Munazza Vs. DSSSB & Anr. | Case No.1828/1014/2020/06/1208-1210 | Dated:11-08-21

 

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, 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.1828/1014/2020/06/1208-1210 Dated:11-08-21 

In the matter of:

Ms. Munazza, 
House no.1830, Ist Floor, 
Agha Jaan Street, Kalan Mahal, 
Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002                      …………Complainant

Versus

The Chairman, 
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma
Delhi-110092.                                     ........... Respondent No.1
     
The Chairman
New Delhi Municipal Council
Palika Kendra, Parliament Street
New Delhi-110001                                                     ........... Respondent No.2

DOH: 10.08.2021

Present: Sh. Shamsuddin,  husband of the complainant Ms. Munazza.

Sh. Biju Raj E, Dy.Secretary, DSSSB appeared on behalf of respondent No.1,  

Sh. Shiv Kumar Jt. Dirctor (Education) appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2.

ORDER

The above complainant Ms. Munazza, a person with locomotor disability vide her email dated 16.06.2020 submitted her issue relating to  pending candidature for the post of Asstt. Teacher (Urdu), Post Code 60/14 in PH/OBC category.  

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent No. 1 & 2 vide letter dated 22.06.2020 for submission of their comments. A reply was received from Dy. Secy. (DSSSB) on 31.08.2020 vide which it was informed that the Board had declared the result of the post code 60/14 vide Result Notice 467 dated 21.06.2019 and as per policy the waiting panel constituting of all the candidates above minimum qualifying marks in their respective category for the post code 60/14 was valid for the period of one year i.e upto 20.06.2020.  The applicant alongwith other such qualified candidates in respective categories was part of the waiting panel.  However, as per existing Services Department, GNCT of Delhi Circular No 16(3)/DSSSB/2007-S-III/1268 dated 13.06.2019, waiting panel for the post code 60/14 expired on 20.06.2020.  Further, as per the query of the applicant regarding display /uploading of waiting panel is concerned, the Board only displays roll numbers of the provisionally nominated candidates in the concerned Result Notice.  

3. Joint Director (Education, NDMC vide their reply dated 24.09.2020 submitted para-wise reply as under:

(i) 16 Nos. Of candidates have joined till 20.06.20 (UR-05), OBC-11), total 05 OBC candidates have not accepted offer of appointment and 22 candidates presented for document verification.

(ii) Para 2 & 4 does not pertain to NDMC.

(ii) No waiting list has been provided by DSSSB.

4. To resolve the matter with jurisprudence and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 10.08.2021.   During the hearing, Sh. Shamsuddin, husband of the complainant Ms. Munazza appeared to present the case. Representatives of Respondent No. 1 &  2 were also present.

5. Complainant vide her rejoinder dated 24.06.2021 also stated that validity of the waiting panel was extended vide DSSSB letter No. F16(3)/DSSSB/2007/S-III/267 dated 01.02.21 but her result is still awaited.   

6. During the hearing, all the parties submitted facts as under:

(i) Complainant reiterated the written submissions and added that she should have also been given the benefit of extension as given to candidates of waiting panel whose validity expired between 24.03.2020 to 31.05.2020 i.e. during the period of lockdown, which was been extended upto 31.12.2020 due to Covid -19.  

 (ii) Representative of Respondent No. 1 reiterated their written submissions and added that the extension of validity of waiting panel due to Covid-19 was given with the approval of Hon’ble Lt. Governor as the Chairperson of Delhi Disaster Management Authority as a one-time measure not to be quoted as a precedent in view of the lockdown imposed during COVID-19 pandemic. He further added that extension of waiting panel is a policy matter and per existing policy waiting panel for the post code 60/14 had already been expired on 20.06.2020. 

(iii) Representative of Respondent No. 2 has added that DSSSB recommended 27 candidates for this post code 60/14 on 15.10.2019 & 09.01.2020.  However, name of complainant Ms. Munazza did not figure in the list.  Accordingly NDMC issued appointment letters to all  27 candidates.  However, 07 candidates (including the PH category candidate) did not join and their dossiers have been returned to DSSSB in November 2020 with the request to recommend name from reserved panel.

7. After due deliberations and discussion on the case, the court recommends as under:

(i) The Court observed that as per existing orders the lockdown period was upto 31.05.2020, while in case of Ms. Munazza, validity of her one year’s waiting panel expired on 20.06.2020.  Thus, this Court does not find any valid reason to accept her plea as there is no discrimination in this case and it was done as per rule and the Court cannot change such rule or policies framed by government. 

(ii) The Court also insisted the need of filling up of posts of Assistant Teacher Urdu, in PH category if the posts are still lying vacant, NDMC being user department is also directed to start fresh process of filling up of such posts through DSSSB and the complainant Ms. Munazza could again try for the same.  

8. The case is disposed of. 

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 11th day of August, 2021.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs. DSSSB & Others | Case No.2206/1011/2021/05/1204-1207 | Dated: 11-08-21

 

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, 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.2206/1011/2021/05/1204-1207                  Dated: 11-08-21

In the matter of:

Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma
24, Radha Nagarm Buland Shehar
Uttar Pradesh-203001
Email:uannti2014@rediffmail.com                             ………Complainant

Versus

The Chairman, 
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma
Delhi-110092.                   ........ Respondent No.1

The Director
Directorate of Education
GNCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat
Delhi-110054                            ..........Respondent No.2

The Secretary
Department of Women and Child Development
(Government of NCT of Delhi)
Mahrana Pratap ISBT Complex,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006                                   ........... Respondent No.3

DOH: 10.08.2021

Present: Sh. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Brother of complainant Sh. Ajay Kr. Sharma.
Sh. Biju Raj E, Dy.Secretary, DSSSB appeared on behalf of respondent No.1,  
Sh. S.Nand Kumar, SO appeared on behalf of respondent 
No. 2.
Sh. K.S. Sehrawat, Dy.Director(WCD) appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3

ORDER

The above complainant Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma, a person with 48% hearing impairment vide his complaint dated 13.05.2021 alleged that the DSSSB advertised the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Natural Science) (Male) post Code 35/21 and Counsellor, post code 45/21, wherein no reservation was kept for persons with hearing impairment.  The said advertisement was not in accordance with the latest notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by the M/o of Social Justice and Empowerment.  Thus it was requested for an appropriate corrigendum to be passed in the matter enabling him to apply for the above posts. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 vide communication dated 18.05.2021 for submission of their comments. A reply was received from Dy. Secy, (DSSSB) on 24.06.2021 vide which it was informed that the Board makes recruitment as per requisitions received from the indenting departments.  The indenting department maintains the reservation roster related to all categories including PwD categories candidates and accordingly sends the requisition to DSSSB.  As per requisition dated 26.06.2020 and a letter dated 17.02.2021 for the post of TGT (Natural Science)(Male), Post code 35/21 the indenting department i.e. DOE  has identified 42 vacancies for PwD candidates and out of these,   22 vacancies were reserved for PwD (OH) and 20 vacancies for PwD(VH).  The user department identified the posts suitable for OH(OL), OH(BL), OH(OAL), OH(OA), VH(LV)and VH(B) persons.   Similarly for the post of Counsellor, requisition dated 29.11.2019 was received by the Board from Department of Women & Child Development for filling up of 50 vacancies.  Out of these 50 vacancies, indenting Department identified total 02 vacancies for PwD candidates and both these vacancies were reserved for PwD(OH).  The User Department identified the post suitable for OH(OL), OH(BL), OH(OA) and OH(LE) persons. Accordingly, DSSSB advertised the vacancies as per requisitions of indenting Departments and as per the indent for reserving posts for PwD categories / sub-categories.  

3. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 10.08.2021.  During the hearing, Sh. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, brother of the complainant Sh. Ajay Kr. Sharma, appeared to present the case as he was ill. Representatives of Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 were also present. 

4. During the hearing, all the parties submitted their respective facts as under:

(i) Complainant reiterated that the persons with HH category should also be given benefit of reservation as per latest notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by M/o Social Justice and Empowerment.

(ii) Representative of Respondent No. 1 reiterated that in compliance of this Court’s earlier directions,  DSSSB issued necessary instructions to all the Head of Departments vide their letter dated 05.07.2021 to send requisitions for filling up of vacancies strictly in accordance with the notification No. 38-16/2020-DD-III dated 04.01.2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India. 

(iii) Representatives of Respondent No. 2 & 3 also submitted their written submissions during the hearing which have been taken on record.

 5. After due deliberations and discussion on the case, the court recommends as under:

(i) The Court observed that Respondent No. 2 & 3 have not taken care regarding existing policy relating to reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities while forwarding their requisitions to DSSSB.  Thus, Respondent No. 2  i.e. the Directorate of Education is hereby directed to issue a corrigendum to grant reservation to persons with hearing impairment for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Natural Science) Male, Post code 35/21 as per existing provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016  and in accordance with the latest notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and immediately send it to DSSSB.    

(ii) Similarly Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Department of Women and Child Development is also directed to issue a corrigendum for giving reservation to persons with hearing impairment for the post of Counsellor, Post code 45/21 as per existing provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016  and in accordance with the latest notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and immediately send it to the DSSSB.    

(iii)  DSSSB is also directed to take further rectifying actions at their end on receipt of corrigendum issued by Directorate of Education and Department of Women and Child Development prior to conduct examinations for the above post codes so that the persons with HH category are not deprived of their entitlements.

6. The case is disposed of. 

7. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 11th day of August, 2021.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Divya Jain Vs. The DCP Shahdara & Two Others. | Case No. 2174/1111/2021/03/647-650A | Dated:01-07-21

 

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. 2174/1111/2021/03/647-650A               Dated:01-07-21 

In the matter of:

Ms. Divya Jain
04/2952, Gali No. 3, Shalimar Park Extn.
Shahdara, Delhi-110032            ....……Complainant         

             
Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Shahdara,
Shalimar Park, Shahdara 
Delhi-110032                                                   ..........Respondent No.1

The SHO (Farsh Bazar)
Police Station Farsh Bazar,
Shahdara, Delhi -110032                  ..........Respondent No.2

Sh. Manoj Jain, Ms. Gita Jain & Sh. Nikhil Jain  
R/o P-19 Gali no. 7, Shri Ram Colony
Shahdara, Delhi -110032                                  ..........Respondent  No.3

D.O.H.: 30.06.2021

Present: Complainant: Ms. Divya Jain alongwith her mother and brother

        Respondent No. 1 & 2: Sh. Nishant Gupta, Addl. DCP-II/ Shahdara,  Sh.Mukesh Tyagi, ACP, Shahdara,  Sh. Mangesh, SHO Farsh Bazar, Ms. Anju Chauhan, SI, Sh. Nirdosh Kumar, ASI, Sh. Rajender Kumar ASI, PS Krishna Nagar

        Respondent No. 3: Mrs. Geeta Jain alonwith Sh. Padam K. Khanna and Sh. Mohit Khanna, Advocates

ORDER

      The above named complainant, a person with 60% speech and hearing disability vide her complaint dated 22.03.2021 alleged that she lodged an FIR at PS Farsh Bazar on 21.07.2020 against her  husband,   in-laws  and others for harassing her.  Her husband Mr. Nikhil Jain was in jail for 11 moths however, one of his associate Mr. Raghav had threatened to kill her on 31.03.2021. She filed a complaint at PS Krishna Nagar for this, but the Police authorities were not taking any action against him and her in-laws.   She further informed that a scooty bearing No. 4230 was purchased by her husband in 2019 on EMI basis and its loan instalment is being deducted from her SB Account No. 101632595, PNB Gandhi Nagar. Further, she does not ride a bicycle or scooty, it is possessed and used by her father in law. In addition, her in-laws are refusing to give her original Class-Xth Certificate, Disability Certificate and two FDs worth Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- which are in their custody. For the last one year she has been living with her brother & mother, who are not financially sound and she is facing acute financial constraints.  Thus, she approached this court for seeking justice. 

2. The matter was taken up with the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Shahdara) vide letter dated 31.03.2021 for submission of their comments. A reply was received from Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, Shahdara District on 14.10.2020, vide which it was informed that an enquiry into the matter was got conducted through ACP/Shahdara and it came to light that a case vide FIR No. 302/20 dated 21.07.2020 U/S 376/323/506/34 IPC, PS Farsh Bazar was registered on the complaint of Ms. Divya Jain against her husband and in-laws.  In this case, accused Nikhil Jain was in J.C. and other alleged persons were granted bail from the Ld. Court. Bail of the accused person was pending then before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.  A non-cognizable report vide No. 0021/2021 dated 31.01.21 u/s 506 IPC, PS Krishna Nagar was lodged by the Police. 

3. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 30.06.2021.  

During the hearing, complainant was present alongwith her mother and brother.  Sh. Nishant Gupta Addl. DCP-II/ Shahdara,  Sh.Mukesh Tyagi ACP, Shahdara,  Sh. Mangesh, SHO Farsh Bazar, Sh. Nirdosh Kumar, ASI, Sh. Rajender Kumar ASI, PS Krishna Nagar appeared on behalf of Respondent  No. 1 & 2.  Mrs. Geeta Jain appeared alonwith Sh. Padam K. Khanna and Sh. Mohit Khanna Advocates for representing Respondent No. 3. Mr. Nikhil Jain & Sh. Manoj Jain did not appear. 

4. During the hearing, all the parties submitted their facts as under:

(i) Brother of complainant reiterated their written submissions.  Further, it was bought to notice of the Court that complainant’s family closed her SB Account No. 101632595 in Punjab National Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 as there was siphoning of money for this account of her in which her disability pension is also attached.  EMI of the scooty was being deducted from that account and it was concern also for disharmony/ dispute with her in-laws.   

(ii) Sh. Nishant Gupta Addl. DCP-II/ Shahdara  appeared on behalf Respondent No. 2 reiterated their written submissions and added that  in the case FIR No. 302/2020 u/s 376/376D/323/506/109/34 IPC, PS Farsh Bazar, the charge-sheet has already been filed in the Ld. Court of Sh. Ajeet Narayan, MM, KKD Courts, Shahdara.  Complaint regarding purchasing of a scooty No. DL8SCR-4230 on EMI basis was also examined as Ms. Divya Jain also requested in her complaint to get her scooty and documents recovered from Mr. Manoj Kumar (her father-in-law). On enquiry of EO, the alleged Mr. Manoj Kumar stated that the said scooty was purchased by his son Nikhil Jain (husband of the complainant) and EMIs are being paid by him.  However the matter is subjudice in the Court of Sh. Ajeet Narayan, MM, KKD Courts, Shahdara.

(iii) Ms. Geeta Jain, Respondent No. 3 appeared alongwith her Advocates Sh. Padam K. Khana, Advocate & Sh. Monit Khanna and informed that she searched her home thoroughly but she could not find the Disability Certificate, the FDs and Class –10th Certificate of Ms. Divya Jain.  Further the Fixed Deposits worth Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 10,000 are in joints account alognwith her husband which is currently not with her.   

5. After due deliberations and discussion, the Court recommends the following:-

(i) Court directs Respondent No. 1 & 2 to depute a suitable female officer in the instant case of the complainant considering the fact that it has to be an exemplary case relating to a person with disability and being an extremely sensitive one.  

(ii) Respondent No. 3 is directed to provide documents relating to FDs worth Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- and other documents i.e. Disability Certificate & 10th Certificate to the complainant within seven days from the date of receipt of this order.  They are further directed to pay a monthly assistance amount to the complainant till the outcome of court case pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Shahdara, KKD on separation/ divorce.

(iii) Family of Ms. Divya Jain, complainant is also directed to open a new bank account of her for resolving her issue relating to Disability Pension within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order.  They are also advised to approach to the concerned Post Office for changing of Fixed Deposits status from joint account to single account in the name of Ms. Divya Jain and hand over the orders after finalisation of her divorce case. 

(iv)  Disability Certificate of the complainant, Ms. Divya Jain, if not traced at her in-laws home, would have to be issued with a duplicate one and the disability pension also should be restarted by the Social Welfare Department, GNCT of Delhi from April 2021 as the account was closed to stop her in-laws to siphon her disability pension in March 2021. New account details of Ms. Divya Jain is to be intimated to the concerned District Social Welfare Officer (East), Social Welfare Department for taking necessary action. 

6. The case is disposed of. 

7. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 30th day of June, 2021.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to the District Social Welfare Officer (East), Department of Social Welfare , Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Block No. 10, Green Colony, Delhi w.r.t. Para 5(iv). 

Suo- Motu Vs. The Commissioner NDMC & 3 Others | Case No.2142/1011/2021/03/547-551 | Dated:23/06/2021

 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.2142/1011/2021/03/547-551         Dated:23/06/2021

In the matter of:

Suo-motu
                           
Versus

The Commissioner
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
4th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre
JLN Marg, New Delhi -110002                     ..............Respondent No.1
         
The Commissioner
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre
JLN Marg, New Delhi -110002                             ...............Respondent No.2
    
The Commissioner
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
419, Udyog Sadan, Patparganj
Industrial Area
Delhi -110096                                                              ...............Respondent No.3

The Chairman   
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma
Delhi-110092                       ...............Respondent No.4

Date of Hearing: 23.06.2021


Present: Sh. M. Mandal, Additional Director (Education), SDMC and 
Sh. Rishi Pal Rana, Deputy Director(Education) SDMC, on behalf of Respondent No.2
Sh. Biju Raj, Deputy Secretary, DSSSB and Sh. R.P. Singh, Section Officer, DSSSB for Respondent No.4

Sh. Parmesh Kumar F/o Sh. Mohak Kumar alongwith
Sh. Rajan Mani (Adv.)

ORDER

A Suo-Motu cognizance regarding non providing of reservation to persons with benchmark disabilities as per the latest notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India for the post of Special Educator (Primary) (post code  32/20), advertised by DSSSB vide advertisement dated 04.03.2021, was taken up  with the  respondents vide  notice dated 12.03.2021.  

2. Upon considering the response of the respondents and rejoinder dated 06.06.2021 of complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 23.06.2021 at 1200 hrs. 

3. SDMC represented the three Municipal Corporations as it takes care the recruitment process for all the three Municipal Corporations.  SDMC contended that as these were all backlog vacancies, the latest notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India may not apply for these posts.

4. It was clarified and ruled that though these are backlog vacancies but are being filled now i.e. since PwD Act has come into effect w.e.f. 19.04.2017, these vacancies ought to be considered for all categories of persons with disabilities.

5. The post of Special Educator (Primary) is deemed to be identified for Intellectual Disability also.

6. After detailed hearing of all parties, it was agreed upon that a corrigendum be issued by SDMC/DSSSB with respect to opening of this advertisement for a period of 10-12 days as per norms and regulations existing on such issues to facilitate all categories of persons with disabilities identified for this post which were erroneously left out by the user department.

7. It is also recommended that DSSSB, SDMC and all other Government Departments should maintain system of roster with respect to all categories of posts of persons with disabilities.

8. The case was disposed with the above recommendations. 

9. This court be informed of the action taken on the above recommendations.  

10. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 23rd day of June, 2021. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

                                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to : Sh. Mohak S/o Sh. Parmesh Kumar, 173, Nehru Apartments, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 with reference to his e-mail dated 17.05.2021.

Sunita w/o. Late Babulal Vs. The DCP North District | Case No.1975/1111/2020/10/75-76 | Dated:07-04-21

 

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-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.1975/1111/2020/10/75-76              Dated:07-04-21 

In the matter of:

Ms. Sunita w/o. Late Babulal,
H.No. 3407, Ram Bazar, 
Mori Gate, Near Chowk Ramaiya,
Delhi-06                                                                        ……Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
North District,
Police Station Civil Lines,
Delhi 110054.                                                                      ……..Respondent 

Date of Hearing : 07.04.2021

Present: Ms. Sunita, complainant. 
Sh. Gautam Singh, ASI on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

  The above named complainant, a person with 70% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 17.12.2019, which was forwarded by Member, Delhi Commission for Women vide letter No. DCW/1415/VS/2020 dated 05.09.2020 alleged that  Sh. Ashish Gupta, S/o Sat Narain Gupta, R/o A-124, Gali No.03, Kabir Nagar, Delhi -110094 had taken a sum of Rs. 80000/- from her but he had returned only Rs. 15000/-.  An outstaindng amount of Rs. 65000/-  is still pending on his part.  She had made several requests to him for the outstanding balance but instead of giving her money he threatened her to kill and viral the illicit video/ pictures of her he possessed. She had made several requests to local police for taking stern action against Ashish Gupta and recovery of the remaining  amount of Rs. 65000/- but nothing has been done so far.

2. The matter was taken up with the Dy. Commissioner of Police (North District) vide letter dated 13.10.2020 for submission of their comments. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 01.03.2021. 

3. On 01.03.2021, complainant was present but the respondent was absent without any intimation and reason. However, a reply through Speed Post dated 27.02.2021 and mail was received on 01.03.2021 at 4.00 PM and 2.34 AM respectively, much after the scheduled court hearing timings.

4. The Court went through the application of the complainant and her verbal briefing that she has been subjected to mental torture, blackmail, threat and above all loss of money.  The complainant being a person belonging to Below Poverty Line category without any specific source of income, sought immediate justice. 

5. The Court also observed that the North District Police is of the opinion that it is a case of money dispute and no police action is required, which is not in the right spirit.

6. The Court after due deliberations, directed as under:

(i) Police should investigate and find out about the person name Mr. Ashish Gupta, S/o Sat Narain Gupta, R/o A-124, Gali No. 03, Kabir Nagar, Delhi-110094.  Try and ascertain if he borrowed Rs. 80,000/- from Ms. Sunita and if yes, try to persuade him to return the due amount, considering the fact that the complainant is a person with disability and  a lady belongs to BPL category, who requires help. 

(ii) Reply forwarded by Police was silent on this aspect and hence it was directed by this Court that Ms. Sunita should receive back the due amount and local police should try and help in this matter. 

(iii) If the North District Police, specially SHO, Kashmere Gate fails to persuade Mr. Ashish Gupta in this regard to return the total amount to Ms. Sunita then as suggested this Civil Court would take further necessary action as per the law. 

(iv) A report on the above suggestions was called for by 15.03.2021.

7. Thereafter the case was again scheduled for hearing on 07.04.2021 at 1.00 PM with the direction to SHO, PS, Kashmere Gate to present the alleged person Sh. Ashish Gupta to submit his version in order to dispose of the matter.   

8. On 07.04.2021, the complainant was present. Sh. Gautam Singh, ASI appeared from Police Station, Kashmere Gate alongwith Ashish Gupta.  Sh. Ashish Gupta confirmed in presence of ASI, Gautam Singh that he would pay Rs. 30000/- right away to Ms. Sunita and the remaining amount of Rs. 35000/- by 22.04.2021.  

9. In view of the above, SHO, Police Station, Kashmere Gate is hereby directed to ensure that this handing / taking over process of remaining amount of Rs. 35000/- is to be done in presence of  ASI, Gautam Singh and a telephonic confirmation of the same be made to this Court. 

10. Accordingly, the case is disposed of.

11. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 07th day of April, 2021.

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Jagmohan Sharma Vs. DCP South East District | Case No. 1912/1111/2020/08/3540-41 | Dated: 30-03-21

 

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-02

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. 1912/1111/2020/08/3540-41 Dated: 30-03-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Jagmohan Sharma,
68, Hari Nagar, Aashram, 
New Delhi -110014 ………Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
(South East District),
Pocket-C, Sarita Vihar, 
New Delhi-110076 ………..Respondent 

Date of Hearing : 30.03.2021

Present: Sh. Jagmohan Sharma, complainant.

Sh. Braham Prakash, S.I. P.S. Sunlight Colony on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

  The complainant, Sh. Jagmohan Sharma, a person with 75% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 12.08.2020  alleged that his brother  Pawan and his wife Mrs. Kusum  are harassing him by abusing, misbehaving, manhandling and giving him threats to kill.  He had made several complaints to police on the issue but, the local police are not taking appropriate actions against them.   

2. The matter was taken up with the Dy. Commissioner of Police (South East District)  vide  letter dated 19.08.2020 for submission of their comments. A reply was received from Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South  East District, New Delhi on 05.02.2021 vide which it was informed that an enquiry into the matter was got conducted through ACP/Lajpat Nagar/SED  and it was found that the complainant and the alleged are brothers and reside in the same building at H.No. 68, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi. The allegations levelled in the complaint could not be substantiated during enquiry.  No cognizable offence is made out.  However, it is revealed that the complainant was already externed (Delhi out) for one year in 2016 u/s 47 DP Act.  Currently,  no police action is required.

3. The complainant vide his rejoinder dated 23.02.2021 (received through e-mail) inter-alia submitted that above Externment Order dated 22.11.2016 passed by Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, Addl. DCP (South East) was  set aside by the Delhi High Court’s Order dated 19.07.2017.  Because of bogus complaints/FIR made by his younger brother and his wife, he was externed for one year by Delhi Police and due to this trauma and mental agony he was paralysed and became a person with locomotor disability.   

4. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 30.03.2021.  The complainant was present alongwith Sh. Brham Prakash, Division Officer/S.I. , P.S. Sunlight Colony. 

5. Both the parties submitted their facts.    It is learnt that though it is basically a family feud, but the same caused immense tension among the family members due to which the complainant had a cerebral stroke and  became a person with disability permanently.  

6. After due deliberations and discussion, the Court recommends the following:-

(i) Sub Inspector, Sh. Brham Prakash, P.S. Sunlight Colony, who is also the Division Officer of the area where the complainant resides i.e. at  69, Hari Nagar, Aashram, New Delhi is directed to try and amicably resolve the issue. 

(ii) Sh. Pawan Sharma and his wife Mrs. Kusum need to be advised properly not to threaten and resort to physical manhandling of the complainant and his family members including his 78 years old mother.

(iii) In case of any further complaints received from complainant, action as per law should be initiated against them and their accomplishers and with due sections of CrPC,  FIR be lodged against anyone for taking the law into own hands or try to intimidate or manhandle the complainant or anyone else. 

(iv) At the end complainant is also advised to resort to mind calming measures like yoga to gain physical strength and peace of mind, loss of which has caused him physical as well as mental illness with locomotor disability and brain haemorrhage etc.

7. Accordingly, the case is disposed of. 

8. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 30th day of March, 2021.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

 

 

Neetu Singh Vs. The DCP Shahdara District | Case No. 1934 /1111/2020/09/3524-26 | Dated: 26-03-21

 

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-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. 1934 /1111/2020/09/3524-26 Dated: 26-03-21 

In the matter of:

Ms. Neetu Singh,
A-214, Jhilmil Colony,
Delhi-110095.                  
(E-mail: neettu8176@gmail.com)                                  ……Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
(Shahdara District),
Bholanath Nagar, Shalimar Park,
Delhi, 110032                         ……..Respondent 
(Impleaded on 25.03.2021)

Date of Hearing : 25.03.2021

Present: Ms. Neetu Singh, complainant.
Sh. Vijay Kumar, SHO (Vivek Vihar) and Sh. Narinder Singh, Head Constable on behalf of respondent.

ORDER

  The above complaint of Ms. Neetu Singh, a person with 65% locomotor disability was received from Member, Delhi Commission for Women vide letter No. DCW/1492/VS/2020 dated 26.08.2020.  Vide her complaint she alleged that one Mr. Mahavir Jain is continuously harassing her by giving threats to kill her as she is living in a disputed property.  She had tried to lodge an FIR against Mr. Mahavir Jain but the Police authorities were not taking any action against him and that she is not feeling safe and is afraid of her life.   She further informed that her electricity was also disconnected illegally and she is facing great difficult. So much so that she out of fear now lives somewhere else with great difficulty.

2. The matter was taken up with the Dy. Commissioner of Police (East District) vide letter dated 14.10.2020 for submission of their comments. However, a reply was received from Addl.Dy. Commissioner of Police, Shahdara District, Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Shahdara District on 14.10.2020, vide which it was informed that an enquiry into the matter was got conducted through ACP/Vivek Vihar and the disputed property at  A-14, Jhilmil, Vivek Vihar, Delhi  was visited by Inquiry Officer  and it was noticed that the alleged Mahavir Jain is claiming to be the owner of this property, while complainant Ms. Neetu Singh has been living there as a tenant for last 7-8 years.  A dispute is going on between the parties regarding non-payment of rent. Both the parties have been instructed accordingly.  The matter is civil in nature and requires no police intervention. Hence, no police action is called for.

3. The complainant vide her rejoinder dated 10.11.20 inter-alia submitted that her complaint is not about any property dispute and she had raised the issues of life threats and personal and physical harm.  She further requested to look into her grievance towards refusal to registering an FIR by Delhi Police on her complaint of receiving life threats from Mr. Mahavir Jain, which has criminal attitude.  

4. Another letter was received from Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Shahdara District, Delhi stating that the Inquiry Officer visited the complainant’s address but the same was found locked and on local enquiry it was informed that the complainant had left from there to her relative’s house. The complainant could not be contacted as she did not mention her new address in her complaint. 

5. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 25.03.2020.  

The complainant was present alongwith Sh. Vijay Kumar, SHO (Vivek Vihar)  and  Sh. Narinder Singh, Head Constable/ Beat Incharge.

6. Both the parties submitted their facts.   Complainant reiterated her written submissions and inter-alia added that being female and a person with locomotor disability she is more vulnerable. She is living a traumatic life because of such life threats.  She fears to attend her Office as she has faced some instances of being stalked.  She further stated that her house lock was forcibly broken by Mr. Mahavir Jain and his men and she has also handed over the CCTV footage in this regard to the SHO in this Court.  On this,  Court directs the respondent  that this CCTV footage may be treated as property of the complainant as Exhibit handed over during the hearing. It should be studied and necessary action be taken as per law.

7. SHO, Vivek Vihar, O/o DCP (South) gave assurance to the complainant for her safety and has shared a number of his staff  Sh. Narinder Singh, Head Constable / Area Beat Officer and directed him to be in touch with her on regular basis and in case of any eventuality she could convey her inconvenience to him.  SHO, Vivek Vihar also stated that he would also direct local staff (civil team) deputed on complainant’s route to office for keeping vigil of any stalker trying to harass her on way to office. The Court appreciates above gestures of SHO(Vivek Vihar).

8. After due deliberations and discussion, the Court recommends the following:-

(i) Court directs local police to not to interfere in the civil matter of the property issues  with respect to the building in which Ms. Neetu Singh resides and if Mr. Mahavir Jain has got any dispute in respect of this property, he is free to approach any court for resolving the same.  

(ii) With regard to safety and security of Ms. Neetu Singh, it is directed that SHO(Vivek Vihar) / local Police Station should ensure safety and security of Ms. Neetu Singh, a person with disability.  Local Police is further directed to also investigate the case as per CCTV footage handed over by the complainant during the hearing and apprehend the culprits who have breached the security of  her residence i.e. any means of breaking lock and putting another lock and chain. An ATR in this regard be submitted to this court by 05.04.2021.  

(iii) Requisite preventive measures in this particular case be adopted and taken by local police considering the complaint of Ms. Neetu  Singh. 

(iv) With regard to complainant’s grievance of disconnection of electricity meter,  the court  immediately spoke  to CTO, BSES during the hearing and  complainant  is also directed to apply for a new electricity connection  and clear all her dues. 

9. The case is disposed of. 

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

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

 
Copy to:-  The CTO, BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, BRPL, BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,  New Delhi-110019 for necessary action on Para 8(iv).