Saturday, March 17, 2018

Dr. Satendra Singh Vs. Delhi & District Cricket Association | Case No. 4/967/2015-Wel./CD/6183-86A | Dated: 16.03.2018




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.
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. 4/967/2015-Wel./CD/6183-86A               Dated: 16.03.2018

In the matter of:

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

                                                   Versus

The Hon.General Secretary/ President,
Delhi & District Cricket Association,
Ferozshah Kotla Ground,
New Delhi-110002.                                                  …...…Respondent


ORDER

                  The above named complainant, a person with 70% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 29.04.2015  submitted that the Feroz Shah Kotla Cricket Stadium is not accessible for persons with disabilities.  They cannot enjoy equal access to entertainment, recreation and leisure.  The complainant also submitted that he could not watch IPL T20 and  other cricket matches to be held at that venue.  He specifically pointed out that the stadium has huge steps without side railings, there is no separate queue for spectators with disabilities and there are no reserved parking, seats and accessible toilets.  He made the following suggestions :

(i)           Reserve seats for people with disabilities in the stadium.  These seats should be wheelchair accessible as well.  The companion seat should be given so that people with disabilities are not isolated from other spectators or their friends or family. 
(ii)         There should be reserved accessible parking for people with disabilities close to the entrance gate or a special gate should be earmarked.
(iii)        The path to the stadium and seat should be accessible so that even a wheelchair user can move independently.  Access routes should be either levelled or have the shallowest possible gradient.  Any route or part of a route steeper than 1:20 should conform to the recommendations for ramped access.
(iv)        The toilets should be made accessible.
(v)         There should be lift to reach all vertical levels and ramped access for horizontal access.
(vi)        A dedicated officer should be assigned to look into any problem  a spectator with disability may have during the duration of the match and his contact number should be given on all reserved tickets allotted for spectators with disabilities.
(vii)      Exit should be separate for spectators with disabilities

2.           The complaint was taken up with the Chief Administrator, Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA)  vide communication dated 01.05.2015 with the directions to submit comments. 

3.           The respondent  vide reply dated 20.05.2015 and 08.02.2015 submitted that the DDCA is a  Company  registered  under the Companies Act 1956.  Hence the complaint was not maintainable.  It was neither Govt./State nor Local Authority as held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Dalco Engineering Private Ltd. Vs Shree Satish Prabhakar Padhye and Others (2010).  The respondent further submitted that despite being a Private Company it has made suitable arrangements for convenience of persons with disabilities. However, at any given point of time in a match atleast 35000 spectators occupy the ground / stands. Consequently,  it becomes difficult to manage the affairs.  Sufficient temporary arrangements for disabled friendly toilets are also made during the matches.  However, the entire premises cannot be made disabled friendly due to financial and other constraints.

4.           The then Chief Administrator Sh. Pradeep Kr. Banerjee vide his letter dated 12.10.2015  also submitted that he is a mere employee of the DDCA and only the Director of the Company or the President / General Secretary of DDCA would  be in a position to represent the  DDCA.  Therefore, a number of communications were also addressed to the Director, DDCA and subsequently to Joint Secretary/President, DDCA.

5.           The then Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities also heard the parties on 24.06.2015, 10.08.2015, 05.10.2015, and 09.11.2015. As there were no updates, the summons to appear U/S 82 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (the Act) which came into force w.e.f. 19th April, 20017 was  issued on 23.10.2017.     In the said summons, the attention of the respondent was drawn to Section 46 of the Act  which provides that the service provider whether Government or private shall provide services in accordance with the rules on accessibility formulated by the Central Govt. under Section 40 within a period of two years from the date of notification of such rules.  It was also brought to the notice of the respondent that the Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules,  2017 notified by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities) vide notification dated 15.06.2017,  provides that the standard for public buildings as specified in the ‘Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly persons’ as issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development in  2016 shall be complied by every establishment. The matter was scheduled for hearing on 14.11.2017.

6.           Although the main Counsel  Sh. Saurabh Chadda was not available during the hearing, in view of the fact that the case was pending since May 2015, the respondent was advised that an access audit of the stadium by persons who are trained in Access Audit should be conducted to begin with.  All  provisions that are necessary to enable persons with disabilities to access the stadium and other facilities in accordance with the guidelines notified by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities should be made accessible to persons with disabilities.  

7.           On the next date of hearing on 11.01.2018,   the main Counsel of the respondent was again not available.  Vide RoP dated 12.01.2018 in view of mandatory provisions of the Act on the subject, the respondent was directed to take immediate action to conduct an accessibility audit of the stadium and submit a report by 25.01.2018 and the matter was scheduled for hearing on 08.02.2018.

8.      On 08.02.2018, Sh. Rohit Bhagat Proxy Counsel of the respondent submitted that an  affidavit of compliance of the directions vide Record of Proceedings dated 11.01.2018 had been prepared but the same was awaiting signature of the authorised officer in DDCA.  The affidavit would  be filed in a few days.   

9.      The complainant who was heard on telephone suggested that a joint visit of the stadium by him, Civil Engineer and a representative of this Court should be organised to ensure that provisions of appropriate facilities for persons with disabilities are as per the prescribed standards.

10.         The respondent was  directed to arrange a visit of the stadium by a Team comprising the complainant, who has experiential knowledge of Access Audit besides bring a person with disability, the concerned Civil Engineer of DDCA and other officials as deemed fit and an officer from this court on any mutually convenient date between 15.02.2018 and 28.02.2018.  The team would submit its recommendations for provision of appropriate facilities. It was also suggested that DDCA could consider making Feroz Shah Kotla Stadium as a Model Accessible Stadium for persons with disabilities in Delhi.  Inputs from the ‘Guide Book on Creating Sporting & Recreational Activities for Persons with Disabilities’ published by the Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in 2007 would also be taken. It was however, made clear that this suggestion should not delay the process of implementing the current proposals of the respondent to make the stadium accessible.

11.             The respondent vide affidavit of compliance dated 21.02.2018 inter-alia submitted as under:
“(i)             That in compliance of the above said order dated 11.01.2017 immediate directions were given to Sh Ajay Kumar Chaurassia, Civil Engineer of DDCA by the Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Vikramjit Sen, who is presently the Court appointed Administrator of the respondent DDCA, to conduct an audit of the Feroz Shah Kotla Ground.  Furthermore, Chief Engineer was instructed to give his proposals regarding the subject herein and submit a report immediately.  The same is produced in the following paras.
(ii)          That it is submitted in this regard that construction of the toilets for the Disabled persons and installations of railing for the ramp exits has been completed and is well maintained in the Hill A area, whereas in relation to Hill B area construction work of toilet for the handicapped, grab bar in toilet and installations of railing for the ramp is under process.

(iii)         That construction of seating area at the ground floor of East as well as of West stand for the Disabled persons has been proposed having fully furnished facilities which includes proper barricading along with ramp and overall capacity of 50 persons each stand.

(iv)         That appointment of the volunteers to assist the physically handicapped persons/spectators during the time of a match/event and to escort them to these stands is proposed.

(v)          That in addition to the above it is also proposed to allocate some points inside as well as outside the premises of the Feroz Shah Kotla Stadium from where handicapped persons can be picked up by a vehicle from the respective stands and dropped at the stadium gate”.

12.         The respondent organised an access audit of the stadium on 27.02.2018, by an Access Audit Team comprising of the complainant, a Civil Engineer & an Architect of DDCA and two functionaries of this Court.  The Access Audit Committee has submitted its report with its recommendations.

13.         It will be in the fitness of things for this Court to also incorporate in this order, the specific provisions in the Act to ensure effective participation in sporting activities of the persons with disabilities for which accessibility of stadia and all other sports facilities is pre-requisite.  The relevant sections are Section 30 and Section 47(1)(e) which are reproduced below:

Section 30:
“(1)The appropriate Government shall take measures to ensure effective participation in sporting activities of the persons with disabilities.
(2) The sports authorities shall accord due recognition to the right of persons with disabilities to participate in sports and shall make due provisions for the inclusion of persons with disabilities in their schemes and programmes for the promotion and development of sporting talents.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the appropriate Government and the sports authorities shall take measures to,—
(a) restructure courses and programmes to ensure access, inclusion and participation of persons with disabilities in all sporting activities;
(b) redesign and support infrastructure facilities of all sporting activities for persons with disabilities; (c) develop technology to enhance potential, talent, capacity and ability in sporting activities of all persons with disabilities;
(d) provide multi-sensory essentials and features in all sporting activities to ensure effective participation of all persons with disabilities;
(e) allocate funds for development of state of art sport facilities for training of persons with disabilities;
(f ) promote and organise disability specific sporting events for persons with disabilities and also facilitate awards to the winners and other participants of such sporting events”.

Section 47 (1) (e):
             “...................the appropriate Government shall endeavour to develop human resource for the purposes of this Act and to that end shall—
....................(e) conduct training programmes for sports teachers with focus on sports, games, adventure activities”

14.         With a positive approach of DDCA now, it is expected that the stadium will be made truly accessible to persons with disabilities to make their rights to participate in sports activities real and on equal basis with others.  It is reiterated that any support that is possible for this Court, will be extended to make the Feroz Shah Kotla Stadium a model accessible stadium for persons with disabilities in Delhi which can be replicated elsewhere in the country. 

15.         An ATR  be submitted to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this Order as required under Section 81 of the Act.

16.         Considering that accessibility of stadia and sports facilities throughout the country is critical for effective participation in sporting activities of persons with disabilities on equal basis with others, a copy of this order is being sent to the concerned Ministries / Departments and other authorities in the Government of India among others for necessary action as deemed fit and if necessary to support and guide DDCA in making Feroz Shah Kotla Cricket Stadium a model accessible stadium.

17.         The matter is disposed off accordingly.

18.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 16th  day of March, 2018.     


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

Copy to :
1.    Secretary, Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of India, R.No. 3, C-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.    Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, 5th Floor Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,  Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
3.    Secretary, Social Welfare Department, GNCT of Delhi, Delhi Gate, New Delhi.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Vivek Kumar, S/o Sh. Raj Pal Vs. Commissioner SDMC & Anr | Case No. 4/1336/2016-Wel./CD/6119-6121 | Dated: 13.03.2018




              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. 4/1336/2016-Wel./CD/6119-6121                     Dated: 13.03.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Vivek Kumar, S/o Sh. Raj Pal
H.No. 414, Paprawat, 
Near C.R. Oasis Convenient School,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043                                        ................ Petitioner

                                          Versus   
The Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Centre,
J.L.N. Marg, New Delhi-110002                            ………...…Respondent No.1
         

The Commissioner,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
419, Udyog Sadan, Paparganj,
Industrial Area, Delhi-110096                                ………...…Respondent No.2


                             ORDER

The above named complainant with 80% locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 31.08.2016 regarding renewal of his contract as a primary education teacher in EDMC w.e.f. 01.07.2016.  He submitted that he was appointed against a reserved vacancy for persons with disabilities on merit.  He was transferred from EDMC to SDMC on his request due to his disability.  All the teachers appointed on contract basis with him in EDMC were re-appointed on 01 July, 2016.  However, his contract was not renewed though the vacancy is lying unfilled.

2.       The Complaint was taken up with respondent No. 1 (SDMC) on 31.08.2016 followed by reminders dated 07.10.16 and 15.11.16.  As no reply was received, a hearing was scheduled on 29.12.2016. 

3.       In the meantime vide letter dated 01.12.2016 SDMC informed that services of the complainant cannot be renewed as he was recruited during 2013 by EDMC.  SDMC had renewed contracts of those who had been recruited upto 31.10.2010.  The respondent also stated that if the complaint is considered, all the contract teachers would also have to be considered whereas the issue has already been decided by Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in the matter of Shanton V Tanwar Vs. SDMC.  Vide another reply dated 07.03.2017, SDMC submitted that the matter was also examined in connection with Law Department of SDMC who opined that contractual appointment of the complainant could not be extended.  The backlog vacancies have been referred to DSSSB for appointment to the post of primary teachers in the year 2009-10.  The selection process has not yet completed by the DSSSB.

4.       EDMC vide letter dated 14.12.2017 inter-alia submitted that as per circular No. D/894/ADC/Admin./HQ/13-14 dated 09.01.2014 no inter-corporation transfer of contractual teachers would be considered.  Despite this, keeping in view the difficulties being faced by the complainant in travelling from Nazafgarh to Shah(North), his case was considered and he was transferred to SDMC.  As the complainant is no longer an employee of the EDMC, EDMC has
ng the hearing the representative of EDMC submitted that the recomnothing to do with his re-engagement.  

5.       On 17.01.2018 durimendation is the ROP dated 27.12.2017 was submitted to the higher authority and there was no change in the decision that has already been communicated vide letter dated 14.12.2017. 

          The recommendation was made to EDMC because SDMC re-engaged contract teachers who were engaged up to 31.10.2010 whereas the complainant was engaged in the year 2013.  The complainant who was heard on telephone during the hearing, stated that he would make necessary arrangement for his stay near his place of posting if he is re-engaged and will not ask for transfer.

6. After a series of hearings on 20.09.2017,13.11.2017,14.12.2017and 17.01.2018, EDMC was advised vide record of proceedings dated 14.12.2017 and 18.01.2018 to consider the complainant for the post of primary teacher on contract basis against the vacant post until the post is  filled by a person with disability on regular basis since the complainant was appointed on contract by EDMC against the vacancy for persons with disabilities, which was still lying vacant and the contract appointees were still continuing in EDMC.

7.       He was advised to meet the Commissioner, EDMC and intimate its outcome to this court within 10 days.  On 18.01.2018, the complainant met the Commissioner, EDMC, who approved renewal of contract appointment of the complainant and he was posted at EDMC Primary School, Khajuri Khas-II on 25.01.2018.  EDMC vide letter dated  27.02.2018 informed that Sh. Vivek Kumar has been allowed to be engaged as a contract teacher in EDMC w.e.f. 25.01.2018 vide order No. D/2489/DDE/Admn./Edn./HQ/EDMC/18 dated 19.02.2018 which is a very positive step.

8.         In light of the positive action by Commissioner, EDMC, the complaint is disposed off.

9.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 9th day of March, 2018.  
   
                                                                            
                                                                                       (T.D. Dhariyal)
                     State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Pooja W/o Manoj Kumar Vs. GM, Delhi SC/ST/OBC/Min. & Handicapped Financial Development Corporation (DSFDC) | Case No. 4/920/2015/Wel-CD/6085-86 | Dated: 13.03.2018



                  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. 4/920/2015/Wel-CD/6085-86                           Dated: 13.03.2018

In the matter of:

Ms. Pooja
W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar
B-4/261, Sector -07, Rohini
Delhi -110085
........Petitioner
Versus

General Manager
Delhi SC/ST/OBC/Min. & Handicapped
Financial Development Corporation (DSFDC)
Ambedkar Bhawan, Sector -16, Rohini
New Delhi -110085
..................Respondent

Date of Hearing: 6.03.2018
Present: Sh. Sunil Kumar Sachdeva, Dy. Manager (P), Sh. Amarjit Singh, Asstt. Manager (Transport) for Respondent,
Ms. Pooja: Complainant

ORDER

     The above named complainant W/o Shri Manoj Kumar, a person with 100 temporary disability, vide a complaint dated 17.03.2015 submitted that her husband was working as MTS in the office of respondent. She had submitted the medical bills of Rs. 17 Lakh for reimbursement on 24.04.2015 in respect of her late husband who expired on 22.03.2015. However, the amount had not been paid to her and she was also not given appointment in place of her husband.

2.             The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 17.03.2015. The then Commissioner also heard the parties on 30.04.2015, 20.05.2016, 11.06.2015, 15.07.2015, 30.09.2015, 02.11.2015 and 14.12.2015 till the last communication from the respondent on 06.07.2016. The respondent submitted that an amount of Rs. 4,68,825/-was paid. However, the medical bills amounting to Rs. 4,68,423 which were submitted by the complainant after a gap of 4 months to more than a period of one year from the date of discharge from the hospital and after the death of Shri Manoj Kumar had become time barred and were rejected by the competent authority.

3.             As regards appointment of Ms. Pooja on compassionate ground, the respondent submitted that the committee constituted for the purpose had submitted a report which was under consideration of competent authority. As there was no further update and the complaint was pending, the respondent was requested to intimate the status vide letter dated 27.12.2017 and thereafter a hearing was scheduled on 06.03.2018. The respondent vide letter dated 17.02.2018 submitted the status of the complaint which is reproduced below:-

“The Corporation has reimbursed an amount of rs. 16,70,047/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Seventy Thousand Forty Seven Only) on account of medical treatment of Shri Manoj Kumar, MTS (now deceased) of this Corporation. Very recently the Corporation vide cheque bearing No. 026951 dated 09.02.2018 amounting to Rs. 2,01,222/- has reimbursed the remaining medical bills to Smt. Pooja in respect of medical treatment of Shri. Manoj Kumar, Ex-MTS incurred by her on the treatment of her husband. The details of medical reimbursement are given below:-
S. No.
Name of hospital
Period of hospitalization
Amount claimed
Amount reimbursed
1
Maharaja Agrasen Hospital
28.11.2013
09.12.2013
308683
278007
2
Fortis Memorial Research Institute
09.12.2013
31.01.2014
1766516
1190818


10.02.2014
12.02.2014
48046
24248
30.03.2014
02.04.2014
62139
34365
02.05.2014
04.05.2014
34699
12202
27.02.2014
02.06.2014
111461
54526
19.08.2014
26.08.2014
135136
44485
04.01.2015
05.01.2015
76942
31396



Total
2543622
1670047

Further, all the medical bills claimed by Smt. Pooja for reimbursement has been made by the Corporation as per the medical reimbursement scheme of the Corporation on account of treatment of Shri Manoj Kumar, MTS (now expired) and at present no medical bill is pending for reimbursement in the Corporation.

Further, Smt. Pooja W/o Late Shri Manoj Kumar, the then MTS had applied for her appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the Corporation had constituted a Committee vide office order No. 643, dated 24.12.2016 (copy enclosed) under the chairmanship of the then General Manger to consider the representation received from the family members of various deceased employees for their appointment on compassionate ground in the Corporation. Accordingly, the Committee considered all the cases received for appointment on compassionate ground and found that up to a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any group ‘C’ posts. Accordingly, the committee after considering the rule position found that four posts have already been filled on compassionate ground in the Corporation. Therefore, the committee recommended at present there is no vacancy available in the Corporation. In such conditions, the representations which are received from the family members of the deceased employees cannot be considered at this stage.

Hence, the request received from various family members of the deceased employees of the Corporation were considered and rejected consequent upto recommendations of the Committee”.
           
4.         During the hearing on 6.3.2018, the complainant submitted that her case for appointment as MTS on compassionate ground had been processed and approved. However, because of certain reasons, she was not issued offer of appointment.  She also submitted that her condition is very pathetic as she is only 31 years old and has small baby to raise.  Her in-laws are also dependent on her and therefore she deserves the sympathy of the organisation for appointment as she has no other means to support herself and the family.

5.         With regard to the reimbursement of the medical bills , the complainant stated that she submitted medical bills of Rs. 4, 68,423/-  during 2014-15 and the last one was submitted on 27.05.2015.  Against the said bills, she has been reimbursed an amount of Rs. 2, 01,222/- in February, 2018 which is not according to the rates of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, which she is entitled to whereas she has been paid at the DGHS Rates.

6.         The representatives of the respondent reiterated the written submissions and added that the decision about the appointment on compassionate grounds has been taken in accordance with the instructions of DOP &T as per which only 5% vacancies could be filled on compassionate grounds.  There are four applicants and no vacancy for appointment on compassionate ground in the corporation. As regards the reimbursement of medical bills at DGHS rates, the same was done in compliance with the decision of the 144th Board Meeting held on 28.07.2015 that all the medical bills irrespective of the date of submission would be reimbursed at DGHS rates.  He also stated that the complainant had submitted the bills after 4 to 12 months of delay.  The then competent authority had decided that the bills be processed as per the medical rules which provide that final claim for reimbursement of medical expenses in respect of particular spell of illness should ordinarily be preferred within 3 months from the date of completion of treatment as shown in the last essentiality certificate issued by various medical /medical officers concerned.  The competent authority i.e. Board in its 152nd meeting held on 29.12.2017 condoned the delay and approved the reimbursement of medical bills.  Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 201,222/- was processed and paid to the complainant on 9.2.2018.

7.         It is observed that the appointments on compassionate grounds are to be made in accordance with DOP &T’s O.M. No. 14014/02/2012-Est./(D) dated 16.01.2013.  One of the conditions for such appointments is that there will be a ceiling of 5% of direct recruitment vacancies for making compassionate appointments and appointments are to be made on the recommendation of the committee to be constituted especially for this purpose.  The committee has to examine and decide each case on its merit.  Therefore, it will be appropriate to leave the decision to the Committee.  The complainant may submit her representation to the office of respondent for placing before the committee for its consideration.

8.         With regard to reimbursement of the medical bills, since the competent authority condoned the delay, the rates prevailing at the time of treatment would be applicable. Admittedly, the board decided to apply DGHS rates on 28.07.2015 i.e. after the date of treatment and submission of the bills by the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant should have been reimbursed the medical bills at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital rates.  Accordingly, it is recommended that the remaining amount due to the complainant should be paid to the complainant within one month and an action taken report be submitted to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,  Act, 2016.

9.             The complaint is disposed off accordingly.

10.        Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 12th day of March, 2018.     


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