised to submit the following information:

          (i)  Number of vacancies of House Father / House Mother / Matron filled year-wise by promotion since 20th November, 1989 when the reservation in promotion within Group D, from Group D to Group C and within Group C was introduced by DoP&T vide OM No. 36035/8/89/Estt.(SCT) dated 20.11.1989 till 2012.
          (ii) Number of vacancies of House Father / House Mother / Matron filled by promotion based on the DPC held in the year 2013.
         (iii) Whether any person with disability was ever promoted to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron against the reserved vacancy for persons  with disabilities between 20.11.1989 and 2013.
      (iv) A confirmation that no DPC was held for promotion to the post of House Father/ House  Mother / Matron between the date the complainant became eligible for the promotion in 2010 and  2013.

17.    The respondent submitted the following information vide letter dated 21st December, 2017:

(i)Information Sought
Number of vacancies of House Father / House Mother / Matron filled year-wise by promotion since 20th November, 1989 when the reservation in promotion within Group D from Group D to Group C and within Group C was introduced by DoP&T vide OM No. 36035/8/89/Estt.(SCT) dated 20.11.1989 till 2012

Information available as per record
From 20.11.1989
01

1990
02

1991
03 vacancies of 1989 (1) and 1990(2) were filled in 1991

1992
Nil

1993
Nil

1994
Nil

1995
01

1996
Same 01 vacancy of 1995

1997
01 vacancy of  1995-02 vacancy of 1997  Total =03


1998
Same 03 posts of 1995 (1)  & 1997 (2)

1999
03 posts of 1995 (1) and 1997 (2) were filled in 1999

2000
Nil

2001
Nil

2002
03

2003
Nil

2004
Nil

2005
Nil

2006
Nil

2007
Nil

2008
Nil

2009
Nil

2010
Nil

2011
Nil

2012
Nil
(ii)
Number of vacancies of House Father / House Mother / Matron filled by promotion based on the DPC held in the year 2013.

12
(iii)
Whether any person with disability was ever promoted to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron against the reserved vacancy for persons  with disabilities between 20.11.1989 and 2013
Nil
(iv)
A confirmation that no DPC was held for promotion to the post of House Father/ House  Mother / Matron between the date the complainant became eligible for the promotion in 2010 & 2013.
No DPC was held for promotion to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron between 2010 & 2013

18.         From the above table it is not clear whether the respondent filled up 17 vacancies of House Father/ House Mother / Matron or 06 vacancies from 20.11.1989 till the year 1999.  Thereafter 12 vacancies were filled in the year 2013. Thus, even if only 6 vacancies were filled till 1999, by the time the complainant became eligible in 2010, the roster had moved to 9th point and one vacancy was required to be earmarked for persons with disabilities.  Admittedly the complainant became eligible for promotion to the post of House Father/House Mother / Matron in accordance with the relevant RRs notified by Social Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in the year 2010 on completion of 5 years of regular service in the post of Investigator.  The complainant was the first and senior most person with disability to be considered for promotion to the said post.  As the first DPC was held in the year 2013, the complainant had a claim to be considered for promotion in that year  against point number 1 of the roster.  It is thus a clear case of deprivation of the entitlement of the complainant as he was considered and promoted only in August 2017.

19.         It  will be worthwhile to discuss the relevant instructions even at the cost of repetition  before making my recommendation.  DoP&T vide OM 36035/8/89-Estt.(Set) Dated 20.11.1989 decided that when promotions are being made within Group D, Group `D’ to `C’ and within Group `C’, reservation will be provided for three categories of disabilities namely Visually Handicapped (VH), Hearing Impaired (HI) and Orthopaedically Handicapped(OH).  The applicability of reservation would however, be limited to the promotions being made to those posts that are identified as being capable of being filled / held by appropriate category of disability.  Further, each of the three categories of persons with disabilities would be allowed reservation at 1% each. 

20.         DoP&T consolidated the instructions on reservation for persons with disabilities and issued the same vide OM No. 36035/3/2004-Estt.(Res) dated 29th December 2005. The relevant provisions of  Para 2, 13 and 15 of the said OM are reproduced as below:

“2.    Quantum of Reservation:

…………….(ii) 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 per cent each .shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision, (ii) hearing impairment and (Hi) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each disability.

13.     COMPUTATION OF RESERVATION: ……………all vacancies in promotion quota shall be taken into account while computing reservation in promotion in Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts. Since reservation is limited to identified posts only and number of vacancies reserved is computed on the basis of total vacancies (in identified posts as well as unidentified posts), it is possible that number of persons appointed by reservation in an identified post may exceed 3 per cent.

15.  EFFECTING RESERVATION - MAINTENANCE OF ROSTERS:

 (a) All establishments are required to maintain separate 100-point reservation roster registers in the format given in Annexure II for determining / effecting reservation for the disabled - one each for Group 'A' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'B' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'C' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'C' posts filled by promotion, Group 'D' posts filled by direct recruitment and Group 'D' posts filled by promotion.

(b) Each register shall have cycles of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into three blocks, comprising the following points: 1st Block - point No.1 to point No.33 2nd Block - point No. 34 to point No.66,  3rd Block - point No.67 to point No. 100..

(c) Points 1, 34 and 67 of the roster shall be earmarked reserved for persons with disabilities - one point for each of the three categories of disabilities. The head of the establishment shall decide the categories of disabilities for which the points 1, 34 and 67 will be reserved keeping in view all relevant facts.
(d) All the vacancies in Group C posts falling in direct recruitment quota arising in the establishment shall be entered in the relevant roster register. If the post falling at point no. 1 is not identified for the disabled or the head of the establishment considers it desirable not to fill it up by a disabled person or it is not possible to fill up that post by the disabled for any other reason, one of the vacancies falling at any of the points from 2 to 33 shall be treated as reserved for the disabled and filled as such. Likewise a vacancy falling at any of the points from 34 to 66 or from 67 to 100 shall be filled by the disabled. The purpose of keeping points 1, 34 and 67 as reserved is to fill up the first available suitable vacancy from 1 to 33, first available suitable vacancy from 34 to 66 and first available suitable vacancy from 67 to 100 by persons with disabilities.

(e) There is a possibility that none of the vacancies from 1 to 33 is suitable for any category of the disabled. In that case two vacancies from 34 to 66 shall be filled as reserved for persons with disabilities. If the vacancies from 34 to 66 are also not suitable for any category, three vacancies shall be filled as reserved from the third block containing points from 67 to 100. This means that if no vacancy can be reserved in a particular block, it shall be carried into the next block.

(t) After all the 100 points of the roster are covered, a fresh cycle of 100 points shall start.

(g) If the number of vacancies in a year is such as to cover only one block or two, discretion as to which category of the disabled should be accommodated first shall vest in the head of the establishment, who shall decide on the basis of the nature of the post, the level of representation of the specific disabled category in the concerned grade/post etc.

(h) A separate roster shall be maintained for group C posts filled by promotion and procedure as explained above shall be followed for giving reservation to persons with disabilities. Likewise two separate rosters shall be maintained for Group D posts, one for the posts filled by direct recruitment and another for posts filled by promotion.”

21.         It is not disputed that the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron etc. are identified suitable for persons with locomotor disability to which the complainant belongs. It is also not in dispute that the promotion post is a Group `C’ post to which reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities is applicable.

22.         In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as brought out above, the course of action for the respondent seems very clear to mitigate  the impact of the deprivation suffered by the complainant and hence it is recommended that the DPC held for  promotion to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron in the  year 2013 be reviewed and the complainant be considered against Point No. 1 of the  100 points reservation roster that should be  maintained for the  posts in Group `C’ without any further loss of time.   If the complainant  is found fit by the review DPC, he be promoted to the said post with all consequential benefits within three months from the date of receipt of this order and this court be informed of the action take  as required under Section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.   It is further recommended that the complainant be considered for promotion to the next higher post(s)  based on his seniority as per his position in the review DPC. 

23.         A copy of this order is being forwarded to Pr.Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

24.         The matter is disposed of accordingly.

25.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 01st  day of January,  2018.                                               


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

Copy to: The Pr. Secretary (Services), Services Department, 7th Level, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.











S. Natarajan Vs. Medical Superintendent, Guru Nank Eye Centre | Case No. 4//1563/2017-Wel./CD/ 3675-76 | Dated: 02.01.2018



In the Court of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-23216002-04, Telefax: 23216005
[Vested with power of Civil Court under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]


Case No. 4//1563/2017-Wel./CD/ 3675-76                                Dated: 02.01.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. S. Natarajan
Surbhi, Akamkudi P.O.,
Nagiarkulangara(via)
Haripad, Alappuzha Distt.
Kerala-690513                                                                                …….... Petitioner     
                                                                 Versus

The Medical Superintendent
Guru Nanak Eye Centre
Maharaja Ranjit Singh Marg
New Delhi -110002                                                                        ..........Respondent

Date of Hearing: 12.12.2017

ORDER
                                                                                                        
 The above named complainant vide his complaint dated 03.01.2017 submitted that his wife Ms. T. Gopa Natarajan retired as ANS w.e.f. 30.09.2004 from Guru Nanak Eye Centre, Government of NCT of Delhi.  Her PPO No. is 702250-4-02194 dated 30.12.2014.  She expired on 30.12.2014 and the complainant is getting family pension.  He further submitted that as per the Government orders the permanently disabled son/daughter of a pensioner is eligible for family pension on the death of pensioner even after the marriage of siblings.  His son, Sh. Prasant Natarajan age 39 years has 40% permanent disability due to cerebral palsy as per the certificate of LNJP Hospital, New Delhi and T.D. Medical College and Hospital, Allepuza, Government of Kerala which were forwarded to the Sr. Accounts Officer, Special Cell, CPPO, Trikoot-2, Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi on 3rd May, 2016 for grant of family pension to his son after he is no more.  The request was forwarded to LNJP Hospital.  Lastly, Administrative Officer, Guru Nanak Eye Centre, vide letter dated 29.10.2016 directed the complainant to personally visit his office with the relevant documents.  The complainant intimated him his inability to personally visit as he was 76 years old vide his letter dated 10.11.2016.  As he did not receive any communication, he requested this court to intervene and direct the concerned authorities to take necessary action.  The complaint was thus taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 18.09.2017.

2.     The respondent vide letter dated 11.10.2017 informed:

Quote:With reference to your case no. 4/1563/2017-WEL/CD/1894-95 dated 18.09.2017 issued by Dy. Commissioner, State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.  In this regard it is to inform you that the case regarding grant of family pension to permanently disabled son of pensioner on her/his death dealt in this office.  Further it is also inform that this case has already been sent to Pay & Accounts Officer (Technical Cell), Central Pension Accounting Office, Government of India, Trikoot-2, Bhikaji Cama Place and Dy. Controller of Accounts (Technical), Principal Accounts Office, Vikas Bhawan, ITO for clarification that pension will be granted to son of diseased person that is T. Gopa Natarjan (copy enclosed)”. Unquote

3.     As per reminder dated 06.10.2017 sent by the respondent to PAO (Technical Cell), CPAO, Government of India, CPAO was requested to clarify whether family pension to permanently disabled son of the complainant on his death can be given without Doctor’s medical certificate that he is not able to earn his livelihood.

4.      A hearing was scheduled on 12.12.2017.  During the hearing, the representatives of the respondent submitted that they had informed the complainant to submit a certificate as required under Rule 54(6)(iv) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which requires that the medical Board of a Government Hospital should certify that his son is not able to earn his livelihood vide letter No. F. (54)/GNEC/Pension/Ex-ANS/2016/6441 dated 11.10.2017. The said certificate has to be obtained from Medical Board of a Government Hospital of NCT of Delhi.  The complainant was also very clearly informed that on receiving the said certificate, family pension to his disabled son would be processed.  However, they have not received any medical certificate from the complainant so far.  They further submitted that they had also written to the Pay and Accounts Officer (Technical Cell), CPAO to clarify whether life time pension can be granted to a permanently disabled son of pensioner on his death irrespective of whether he is able to earn his livelihood.  CPAO vide their letter dated 16.11.2017 has informed that medical certificate is a pre-requisite for grant of family pension to permanently disabled child.  A copy of the letter dated 10.06.2017 to the complainant and CPAO’s letter dated 16.11.2017were taken on record during the hearing. 

5.    The complainant vide his e-Mail dated 08.12.2017 informed that he is not able to attend the hearing in Delhi.  He also mentioned that his Department namely Ministry of Defence, has already sanctioned family pension to his disabled son Sh. Prasant Natarajan based on the medical certificate which was submitted to the respondent.

6.    Sh. Chandrababu a friend of the complainant was contacted on his telephone which was shared by the respondents during the hearing.   He was informed about the need to submit the medical certificate under Rule 54 of the Pension Rules, 1972 to enable the competent authority to take a considered view and was requested to convey to the complainant to submit the requisite certificate to the respondent. 

7.     Later on, the complainant also telephoned and he was advised to get the certificate as required under the relevant pension rules and submit the same to the respondent at the earliest.  In response, the complainant vide his letter dated 14.12.2017 informed that TD Medical College, Medical Board has clarified verbally that they have a set language for issue of Medical Certificate and they cannot  issue a medical certificate as dictated by his Department.  He has further stated that he is permanently residing in Allapuzha District, Kerala and cannot approach other medical board as, according to Kerala Government orders, one has to approach the medical board of the concerned district where the individual is permanently residing.  The complainant has also enclosed an attested copy of the certificate of disability dated 12.08.2015 which he had submitted alongwith his complaint.  He has also submitted a certificate from Nakkada Mission Hospital, Thiruvallam, Kerala mentioning that Mr. Prasant Natarajan had been under the treatment of the hospital for epilepsy and psychosis since 21.04.2013 and he needs long term care, support and treatment.

8.   Rule 54 (6) (iv) of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 under which a daughter/son with disability of a Government employee is entitled to life time family pension reads as under:
“Before allowing family pension for life to any such son or daughter, appointing authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature so as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and same should be evidenced by a certificate obtained from a Medical Board comprising of Medical Superintendent (MS) or Principal or Director or Head of Institution or his nominee as Chairman and to other members, out of which atleast one shall be specialist in a particular area of mental or physical disability including mental retardation setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child.”

9.      In the light of the provision of Rule 54 (6)(iv) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the complainant is advised to submit the required medical certificate from the competent Medical Board not necessarily from a Government Hospital in Delhi and submit to the respondent.  The concerned appointing authority/ Respondent is advised to take immediate action thereon and decide  grant of family pension for life to Sh. Prasant Natarajan after the death of the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of the medical certificate and ensure that the necessary entry in the PPO is made for the same. 

10.    The complaint is disposed off accordingly.

11.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 2nd day of January, 2018.



                (T.D. DHARIYAL)
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Shatrughan Nayak Vs. Vijay Manchanda & Anr | Case No. 4/1357/2016-Wel./CD/ 3664-66 | Dated: 02.01.2018





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. 4/1357/2016-Wel./CD/ 3664-66                                             Dated: 02.01.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Shatrughan Nayak
399, Sector-9,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022                                         ................ Petitioner

                                          Versus                         

Sh. Vijay Manchanda,
Proprietor of Vandna International,
A-34, Subhadra Colony,
Near Shastri Nagar Metro Station,
New Delhi-110035                                                          ………...…Respondent No. 1

The Dy. Commissioner of Police,(Central District)
Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police, New Delhi-110002                                     ………...…Respondent No. 2

           
                   ORDER

          The above named complainant, vide his complaint dated 22.06.2016 received through the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 20.07.2016 submitted that he is a person with blindness and had been working in a Private Company, Vandana International, Karol Bagh, New Delhi of Sh. Vijay Manchanda for last 11 years.  After 8 years of service, Sh. Manchanda cleverly trapped him and some other employees of the same company in a corruption conspiracy.  Sh. Manchanda opened his and other employees salary accounts in Dhanlakshmi Bank, Karol Bagh and took a loan of Rs. 40 Lakh in his name against fake gold by making him sign the papers.  Thereafter, they were sent to Tihar Jail.  After release on bail, he protested against cheating and requested Sh. Manchanda to pay the loan that he had taken from the bank in complainant’s name.  The complainant also alleged that Sh. Manchanda asked the complainant to prepare fake bills of jewellery box makers.  When he refused, he was asked not to come to office and he threatened him that he would get his bail cancelled and send him to jail again.  Sh. Manchanda also did not clear his dues.  The complainant requested for justice.

2.      The complainant was taken up with the respondents vide communication dated 12.08.2016, followed by reminders dated 10.10.2016 and 30.11.2016. 

3.      Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 05.12.2016 informed that an inquiry in the matter was conducted through ACP, Karol Bagh.  During the inquiry the complainant stated that a case had already been registered against the alleged by the Crime Branch regarding the cheating and the case is pending in the Trial Court.  As regards pending dues of the complainant, he has been advised to file a complaint in the Labour Court.  Hence no more action was required by the police. 

4.      Thereafter, a hearing was scheduled on 23.01.2017 which could not be held as the respondent No. 2 informed that due to full day rehearsal of Republic Day Celebration on 2017, all the officers would be busy and therefore, another date may be fixed for hearing.  The next hearing was scheduled on 28.12.2017. 

5.      During the hearing on 28.12.2017, Sh. Shiv Dayal, ACP, Karol Bagh on behalf of respondent No. 2 submitted that the complainant Sh. Shatrughan Nayak and opposite party i.e. Sh. Vijay Manchanda, the employer of the complainant along with others were arrested by Economic Offence Wing in case FIR No. 11/2014 u/s 420/120B IPC and the case is pending trial in the Tis Hazari Court.  Police has no role to play in the matter as no cognizable offence is made out of the complaint of the complainant.

6.      The complainant reiterated his written submissions and requested that directions may be issued to Sh. Vijay Manchanda to pay his outstanding dues of Rs. 72000/- on account of the salary for 6 months and other expenses that he had to incur for local travel and also from Orissa (Brahampur District).  The complainant further submitted that he does not have an appointment letter or evidence for receipt of salary as he and all other employees were being paid their salary in cash.  However, he has experience certificates for having worked in the shop of Sh. Vijay Manchanda i.e. Vandana International/Vandana Products. He emailed the copies of the experience certificates dated 30.08.2003, 14.03.2007 and 08.07.2011 which indicate that the complainant worked in the said firms.
7.      Sh. Dilip who appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 informed that a reply to the hearing notice addressed to ACP, Karol Bagh with copy to this court has been sent through the Advocate on 27.12.2017.  He also stated that Sh. Vijay Manchanda is not in the town.  The decision about payment of the dues of the complainant can be taken only by Sh. Manchanda.  He also confirmed that he too does not have appointment letter and gets his salary in cash.

8.      The relevant contents of the reply of respondent No. 1 are as under:
“(i)     The contents of the complaint under reply are totally false, flimsy and frivolous.  It may be noted that the undersigned and Shatrughan Nayak are both co-accused along with 22(Twenty Two) others in F.I.R bearing number 11 of 2014 registered at Police Station: Economic Offence Wing(EOW), Delhi Police under section 120-B read with Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.  The Charge-Sheet in the said matter has already been filed by the Investigating Officer and the matter is sub-judice before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is further submitted that, whether the undersigned and Mr. Nayak are innocent or guilty for commission or perpetration of the alleged Crime may only be decided by the concerned Court of the Ld. CMM after appreciating the evidence before it.  Mr. Nayak by way of present Complaint is trying to hoodwink the Court and other statutory authorities and is unsuccessfully attempting to create a defence in his favour through a Forum, which is not e4ven seized of the matter.  It is submitted that the same is impermissible under the Law and thus the undersigned reserves his right to initiate criminal proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against Mr. Nayak for trying to interfere in the administration of justice.

(ii).     Further, Mr. Nayak has approached the Disabilities Commission as he alleges to be a person with Disability.  It may be noted that the undersigned is also a disabled person with visual imparity of 90 %(Ninety percent).  A copy of the disability certificate issued by the competent authority is appended herewith for your kind reference.

(iii)     Mr. Nayak has also alleged in his complaint that the undersigned has withheld his lawful dues towards his supposed salary, however, he has failed to place on record the employment/appointment letter or any other document that can support his claim.  Assuming though not admitting that the allegation has any merit in it, the said claim would fall in the exclusive jurisdiction of a Civil Court established under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and thus a complaint before the Police or Disability Commission in this regard is not maintainable.

(iv)    In view of the submissions mader hereinabove, it is abundantly clear that the contents of the Complaint filed by Mr. Nayak don’t have any iota of merit in it and prima facie the same does not indicate commission of any Cognizable Criminal Offence and thus, it is humbly requested that the present Complaint may be closed in terms of the procedure established by Law.

(v)     However, the undersigned is ready and willing to co-operate to any extent, in case your good offices desire to investigate the matter any further. 
(vi)    For any other/further clarification(s) or assistance, please feel free to revert.”

9.      Section 7 of Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act provides that: 
“7. (1) The appropriate Government shall take measures to protect persons with disabilities from all forms of abuse, violence and exploitation and to prevent the same, shall—
 (a) take cognizance of incidents of abuse, violence and exploitation and provide legal remedies available against such incidents;(b) take steps for avoiding such incidents and prescribe the procedure for its reporting;(c) take steps to rescue, protect and rehabilitate victims of such incidents; and(d) create awareness and make available information among the public. (2) Any person or registered organisation who or which has reason to believe that an act of abuse, violence or exploitation has been, or is being, or is likely to be committed against any person with disability, may give information about it to the Executive Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such incidents occur. (3) The Executive Magistrate on receipt of such information, shall take immediate steps to stop or prevent its occurrence, as the case may be, or pass such order as he deems fit for the protection of such person with disability including an order— 
(a) to rescue the victim of such act, authorising the police or any organisation working for persons with disabilities to provide for the safe custody or rehabilitation of such person, or both, as the case may be; (b) for providing protective custody to the person with disability, if such person so desires; (c) to provide maintenance to such person with disability.
 (4) Any police officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability shall inform the aggrieved person of— 
(a) his or her right to apply for protection under sub-section (2) and the particulars of the Executive Magistrate having jurisdiction to provide assistance; (b) the particulars of the nearest organisation or institution working for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities; (c) the right to free legal aid; and (d) the right to file a complaint under the provisions of this Act or any other law dealing with such offence: Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed in any manner as to relieve the police officer from his duty to proceed in accordance with law upon receipt of information as to the commission of a cognizable offence.
 (5) If the Executive Magistrate finds that the alleged act or behaviour constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code, or under any other law for the time being in force, he may forward the complaint to that effect to the Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction in the matter.”

10.    Section 89 and 90 of Act provide for punishment for contravention of Provisions of the Act or rules or regulations made thereunder by any person and by companies respectively.  The said sections are reproduced below:-
 “89. 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.
 90. (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
 Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—
 (a) “company” means anybody corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.”

11.    While the Court of Ld. CMM, it will be deciding the case before him/her taking into account the facts of the case and relevant provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, I would advise respondent No. 1 to release and pay the outstanding dues if any, to the complainant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order and inform this court by

31.01.2018 failing which the Executive Magistrate shall investigate the matter and submit his/her findings by 28.02.2018 whether respondent No. 1 owes any amount of money to the complainant on account of his salary for the period he worked for respondent No. 1 the appropriate forum/authority in addition for taking action for punishing the respondent No. 1 u/s. 89 and 90 of the Act. 

12.    Respondent No. 1 shall inform respondent No. 2 and this court by 06.02.2018 the date of making the payment to the complainant. In case no intimation is received by respondent No. 2 about the payment of dues by the said date, respondent No. 2 shall inform Executive Magistrate to proceed to inquire the matter as.

13.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 02nd day of January, 2018.     


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


View the digitally signed PDF Order here: