Ms. Tanu Jain Vs. DSSB | Case. No. 2084/1013/2021/01/3362-63 | Dated:16-03-21

 

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: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

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

Case.No.2084/1013/2021/01/3362-63 Dated:16-03-21

In the matter of:

Ms. Tanu Jain, 
4/17 Jai Dev Park East Punjabi Bagh
NewDelhi-110026                                                       .....……Complainant                      
Versus

The Secretary  
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma
Delhi-110092                                                                 ..........Respondent                                        

ORDER

  

Ms. Tanu Jain, a person with 50% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 15.01.2021 submitted that she had applied for Post Code 02/17 (DASS, Grade-IV) in PH-OH category. She had qualified Tier 1st exam and when she appeared for Tier 2nd exam (typing/skill test) on 26.12.2020 she was given exemption by exam Incharge from appearing in skill test after checking her permanent Physically Disability (50%) Certificate No. 2467/11 dated 29th June, 2011.  In addition, she had also given an application requesting exemption from appearing in Typing Test to DSSSB.  However, she was shown as disqualified in spite of fairing well in merit list on the ground that a particular Disability Certificate was not submitted. Infact, the last candidate with disability scored 101.66 marks and her score was 109.28 marks. On enquiry from DSSSB about her disqualification, she was told to submit another certificate in a new format and when she submitted the same on 22.12.2020 (in original), DSSSB has not considered her case.  There is hardly any difference between the two.

2. The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide SCN-Cum-Hearing Notice dated 03.03.2021 and a hearing was scheduled on 15.03.2021.

3. During the hearing, complainant appeared alongwith her family members and reiterarated her written submissions.  Sh. V.P. Jha, Dy. Secretary, CC-II appeared on behalf of respondent and submitted a copy of their reply dated 12.03.2021.  Copy of the same was also  given to the complainant. 

4. Sh. V.P. Jha, Dy. Secretary, CC-II stated that for seeking exemption from skill / typing test, candidate was required to give a certificate from Medical Board attached to Special Employment Exchanges for the Persons with Disabilities (or by a Civil Surgeon where there is no such Board) stating that she is unable to type at Skill Test Centre on the date of skill test i.e. 26.12.2019, but she did not submit the same at that time. Therefore, her request for seeking exemption was rejected by the Board vide Order No. 1041 dated 08.09.2020.  

4. After deliberations and discussions with the respondent and complainant, the following are recommended:

(i) DSSSB should take cognizance of the fact that the complainant Ms. Tanu Jain qualified in the merit with 109.28 marks than the candidate with 101.66 marks,  who has been selected and treated qualified while she has been left out.  The reason,   submitted by the DSSSB is about a certificate to the effect of her disability. While the complainant did submit her disability certificate (50% and above), there were slight difference in the format otherwise there is hardly any difference.  However, the same was later submitted by the complainant.  Further, prior to the examination, the exam Incharge at the centre had taken cognizance of her disability certificate and her physical disability and duly exempted her from appearing in the typing /skill test.  Besides, application to the effect requesting exemption from appearing in skill / typing test being a permanent person with disability (above 50%) was  submitted by the complainant. 

(ii) This court is of the view that the case of the complainant be looked sympathetically and with due regard to her qualifying in the merit.  Thus, it is recommended that the candidate should be helped by DSSSB in this regard as most important aspect for a person with disability (that to a girl) is economic independence, which go a long way to grant a meaningful and positive life for the concerned person with disability. 

5. Accordingly the case is disposed off. 

6. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 16th day of March, 2021.      

( Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Sonu Bhola Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr. | Case No.1286/1108/2019/11/3364-3366 | Dated:16/03/21

 

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, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.1286/1108/2019/11/3364-3366 Dated:16/03/21

In the matter of:

Sh. Sonu Bhola, 
A-89, Street No. 8, Jagat Puri, 
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051. …………..Complainant                                                        
Versus

The Chief Executive Officer,
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.,  
Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092.                                           ...........Respondent No.1

The Manager,
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.,
F-15/2, Krishna Nagar Delhi-110051. ...........Respondent No.2

Date of hearing: 15.03.2021

Present: Sh. Sonu Bhola, Complainant  

Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Sr. Manager (Legal) and Sh. Vivek Bhatnagar, APO on behalf of respondents.

ORDER

Sh. Sonu Bhola, a person with 65% locomotor disability had filed a complaint vide e-mail dated 07.11.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act and has submitted that BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. wrongly transferred another customer's dues to his wife's name bearing CA No. 151285745. He further submitted that BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. office situated at Krishna Nagar is not disabled friendly.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide show cause notice dated 27.11.2019.  The respondent vide reply dated 13.01.2020 submitted that the dues of disconnected connection bearing CA number 350258813 registered in the name of brother of the complainant i.e. Sh. Surender Bhola was transferred to another connection registered in the name of the same consumer i.e. Sh. Surender Bhola.  The said connection was bearing CA number 100865686.  As the transferred dues were not paid, the same were transferred as per law to CA number 151285745 registered in the name of Ms. Rajni Bhola i.e. wife of the complainant.  The dues transferred were of Rs. 398832.59.  The matter was settled at Rs. 1,02626.71 on 15.03.2019.  Regarding accessibility of the office, the respondent submitted that there is a ramp at the entrance of the division office at Krishna Nagar and there is also the facility of the wheel chair on request.  There is a help desk on the ground floor to provide all the help and information.  

3. The reply of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant vide letter dated 10.02.2020 to file the rejoinder, if any.  The complainant submitted the rejoinder vide letter dated 08.08.2020 and a hearing was scheduled on 15.03.2021.

4. During the hearing, the complainant submitted the copies of e-mails dated 8th, 10th & 11th March, 2021 sent to the complainant by the BSES showing different status regarding dues pending.  The respondent submitted a copy of letter dated 15.03.2019 regarding settlement of dues.

5. After due deliberation and discussion, the following are recommended:-

(i) BSES, Yamuna Power Ltd. to clear ambiguity with respect to 5 different meters in question in this case that the Bhola family have in the names of Sh. Surender Bhola(1), Ms. Sumitra Bhola (2) and Ms. Rajni Bhola (2) and with clarify check the dues, if any, in each bill, with exact CA number, Meter number with due date and satisfy themselves first.  Once this is freezed, BSES should explain to the complainant if there are any dues with date with correct meter number and CA number so that there is no ambiguity and the things are transparent.

(ii) BSES, Yamuna Power Ltd. should have better liaison and coordination with the outsourced company/call centre which handles the SMS/information to the customers.  In the current scenario, it is seen that on 08.03.2021, there is a confirmation to complainant having zero bill and on 10.03.2021, the same customer is being asked to clear the dues and again on 11.03.2021, the dues being shown as zero. So, there is a mis-match.  BSES need to clear this ambiguity.

(iii) To ensure proper accessibility in the office of BSES, Yamuna Power Ltd., Krishna Nagar and submit the photographic evidence to this Court by 30.03.2021. 

5. The complaint was disposed of with the above recommendations.

6. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 16th day of March, 2021. 

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee) 

                                State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Ms. Nehal Trehan Vs. Dte of Education & Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute | Case No. 1948/1032/2020/09/3356-3358 | Dated:15-03-21

 

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, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1948/1032/2020/09/3356-3358              Dated:15-03-21

In the matter of:

Ms. Nehal Trehan,  
34/20, Second Floor,  
West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi – 110008.     ................ Complainant
(Email: nehal9250200000@gmail.com)
    
Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Education, 
GNCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.               ..............…Respondent No. 1 

The Principal,
Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute,
Subroto Park, New Delhi – 110010.     ..............…Respondent No. 2
Date of Hearing: 12.03.2021

Present: Ms. Nehal Trehan, Complainant

  Sh. Pankaj Trehan, On behalf of the complainant

Dr. Sudhakar Gaikwad, Deputy Director (Education) and Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Asstt., Dte. of Education, on behalf of Respondent No. 1

Ms. Ruchita Karthikeyn & Sh. Amresh Chandra, Principals, Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute on behalf of Respondent No. 2 

ORDER

Ms. Nehal Trehan, mother of Ms. Hareena Trehan, a girl child with 80% Autism Spectrum Disorder disability complained vide e-mail dated 24.09.2020 and submitted that her daughter, a student of Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute, Subroto Park, New Delhi wherein the school authorities are not providing inclusive education as per RPwD Act, 2016. The child has been confined to segregation (Special Wing) at the school not learning much.  It was also submitted vide her e-mail dated 05.11.2020 that some of the Special Educators including the class teacher of her child seem to be working with expired certificate of registration from the RCI.  Vide another e-mail dated 16.12.2020, the complainant also submitted that the registration certificate of “Indian Air Force Educational and Cultural Society” too expired on 09.01.2019.

2. The matter was taken up with Dte. of Education vide letter dated 09.10.2020, who issued Show Cause Notice on 26.02.2021 to the school authorities with the direction to submit the reply within 3 working days.

3. Vide letter dated 03.03.2021, respondent No. 2 submitted that the child Hareena Trehan was admitted in Special Wing of AFGJI in Jan., 2018 on the request of the parent and in April, 2019, on the request of the parent, the child was shifted to Class-I of the mainstream school on trial basis.  However, after one month the parent again requested to shift the child back to Special Wing for better care and same was agreed.  In September, 2019, it was suggested by the school to shift the child to Class-I with the mainstream students for better inclusive studies, which the parent agreed.  The child appeared for Unit Test (online) in July, 2020 wherein she performed satisfactorily and was promoted to Class-II.  However, she stopped attending classes after her promotion to Class-II.

4. It was further submitted that school was not violating any provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 with respect to students of CWSN category.  The school authorities followed regulation of inclusive education in letter and spirit and always ensures that all special students are taken care of according to their disability.  Special Wing of the AFGJI is an independent reputed entity although, it co-exists in the same premises for giving education to children with special needs and choice of admission to this Special School is by choice/request of the parent.

5. With regard to RCI certification, school authorities submitted that certificates of their employees have been duly renewed and that suitable action was taken against all the individuals by the school.  Regarding registration of the school under RPwD Act, 2016, it was submitted that all the papers/formalities for the same have been completed and is under process.

6. Vide rejoinder dated 12.03.2021, the complainant submitted the copies of the fee slip deposited by her, application for Transfer Certificate of the child, Special Wing Progress Report Card 2019-2020, 2020-21 and screenshots of parent portal.

7. After due deliberations and discussion held, the following was recommended:-

(i) that the DoE should take due cognizance regarding the concerned teachers with expired certification from RCI and the school as per the rules and existing regulations.  It was revealed that during renewal of RCI certificates in respect of the teachers, a penalty is added for non-timely updation.   A report of confirmation to this effect be submitted to this court by 22.03.2021. 

(ii)School authorities were asked to provide all necessary assistance and support to all the children with special need alongwith  parents for the overall welfare. 

8. The complaint was disposed of with the above recommendations.

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 15th day of March, 2021. 

           (Ranjan Mukherjee)

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Deepak Kumar Vs. The DCP South East District | Case No. 1868/1111/2020/07/3353-55 | Dated:15-03-21

 

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, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

(Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016)

Case No. 1868/1111/2020/07/3353-55 Dated:15-03-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Deepak Kumar S/o. Sh. Suresh Kumar, 
H.No. K—83, Gali No.4, 
Jaitpur extension-, Badarpur, 
New Delhi-110044.                     
(E-mail: sonudj8447@gmail.com)                           ……Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
South East District,
Pocket-C, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi-110076                                                    ……..Respondent 
 
Date of Hearing: 12.03.2021

Present: Sh. Deepak Kumar, complainant.
Sh. Satvinder Rana & Sh. Bhoor Singh, on behalf of Respondent. 

ORDER

The above complaint of Sh. Deepak Kumar, a person with 90% locomotor disability was received through email dated 09.07.2021 from Sh. Kapil Kumar Aggarwal, National President, Federation of Disabled Rights regarding fraud made by one person namely Sh. Wakil Ahmad  by financing a scooty from complainant’s bank account by using his documents. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent for submission of their comments. Respondent vide their reply dated 05.10.2020 received from Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South East Distt. submitted that as per the complainant’s allegation, a person named Sh. Wakil Ahmad had lured him on the pretext of availing a free scooty through National Disable Sena and took his documents i.e. bank passbook, disability certificate, pan card and aadhar card.  He was promised that the scooty would be given to him on 16.11.2019.  Due to some problems he could not reach the venue to avail the scooty. Thereafter, he received a message that cheque issued by him bounced but the scooty was financed on his name with the help of issued documents.  An enquiry into the matter got conducted through ACP/Badarpur/SED.  During the course of enquiry, statement of the complainant was recorded, who stated that he had amicably resolved the matter and now he does not want any legal action on his complaint.  Hence, no police action is warranted. 

3. The reply filed by the respondent was forwarded to the complainant for submission of his rejoinder.  The complainant vide his email dated 18.02.2021 informed that the Police has not taken any action to redress his grievance. 

4. During the hearing on 12.03.2021, complainant was present and reiterated his written submissions and pleaded for settlement of his case and refund of his total money.  He also requested that the bank authorities should also be directed to stop deducting further EMIs from his account. 

5. Sh. Satvinder Rana , Inspector appeared on behalf of respondent and informed that the complainant had initially shared the details of his bank accounts for procurement of a free scooty to advance his accessibility and mobility.  Later on, he changed his mind due to delay in providing him the scooty and requested to refund his amount. Further, it is informed that the organisation which mooted the idea of providing the scooty is also working for persons with disabilities, especially with respect to Accessibility & Mobility.  He also revealed that both the parties met at the Police Station and deliberated couple of times and the scooty was also brought in the Police Station Jaitpur and offered to the complainant.  

6. Notwithstanding the above, the complainant confirmed that he was not keen to avail the scooty anymore.  On 10.03.2021, both the parties were called to the Police Station and mediated that complainant would be refunded with his dues by 17.03.2021.  

7. The Court after due deliberations, recommends as under:-

(i) DCP (South East) District specially Sh. Satvinder Rana, Inspector  are hereby directed to ensure that the National Disability Army and Sh. Wakil Ahmed and others return the money of complainant and accordingly a Closure Report be filed in this office by 19.03.2021.

(ii) A copy of this Closure Report should also be sent to the Manager, Corporation Bank, Jaitpur, Delhi where the complainant has his bank account with the instructions that the complainant’s account should not be deducted with EMI in lieu of financing scooty, henceforth.  

8. Accordingly, the case is disposed off. 

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 15th day of March, 2021.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to:

The Bank Manager, Corporation Bank, Jaitpur, Delhi with the direction that on receipt  of closure report from DCP(South East)

Sh. Deepak Kumar, Complainant (Savings Bank A/c No. 520331002627870) in the above case should not be penalised further and EMI deduction from his account should also be stopped henceforth. 

Shobhna Sarbhai Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (South District) & Anr. | Case No. 1865/1141/2020/07/3106-3108 | Dated: 26-02-21

 

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-02

Phone-23216002-04,  Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

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

 
    Case No. 1865/1141/2020/07/3106-3108 Dated:26-02-21
 
In the matter of:

Ms. Shobhna Sarbhai, M/o Aradhya Saxena,
D3A, DDA Flats, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
Email: shobhnasarbhai9@gmail.com      ………………..Complainant 

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police

(South District),

Police Station, Hauz Khas, 

Delhi-110016

E-mail:dcp-south-dl@nic.in   ………………Respondent 1

Ms. Neelam Verma, 

Horizon Learning Centre, 

M-6, First Floor, Malviya Nagar,

New Main Market

New Delhi-110017

Email: vermaneelam88609@gmail.com   ……..Respondent 2

Date of Hearing : 26.02.2021

Present: Ms. Neelam Verma and Sh.. Ambuj Tiwari on behalf of Respondent No. 2 

ORDER

Ms. Shobhna Sarbhai, M/o Ms. Aradhya Saxena, a person with 75% mental retardation vide her complaint dated 23.01.2020 alleged that she enrolled her daughter in the Horizon Learning Centre, M-6, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi for the her therapies like occupational therapy, speech therapy, special education etc. and also her rehabilitation on the assurance that a “complete programme” was being run for rehabilitation of such PwDs. However, within a period of three days she came to know about the irregularities and illegal operation of the Centre as well as the questionable of Ms. Neelam Verma to provide therapy to disabled children like her daughter. 

 2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide SCN-Cum-Hearing Notice dated 15.02.2021 and a hearing was scheduled on 26.02.2021. 

 3. Ms. Neelam Verma, respondent No. 1 appeared alongwith her Advocate Sh. Ambuj Tiwari, informed that her RCI certificate was expired in 2016 and upon completion of various workshops, trainings (comprises of 100 CRE points needed for renewal) she had applied for its renewal before the concerned authorities and the same is under process. 

 4. Complainant, Ms Shobhna Sarbhai vide her email dated 23.02.2021 showed her inability to attend the hearing in person and requested to decide the case on its merits. 

 5. In view of the above, Ms. Neelam Verma, respondent No. 2 is directed to close her Centre till her RCI Certificate is renewed. 

 6. The case was disposed with the above recommendation. 

 7. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 26th day of February, 2021. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee) 

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Puneet Bindal Vs. The Manager, BSES, Yamuna Power Limited | Case No. 1871/1141/2020/07/3114-3115 | Dated:26/02/21

 

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,  Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1871/1141/2020/07/3114-3115             Dated:26/02/21

In the matter of:

Sh. Puneet Bindal, 
2/5117, Krishan Nagar, Karol Bagh,  
New Delhi – 110005.
(E-mail-punitbindal28@gmail.com)    ..... Complainant
    
Versus

The Manager,   
BSES, Yamuna Power Limited,  
Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, 
Delhi-110032.

(E-mail-shweta.bist@relianceada.com)            ...…Respondent 

Date of Hearing: 26.02.2021

Present:     Sh. Puneet Bindal. Complainant
                    Sh. Gaurav Bindal, on behalf of the complainant
                    Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Sr. Manager (Legal) and
                    Ms. Shweta Bist, Sr. Manager (PS), Shankar Road, on behalf of Respondent.

ORDER

After hearing both the parties and due deliberations, the following orders are passed:-

1. Completion Certificate of the building be provided by the complainant from the MCD within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order to the BSES with copy to this office. 

2. The Vigilance Department of BSES should reply with remedial measures taken, to the complainant within 5 days from the date of receipt of this order. 

3. BSES office should be made accessible and disable friendly. 

4. As the matter is already pending before the Central Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), this office will await the final outcome and copy of the final order be submitted by the parties and after that if necessary, this court will take a call subsequently.

5. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 26th day of February, 2021. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities 

Nathu Ram Nishad Vs. The Director Education & Anr. | Case No. 1735/1111/2019/12 /3032- 34 | Dated: 22-02-21

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,  Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1735/1111/2019/12 /3032- 34            Dated:22-02-21

In the matter of:

Sh. Nathu Ram Nishad, 

373, Lancers Road, Timarpur, 

Delhi-110054 ....... Complainant

    

    Versus

The Director,

Directorate of Education, 

Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054          .....Respondent No.1

The Deputy Director (North),

Directorate of Education,

Lucknow Road, Delhi-110054               .......…Respondent No.2

Date of Hearing: 19.02.2021

Present:  

Sh. Nathu Ram Nishad, Vice-Principal, Complainant.

Sh. Ramesh Chand Kataria, Asstt. Section Officer, on behalf of Resp. No. 1 & 2.

ORDER

1. The State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities expressed his displeasure on the fact that  in spite of summons being served to the Director (Education),  no senior official from the Education Department was present during the hearing and instead a comparatively lower officer of the rank of Asstt. Section Officer, Sh. Ramesh Chand Kataria was sent to attend the court’s hearing.

2. During the hearing, representative of the respondent submitted reply dated 18.02.2021, copy of the same has also been handed over to the complainant. Vide which it was informed that the grievance of the complainant regarding pseudonymous complaint dated 24.10.2019 has been redressed completely as the complaint was formally filed.  

3. On perusal of above reply it is revealed that the respondent only dealt with one aspect of this complaint.   The complainant sought relief mainly on the following two points:

(i) Quashing of his APAR 2018-19 written by Sh. Y.K. Sharma, Retd. Principal,  which is not correct as per existing rules,  as he wrote his APAR in revengeful and malafide intentions;  

(ii) Grant of MACP-II.

 4. In light of the above, the following directions are made:

(i) The APAR of the complainant for the year 2018-19 written by Sh. Y.K.Sharma, Retired Principal should be quashed.

(ii) With regard to grant of MACP-II to the complainant, which is pending since 25.01.2020, respondent is directed to submit an ATR within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.

(iii) APAR for the year 2018-19 of the complainant should not be considered as a negative point for his promotion in due course.

(iv) Respondent No. 1 is also directed to constitute the District-wise Grievance Redressal Committees as per Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 consisting of persons with disabilities including visually impaired persons for looking after of such genuine complaints. An action taken report in this regard be submitted by 26.02.2021.

5. The case is disposed of with the above recommendations.

6. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19th  day of February, 2021. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities