Sat Narayan Vs. Managing Director, Delhi Transport Corporation | Case No. 600/1024/2018/11/1388-1389 | Dated: 19.03.2019

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. 600/1024/2018/11/1388-1389                Dated: 19.03.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Sat Narayan

H.No. 141/3, B-Block,

Gali No. 4, Dichaon Enclave,

Nangloi Road, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043                                                ................ Complainant

                                           Versus                          

Managing Director,

Delhi Transport Corporation,

DTC Headquarter,

I.P. Estate,

New Delhi-110002.                                               ………...…Respondent

Date of hearing:    13.03.2019

Present:      Sh. Sat Narayan, complainant in person.

                   Sh. Dhirendra Kumar, Depot Manager for respondent.

        

Order

The above named complainant, a person with 80% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 26.11.2018 submitted that he was working as Assistant Fitter in DTC.  He is struggling to get the transport allowance at double the normal rate.  The Depot Manager has refused to pay transport allowance as per his entitlement.  He requested that he should be paid transport allowance as per his entitlement.  As the complainant had not enclosed his certificate of his disability, he was advised to do so vide letter dated 17.12.2018 which he submitted on 31.12.2018. 

2.       The matter was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 03.01.2019 under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ with the direction to submit the version of the respondent within 15 days of the notice. 

3.       As there was no response, a hearing was schedule on 13.03.2019 vide notice dated 11.12.2018. In the meantime, the respondent vide letter dated 07.12.2019 submitted as under:

“Respected Sir,

I am in receipt of your show cause notice case No. 600/10242018/53 dated 03.01.2019 thereby action taken report on the complaint of above named employee of our depot.

In this connection, I would like to submit few lines for your sympathetic consideration please.

1.            That the above named complainant is working in our depot since July 2011 as a A/Fitter in the pay band of 5200 grade pay @ Rs. 2800.

2.            As per handicapped certificate issued from Civil Surgeon, Bhiwani (Haryana) he has been disabled since 07.11.2012 for which his entitlement for T.A. is made according to the Terms of Circular issued by Government of India vide OM No. 21(2)/200/EH(B) dated 29.08.2008 of Sixth Pay Commission and later on our DTC department issued circular vide Admi-1-7(42)/13/217 dated 22.03.17.

Accordingly as per terms and condition of the circular he has since been paid T.A. since 07.11.12 from the date he had been disabled, the details of paid amount are attached herewith as annexure “A” the copies of circular of 6^th pay commission and 7^th pay commission are also attached at Annexure “B” & “C” for your ready reference please.

In the end, I would say that no payment dues are pending from our side.

With warm regard.

Depot Manager

DTC.D.K. Depot N.Delhi”

          As per the statement enclosed with the reply, an over payment of Rs. 22,032/- has been made to the complainant which is to be recovered.

4.       During the hearing, the representative of the respondent reiterated the written submissions and added that the matter was examined and referred to DTC Head Quarter.  As per the advice/decision of the DTC (HQ), the due drawn statement was prepared.

5.       The complainant submitted that he does not understand the nuisances of the rules but as per the information gathered by him, the employees without disability of the same depot, i.e. DTC, Dichaon Kalan who were getting less pay than him as per Sixth Pay Commission, were being paid the transport allowance at the rate of Rs.1600/-, whereas he has been paid at the rate of Rs. 600/-.  He has submitted a copy of the list of 9 employees who were getting TA as per following table as on 26.10.2017:

“List of employees who are getting TA as on 26.10.2017

S.No.	Name of employee	Design	B.P.	D.A.	T/A
1.	Sh. Kanwal Singh	T.T.C.	49000/-	1960/-	Rs.7424/-
2.	Sh. Ranbir Singh	A.T.I.	49000/-	1960/-	Rs.7424/-
3.	Sh. Rishi Parkash	A.T.I.	50500/-	2020/-	Rs.7424/-
4.	Sh. Sukhbir Singh	Driver	28400/-	1136/-	Rs.7424/-
5.	Sh. SatyaParkash	Driver	28400/-	1136/-	Rs.7424/-
6.	Sh. Devinder Kumar	Cond.	26800/-	1072/-	Rs.7424/-
7.	Sh. Sant Singh	Fitter	42800/-	1712/-	Rs. 2784/-
8.	Sh. Ishwer Singh	A/fitter	42800/-	1712/-	Rs. 2784/-
9.	Sh. Sat Narain	A/fitter	42800/-	1712/-	Rs. 2784/-

Note:   Basic Pay & Dearness allowance-As per VII pay Commission Transport Allowance-As per VIth Pay Commission”

6.       As per the complainant and as confirmed by the representatives of the respondent, the employees at serial no. 4 to 6 were getting less pay than the complainant, but were being paid TA at higher rate.

7.       It is observed that this Court had, before it the similar complaint of Sh. Mir Singh, ATI which was registered as case no 4/1659/2017-Wel./CD and 4/1702/2017-Wel./CD and disposed off vide order dated 20.09.2017.  The operative part of the order is as under:

“6.        In my view, the DTC’s circular dated 22.03.2013 which is the reproduction of the Department of expenditure, Ministry of Finance, OM 21(2)/2008-E-II(B) dated 29.08.2008, provides that an employee below the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- who is in receipt of pay below Rs. 7440/- in a pay band, would be entitled to a Transport Allowance of Rs. 600+DA there on in A-1/A Cities.  Clause II of the said circular/OM provides that employees who draw grade pay below 4200/- but drawing the pay of Rs. 7440/- and above in a pay band would be entitled to a Transport Allowance of Rs. 1600+DA thereon in A-1/A Cities.  Since admittedly the complainant who is a person with locomotor disability, was drawing the pay of Rs. 9580/- i.e. above Rs. 7440/-, should have been paid the Transport Allowance at double the normal rate of Rs. 1600+DA thereon w.e.f February, 2009. 

7.         In view of the above, the respondent is advised re-examine the matter and pay the Transport Allowance to the complainant and other similarly placed employees with disabilities accordingly.  If the respondent still has any doubt about the interpretation of the OM dated 29.08.2008 of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure and DTC’s circular dated 22.03.2013, the respondent may get the same clarified from the Finance Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi/Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance expeditiously and take action accordingly.  The claim of the complainant for promotion to the post of Transport Inspector against a reserved vacancy for the persons with disabilities be considered in accordance with the instructions of DOP&T vide their OM No. 36035/3/2004-Estt(Res) dated 29.12.2005 and action taken in the matter be submitted 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.”

8.       While the ratio of the above decision should be followed in this case, the relevant rule position is being reiterated to facilitate timely relief to the complainant. 

9.       As per Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, OM No 21 (2)/2008-E.II(B) dated 29.8.2008, all employees are entitled to transport allowance w.e.f. 01.09.2008 as below:

Employees drawing grade pay of	Rate of Transport allowance per month
	In 13 cities classified as A-1/A earlier.	Other places
Grade pay of Rs. 5400 & above.	Rs.3200+DA thereon	Rs.1600+DA thereon
(i)        Grade pay of Rs.4200, Rs.4600 and Rs.4800 (ii)         Those drawing grade pay below Rs.4200 but drawing pay in the pay band equal to Rs. 7440 & above.	Rs.1600+DA thereon	Rs.800+DA thereon
Grade pay below 4200 and pay in the pay band below Rs. 7440.	Rs.600+DA thereon	Rs.400+DA thereon

10.     DTC has adopted the above OM and issued its own office circular no. Admin-I-7(42)/2013/217 dated 22.03.2013.  From the above circular, it is clear that employees who are in the grade pay of less than Rs.4,200/- and whose pay in their respective pay band is also below of Rs.7,440/-, are entitled to a transport allowance of Rs. 600/- p.m. plus DA thereon in A1/A cities.  Those employees who are in the grade pay of less than Rs.4,200/- but are drawing pay equal to Rs. 7440 and above in their respective pay band are entitled to a transport allowance of Rs. 1600/- p.m. plus DA thereon.  As per the copy of the payslip for the month of September, 2013 submitted by the respondent, the pay of the complainant was Rs.14,370/-.  The complainant was in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 2800/- since July 2011 as per DTC’s letter dated 29.01.2019/07.02.2019.  It is not disputed that employees with disabilities are entitled to transport allowance at double the normal rate.  Therefore, as the pay of the complainant was admittedly more than Rs.7,440/- in the pay band on 07.11.2012, he was entitled to transport allowance at the rate of Rs.3,200/- p.m. plus DA thereon in accordance with clause 2 of the DTC’s circular no. Admin-I-7(42)/2013/217 dated 22.03.2013 with effect from 07.11.2012 which, according to the respondent is the date the complainant’s disability certificate was accepted.  It is also observed that some employees junior to the complainant were getting more transport allowance than him.  This calls for a thorough examination of the payments made to the employees towards transport allowance.  While DTC may take appropriate action on this, payment of transport allowance at double the normal rate to the complainant as per his entitlement should be paid on priority. 

11.     In light of the above discussion, it is recommended that the transport allowance at double the normal rate @ Rs.3,200/- per month plus DA thereon be calculated on priority and paid to the complainant from the date he was entitled to. 

12.     Action taken report on the above mentioned recommendation be submitted to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act.

13.     The complaint is disposed off.

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

(T.D. Dhariyal)

             State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Encl.:  As above.

Subhash Vs. Managing Director, Delhi Transport Corporation | Case No. 4/991/2015-Wel./CD/1374-1375 | Dated: 18.03.2019

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. 4/991/2015-Wel./CD/1374-1375                              Dated: 18.03.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Subhash,

199, Ali Ganj, Kotla Mubarakpur,

New Delhi-110003.                                                ................ Complainant

                                           Versus                          

Managing Director,

Delhi Transport Corporation,

DTC Headquarter,

I.P. Estate,

New Delhi-110002.                                                  ………...…Respondent

Date of Order:       08.03.2019

                                                          Order

          The above name complainant, a person with 100% locomotor disability (both lower limbs & spine affected) and a wheel chair user,  vide his unsigned complaint dated 10.03.2015 received from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 14.05.2015, submitted that he is the resident of 199, Ali Ganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.  His father, Sh. Chattar Singh was a driver in DTC and was receiving pension after retirement.  After his death, his wife and the complainant’s mother Smt. Kashmiri Devi was in receipt of family pension.  His mother also expired on 09.01.2014.  After her death, he applied for family pension and submitted all the documents such as ration card, election ID card, disability certificate etc.  showing him to be the son of Sh. Chattar Singh and Smt. Kashmiri Devi.  He also submitted an affidavit to this effect.  However, DTC has rejected his application on the ground that the complainant’s name is not available in their record showing him as son of late Sh. Chattar Singh and Smt. Kashmiri Devi.  He requested that DTC be directed to give family pension to him. 

2.       The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 01.06.2015.  The respondent vide letter dated 10.06.2015 submitted that name of Sh. Subhash was not mentioned in Form No. 3 (details of family) submitted by Sh. Chattar Singh, Ex. Driver, T.No. 11825.  In the year 1993, after the death of Sh. Chattar Singh, Smt. Kashmiri Devi also did not mention the name of Sh. Subhash in Form no. 14, (details of family).  Neither Sh. Chattar Singh nor Smt. Kashmiri Devi had given in writing till their death that Sh. Subhash was dependent on them.  The case was referred to Law Department and the Standing Counsel of DTC has opined that “Sh. Subhash is not the disabled son of the deceased who can claim family pension after the death of the pensioner/family pensioner”.  In view of this, the complainant’s request for grant of family pension has not been accepted and he has been informed vide letter dated 05.08.2014.

3.       The then Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities heard the parties and some documents like photocopy of General Power of Attorney relating to management etc of property no. 199, Ali Ganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi notarised on 13.09.2007 in Tis Hazari Court, ration card, voter card of Smt. Kashmiri Devi and electricity bill which indicated that the complainant is the son of late Sh. Chattar Singh, were forwarded to the respondent for necessary action.  In response, Sr. Manager (Admn.) Pension vide letter dated 03.09.2015 submitted as under:

“Sir

Kindly refer to your letter No. 4/991/2015-Wel./CD/928 dated 23-07-2015 regarding granting family pension to Sh. Subhash, r/o 199, Aliganj, Kotla Mubark Pur, New Delhi being 100% disability.

In this connection it is stated that Sh. Chattar Singh, Ex. Driver, P. T. No. 11825 submitted his pension claim form in the year in 1993 where he declared surviving family members as Smt. Kashmiri Devi- wife and Sh. Rajesh-Son, age-17 years. He expired on 12-03-2009. After the death of Sh. Chattar Singh his wife Smt. Kashmiri Devi claimed the family pension by submitting the required papers/forms on 26-03- 2009. She declared the surviving family members in the pension form as herself only.  Thus neither Sh. Chattar Singh nor Smt. Kashmiri Devi mentioned the name of Sh. Subhash in pension forms (form nos. 3 & 14) photocopies of the forms are attached at annexure-I & H.

After the death on 09-01-2014 of Smt. Kashmiri Devi, Sh. Subhash has stated his claim for family pension on 12-05-2014 being 100% disabled.   In the above situation CCS Pension Rule 54 indicates as under:-

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA'S DECISION

"(6) Procedure for payment of family pension to handicapped children-Representations have been received that in such cases difficulties are experienced on account of the fact that the disability of the child is not mentioned in the details contained in the PPO.   In order to expedite sanction of family pension in such cases, the following procedure is prescribed.

Where the names of eligible children have not been mentioned in the PPO for various reasons like the pension was sanctioned prior to 1-1-1990, the child is a post-retiral one or post-retiral manifestation of disability of the child, the pensioner. If he so desires, can furnish a list of eligible children to the pension sanctioning authority, inter alia, indicating whether any child is handicapped or not. The receipt of this list may be acknowledgement by the pension sanctioning authority, mentioning the details of the eligible children taken on record. This acknowledgement may be preserved by the members of the family of the pensioner for production at the time of submission of claim for family pension in their own turn to the pension sanctioning authority.  In case of mentally retarded children or minor who would draw pension through a guardian, the responsibility of producing this acknowledgement will devolve on the guardian.  The production of acknowledgement will, however, not be a pre-condition to the processing of claims for family pension.

(7) Spouse of the deceased pensioner can furnish details of eligible children-

Representations have been received about making eligible the spouse to furnish the details of eligible children, including handicapped children to the pension sanctioning authority where the same was not furnished by the employer/pensioner.

The matter has been considered in this Department and it has been decided to allow the spouse of the deceased pensioner/Government servant, if the details of such children were not furnished by the latter, to furnish the details of eligible children to the pension sanctioning authority as it will help in settling pension cases". Photocopy of the relevant rules/decision is at Annex-III.

In the instant case it does not matter whether Sh. Subhash is son of Sh. Chattar Singh/Smt. Kashmiri Devi or not, rather it is important that neither pensioner Sh. Chattar Singh nor his spouse family-pensioner Smt. Kashmiri Devi furnished the name of Sh. Subhash for the purpose of family pension with the sanctioning authority till their last breath which was compulsory as per Rule as mentioned above.

Keeping in view of above Sh. Subhash is not eligible for family pension as per Rules.

Yours faithfully

Encl.:-As above.

(Raj Kr. Singh)

Sr.Mgr.(Admn.) Pension”

4.       Another hearing was scheduled on 04.09.2017 and the respondent vide letter dated 24/28.08.2018 submitted that in a similar case, Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed an OA 1934/2014 of Sh. Pradeep Kumar vide the following order:

 “I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records.  It is crystal clear that the pensioner late Shri Amar Nath has not declared the applicant as his family member in the prescribed Form-3.  Besides his wife late Smt. Bimla Devi Verma, the pensioner had declared Miss Renu Lata Verma (daughter) as a member of his family in terms of Rule-54 of the Pension Rules.  Even late Smt. Bimla Devi Verma in her application for the family pension had not indicated the applicant as her dependent.  In these circumstances, I have no option except to hold the view that the applicant is not a dependent of the pensioner late Shri Amar Nath and hence his request for grant of family pension in terms of Rule-54 of the Pension Rules cannot be considered.

2.         In the conspectus of the discussions in the foregoing paras.  I find that the OA is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.”

5.       Sh. Amit, who claimed to be the nephew of Sh. Subhash appeared and submitted that Sh. Subhash cannot even sit and therefore he had appeared on behalf of the complainant in the hearing on 04.09.2017. 

6.       The complainant has submitted the following documents to establish that he is the son of Sh. Chattar Singh, resident of 199, Ali Ganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi: 

i)             A copy of voter ID card DL/01/004/258282 issued on 02.04.2014 in the name of Sh. Subhash s/o Sh. Chattar Singh.
ii)            A copy of ration card no. APL42061463 issued on 03.12.2009 in the name of Smt. Kashmiri Devi w/o late Sh. Chattar Singh showing Sh. Subhash as the s/o late Sh. Chattar Singh born in 1974 among the eight family members.
iii)           Copy of the certificate of disability no. 3738/PtMMMH/1685 dated 20.06.2012 issued to Sh. Subhash s/o Sh. Chattar Singh age 38 years issued by Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital, New Delhi.
iv)          An affidavit of Sh. Subhash duly Notarised on 27.08.2014 affirming that Sh. Subhash s/o Sh. Chattar Singh is a person with 100% disability. He is not doing any labour work/Govt. employee or self employed.  His annual income from all sources including his family is nil.  He has not taken any pension from Delhi Govt., MCD or NDMC or any other Govt. sector.
v)            A copy of General Power of Attorney executed on 13.09.2007 by Smt. Kashmire Devi w/o Sh. Chattar Singh appointing  Sh. Mukesh Kumar s/o Sh. Chattar Singh, Sh. Subhash Kumar s/o Sh. Chattar Singh, Sh. Rajesh Kumar s/o Sh. Chatter Singh as a lawful legal general  attorneys  in respect of the property measuring 200 Sq. Yards situated in 199, Ali Ganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
vi)          An electricity bill dated 13.05.2015 in the name of Sh. Subhash s/o Sh. Chattar Singh.
vii)         The School Leaving Certificate no. 11/170 dated 12.10.2017 in respect of Sh. Subhash s/o Sh. Chattar Singh showing that his name appeared at 3543 of the Admission Register.  His date of birth is shown as 20.01.1975 and he was studying in class 5A of that school upto 30.04.1985.

7.       The above papers do indicate that Sh. Subhash is the son of late Sh. Chattar Singh and Smt. Kashmiri Devi. 

8.       As per Form 3 (details of family) submitted by Sh. Chattar Singh on 03.03.1993, the details of the members of family include sons below 20 years of age.  The complainant in 1993 as per date of birth in the School Leaving Certificate was 18 years.  His name should therefore have been mentioned in Form 3 by Sh. Chattar Singh.  It is also observed from Form 3 that it was filled by someone else who mentioned the name of the younger son Sh. Rajesh, age 17 years only alongwith the name of Smt. Kashmiri Devi.  Sh. Chattar Singh only signed the form.  It seems that Sh. Chattar Singh was not aware about the provisions and implications of not mentioning the name of his elder son Sh. Subhash in Form 3.  There is also nothing to show that he was informed about it by the Personnel Branch of respondent organization.  It should also be noted that the Form 3 submitted by the respondents is in English and not in Hindi.  Smt. Kashmiri Devi did not mention the name of any of her children in Form no. 14 although there was no restriction of age or dependent members of the family.  Apparently, the said form was also filled by someone else.  Therefore, linking such an important matter as the admissibility of family pension to such documents/information which were not filled up with proper and adequate knowledge and care cannot be justified.

9.       After hearing the parties, it was felt that the very purpose of allowing life time family pension to the children with disabilities of govt. employees would be defeated if the benefit is denied merely because the parents, before their demise, did not mention their name in the service document as dependent family members.  Such omissions by lower level functionaries in the organizations are common due to ignorance about the rules and the stigma attached to disability.  Furthermore, there is nothing to show that late Sh. Chattar Singh was made aware about the provision of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.  Moreover, Rule 54 of the Pension Rules does not require such a person to be dependent on the pensioner as Explanation—6 below Sub Rule 6 clarifies, quote, “Disabled sibling shall be deemed to be dependent on the Government servant if their income is less than the minimum family pension admissible under sub-rule (2) of this rule and dearness relief thereon” unquote. The complainant was therefore advised to produce original documents like birth certificate/certificate from the school vide record of proceedings dated 04.09.2017.

10.     The complainant vide his unsigned letter received on 08.11.2017 submitted the school leaving certificate authenticated by Ms. Suman, Head Mistress, Primary Wing Lodhi Road.  Vide her email dated 24.12.2018, Ms. Suman informed that the attached certificate dated 12.10.2017 is the copy of TC of Subhash as per the record of the school.  

11.     The Assistant Accounts Officer and Personal Assistant of this Court were also deputed to visit the complainant at 199, Ali Ganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi on 11.02.2019.  As per their report, they found Sh. Subhash lying on a cot and was not in a position to go even to wash room by himself.  The documents showed by him indicated him to be son of Sh. Chattar Singh. 

12.     The following provisions made in the rules from time to time indicate the need for expansive interpretation of the socially beneficial provisions in their application so as to achieve the objective for which these have been made:

i)             Dispensing with the condition of manifestation of the disability of children before retirement or the death in harness of the Govt. servant for grant of family pension for life. (GOI decision no. (7) below rule 54 under OM no 1/80/89-P&PW(C) dated 19.02.1990).

ii)            Admissibility of family pension to a post retiral child with disability or post retiral manifestation of disability of the child, whose name is not mentioned in the PPO.  The complainant is a case of post retiral manifestation of disability.  (GOI decision no. (7) below rule 54 under OM no 1/80/89-P&PW(C) dated 19.02.1990).

iii)           Doing away with the requirement of producing acknowledgement furnishing the name of the child with disability by the guardians in respect of mentally retarded child or minor as a pre-condition to process the claims for family pension.  (GOI decision no. (7) below rule 54 under OM no 1/80/89-P&PW(C) dated 19.02.1990).

13.     Further more, keeping the objective of the provision for family pension for life to the children with disabilities in view, its admissibility cannot be dependent on or dictated by the desire of the parents/pensioner/ family pensioner.  It is his/ her disability that entitles him/ her to the family pension for life.  The competent authority to sanction the pension therefore should ensure the following:

(i)       that the person in question is the disabled son/daughter of the Govt. servant/pensioner. (Second proviso to Rule 54 (6) refers);

(ii)      that he/she has been certified to be unable to earn his/her living due to disability. {Condition No (iv) below Rule 54(6) (v) refers};

(iii)     that his/ her income is less than the minimum family pension admissible and the dearness relief  thereon. (Explanation No. 6 below Rule 54 (6) refers).

14.     After going through the relevant rules and the documents submitted by the parties as discussed in the preceding paragraphs and keeping in mind the objective of the provision for life time family pension to son/daughter with disability of a Govt. servant, I am of the view that denial of family pension to Sh. Subhash merely because Sh. Chattar Singh or his wife did not mention his name in the service documents is not justified and it will defeat the very purpose for which such a beneficial provision has been made. The complainant should therefore be allowed family pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 unless the Competent Authority is convinced that the complainant is not the son of Sh. Chattar Singh and Smt. Kashmiri Devi and the documents submitted by him in support thereof are fake or his income is more than the minimum family pension admissible and the dearness relief thereon.

15.     It is therefore recommended that the Competent Authority in DTC should reconsider the matter and allow family pension to the complainant accordingly subject to the three conditions mentioned in para 13 (i), (ii) and (iii).  If considered necessary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, Govt. of India may be consulted.   

16.     Action taken report on the above mentioned recommendation be submitted to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act.

17.     The complaint is disposed off.

18.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 07^th day of March, 2019.     

(T.D. Dhariyal)

             State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

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,
1^st 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,
7^th 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 7^th 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 7^th 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 7^th 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 12^th day of March,

2019.

  

(T.D. Dhariyal)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities