Saturday, March 16, 2019

Rama Shankar Ram Vs. MS, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital &Ors. | Case No. 122/1021/2018/02/1333-1336 | Dated: 15.03.2019





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]

Show-cause-cum-hearing notice

Case No. 122/1021/2018/02/1333-1336                Dated: 15.03.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Rama Shankar Ram,
B-486, Delhi Administration Flats,
1st Floor, Timarpur,
Delhi-110054.                                                …………..Complainant
Versus

The Medical Suprintendent,
Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Jahangir Puri, New Delhi-110033                       ……..Respondent No. 1

The Secretary,
Services Department,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
7th Level, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002                         ..……….Respondent No. 2

The Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
5-Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi-110054                                                    .……….Respondent No. 3

                                                            ORDER

1.           The above named complainant a persons with 50% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 10.02.2018 submitted that he is working in a Group ‘D’ Post in Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial (BJRM) Hospital, Jahangir Puri.  He is a graduate and can work on computer. He was working in an office of Delhi Energy Development Authority (DEDA) since 01.09.1990.  He was regularized in DEDA on 11.03.1995.  He was posted to BJRM Hospital w.e.f 25.02.2002.  He has been working with honesty all these years, and has been requesting Principal Secretary Services for his promotion.  Despite this, his name is not appeared in the promotion list issued by the Services Department recently.  Those who are appointed up to the year 2000 have been included in that promotion list.  He alleged that by not counting his post service, he is being deprived of his promotion and thus injustice is being done to a person with disability.  He requested that his post service w.e.f. 11.03.1995 should be counted for the promotion and issued for promoted at the earliest.

2.       As the complainant had not mentioned the name of his post, the post he was working, the post he wanted to be promoted to, and had not enclosed copies of his representations to the Services Department and their replies, he was advised to submit the information/ documents vide letter dated 22.02.2018.  Vide the letter dated 05.03.2018, the complainant informed that he was working in the post of Nursing Assistant and has been requesting Services Department for promotion to the post of LDC and also submit that the copied of his representation.

3.       From the papers submitted by the complainant it revealed that the complainant was working as a Group ‘D’ casual Employee (bell that) in DEDA.  On closer of DEDA, he was among the employees who had declared surplus.  Services Department had informed him vide letter dated 04.01.2018 in response his representation of the complainant to the Chief Minister, Government NCT of Delhi that the complainant was a casual employee in DEDA and was appointed as a Group ‘D’ employee on regular basis on the directions of Hon. High Court.  His post service as casual employee of DEDA could not be counted for any purpose as per DoP&T guidelines.  It has further been mentioned in that letter that have been in case of regular employees of DEDA who had redeployed after being declared surplus, the past service standard by them in DEDA is not counted for seniority/ promotion in the redeployed post.

4.       In light of this the complainant was informed though service on casual basis cannot be counted for the purpose of promotion, the complainant was advised to submit documents, if any, in supporting of his claim for treating him as a regular employee w.e.f 11.03.1995 and he was also heard.

5.       Although the complainant did not submit the relevant supporting documents, the complainant was taken up with the respondents vide notice dated 31.05.2018 directing them to submitted para wise comments.

6.       Respondent No. 2 vide replied dated 22.06.2018 submitted as under:

1.    “Due to reduction in the activities of the Poloroid Unit and closure of Battery Bus Scheme of the Delhi Energy Development Agency (DEDA), an Autonomous Body under the Govt. of Delhi, the Agency was not able to provide work to a number of its regular (as also casual) employees.  While declaring its some regular staff surplus, DEDA had to terminate the services of its casual employees.  Aggrieved by this decision of DEDA Casual Employees wen tot the Hon’ble High Court by way of filing Writs for Redressal of their grievances.  While redressing the grievances of these Ex-Casual Employees of DEDA, Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 07.11.2001 (Copy enclosed) held as under:-
“……if any recruitment is made in future the persons on thelist shall first be recruited provided they are registered with the Employment Exchange and if qualified for appointment to the relevant post.  It was further observed that age relaxation will be granted to these persons to the extent of period of service rendered by them with the respondents.”

2.    It is also mentioned here that the Hon’ble High Court in the same judgment has also held as under:
“The list of all the Group-C & Group-D employees with their correct addresses will be circulated to all the Heads of various Departments and also to Autonomous Bodies and Societies under Delhi Govt. with the direction from the Principal Secretary (Services) that the persons in the list shall be given preference in filling up all the future vacancies keeping in view the education qualification and experience.  Copies of the directions as contained in the order dated 11 May, 2001 and also herein shall also be circulated along with the list of names.  In case there is any change in address the persons concerned may inform the DEDA within 10 days from today.  It is further directed that the office of the Principal Secretary (Services) shall monitor the absorption of all these petitioners on a regular basis till they are suitably absorbed.”

3.    In compliance of the said directions of the Hon’ble High Court, Services Department circulated the list of 111 Group-D and 30 Group-C Ex-casual Employees of DEDA (as was furnished by the DEDA) to all the Heads of Departments, Autonomous Bodies, PSUs/ Autonomous Bodies/ Corporations under Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi included the name of Sh. Ramashankar Ram vide letter dated 11.12.2001 (Copy enclosed) with the specific direction to give preference to these Ex-Casual Employees while making recruitment in terms of the directions contained in the judgments dated 07.11.2001 of the Hon’ble High Court.

4.    As per information available in this department, Sh. Ramashankar Ram (DOB: 01.11.1969) S/o Sh. Bihari Ram, was working in erstwhile DEDA as Group ‘D’ casual employee (Beldar) since 01.09.1990 (Copy enclosed).  As per directions of Hon’ble  High Court, Sh. Ramashankar Ram was appointed in DHS as Group ‘D’ employee (Copy enclosed) on regular basis in the year 2002 (25.05.2002 as stated by the applicant).  Since the official has been appointed as a direct recruitee w.e.f. 25.05.2002, as such, his past service could not be counted for any purpose.

5.     It is worthwhile to mention here that in another writ petition preferred by the casual/ ex-casual employees of erstwhile DEDA [Writ Petition (C) No. 9665-71/2006].  The Hon’ble High Court inter alia held as under:
“I have gone through the order dated 7th November, 2001 as also have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners.  I am afraid, I cannot read the order in question as has been sought to be read by the learned counsel.  There is nothing in the order to indicate that the petitioners were to be accommodated and regularized in the Group ‘C’ posts, come what may, even if they failed to qualify the typing test.  As has been rightly observed by this court while disposing of the contempt petition, the order dated 7th November, 2001, did not require any relaxation for the test.  Rather, the order clarified that the respondents were free to terminate the services of the petitioners in accordance with law, here though, is a case where services of none of the petitioners  were terminated and they, as already noticed above, were accommodated in GROUP ‘D’ posts.  Therefore, to say that the order dated 7th November, 2001 has not been complied with would be incorrect…    (Copy enclosed)

…..For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition.  The same is dismissed.” (Copy enclosed)

6.    In addition to above, as per information available in this department, seniority number of Sh. Ramashankar Ram is ‘2540’ as per final eligibility list.  It has also mentioned that documents in r/o Class-IV employees have been called for, upto Snty. No. 2251, for promotion to the post of Gr-IV (DASS) from various Departments of GNCTD.”

7.       Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 19.07.2018 forwarded the particulars of the complainant to department for considering the complainant for promotion to the post of LDC under PH/SC category.  They also stated therein that Sh. Rama Shankar Ram was initially appointed as Beldar on dated 11.03.1995 in DEDA.  Due to binding up of DEDA, he was rendered surplus and redeployed/ appointed in the Directorate of Health Services & posted in BJRM Hospital on 24.05.2002. The complainant vide his rejoinder dated 12.07.2018 requested for a hearing so that he could present his case.

8.       Upon considering the replied the respondent and the rejoinder of the complainant a hearing was held on 27.11.2018.  During hearing the complainant submitted that he was treated as casual employee and therefore his service from 1995 to 2002 is not being counted for promotion.  He produced a copy of the office order dated 11.03.1995 of Delhi Energy Development Agency (DEDA) vide which he (Sl. No. 66), along with 67 others was granted the temporary status and regularized as Beldar with immediate effect.  According to him, had he been treated as a regular employee w.e.f. 11.03.1995, he would have been declared surplus before 2002 and would have been given the benefit of service in DEDA from the date of his being declared as surplus employee in DEDA.  He, however, did not have the information whether any of the 68 persons in the said list has been promoted.  The complainant also added that he met Secretary (Services) and the concerned officials of Services Department who informed him that his service could be counted from the date of his regularization i.e. 11.03.1995 for the purpose of promotion if he produced the relevant record.

9.          Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 12th day of March,
2019.
  

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

Friday, March 15, 2019

Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. Secretary Deptt of Health & Family Welfare & Anr | Case No.722/1121/2019/02/1306-1308 | Dated:14.03.2019




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,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.722/1121/2019/02/1306-1308                     Dated:14.03.2019

In the matter of:

Sh.Sanjeev Aggarwal
Email ID: Sanjeevaggarwal2000@gmail.com    .……… Complainant     

                                                      Versus
The Secretary,
Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare,
GNCT of Delhi,9th Level, A-Wing
Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi-110002.                                           …...…Respondent No.1

The Medical Superintendent
Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Malviya Nagar,
Delhi-110017.                                                     ……Respondent No. 2

Date of Hearing:     11.03.2019
Present:                  Sh.Sanjeev Aggarwal, complainant.
Smt. Madhuri Devi, Section Officer on behalf of respondent No. 1 on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER 

1.            The above named complainant vide his email dated 14.01.2019 and 24.01.2019  submitted that his son Master Sanan Aggarwal, a person with 50% permanent physical impairment due to neurological disorder was issued  a disability certificate dated 12.11.2013  by Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital.  The condition was progressive and reassessment was recommended after a period of five years.  He approached   the hospital for re-issuing the disability certificate but he was informed that as per the latest guidelines, AIIMS is the competent hospital to issue the disability certificate to the persons with neurological disorder and for the persons residing in South East District. When he approached AIIMS, he was informed that since it is a case of re-issuance of the certificate, it should be done by the same hospital which originally issued it i.e. Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital.

2.           The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide Show-cause-cum-hearing notice dated 12.02.2019.  The respondents were directed to show cause why  Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital should not re-issue the certificate of disability as the original certificate was issued by that hospital and why the respondent No. 1 should not have a clear policy to deal with such situations and submit an action taken report by 28.02.2019 and a hearing was scheduled on 11.03.2019.

3.           Respondent No. 1 directed DGHS to submit an action taken report vide letter dated 26.02.2019.  Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 27.02.2019 submitted that the residence of the complainant is at Chitranjan Park, which falls under the jurisdiction of South East District as per the notification dated 12.02.2014 issued by Department of Social Welfare.  Therefore, the complainant was referred to AIIMS, New Delhi which is the notified hospital for issuing the disability certificate for neurological disorders for the residents of South East District.

4.           On the date of hearing on 11.03.2019, the complainant reiterated his written submissions and his concern about the inordinate delay in addressing a simple and common problem.  He also stated that the disability certificate is the basic document without which Master Sanan Aggarwal cannot claim any benefit / facility as a person with disability.  The existing disability certificate is already five years old and therefore, the authorities may deny him facilities on the ground that the said disability is no more valid.

5.      Smt. Madhuri Devi, Section Officer who appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 reiterated the written submissions. 

6.           Considering the sensitivity and importance of the matter, Dr. Yogesh Kataria, Nodal Officer, DGHS and Sh. A. K. Kaushal, Spl.Secretary(H&FW), Govt. of NCT of Delhi  were contacted on telephone and explained the situation which required urgent action and the need for issuing appropriate instructions to the certifying authorities.

7.           After hearing the parties, it is recommended that:

     (i)  Respondent No.1 should issue a circular directing the certifying authorities in NCT of Delhi  that the hospital / authority which issued the original certificate shall re-assess / re-issue the disability certificates irrespective of  change in   jurisdiction.  In case of unavailability of a specialist doctor in such a hospital, assessment by a specialist doctor should be got done by a doctor of the nearest  neighboring hospital and the disability certificate should be reissued within one month of the application for the same.  It should be the responsibility of the head of hospital to ensure this;  

         (ii)      The complainant is advised to submit an application in Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospita, if not already done and the hospital shall issue a fresh certificate  to Master Sanan Aggarwal within one month from the date of application by the complainant; and

    (iii) The disability certificate No. F.14/59/6196/Pt.MMMH/1251 dated 12.11.2013 in respect of Master Sanan Aggarwal shall be valid and be accepted by the concerned authorities / service providers until a fresh certificate is issued.

8.           Action taken report be submitted to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.

9.           The case is disposed of accordingly.

10.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 14th day of March, 2019.                                            
  
                                                                                       (T.D. Dhariyal )
                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities









Suresh Chand Vs. DCP (North East) Delhi Police | Case No. 625/1144/2018/12/1304-1305 | Dated: 14.03.2019




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
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 625/1144/2018/12/1304-1305                    Dated: 14.03.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Suresh Chand,
H.No. 922, Gali No. 13,
Block-A, Pehla Pusta,
Sonia Vihar,Delhi-110090.                                 .............. Complainant

                                          Versus              
           
The Deputy Commissioner of Police
(North East District),
Police Station, Delhi Police,
Delhi-110053.                                                     ……...…Respondent

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 50%  locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 06.12.2018 submitted that he was working in the post of Asstt. Teacher in Laxmi Memorial Public School, Sonia Vihar.  He was removed from the post because he raised his voice against his exploitation by the school. The Court directed his reinstatement on 16.08.2018 with full back wages. But the Manager of the School started threatening him with the help of anti social elements. Due to which he was not able to join. He filed a complaint with the Sonia Vihar Police Station on 26.09.2018 and 03.11.2018.  He is extremely scared and therefore has requested for providing him security so that he can join his service.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide Notice dated 08.01.2019 followed by reminder dated 06.02.2019 and a hearing on 13.03.2019.

3.      In the meantime Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, North East District, Delhi has filed a report dated 26.02.2019, which reads as under:

“With reference to case No. 625/1144/2018/12813019 dated 17.12.2018 on the subject cited above, it is stated that an enquiry into the matter was conducted through ACP/Khajri Khas which revealed that the complainant was working as an Asstt. Teacher in Laxmi Memorial Public School, 4th Pusta, Sonia Vihar.  After 2014, he was dismissed by the School Management.  He filed an appeal in the Delhi School Tribunal and he was reinstated.  However, school management did not agree to reappoint him in service. Thus, he filed a contempt petition in the Court.  On 18.09.2018, he went for taking medicine.  In the evening, the owner of the house intimated him that 3-4 unknown persons came in the house and asked about him with dire consequences.  No one has threatened him personally.  The complainant further stated that he would file the complaint to the police if anyone gives him threat in future.  The complaint may be filed please.”

4.      As the Notice of hearing dated 06.02.2019 which was sent to the complainant  through Speed Post was received back from the postal authorities with the remark “incomplete address”, the complainant was contacted on telephone. He confirmed that action taken by the Police as stated in the report dated 26.02.2019.  He was also informed about that the complaint would be disposed of after the hearing on 13.03.2019.  However, the complainant did not appear during the hearing.

5.      Sh. Sunil Kumar, A.S.I. appeared on behalf of the respondent and reiterated the written submissions.  He also produced a copy of the written statement of the complainant given to the police in which he has mentioned that a few days ago some unknown persons enquired about him from the owner of his rental house in his absence.  He therefore suspects that someone may want to cause damage to him.  Presently, he is staying temporarily somewhere and is safe.  Therefore there is no need for any action at present.  He expects action by the Police after the order of the Court on 24.04.2019.  A copy of the said statement has been taken on record.

6.           In view of the status report dated 26.02.2019 of the respondent and the statement of the complainant, the complaint is disposed of.  The complainant may approach the Police if required in future, who shall take appropriate action as required under Section 7 of the Act which provides as under:

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”.

7.           Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 14th day of March, 2019.     




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








Wednesday, March 13, 2019

All India Federation of the Deaf Vs. Ranbir Garg & Anr | Case No. 486/1061/2018/09/1247-1249 | Dated:12.03.2019




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,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]


Case No. 486/1061/2018/09/1247-1249                                  Dated:12.03.2019

In the matter of:

All India Federation of the Deaf
12-13, Shaheed Jit Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110067 .
On behalf of Smt. Vijay Bala                             ................ Complainant

                                          Versus                           
Sh. Ranbir Garg and Sh. Gurcharan Garg
Garg Hardware Store
F-359, Bankey Lal Market
Badarpur, New Delhi-110044.                     ………….Respondent no. 1

The Deputy Commissioner of Police
South East District,
Ist Floor, PS Sarita Vihar,
Mathura Road,
New Delhi-110076.                                      …........... Respondent no. 2

Date of Order:       08.03.2019
Present :     Sh. Ramesh Gupta alongwith Sh. Gaurav Garg for Complainant.
           
ORDER

Sh. V. Gopalkrishnan, General Secretary of All India Federation of the Deaf addressed a letter dated 13.07.2018 to the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.  The said letter was submitted to this Court by Smt. Vijay Bala, a person with 100% hearing impairment and her daughter Ms. Archna vide the said letter, it has been submitted that Smt. Vijay Bala is a widow of late Sh. Mahavir Prasad.  He had a hardware store by the name “Garg Hardware Store” at F-359, Bankey Lal Market, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044.  The shop was initially taken on rent by her father.  His two brothers, Sh. Ranbir Garg and Sh. Gurcharan Garg joined later on.  They used to give Rs. 250/- to him for a day’s work.  It has been alleged that they have stopped giving that amount.  She has no other source of income and it is difficult for her to support her two daughters and a son.  She requested for her share in the said property. 
2.       The matter was taken up with the respondents vide notice dated 18.09.2018 followed by letter dated 26.10.2018.  Thereafter, a hearing was held on 28.12.2018 and 31.01.2019. 
3.       On 28.12.2018, Smt. Vijay Bala produced a copy of legal notice from Sh. Anil Kumar Junjeja, advocate, Delhi High Court on behalf of Sh. Ranbir Gard and Sh. Gurcharan Garg for vacating the entire second floor of house no. 36/3 Gali No. 1, Near Chiranji Lal & Sons, Bankey Lal Market, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044, occupied by her and her family.  She stated that the notice has been issued because of this complaint.  She also stated that Sh. Ranbir Garg also telephoned her daughter and asked her to withdraw the case from this Court, if they want to continue living in the house.  Sh. Gaurav Garg s/o Smt. Vijay Bala who accompanied her, stated that when his father was alive and working in the shop, his uncle Sh. Ranbir Garg used to tell him that he had 50% share in the shop.  But after the death of his father, when he asked his uncle about his share, he told him that he had no share in the shop and his father was only working as a servant and was being paid his salary.  Smt. Vijay Bala submitted that her family comprising a son and two daughters are living on second and third floor (each floor having only one room) for the last 30-35 years and they have no other place to stay.  She should be given 50% of her share in the shop as it was originally in the name of Sh. Ranbir Garg and her husband. 
4.       Sh. Anil Kumar Juneja, advocate appeared on behalf of Sh. Ranbir Garg and Sh. Gurcharan Garg and submitted a copy of General Power of Attorney registered on 08.09.1995 as per which the GPA of the shop in question has been extended in favour of Sh. Ranbir Garg and Sh. Gurcharan Garg.  He further submitted that the statement of Smt. Vijay Bala is not correct and she should be directed to produce documents in support of her claim. 
5.       Vide RoP dated 01.01.2019, the complainant was directed to submit the supporting documents if any and the respondent no. 1 was directed to file written submissions.  On 31.01.2019, Smt. Vijay Bala, who was accompanied by her daughter and Sh. Ramesh Gupta, informed that a meeting to sort out the matter with Sh. Ranbir Garg and Sh. Gurcharan Garg (Respondent no. 1) was scheduled after the hearing on 28.12.2018.  However, due to preoccupation of her daughter, the meeting could not take place.  The parties were therefore advised to discuss the matter and intimate the outcome. 
6.       On the next date of hearing on 08.03.2019, Sh. Gaurav Garg s/o Smt. Vijay Bala appeared and informed that his sister’s marriage has been scheduled and therefore the meeting with his uncles Sh. Ranbir Garg and Sh. Gurcharan Garg would be held after his sister’s marriage.
7.       As the parties have indicated to discuss between themselves and sort out the matter amicably, the complaint is disposed off with the advice to Sh. Ranbir Garg and Sh. Gurcharan Garg to be accommodative and sorting out the issue keeping in view the situation of Smt. Vijay Bala, who is a person with deafness.
8.       The complaint is disposed off.
9.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 12th day of March, 2019.


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


Saturday, March 9, 2019

Manoj Kumar Vs. DCP (South West), Delhi Police | Case No. 643/1111/2018/12/1205-1206 | Dated:08.03.2019





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. 643/1111/2018/12/1205-1206                   Dated:08.03.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Manoj Kumar
S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan,
H.No. 271, Near MCD School,
Rajokari, New Delhi-110038                                            .……… Complainant     

                                                       Versus
The Deputy Police Commissioner,
South West District,
Police Station Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-110067.                                                     …...…Respondent
 

Date of hearing:    07.03.2019
Present          Sh. Anjani Kumar Singh Sub Inspector on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 69% locomoter disability vide his  complaint dated 23.10.2018 received from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on 20.12.2018 submitted that he and his father Sh. Jai Bhagwan are persons with disabilities. They live in their ancestral house alongwith his uncle Sh. Umed and his family.  Sh. Umed Singh threatened them and has given a small portion to them in the compound. The complainant further alleged that on 20.10.2018, Sh. Umed Singh, his son Sh. Vinod, his wife Mrs. Shiksha, Ms. Radha w/o Sh. Vinod, Sh. Kuldeep s/o Sh. Suresh beat him and his father with rods and threatened to kill them if they informed the police. The PCR staff visited but even thereafter they continue threatening him and his father and park their vehicle in front of their house.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the S.H.O. Vasant Kunj vide letter dated 03.01.2019 followed by reminder dated 21.01.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act and a hearing was scheduled  on 07.03.2019.

3.           The complainant who was not present in the hearing, was contacted on telephone.  He reiterated his written submissions and he  stated that he has not filed any written complaint with the Police so far. However, Police Officers contacted him in connection with this complaint and requested that Sh. Umed Singh and his family members be directed not to  trouble him and his father and leave enough space for  their  movement in the compound of the house.
  
4.           Sh. Anjani Kumar Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Vasant Kunj (South) submitted a written report as per which an enquiry was conducted in the matter and it revealed that on 20.10.201, a PCR call vide DD No. 29-A regarding quarrel at Rajokari village was received in the police station Vasant Kunj South, which was entrusted to ASI Surender Singh.  He alongwith staff reached at the spot and met the complainant.  Complainant did not want any further legal action on that call.  Hence the PCR call was filed by I.O.  It has also been submitted that during the course of enquiry it is revealed that the matter relates to ancestral properly among the  brothers as the property in question has not been divided among the shareholders. The main issue of quarrel is parking of vehicles in the common area.  Matter being civil in nature both parties have been advised to approach civil court of law for their grievance.  At present no police action is warranted on that complaint.

5.           Section 7(4)(5) of the Act provides as under :-
(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”.

6.           It is important and incumbent on the concerned authorities to ensure that the rights of persons with disabilities are not infringed and they are protected from all kind of abuse, violence and exploitation as mandated in Section 7 of the Act.

7.           Section 92 of the Act provides:
              “ 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 dishonor 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”.

8.                   Section 89 of the Act also provides for punishment for contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules/regulations made therein.  The said section is reproduced below:
              “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”.

9.           In the facts and circumstances of the case,  the complainant is advised to bring any incident of violation of the provisions of the Act or infringement of his rights to the notice of S.H.O., Police Station (Vasant Kunj) who shall ensure that the rights of the complainant under the Act or any other law are protected.  Sh. Umed Singh and other concerned members  of his family be also made aware about the provisions of the Act and advised to be sensitive towards the complainant and his father.  They should not create barriers to the access needs of the complainant and his father and leave enough space for them to access their house in the compound.

10.         The complaint is disposed of accordingly.

11.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 08th day of March, 2019.


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