Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Karan Bhatia Vs. Secretary cum Commissioner, Deptt of Revenue & 2 Ors. | Case No.904/1111/2019/05/3537-3540 | Dated:16.07.2019




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-110002
Phone: 011-23216003-04, 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.904/1111/2019/05/3537-3540                    Dated:16.07.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Karan Bhatia,
G-203, Sidh Apartment,
Plot No.107, I.P. Extension,
Patpargang, Delhi-110092.                           .………..Complainant

Versus

The Secretary –cum- Commissioner
O/o. the Divisional Commissioner,
Department of Revenue,
5, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi-110054                                                         …………..Respondent 1

The District Magistrate (East)
L.M. Bund, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110031                                                         …………..Respondent 2

The Sub Divisional Magistrate (East),
Pusta Road, Geeta Colony,
Delhi-110031                                                         …………..Respondent 3


SPECIMEN
ORDER


Sh. Karan Bhatia on behalf of his father Sh. Kamal Kant Bhatia, a person with disability, has filed a complaint vide e-mail dated 14.05.20419 which was registered in L.G Listening Post Portal and received from the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi (Respondent No.1) vide letter dated 20.05.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, here in after referred to as the Act.  He had also sent e-mails to the Office of Hon’ble Prime Minister, India, Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, Law Minister, Divisional Commissioner, GNCT of Delhi.  Vide his e-mail dated 14.05.2019 submitted that his father had a brain stroke in 2008, 2011 and 2018. After prolonged treatment, he is bed ridden and has lost his speech.  He further submitted that he alongiwth his father visited the SDM(East) Office to get the will of his father registered alongwith GPA.  Though GPA was registered but will was not registered and the Sub Registrar did not treat his father properly and with dignity as his father was/ is unable to speak properly. The Sub Registrar did not make enough efforts to ascertain the provisions of the law and to understand what his father was trying to say.  The complainant further alleged that the officials made his father feel miserable, hurt and embarrassed because he could not speak for himself.  The complainant requested that his father’s will be registered and he should be given an opportunity to speak what he wants.

2.       The matter was taken up with respondents vide Show Cause cum Hearing Notice dated 04.06.2019 and were directed to show cause why necessary documentation cannot be done by deputing officials at the residence.  It had also been decided to hold a hearing in the matter on 22.07.2019 under Section 82 of the Act. 

3.         Sub Registrar, VIII-A, East District, vide his letter dated 03.07.2019 responded to Show Cause cum Hearing Notice dated 04.06.2019 as under:-

“Sir,  
With reference to the notice to Show Cause-cum-hearing received from your good office which further forward from the Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide their letter No. F.1(9)/DC(HQ)/PGMS/2019/1273 dated 20/05/2019.  It is to stated that on 07/05/2019 two instruments in the name and style as GPA and will was presented in this office for registration, out of which the GPA was registered vide registration No. 381 dated 08/05/2019 as Executants had answered the basic of mandatory questions through his signed of consent, but during the course and presentation of will, the testator was not properly responding even through his sign of consent, but, during the course of presentation of will, the testator was not properly responding even through his sign of consent, hence, on being safer side, and for the shake of testator that whether he is free will or influence, the  undersigned did not allow the same for presentation/registration.  Further, on receipt of the instant Show Cause Notice, the undersigned after getting the formalities fulfilled for home presentation, reached to the house of the testator and presented the instrument on 27/06/2019 which further registered vide registration No. 377 on being satisfied with his sign of consent on the asked questions during presentation.
Now, the complaint of the complainant has been redressed and therefore it is requested to kindly withdraw the Show Cause Notice and the case may be file. 

Yours faithfully,

(Rakesh Kumar Meena)
Sub Registrar, VIII-A”

4.       The complainant was contacted on telephone on 15.07.2019 to check whether the concerned officers have registered his father’s will and he was satisfied with the action taken by the concerned authorities.  The complainant confirmed that the concerned officers visited his house and completed all the necessary formalities and registered his father’s will and he  and his father are satisfied with the action taken by the concerned officers.

5.       The above action of the concerned officer under the guidance of Secretary(Revenue)-cum-Divisional Commissioner is indeed positive and should be appreciated.  However, I reiterate the need for intensive as-well-as extensive sensitisation and capacity building programmes for the officers and staff of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Corporations and all other agencies/ organisations operating from NCT of Delhi on the issues relating to rights of persons with disabilities at regular intervals.

6.       The complaint is disposed of.

7.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 16th day of July, 2019.



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


Thursday, July 11, 2019

Ajaibir Singh Vs. The Principal, Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy | Case No. 994/1031/2019/06/3268-3269 | Dated:10.07.2019




In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundri Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi.
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 994/1031/2019/06/3268-3269                           Dated:10.07.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Ajaibir Singh,
C-4-D/54-B, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058.
(E-mail-ajaibir.singh@in.ibm.com).                            ............. Complainant
                                          
Versus
The Principal,  
Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy,
(University of Delhi),
Karkardooma, Vikas Marg,
Delhi-110092.                                                              ……...…Respondent


Date of Hearing         08.07.2019

ORDER

The above named complainant, father of Master Mankaran Singh, a person with specific learning disability filed a complaint vide e-mail dated 18.06.2019 and submitted that Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy, affiliated to Delhi University has invited applications for Bachelor of Physiotherapy and earmarked one seat for persons with locomotor disability and not for persons with specific learning disability. In Delhi University and all other institutes, persons with all the 21 disabilities are allowed to appear for the examination under PH category.  Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya National Institute for Persons with Physical Disabilities has already allowed Master Mankaran to appear in the examination under PH category on 16th June 2019. Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy is asking him to apply as a General Category candidate.  As per the email dated 18.06.2019 of Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy, the institute has OH (Orthopedically Handicapped) seat and hence the application of the applicant would be considered under the general category. 

2.       As per Section 32 of the Act, “all Government institutions of higher education and other higher educational institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent seats for persons with benchmark disabilities”.

3.       The matter was taken up with the respondent vide Show Cause-cum- Hearing Notice dated 21.06.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act directing the respondent why Master Mankaran Singh should not be allowed to apply for admission to Bachelor of Physiotherapy course under PH category against the reserved seat and submit an action taken report by 02.07.2019.  If the same was not done, it was decided to hold a hearing on 08.07.2019.

4.       The respondent vide letter received on 26.06.2019 submitted as under:-

“This letter is in response to the show cause cum hearing notice, Case No – 994/1031/2019/06, dated 21/06/2019.  The Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy (University of Delhi) wishes to place on record that Mr. Mankaran Singh s/o Mr. Ajaibir Singh, resident of C-4D/54-B, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058 applied for admission to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy course for the year 2019-20 (reference no. is BPT/050/19).  Our point-wise response is as follows:
1.    The Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy (University of Delhi) under the aegis of Amar Jyoti Charitable Trust is a self-financed college that does not receive any funding from the University/UGC/ Government.
2.    The management of the Amar Jyoti Charitable Trust (AJCT) resolved to introduce one (1) seat specifically under the OH category at the Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy (AJIPT) in alignment with the core objectives of the Trust.  The eligibility criteria for the reserved OH seat was setup by the management after due diligence, deliberation, consultation and consensus by the management.
3.    AJIPT has one (1) reserved seat specifically for an Orthopedically Handicapped (OH) individual since the academic year 2004-2005.  For the purposes of the OH reserved category, OH is defined as point #4 & 5 of the PWD Act (1995/ amend.1996) and RPWD Act, 2016. Candidates that qualify under this category fulfil criteria as described in our prospectus.  Please refer to a copy of the relevant sections of our prospectus (copy attached).
4.    The PWD Act 1995 (amend 1996) – based on the act, guidelines for evaluation of various disabilities and procedure for a certificate, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (notification and annexures June 2001) referred to orthopaedic disability as locomotor disability and defines it as disability of the bones, joints or muscles leading to substantial restriction of the movement of the limb or any form of cerebral palsy.
5.    More recently, the Rights of Person with Disabilities Act (RPWD Act – section 1 A) 2016, defines locomotor disability as a person’s inability to execute distinctive activities associated with movement of self and objects resulting from affliction of musculoskeletal or nervous system or both.  Further, it includes leprosy cured person, cerebral palsy, dwarfism, muscular dystrophy, acid attack victims. 
6.    As per our records, Mr. Mankaran Singh (s/o Mr. Ajaibir Singh) has not provided any supporting document of his candidacy for the Orthopedically Handicapped (OH) seat.  Thus, the Institute cannot consider the application under reserved category of OH.
7.    The same was informed to the applicant, Mr. Mankaran Singh vide email dated June, 18 2019.  A copy of email is attached for your ready reference.
8.    Moreover, we wish to clarify that the institute did not force the candidate for applying under general category (as described in the opening paragraph of the show cause notice – last sentence).  The office email to him (attached for ready reference) clearly stated that the application could be considered under general category, if the candidate so desired.
9.    With reference to point #4 of the show cause notice that references section 32 of the Act (RPWD 2016) – we wish to state that we are entirely a private, self-finance Institute and do not received any government/UGC/University funding.
However, the issue of reservation for the differently abled is of importance and will be taken up for discussion in the next governing body meeting of AJIPT.
AJIPT will be happy to provide any additional information that is required by your office.  Our contact information is as follows: 011 – 2375512, 22379827, email- info@ajipt.org.
Sincerely
Dr. Raju K. Parasher
Director/ Principal
Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy
University of Delhi”

5.       A copy of the reply submitted by the respondent was sent to the complainant vide e-mail dated 04.07.2019 for comments/rejoinder.  As he did not appear for hearing on 08.07.2019, he was contacted on telephone and was informed that since only the Government and other Institutions of higher education receiving aid from the Government are obligated to reserve seats for persons with disabilities and Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy is neither a Government Institution nor receiving any aid from the Government for conducting the course in question, the provision of section 32 of the Act would not be applicable to that institute. 

6.       It is however clarified that section 32 of the Act does not envisage reservation of seats for any particular category of disability(ies) unlike section 34 which provides for reservation of vacancies for specified categories of disabilities for which the posts are identified.  Hence even though Amar Jyoti Institute of Physiotherapy is not obligated under the Act to reserve seats for persons with disabilities, yet it has proactively made a provision for it, it will be in the fitness of things to keep the reserved seats, if any, open to all the categories of persons with disabilities considering the intent of section 32 of the Act..

7.       In light of the above, the complaint is disposed off.

8.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 10th day of July, 2019. 


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



Saturday, June 29, 2019

Radhey Shyam Nishad Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. | Case No. 754/1083/2019/02/3136-3138 | Dated:28.06.2019




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. 754/1083/2019/02/3136-3138                          Dated:28.06.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Radhey Shyam Nishad
Dukh Haran House No. B-151,
Balbir Vihar, Kirari, Suleman Nagar,
Sultanpuri, C-Block, North West Delhi,
Delhi-110086.                                                             …….Complainant

                                          Versus                           
The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002.                                            ……...…Respondent no. 1
(Kind Attnt: Ms. Veditha Reddy, Dy. Commissioner
Smt. Raj Rani, Addl. Dy. Commissioner)

The Deputy Commissioner of Police
(Outer Distrcit)
Guru Hari kishan Marg,
Maulana Azad Society,
Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampur,
Delhi-110034.                                                    ….…….Respondent no. 2

Date of Order:      26.06.2019

Present:     Sh. Radhey Shyam Nishad, complainant in person.
Smt. Raj Rani, Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Rohini Zone alongwith Sh. Sushil Kumar, Zonal Supdt. For Respondent no. 1
                   Sh. Baljit Singh, ASI No. 286/00 for respondent no. 2.
           
ORDER
The above named complainant, a person with 100% visual impairment vide his complaint dated 14.02.2019 submitted that he was residing in his khoka in front of ward no. 45 near Sultan Puri Bus Terminal, New Delhi-86.  He used to sleep in the same khoka and earn his livelihood and was also studying.  The personnel from the PCR Van used to make in appropriate comments on him and a security guard set up a tea shop near his khokha with the intention to get his khoka removed.  Thereafter, some persons from MCD came and took away his khoka in which his books, reading/recording devices, clothes etc. were kept.  The books and the reading devices were issued by the University and until these are returned, the University would not declare his result.  He therefore, requested that his Khoka and articles should be returned to him and arrangement for his stay should also be made. 
2.       The complaint was taken up with the respondents under the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as “Act” vide letter dated 28.02.2019 followed by reminder dated 13.03.2019.  DCP North West District forwarded the complaint to DCP (Outer District).  As there was no response from respondents, a hearing was scheduled on 26.06.2019 vide summon dated 27.05.2019.
3.       Smt. Raj Rani, Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Rohini Zone who appeared alongwith Sh. Sushil Kumar, Zonal Superintendent submitted a reply dated 25.06.2019 which states that a complaint dated 17-12-2018 was received from Sh. Sumit Tomar vide which he had alleged that some anti-social elements had setup khokas near Sultan Puri Bus stand.  Those khokas were operated on the name of persons with disabilities by some persons without disabilities. Sh. Tomar also submitted the same complaint during the meeting of the SDM (Kanjhawala), wherein the SDM also directed the staff of the North DMC to take action against illegal khokas.    Thereafter, the staff of the Licensing Department and Maintenance Department of the Rohini Zone, North DMC alongwith staff of Delhi Police (PS-Sultan Puri) taken action against such illegal khokas on 15-01-2019. During the action, 06 no. of illegal khokas were impounded and were deposited in the Zonal Store. 04 khokas were released after receipt of fine from the defaulters. The photos taken during the action were also enclosed with the reply.
4.       Smt. Raj Rani also informed that khoka can be returned only after payment of penalty and as the complainant is not having any license, he should apply for the same with TVC.   
5.       After hearing the parties, it is observed that the only source of livelihood of the complainant has been lost and his studies disrupted.  He has no support whatsoever in Delhi except disability pension of Rs. 2,500/- per month.  He has no savings to pay the penalty which is estimated to be more than Rs. 22,000/- and get his Khokha released.  In view of the fact that the complainant had submitted the complainant on 14.02.2019 and has been pleading to release his khoka ever since, the penalty charges should be waived and his khoka alongwith his belongings should be returned to him with the minimum possible fine not exceeding Rs. 2,000/- and a report be submitted within 15 days of receipt of this order.
6.       The complainant is advised to apply for license for tehbajari/khoka after first July 2019 and Sh. Sushil Kumar will extend necessary assistance in this regard.
7.       The complaint is disposed of.  
8.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 28th day of June, 2019.  
     

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


Thursday, June 27, 2019

Arvind Sharma Vs. Dte of Education & Anr. | Case No. 840/1024/2019/04 /3078-3080 | Dated:26.06.2019




In the Court of the 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. 840/1024/2019/04 /3078-3080                   Dated:26.06.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Arvind Sharma
Vice Principal (Rtrd.)
Residence-1/7133, Shivaji Park
Shahdara, Delhi-110032
Mobile No. 9911184413                                             
............Petitioner
                                                      Versus
The Director (Education),
Directorate of Education, GNCTD
Old Secretariate,
Delhi-110054                                                         ......Respondent No. 1

The Deputy Director of Education (North-East),
B-Block, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053                                                         ......Respondent No. 2

Date of Hearing: 25.06.2019
  Present:             Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Complainant
Sh. Satpal Singh, DDE (NE) alongwith Mukul Manrai, ADE (NE) on behalf of Respondent
Dr. Sudhakar Gaikwad, Principal, Sh. Sushil Kumar Rai, TGT (Math) and Sh. Kartar Singh, Ministral Staff, GSBV, Khajoori Khas on behalf of Respondent

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 66% locomotor disability vide his email dated 03.04.2019 registered as a complaint under the Rights for Persons with Disability Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act, inter-alia alleged that he retired from service on 31.12.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation.  He was a bit strict on non-performing teachers.  They, in connivance with GSTA lodged false complaints against him. Consequently, he was transferred frequently.  His last transfer was from RSBV Gulabi Bagh (Distt. North) to GSBV Khajoori Khas (Distt. North East) just before 5 months of his superannuation.  He protested against his transfer with the Director of Education and this court but did not get any relief. 

2.     Subsequently, district North East did not issue his vigilance clearance report, although no case was pending against him.  Delay in releasing his retirement benefits was therefore wilful and to harass him.  The complainant therefore requested that his retiral benefits be released at the earliest and responsibility should be fixed for delay in issuing the vigilance clearance report at the District Level and his Re-employment case should also be processed.

3.     The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide letter dated 11.04.2019 followed by a reminder dated 23.04.2019.  As there was no response, a show cause-cum-hearing notice dated 24.05.2019 was issued and the respondents were directed to show cause why they should not make payment of retiral benefits to the complainant within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the notice and submit reasons for delay and the para-wise comments by 10.06.2019.  A hearing was also scheduled on 25.06.2019.

4.     During the hearing, Dy. Director of Education, Distt. North East vide letter dated 24.06.2019, submitted as under:
“Subject: Reply to Show-Cause-Cum-Hearing Notice dated 24.05.2019
Reference above, it is submitted that all payment of retiral benefits have been amde to Shri Arvind Sharma as per the details given below:
Serial Number
Retiral Benefit
Amount (Rupees)
Credited into the complainant’s account on (Date)
1
GPF Final Payment
2370036/-
16/05/2019
2
D.C.R.G
1466858/-
22/05/2019
3
Commutation of Pension
1769904/-
22/05/2019
4
Leave Encashment
981000/-
27/05/2019
5
UTGEIS
60983/-
27/05/2019

It is also informed that Sh. Arvind Sharma has been given re-employment vide Transfer Order dated 07/06/2019 and posted in Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Jafrabad, Delhi-110053.
It is humbly submitted that processing of retiral benefits started only after receipt of Vigilance Clearance Report by the School (Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Khajoori Khas, Delhi-110090) on 25/02/2019.  The delay in release of payment was due to sending back of filed to the school again and again to remove certain deficiencies.


(Satpal Singh)
Deputy Director of Education
District North East”

5.     The complainant reiterated his written submissions and added that he met all the concerned officers namely the Dy. Director, Special Director and Regional Director Education.  However, none of the officers considered his request and ensured release of retiral benefits in time.  He visited the Offices of Dy. Director, North East, Yamuna Vihar, Dr. Neeraj, 14 times.  But she did not make any effort to release the amount.

6.     It is observed that the retiral benefits on account of GPF Final Payment, D.C.R.G, Commutation of Pension, Leave Encashment and UTGEIS work out to Rs. 6648781/- which were supposed to be paid to the complainant by January, 2019.  Admittedly, there was no reason for delay in releasing the amount to the complainant.  An amount of more than Rs. 2.25 lakh would have accrued as interest on Rs. 66,48,781/- in the post office @ 8.25% for 5 months.

7.     In view of the above, it is recommended that respondent no. 1 should fix the responsibility for delaying the release of the retiral benefits to the complainant and explore the possibility of compensating him by recovering the amount from those who were responsible for causing such a huge loss to the complainant. 

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

9.     The complaint is disposed of.

10.   Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 26th day of June, 2019.



(T.D.Dhariyal)
State Commissioner of Person with Disabilities