Suo-Motu Vs. Secretary, Deptt of Social Welfare | Case No. 672/1011/2019/01/830 | Dated: 13.02.2019

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. 672/1011/2019/01/830                             Dated: 13.02.2019

In the matter of:

SUO-MOTU                                                         

                                      Versus                 

The Secretary,

Department of Social Welfare,

Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Delhi Gate, New Delhi-110002.                                        ...........Respondent

Date of Hearing :   07.02.2019

Present:                Sh. Bhagwan, S.O., Sh. Mahesh Kumar, ASO, Sh. Vikas Kumar, ASO on behalf of respondent.

ORDER

Department of Personnel & Training vide OM no. 30612/39/2014-Estt.(Res.) dated 22-25^th May, 2015 had launched special Recruitment Drive for filling up unfilled vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities.  In light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Interim Order dated 28.04.2015 in Contempt Petition No. 499/2014 in Civil Appeal No. 9096/2013 in the matter of National Federation of Blind, it was also observed that the information provided by various departments and sent to MHA was not correct and the details were not as per the proforma. This court therefore took up with the Pr. Secretaries/ Secretaries/ Spl. Secretaries/ Addl. Secretaries/ HODs of all the Departments of GNCT of Delhi for obtaining the details of appointments made by the concerned Departments and the establishments under their control as on 25.02.2016 in the prescribed format (copy enclosed) vide letter No. 5/1593/2017/Wel/CD/155-316 dated 05.05.2017. The information was to be submitted by 31.05.2017.

2.       Suo motu cases have been registered against the Departments who did not submit the information despite reminders including the Department of Social Welfare under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.  A show cause-cum-hearing notice dated 11.01.2019 was issued to Social Welfare Department with the direction to depute the concerned officers alongwith vacancy based reservation roster for persons with disabilities on 10.01.2019 for perusal so that the backlog of reserved vacancies, if any, is filled up by conducting special recruitment drive.  None appeared on 10.01.2019 and on the next date of hearing on 15.01.2019, it was submitted that the information regarding appointment of persons with disabilities since 1996 has been collected and would be submitted in a week’s time as the officers and staff were busy in the recruitment of teachers.          Sh. S. Kulshreshtha, S.O. and Sh. Mahesh Kumar, ASO were explained the provisions of the Act and the procedure prescribed by Department of Personnel and Training for computing the reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities and maintaining 100-Point vacancy based reservation roster.

3.       On the next date of hearing on 07.02.2019, Sh. Bhagwan, S.O., Sh. Mahesh Kumar, ASO, and Sh. Vikas Kumar, ASO have produced the details of information with regard to the vacancies filled in Group ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ posts by direct recruitment.  As per the details submitted, there has not been any recruitment to Group ‘A’ posts since 1996.  Hence no backlog.  In Group ‘B’ posts, 88 vacancies were filled and 2 persons with locomotor disabilities (OH), 3 VI and nil hearing impaired (HI) were appointed. Hence there is 1 backlog of HI as there is no record whether the advertisements mentioned about reservation of vacancies/carry forward/interchange with other categories of disabilities.  In Group ‘C’ posts, 82 vacancies were filled.  Out of them 8 persons with locomotor disability were appointed, but no person with blindness/ low vision (VI) and HI was appointed.  There is no record whether any vacancy was reserved for VI and HI.  As per the Department, there is backlog of 1 vacancy each for B/LV and HI. 

4.       The information in respect of promotion within Group ‘C’ posts has not been provided.  It may be recalled that while considering the complaint of Sh. Ashwani Gupta for promotion to the post of Housefather against reserved vacancy for persons with disabilities, it was found that reservation was not provided while making promotion in Group ‘C’ posts.  Therefore, in all likelihood there may be backlog of reserved vacancies in promotion to Group ‘C’ posts.  While the Department should submit the information pertaining to the appointments made in Group ‘C’ posts and the backlog, if any, it is considered expedient to dispose of this case so that backlog reserved vacancies in Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ posts by direct recruitment are filled up by conducting Special Recruitment Drive without losing any further time.

5.       Accordingly, based on the information so far submitted by the Department, the following recommendations are made;

(i)      initiate action to fill up the backlog of a vacancy in Group ‘B’ posts by a person with hearing impairment and one vacancy each in Group ‘C’ posts by a person with blindness/ low vision and person with hearing impairment by conducting Special Recruitment Drive or in a regular recruitment exercise within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(ii)      submit the status of backlog of reserved vacancies by promotion within Group ’C’ posts and the 100-point vacancy based reservation roster for posts filled by promotion and for direcrt recruitment in Group ‘A’ , Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ posts which should be prepared in accordance with DOPT’s instructions within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The proposal to fill up the backlog of reserved vacancies, if any, should also be indicated.

6.           The case is disposed off.

7.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 13^th day of February, 2019.

                                                             

(T.D. Dhariyal)

           State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

         

Suo-Motu Vs. Dte of Education & Hazari Lal Public School | Case No. 673/1032/2019/01/797-98 | Dated: 12.02.2019

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundri 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. 673/1032/2019/01/797-98                        Dated: 12.02.2019

In the matter of:

Suo-Motu

                                

Versus

The Director

 Directorate of Education, GNCTD

Old Secretariat Building, Civil Lines,

Delhi110054.                                                         Respondent No. 1

The Principal,

Hazari Lal Public School,

Siraspur Road, Khera Kalan,

Delhi-110082.                                                        Respondent No. 2

Date of hearing: 11.02.2019

Present:       Sh. D.K. Tyagi, DDE Zone 10, Sh. Kapil Kumar, Sr. Assistant, Sh. Ganesh Prasad, DDE (IEB), Sh. Vinay Bir Singh, OSD and Dr. Mukesh Chand, OSD (IEB) for Respondent No. 1.

Ms. Kavita Rana, Vice Principal and Ms. Jyoti Rana, Admission Incharge for Respondent no. 2.

ORDER

Based on news items published in Indian Express on 03.01.2019 and Hindustan Times on 15.01.2019 that the parents of a six year old boy with deafness did not admit him in Hazari Lal Public School, Siraspur Road, Khera Kalan, Delhi allotted to him by Directorate of Education as the school was not equipped to cater his needs, a suo-moto case was registered under Section 80 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereafter referred to us the ‘Act’ and taken up with the respondents vide show cause-cum-hearing notice dated 10.01.2019. A hearing was scheduled on 11.02.2019. 

2.       Ms Kavita, vice Principal, Hazari Lal Public School vide her reply dated 02.02.2019 submitted that Master Lalit Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kumar, a child with special need was allotted to the school.  Neither the child nor his parents visited or reported to the school for admission and hence he was mentioned “not reported” in the Directorate of Education’s portal.  The child/parent also did not report to any staff member of the school nor was there any entry in the Visiting Register.  It has also been stated that the school is well versed with various facilities and has a Special Educator as per the directions of the CBSE and Directorate of Education.   The question of denying admission to child did not arise.  Deputy Director, Directorate of Education, North-West A, vide reply dated 01.02.2019 has also reiterated the version of respondent no. 2. 

3.       During the hearing, the representatives of the school added that they tried to locate the child and found that he lives in the Sector 18, Rohini.  However, the parents did not seem interested in admitting the child in their school which is in a village catering to the children belonging to lower income group. 

4.       Sh. Ganesh Prasad, DDE (IEB) and Dr. Mukesh Chand, OSD (IEB) stated that the parents of the child have also filed a petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, which is pending. Directorate of Education through its District Coordinator met the parents and informed them about the availability of Special Educator in the school and also the transport allowance for a period of 10 months to be paid to the children with disabilities, if admitted in a school.  They were also informed that sign language Interpreter would also be deputed, if required and that arrangement for cochlear implantation is also being made. However, the parents have not admitted the child in the school. 

5.       Since the matter is pending before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the case in this Court is closed.

6.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 11^th day of February, 2018.      

           (T.D. Dhariyal)

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Virender Singh Vs. Dte of Education & Anr | Case No. 602/1111/2018/11/779-783 | Dated:11.02.2019

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. 602/1111/2018/11/779-783                            Dated:11.02.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Virender Singh, Smt. Poonam and

Sh. Omkar Singh

N-34, Naveen Shahdara,

Delhi-110032.                                                          ..…… Complainant

    

Versus

The Director,

Directorate of Education,

GNCT of Delhi, Old Sectt.,

Delhi-110054.                                                         ...…Respondent No. 1

The Principal,

Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya

Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya,

J-Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi – 110018.            ……..Respondent No.2

 

Ms. Sangeeta Chopra,

President

(Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Society),

E-59, Panchsheel Park,

New Delhi – 110017.                                          ……..Respondent No.3

Ms. E. Chaudhary,

Secretary,

Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Society,

J-Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi – 110018.           ……..Respondent No.4

Date of hearing:        22.01.2019

   

ORDER

          Sh. Virender Singh, Local Guardian of Ms. Bhawna, a person with blindness vide his complaint dated 27.11.2018 submitted that Km. Bhawna, an 11 year old girl is the daughter of his wife’s sister, who lives in Bulandshehar (U.P.).  She was admitted in Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya at Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi in Class-I in the year 2012.  On her promotion to Class-VI, she was shifted to Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya at Vikaspuri, New Delhi.  The society runs schools with hostel for children of Class-I to V at Rajinder Nagar and for children of Class-VI to Class-XII at Vikaspuri.   In August, 2018, the school authorities called them and informed that Km. Bhawna had been expelled from school as-well-as the hostel allegedly for stealing money without giving anything in writing.

2.       The complaint was taken up with respondents vide notice dated 03.12.2018 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’. 

3.       The DDE, Zone-18 vide letter dated 17.12.2018 informed that Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya is a recognized govt. aided school.  Km. Bhawna was expelled from the school and the residential hostel facility on the ground of stealing money/theft.  The Principal of the School, Manager and Chairman of Managing Committee are the sole authority to maintain the school, building, accommodation, hostel facility, recreation and security of girl child.  He sought more time to examine the matter and to submit report after the approval of the competent authority.  As there was no response from the respondent no. 2, a hearing was scheduled on 04.01.2019.

4.       During the hearing, the complainant reiterated his written submissions and added that there was no complaint whatsoever about stealing or any misconduct by Km. Bhawna at Rajinder Nagar School during the past 5 years.  When they were called to the school, they pleaded with the concerned authorities for not expelling Km. Bhawna from the hostel but they did not get any relief.  It is not possible for Bhawna’s parents who live in Bulandshahar to make arrangements for sending her to the school.  It is not possible even for them to make commuting arrangement from Shahdara where they reside.

5.       Representative of Directorate of Education reiterated the written submissions and added that the Chairman and other functionaries of the school were called for meeting in the Dte. of Education to resolve the matter.  While the Principal went for the meeting, the Chairman and other functionaries of the society did not come even after repeated requests.  They have now been requested to indicate a convenient date for a meeting.  He also clarified that the Dte. of Education gives aid only for education of children in the school and not for the hostel. The Department has also not given any licence/permission for running the hostel.  It is the sole responsibility of the society to run and manage the hostel.

6.       Dr. Shamim, HoS submitted that she and Manager of the society have already given their reports to Deputy Director of Education, Zone-18, Vikaspuri in response to his letter dated 17.12.2018.  She submitted copies of letters dated 18.12.2018 and 20.12.2018 sent by the Manager and herself respectively to the Deputy Director of Education, Vikaspuri.  Both of them have opined that Km. Bhawna should be given one more chance as the school and the hostel are for children with visual impairment.  She also clarified that the hostel is being managed by a separate set of functionaries of the society.  She, as the HoS has no role whatsoever in the affairs of the hostel.  As per her knowledge, the hostel is being run and managed with private donations and there is no contribution of Government. 

7.       It was observed from the photocopy of the Daily Class Attendance Register that Km. Bhawna’s name appeared at S.No.5 and she was present upto 6^th August, 2018.  Thereafter, she has been shown absent.  The complainant alongwith Km. Bhawna’s father approached all the functionaries of the school and the society to whom they could have access including the Secretary of the Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya Society. They were forced to take away the child.  They also approached Deputy Director of Education, Vikaspuri and Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) but did not succeed in getting the child re-admitted in the hostel.  Her expulsion from the hotel effectively denied her the fundamental right to education for an allegation that had not even been proved.  The parents and the guardians were scared about the safety of the child. 

8.       After hearing the parties, it was observed that Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya Society was an essential party in the matter and therefore President and Secretary of the society were impleaded as Respondents No. 3 & 4 respectively.  They were directed to submit by 17.01.2019 why Km. Bhawna should not be re-admitted in the hostel and her parents/local guardians be informed well in advance so that she could reach hostel on 16.01.2019 and start her classes w.e.f. 17.01.2019 and also submit their version on the complaint dated 27.11.2018 of Sh. Virender Singh, Poonam and Omkar Singh and on the observations of this court alongwith the documents relating to the incident.   

9.       In the Record of Proceedings dated 04.01.2019, it was brought out that Km. Bhawna’s expulsion was prima-facie disproportionate to the alleged mistake inhuman and against the human rights.  It amounted to infringing her right to education under the Constitution and the Act.  The incident could also attract punishment for offences of atrocities under Section 92 of the Act which provides that whoever:-

“(a) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view;

(b) assaults or uses force to any person with disability with intent to dishonour him or outrage the modesty of a woman with disability;

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.”

10.     Before the next date of hearing on 22.01.2019, a phone call was received that Km. Bhawna has been admitted in the Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya at Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.  This was confirmed by the complainant when he was contacted.

11.     Although the relief sought by the complainant has been given, yet the way Km. Bhawna was treated by the Managers of Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya calls for soul searching by respondent no. 3 & 4.  The Management functionaries of the society have shown complete disrespect for the human rights and dignity of Km. Bhawna and her parents and the local guardians.  For the sake of argument, even if the theft were proved, the punishment awarded was highly disproportionate to the mistake alleged to have been committed.  An educational institution is expected to set standards of reformist approach rather than being vindictive and intolerant. It is sad to note that the management functionaries of a society and a school set up for girls with blindness have treated a girl child with blindness in such a manner and shown complete insensitivity and disrespect for the authorities of the Education Department by not responding and not complying with their request to attend meetings and have also failed to submit the status report as directed vide RoP dated 07.01.2019 thereby evincing their arrogance and disrespect for the authority created under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 enacted by the Parliament of the country.  This is a serious matter which should be dealt with appropriately and accordingly, the following recommendations are made :

i)             Directorate of Education which is responsible for running the educational institutions in NCT of Delhi and is also providing grant-in-aid for education of children in the school, should issue an advisory/ warning to the management of Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya for abiding by the rules, regulations and guidelines for running a school/educational institutes.

ii)            The issue of giving license or permitting any individual or organization to run a hostel particularly for children with disabilities should be examined and appropriate norms and guidelines should be framed keeping in view  the issues and the concerns of children with disabilities particularly the girls with disabilities and provide for penalties for non compliance.

iii)          Respondent no. 3 & 4 should note that Section 89 of the Act provides for punishment for contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules or regulations made thereunder.  Section 92 has provision for punishment for offences of atrocities and Section 93 provides for punishment for failure to furnish information/ documents.  The said sections are reproduced below:

“89. Punishment for contravention of provisions of Act or rules or regulations made thereunder.—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 `10,000/- and for any subsequent contravention with fine which shall not be less than `50,000/- but which may extend to `5,00,000/-.

92. Punishment for offences of atrocities.—Whoever,—

(a) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view;

(b) assaults or uses force to any person with disability with intent to dishonour him or outrage the modesty of a woman with disability;

.....shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.

93. Punishment for failure to furnish information.—Whoever, fails to produce any book, account or other documents or to furnish any statement, information or particulars which, under this Act or any order, or direction made or given there under, is duty bound to produce or furnish or to answer any question put in pursuance of the provisions of this Act or of any order, or direction made or given thereunder, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to `25,000/- in respect of each offence, and in case of continued failure or refusal, with further fine which may extend to `1,000/- for each day, of continued failure or refusal after the date of original order imposing punishment of fine.”

12.     Taking a lenient view of the matter, the action against respondent no. 3 & 4 is not being recommended for contravention of the above provisions of the Act.  They are however, advised to be sensitive, humane and should respect the dignity and honour of a child with disability especially when they are in the business of education of girl children with blindness. 

13.     The complaint is disposed off.

14.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 11^th day of February, 2019.     

           (T.D. Dhariyal)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Ram Chandar Vs. Director, Deptt of Social Welfare | Case No. 648/1092/2018/12/914-916 | Dated:09.02.2019

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundri 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. 648/1092/2018/12/914-916                                   Dated:09.02.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Ram Chandar,

F-380, Near Block-09, 

Jhuggi Safeda, Geeta Colony,

Delhi – 110031.                                                              ................ Complainant

                                                    

Versus

The Director,

Department of Social Welfare,

GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,

New Delhi-110002.                                                  ……...…Respondent  No.1

The District Social Welfare Officer,

(East District)

GNCT of Delhi,

Block No.10, Geeta Colony, 

Delhi-110031.                                                         ……...…Respondent  No.2

Date of Hearing:          18.02.2019

Present:                         Sh. Ram Chandar, Complainant on telephone

                                         Sh. Ahsan Zafar, Welfare Officer for the respondent

                       

ORDER

            The above named complainant, a person with 90% locomotor disability and a wheel chair user, vide his complaint received in this court on 26.12.2018 alleged that he applied for disability pension in the office of District Social Welfare Office (East), vide Registration ID No. 101990264 on 24.08.2018 but the same has not been sanctioned.  He further submitted that he visited the DSO(East) office many times but the behaviour of the staff was rude and his application is pending with District Social Welfare Officer (East) since 31.10.2018.

2.         The complaint was taken up with the Department of Social Welfare under the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, vide Show Cause cum Hearing Notice dated 02.01.2019 with the direction to submit para-wise/point-wise comments on the complaint and a hearing was scheduled for 28.01.2019. However, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Complainant attended the hearing in person alongwith his wife and daughter as he can not by himself move and reiterated his written submissions.  It was observed that complaints from a large number of persons with disabilities alleging inordinate delay and ill treatment by the concerned officers and staff of East District Office and indifference to their problems are being received.  Therefore, District Social Welfare Officer, East Delhi was impleaded as Respondent No.2 and vide ROP dated 28.01.2019, the respondents were directed  to ensure release of disability pension to the complainant, if he is eligible and to submit an action taken report on or before the next date of hearing on 18.02.2019 failing which Secretary (Social Welfare) should initiate action against the concerned functionaries under Section 89 of the Act, 2016 for contravention of the provisions of the Act/Rules and under Section 93 of the Act for failure to furnish the information.

3.         On 18.02.2019, Sh Ahsan Zafar, Welfare Officer East District Social Welfare Office appeared and submitted status report dated 16.02.2019 as per which the complainant applied for disability pension through online vide application No. 26040000015023 on 24.08.2018.  On scrutiny, it was found that the disability certificate had not been properly uploaded.  The documents needed to be verified with the original documents.  Accordingly, a query was raised and a message conveyed to the complainant on telephone on 13.02.2019.  The complainant had not reported for verification of his disability certificate.  After verification of the documents, the District Social Welfare Officer would sanction the pension and the case would be transmitted only to FAS Branch of Department of Social Welfare for remittance of payment to the account of the beneficiary.  A copy of legible disability certificate which is available in the case file is legible was handed over to Shri Ahsan Zafar during the hearing. 

4.         The complainant, who was contacted on his given telephone number, informed that some official from District Social Welfare Office (East), Geeta Colony contacted him on telephone on Sunday (17.02.2019).  As desired by him, the complainant’s daughter has submitted a legible copy of the disability certificate in that office on. 18.02.2019.  Sh. Ahsan Zafar stated that the disability pension will be sanctioned at district level within a week and transmitted to FAS Branch, Social Welfare Department.  He also stated that a large number of pension cases are getting delayed because of faulty uploading of documents and shortage of staff.

5.         In light of the above, while this complaint is being disposed of, the following recommendations are made:

(i)       The disability pension of the complainant, who acquired 90% disability and is on wheelchair for the last 8 years, be sanctioned at the district level and the documents be transmitted to FAS Branch of Social Welfare Department by 25.02.2019 and the FAS Branch should release the pension alongwith the arrears to the account of the complainant by 31.03.2019.

(ii)    Social Welfare Department should take appropriate steps to ensure that the disability pension is released to the eligible persons in a time bound manner with least inconvenience to the applicants.

(iii)      Workshops to create awareness about the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and to sensitise the officers and staff of the Department should be organised.

6.         Action taken in the matter be intimated to this court as required under Section 81 of the Act.    

7.         The complaint is disposed of.

8.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19^th  day of February, 2019.

           (T.D. Dhariyal)

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities