Bhanwar Kali Devi Vs. Commissioner North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 120/1021/2018/02 /2339-2340 | Dated: 21.05.2019

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. 120/1021/2018/02 /2339-2340                     Dated: 21.05.2019

In the matter of:

Bhanwar Kali Devi,
N-9, Vijay Vihar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059                                                       ……Complainant

                                                 Versus

The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Dr. SPM Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002                                                        …..Respondent

Date of hearing: 15.05.2019

Present:             Sh. Krishan Kumar alongwith Sh. B.S. Yadav (Complainant)

                             Sh. Louis Daniel Kuzur (Admin. Officer) alongwith Sh. P.S. Rawat on behalf of the respondent

ORDER

          The above named complainant, a person with blindness vide her  application dated 13.12.2017 addressed to the Commissioner, North DMC with a copy to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities requested for grant of senior scale to her husband Sh. P.S. Chaudhary, who retired as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 31.07.1995.  Brief facts of the case are as under:-

     i.           Her husband Sh. P.S. Chaudhary was appointed in the erstwhile MCD as Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 27.06.1961 in the scale of Rs. 180-300 which was revised to 425-700 w.e.f. 01.01.1973.

     ii.         He was further granted selection scale of Rs. 500-900/- w.e.f. 01.07.1976.

    iii.         He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Elect.) on current duty charge basis vide Office Order No. F.1(318)/EAI/Engg./90/87/1048 dt. 30.07.1990, during Current Duty charge he continued to draw his own pay scale of selection grade of J.E.(E) granted to him on 01.07.1976.

  iv.          He retired on 31.07.1995 in his own pay scale of Selection grade of J.E.(E) granted to him on 01.07.1976.

    v.          MCD’s circular dated 18.10.1994 stated that Junior Engineers who had completed more than 15 years of service in the grade of J.E(E) as on 01.01.1991 were to be considered in the higher scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1991. 

  vi.         Her husband had completed more than 29 years as on 01.01.1991 and was eligible for grant of senior scale.As per the complainant, he was also clear from the vigilance angle, but was granted the senior scale due to him w.e.f. 01.01.1991.

2.      The complainant was taken up with the respondent and an Action Taken Report by 10.05.2018 was sought vide this court letter dated 12.04.2018 followed by reminder dated 11.06.2018, a show cause notice dated 18.10.2018 and another reminder dated 08.01.2019.  As there was no response, a hearing was scheduled on 12.03.2019. 

3.      On 12.03.2019, Sh. Krishan Kumar, son of the complainant appeared and submitted that many of the juniors of his father were granted the higher scale w.e.f. 01.01.1991.  But his father was denied the same.  Consequently, his mother, who is a person with blindness is, not getting revised monthly family pension.  He further submitted that his mother has been representing to the Commissioner, North DMC but there has not been any response.  He requested that the family pension of his mother should be fixed as per the revised pay scale and all the arrears of pay, enhanced pension and revised family pension may be paid to her.  He produced the following family pension documents in support of the claim of his mother. 

                     i.        Letter No. D/660/EEE-III/2015-16 dated 11.09.2015 of EE.(Elec.).III, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, O/o the EE(E).III, M.C.(P) School, Moti Nagar (East) New Delhi.

                    ii.        Copy of representation dated 29.07.1998 of Late Sh. P.S. Chaudhary, Retd. AE(E) addressed to Commissioner, MCD, Town Hall, Delhi.

                  iii.        Copy of U.O. Note No. D/HE-I/Engg./Estt./99/3386 dated 10.06.1999 & 14.06.1999 to Addl. Commissioner (Engg.), MCD, Town Hall, Delhi.

4.      As none appeared on behalf of the respondent, Commissioner, North MCD was requested to personally look into the matter and next date of hearing was fixed on 12.04.2019.

5.      On 12.04.2019, Sh. Atul Bhardwaj, EE(Elect.), SDMC submitted that late Sh. P.S. Chaudhary was working as AR(E), Najafgarh Zone and was getting his salary and retirement dues from ACA (Engineering) under unified MCD.  His service book and the personal file are not in the Office of EE (Elect.), SDMC.  As per record, the same were sent to ACA (Engineering), North DMC on 19.09.1990.  The issue of grant of pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1991 therefore needs to be resolved by North DMC. 

6.      The representatives of the respondent who appeared after the hearing, were advised to sort out the matter and submit an action taken report by 01.05.2019 and the matter was fixed for hearing 15.05.2019.

7.      In compliance with the directions vide ROP dated 15.04.2019, Administrative Officer, Engineering Department (Headquarter), North DMC vide letter dated 09.05.2019, a copy of which has been sent to the complainant, hassubmitted that after trifurcation of erstwhile MCD,  the office of EE (Elect.)-III/ Moti Nagar falls under the jurisdiction of West Zone i.e. South DMC.  They have, therefore requested the personal file and service book of Sh. P.S. Chaudhary from the office of EE (Elect.)-III/ West Zone, where he was last posted before his retirement.  The Accounts Department (Pension), SDMC has also been requested to provide his complete file and supporting documents and sincere efforts are being made to obtain the relevant records.  It may take 06 to 07 months to finalize the case and 07 to 08 months time has been sought to complete the process of granting higher pay in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1991 to late Sh. Chaudhary. 

8.      The representatives of the respondent, who appeared for the hearing,stated that once the records are available,all efforts will be made to finalize the matter within the shortest of possible time. 

 

9.      Sh. Krishan Kumar S/o Smt. Bhanwar Kali Devi, who appeared on her behalf, submitted that her mother is suffering from different diseases and remains in the hospital for about 10 days in a month.  They have written 14-15 letters to the concerned Department, but have not received any response.  He requested that the orders to finalize the case within 10 to 15 days should be passed. 

10.    From the interaction with the functionaries of North DMC and SDMC during the hearings of this case, it is observed that retrieval of old record may have been a challenge due to the fact that the offices for payment of salary of late Sh. Chaudhary and his deployment werestated to bedifferent and trifurcation of the erstwhile MCD may have contributed to it.  But the stalemate can not be allowed to continue indefinitely, as the complainant had submitted her representation on 05.05.2018 to SDMC and prior to that, Sh. Chaudhary had been representing to the concerned authorities.  Be that as it may, now that the responsible officers in whose possession the records are, have been identified, and keeping in view the situation of the complainant, the matter should be resolved on top priority.

11.    In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is recommended that fixation of pay of late Sh. Chaudhary, revision of his pension, revision of family pension of the complainant and payment of arrears of the pay/ pension/ family pension be finalized within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. 

12.    An Action Taken Report be submitted to this court as required under Section 81 of the Act.

13.    It is observed that a certificate that Smt. Bhanwar Kali Devi w/o Late Sh. P.S. Chaudhary has 100% visual disability, was issued by Prof. K.P.S. Malik, Addl. D.G. & HOD of Ophthalmology Safdarjung Hospital.  It bears the date of issue as 26^thday of March without mentioning the year.  The certificate is apparently very old and Sh. Krishan Kumar stated that she acquired blindness in the year 2008.  While there is no doubt about the disability of the complainant, Sh. Krishan Kumar is advised to contact and get a certificate of disability from any of the following 3 hospitals which are designated for issuing Certificate of disability for visual disability for West Delhi residents vide circular number F.No.24/Misc.Policy/Disability/DHS/ NHC/1039-45 dated 02.05.2019 of Health & Family Welfare (Department):

          (i) Deen Dayal Upadhya Hospital, Hari Nagar
          (ii) Guru Gobind Singh Govt. Hospital, Raghubir Nagar
          (iii) Sardar Vallab Bhai Patel Hospital, Patel Nagar

14.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 21^thday of May, 2019.

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

Jagpal Singh Saini Vs. The DCP (North East District) & 3 Others | Case No. 641/1062/2018/12/2316-2320 | Dated: 20.05.2019

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. 641/1062/2018/12/2316-2320                 Dated: 20.05.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Jagpal Singh Saini

A-21, Ankur Enclave,

Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110090.                          ................ Complainant

                                             

                                          Versus                           

The Deputy Commissioner of Police

(North East District)

Police Station, Seelampur,

Delhi-110053.                                                  ........... Respondent No. 1

Smt. Sadhana, W/o Late Sh. Sushil,

A-21, Ankur Enclave,

Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110090.                        ........... Respondent No. 2

Ms. Shivani D/o Late Sh. Sushil,

A-21, Ankur Enclave,

Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110090.                        ........... Respondent No. 3

Ms. Shivam S/o Late Sh. Sushil,

A-21, Ankur Enclave,

Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110090.                        ........... Respondent No. 4

Date of Hearing:  10.05.2019

Present:               Sh. Jagpal Singh Saini, Complainant

Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the Complainant

Smt. Sadhna Saini on behalf of Respondent No. 2,3 & 4

ORDER 

The complaint dated 20.10.2018 of the above noted complainant, a person with 55% locomotor disability was received on 21.12.2018 from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 06.12.2018.  The complainant submitted that he met Smt. Sadhna in 1997 with two children (Respondent No.3 & 4).  She approached him for job in his building material shop.  She joined the complainant and started helping him in his work in the building material shop and as domestic help.  After some time, the complainant and the Respondent No.2 started to have living-in relationship with mutual consent.  In the year 2000, the complainant closed the work of building material and started Ch. Brahm Singh Saini Memorial School at A-4, Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar, Delhi recognized by MCD upto 5^th standard.  Respondent No.2 worked as caretaker in the school.

2.       The complainant has inter-alia alleged that Respondent No.2 started pressing him to transfer all his immovable property in her name and also misguided Respondent No. 3 & 4 against the complainant.  She harassed him by not giving him food, beating him and taunting.  The complainant prayed that appropriate legal action under the Act be taken against the respondents and to restrain the respondents, their agents, servants, attorneys, associates, family members, administrator, executors etc. from inflicting cruelty, harassment, humiliation, defamation etc.   

3.       The complaint was taken up with Deputy Commissioner of Police (North East District) vide show cause notice dated 01.01.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act followed by Summons to appear dated 08.02.2019.  Addl. DCP(North East District)-I vide letter dated 18.02.2019 submitted that inquiry into the matter revealed that the complainant had already filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Ms. Rashmi Kujur, Ld. MM, Karkardooma Court, which is under trial.  The matter is civil in nature and hence the complaint may be filed.  A copy of the said reply was sent to the complainant for his rejoinder.  In the meantime a hearing had also been scheduled on 14.03.2019.

4.       During the hearing, Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate for the complainant submitted that subsequent to the filing of complaint, Ms. Sadhna and her son Sh. Shivam and daughter Ms. Shivani manhandled the complainant.  A complaint was made with the police but no FIR was registered.  Ms. Sadhna and her children continue to threaten him and do not allow him to enter his house or enjoy his property with the intention to dislodge him from his properties.  He requested that Ms. Sadhna, Ms. Shivani and Sh. Shivam be also made parties.  A copy of the report of the police was handed over to him for filing rejoinder, if any and Ms. Sadhna, Ms. Shivani and Sh. Shivam were impleaded as respondent No.2,3 & 4 respectively.  The parties were also directed to note the provisions of the Section 7 of the Act which provides as under:

Section 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.”

5.       They were also informed that Section 89 and 92 of the Act respectively also provide for punishment for contravention of provisions of the Act or rules and regulations made thereunder and for offences of atrocities.

6.       Respondent No.1 submitted an application dated 28.03.2019 and stated that her husband Sh. Jagpal Singh Saini (the complainant herein) has filed a case in the Karkardooma Court and the complaint filed by him is baseless. He is a bad character and he himself shot his arm.  A detailed inquiry should be made into the matter.  She also submitted that a case in the Family Court is also pending.

7.       On 09.04.2019, none appeared and the parties were given one more opportunity to present their cases failing which they were informed that the matter would be disposed of based on available records.  

8.       On 10.05.2019, Smt. Sadhna Saini submitted a copy of her complaint dated 09.05.2019 submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (North East District), Seelampur against the complainant, his daughter Ms. Pinki Saini, his associates namely Arti and Aysha for illegally and unlawfully trespassing into her school i.e. Ch. Brahm Singh Memorial School, Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, stealing the records of the school, damaging the school property and records, beating, extending threat of killing.  The said complaint is also against SI Sukh Ram and SHO Sanjeev Kumar Gautam of PS Karawal Nagar for shielding the accused.  She also stated that she has also filed a case against the complainant for domestic violence which is pending in Karkardooma Court.

9.       Shri Sanjeet Kumar, advocate on behalf of the complainant, submitted that in his capacity of authorised representative of Ch. Braham Singh Memorial Educational Society, the complainant has also filed a Civil Suit for prohibitory relief against Smt. Sadhna Saini to restrain her from  disturbing peaceful administration of the school.  The complainant submitted that he has a house at A-21, Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110090 consisting of Ground Floor having one Hall and two rooms and First Floor having 4 rooms with kitchen, toilet and bathrooms.  He is not able to stay in the house because of terms of the bail order of the Court in the domestic violence case.  He further submitted that the school is in the name of his daughter Ms. Pinki Saini and the house is in his name.  He requested that he should be allowed to stay peacefully in his house.  Smt. Sadhna Saini submitted that the matter may be got investigated thoroughly and appropriate action under the law be taken.

10.     As the parties have filed their respective cases in the Civil Court/ Family Court on the same issues as in this complaint, it is closed in this court.

11.     However, in light of the provision in Section 7 of the Act reproduced in para 4 above and Section 92 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”, DCP(NE), Seelampur should ensure that appropriate action, as required under Section 7 of the Act is taken and the complainant’s rights are protected.  The case be thoroughly investigated and if the police finds violation of any of the above mentioned provisions of the Act by any person, the same be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court.

12.     Action taken be intimated to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.

13.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 20^th day of May, 2019.

                                                                 (T.D. Dhariyal)

           State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Monika Dhankhar Vs. Th MS Guru Nanak Eye Centre | Case No. 677/1023/2019/01/2263-2264 | Dated:13.05.2019

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. 677/1023/2019/01/2263-2264                          Dated:13.05.2019

In the matter of:

Ms. Monika Dhankhar,
D-1002, Pearl Court,
Ramprastha, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh-201301                                              ……Complainant

                                               

                                                             Versus

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

Date of hearing:   08.05.2019

Present:               None appeared from complainant side
Sh. S.K. Purohit, S.O. alongwith Sh. Rajkumar on behalf of respondent

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 45% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 04.01.2019 alleged that she was being given odd hours of duty and in the night shift in Guru Nanak Eye Centre. Derogatory remarks, “this is not rehabilitation center and you got reservation in your education, job and now you need in duty as well”, were made against her.  She was selected as general candidate and not by reservation.  Her disability is due to Kyphoscoliosis (Cervico-Dorsal) due to which she has problem in working for prolonged hours. As per DoPT, Govt. of India OM no. 36035/3/2013/Estt.(Res) dated 31.03.2014,persons with disabilities should preferably be posted to perform jobs which they can easily do.  The incident has affected her mental health and she had to request Secretary, Health & Family Welfare to revert her to her previous posting.  She requested to issue an informative memorandum to the hospitals under the Health & Family Welfare Department so that persons with disabilities enjoy their rights without any hassles. 

2.       The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 17.01.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016,hereinafter to referred to as the Act.  The respondent vide letter dated 09.02.2019 submitted that as per guidelines issued by Govt. of India and endorsed by Govt. of NCT of Delhi for persons with disabilities, only soft duty is given to persons with disabilities.  Ms. Monika Dhankhar was given the duties from 08:00 A.M to 02:00 P.M for 06 hours only.  Neither any odd duties/prolonged duties/ night duties was given to her nor was any derogatory remark used by anybody against her.  Copies of the replies obtained from DNS and ANS of the hospital were also enclosed. 

3.       Vide her rejoinder dated 21.02.2019, the complainant submitted that the ATR of Medical Superintendent was false.  In support of her contention, she enclosed a copy of an extract of the attendance register for the month of January 2019 as per which “N” is marked against her name for 24, 25 and 26 January 2018.

4.       Upon considering the written submission of the parties, a hearing was scheduled on 01.04.2019, which was attended by the complainant, her brother Sh. Mohit Dhankhar, Ms. Neelam Sharma (ANS), Ms. Malti Sabharwal (DNS) and Vineet Sachdeva.

5.       During the hearing, the complainant reiterated her allegations and stated that the remarks were made by Director.  The attention of the representatives of the respondent was drawn to the need for appreciating that a socially beneficial legislation like the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 has been enacted to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. Despite elaborate and the rights based provisions in the law, there is inadequate sensitivity and unwillingness to extend reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities to enable them to work in an inclusive and congenial environment.  

6.       Even before the above Act was enacted, DoPT, Govt. of India had issued the guidelines dated 30.03.2014 to provide certain facilities, services and amenities to persons with disabilities to enable them to discharge their duties effectively.After hearing the complainant and representatives of Guru Nanak Eye Centre, it was advised vide RoP dated 02.04.2019 that the Director of the Centre and superiors of the complainant should sit together and discuss the matter with a view to appreciating the situation of the complainant and that such remarks have very serious impact on the dignity and self-respect of a person with disability and are against the provisions of the Act.  They should also deliberate on ways to ensure that such situations do not occur in future and extend reasonable accommodations.Besides, the need for creating awareness and sensitization amongst the officers and staff was indicated which had also been emphasized by this Court on a number of occasions including vide letter no.F.1/1759/2017/Admn./Per/CD/12840-12995 dated 13.12.2018 to all the Principal Secretaries/Secretaries/Heads of Departments.

7.       Sh. D.N. Singh, Admin Officer/ HOO vide letter dated 24.04.2019 informed as under:

“the administration ofGNED with the approval of Head of the department/ Director GNEC had posted Ms. Monika Dhankhar at the lightest duty place in OPD area that too only from 08:00 AM to 02:00 PM.  This posting order was an evidence of humanely behavior keeping in view her health issues/ Disabilities. 

She was posted suitably without any intervention from any of the authority including your office and she was never offended by any of the officer or staff in any manner. 

If she desires to apply for posting in any of the office/ Hospital/ Dispensary etc, in vicinity to her resident, we will forward her request to the Department of Health & Family Welfare for posting at the nearest office/ Hospital etc. from her residence on humanitarian grounds. 

In addition to above, this administration intends to follow all the directions/ guidelines issued by DOPT or by your office for protection of Rights of persons with Disabilities in letter and spirit.  The copy of relevant guidelines/ instructions may kindly be provided to this office for its compliance. 

As regards to item 4 of aforesaid order regarding need for creating awareness and sensitization among all officers and staff working in this institution, it is stated that the administration of GNEC will provide suitable place i.e. Auditorium of the hospital for organizing such awareness program under your esteemed guidance.

Kindly depute any of the office having expertise for the purpose of sensitization and communicate us the schedule for the said program”.

8.       On the next date of hearing on 08.05.2019, Sh. S.K. Purohit, S.O. and Sh. Raj Kumar appeared.  Subsequently Sh. D.N. Singh Admin Officer also appeared and submitted that as has already been submitted, no derogatory remarks were made against the complainant.  He personally called the complainant and asked her if she had any evidence about the derogatory remarks allegedly made by the Director against her.  She could not produce any evidence.Therefore, there was no need to organize a session.She has been deployed on a soft duty from 08:00 AM to 02:00 PM at the help desk and she is satisfied with the place of posting.

9.       The concerned administrative functionaries of Govt. of NCT of Delhi are expected to be aware about the provisions of the Act, Rules and the provisions made for persons with disabilities in general and the employees in particular as the office of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has organized 07 Training workshops on RPwD Act, 2016 and reservation for persons with disabilities at UTCS after the Act came into effect and all the establishments were requested to depute their officers and staff.  The representatives of the respondent were however, informed that as per Para 2.A of OM no.  36035/3/2013/Estt.(Res) dated 31.03.2014 issued by Department of Personal and Training, each Ministry/ Department of the Government of India, their attached and subordinate offices, Central Public Sector Enterprises, Cantonment Boards should identify the types of jobs which could be easily performed by persons with disabilities specially for Group B, C and D posts where the number of jobs are more.  Such persons should preferably be posted to perform such identified jobs and they be allowed to continue performing such jobs, as far as possible.Para 2.H of the said O.M provides,as far as possible, the persons with disabilities may be exempted from the rotational transfer policy/transfer and be allowed to continue in the same job, where they would have achieved the desired performance.  The said OM can be accessed from the website of DoPT at www.persmin.nic.in.

10.     Rule 14 of the Delhi Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018 requires every Government establishment to appoint a Grievance Redressal Officer as mandated under Section 23 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.  Guru Nanak Eye Centre has not appointed the Grievance Redressal Officer so far.  The respondent is therefore advised to appoint the Grievance Redressal Officer within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

11.     The complainant had informed on telephone that she was on election duty and she had no further submissions to make.  However, at the time of the hearing her telephone was switched off and therefore her brother, Sh. Mohit Dhankhar was contacted on his given telephone and was requested to advise the complainant to email if she had any submissions to make failing which the complaint would be disposed of. No comments/ statement have been received from the complainant till date.  Hence, in the light of the action taken/ proposed to be taken by the respondent, the compliant is disposed of. 

12.     Action taken on the recommendation in para 10 be intimated with 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act.

13.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 13^thday of May, 2019.

                                                                            

                  

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

Pravesh Kumar Vs. Secretary (Revenue)/Divisional Commissioner | Case No. 838/1092/2019/04/2261-2262 | Dated: 13.05.2019

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. 838/1092/2019/04/2261-2262                    Dated: 13.05.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Pravesh Kumar,

H-36, Gali No. 4, Brahampuri,

Delhi-110053.                                                                 ....Complainant

    

Versus

Secretary (Revenue)/Divisional Commissioner,

Revenue Department, GNCTD

5, Sham Nath Marg,

Delhi-110054.                                                                   ...…Respondent

Date of hearing:       13.05.2019

Present:       Sh. Sh. Pravesh Kumar, Complainant in person.

                    Sh. Ajay Arora, SDM II HQ alongwith Sh. Santosh Kr. Behra, JD (IT) for respondent.

   

ORDER

          The above named complainant, a person with 47% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 03.04.2019 submitted that he applied for digital disability ID card in the office of SDM, Seelampur on 13.04.2017 vide Registration No. 90800000006258 which was rejected.  His second application was also rejected. The reason for rejection was that the disability is less than 50%.  He further submitted that it is required for renewal of his DTC pass. 

2.       The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide show cum hearing notice dated 24.03.2019 under the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as Act. 

3.       SDM-V(HQ) vide letter dated 30.04.2019 directed SDM Seelampur to submit comments and a hearing was scheduled on 13.05.2019.  Sh. Santosh Kumar Behra, JD (IT) vide letter dated 11.05.2019 has submitted as under:

“With respect to the above sited subject, the under signed like to convey that Mr. Pravesh Kumar, residence of H-36, Gali no. 4, Brahampuri, Delhi-110053 has filed a complaint dated 03.04.2019 under RPWD Act 2016 to State Commissioner of Person with Disabilities. The following are Para wise/point wise comments to the Commission as follows:

1.         In his complaint he has mentioned that he has applied twice at the O/o of SDM (Seelampur) for issuance of Disability Certificate. He applied on 13-4-2017 and 24-12-2018. Both the times his application was rejected. Rejection reasons were "as per e-district portal for disability below 50% the disability certificate cannot be issued".

2.         In the month of April 2019, the master data in e-District portal for Types of Disabilities and the minimum percentage for each disability has been updated as per the "THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABLITIES ACT 2016" wherein the number of disabilities is 21 and minimum percentage is defined as 40%.

3.         The master data for Types of Disabilities and the minimum percentage for each disability from e-District portal prior to April 2019 have been called from NIC; e-District team and placed at Annexure 'A'. The data is showing 50% minimum percentage under the category "Orthopedically Handicapped".

4.         As per the PWD Act 1995 and PWD Act 2016, there is no disability under the category “Orthopedically Handicapped" instead "Locomotor Disability" is there.

5.         Now, the applicant can apply under “Locomotor Disability” having not less than 40% Disability.  The e-District software can allow generating the Disability ID including for other 20 identified type of disabilities as per the PWD Act 2016.”

4.       During the hearing on 13.05.2019, Sh. Ajay Arora, SDM-II, HQ and Sh. Santosh Kumar Behra, Jt. Director (ID) stated that if the complainant accompanied them to their office, they would facilitate him to apply for digital disability ID card and he can download the card online within 15-20 days.  The complainant agrees to accompany them.

5.       In view of the above, the complaint is disposed of.  The complainant is advised to intimate this Court by telephone/email/letter immediately on receipt of the digital disability ID card or by 31.05.2019, whichever is earlier.

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

(T.D. Dhariyal)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities