Amar Dass Vs. The SHO, PS Govind Puri | Case No.2344/1111/2021/09/1748-50 | Dated: 23-09-2021

 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.2344/1111/2021/09/1748-50                                        Dated:23-09-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Amar Dass,
580/6, Govind Puri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.                        …………Complainant

Versus

The SHO,
Police Station Govind Puri,
Baba Fateh Singh Marg, Kalkaji Extension,
Block A 14, Govind Puri,
New Delhi 110019.                                  ………..Respondent 

Date of Hearing : 23.09.2021

Present : Sh. Amar Dass, Complainant
    Sh. Devi Dass, brother of complainant
                        Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Inspector on behalf of respondent

ORDER

Sh. Amar Dass, the above named complainant, a person with 80% locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 03.09.2021, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, regarding mental torture by his brother Sh. Devi Dass.  He alleged that his brother forcefully took cash etc. from him and also mentioned the various misdeeds by his brother and requested for help. 

2. The SHO, PS Govindpuri was directed to  present the alleged person Shri Devi Dass in the Court on 23.09.2021.  During the hearing, complainant reiterated his submissions.  Sh. Devi Dass, brother of complainant denied all the allegations against him.  He submitted that he is always taking care of his younger brother Sh. Amar Dass and will also do in the future.  Police official present during the hearing submitted that this is a case of civil dispute and police have no role in this matter.  

3. After hearing the complainant, his brother and the respondent, it is observed that this particular case is of civil dispute between the two brothers and not a case of discrimination on the ground of disability as per the provisions of RPwD Act, 2016.  

4. Both the brothers are requested to sort out their dispute amicably failing which the complainant may approach to the Civil Court for further action. 

5. The matter is disposed as closed.

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

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to :- Sh. Devi Dass, 149, Type-III, Sector-I, Sadique Nagar, Near Indian School, New Delhi-110049. 

Om Prakash Vs. The Director IHBAS | Case No. 2187/1111/2021/04/1718-19 | Dated: 22/09/21

 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, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

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

Case No. 2187/1111/2021/04/1718-19                            Dated: 22/09/21 
 
In the matter of:

Sh. Om Prakash,
DEO, Estt. Branch, 
Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, 
Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095.                                                  ……Complainant

Versus

The Director,
Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, 
Dilshad Garden,    
Delhi-110095.                           .…..Respondent

Date of Hearing : 21.09.2021

Present : Dr. V.K.S. Gautam, Asstt. Professor, Neurosurgery and

Sh. Abdul Qadir, Consultant, IHBAS on behalf of respondent. 

ORDER

        Sh. Om Prakash, the above named complainant, a person with 75% locomotor disability, working as DEO on contract basis in IHBAS, filed a complaint dated 13.03.2021 regarding use of abusive words against him regarding his disability and his family by Shri R.S. Saini, Assistant Accounts Officer of the Department whose behavior towards him was unbecoming. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 07.04.2021 followed by reminders dated 16.06.2021 & 27.07.2021. However, no response was received from respondent.  A hearing was scheduled on 21.09.2021.

3. During the hearing, respondent submitted a letter dated 20.09.2021 vide which it was informed that on the basis of the complaint, an enquiry was set up and Shri R.S. Saini, AAO was found guilty.  Thus with reprimand he was transferred from Establishment Section to NABH Cell, IHBAS vide their office order dated 19.04.2021.  It was further informed that a Grievance Redressal Committee has been constituted in IHBAS and the complaint of Shri Om Prakash was referred to this Committee and the Inquiry Report submitted by the Committee is under process.  Suitable measures have been adopted at IHBAS.   

4. The complainant did not attend the hearing and was contacted on telephone who informed that he was happy with the action taken by the respondent.

5. In view of the positive response of the respondent, the matter is disposed as closed.

6. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 21st day of September, 2021. 

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Suraj Pal Vs. The DCP, Rohini District | Case No. 2233/1111/2021/06/1656-57 | Dated: 15-09-2021

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. 2233/1111/2021/06/1656-57                             Dated:15-09-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Suraj Pal,
Through e-mail:palsuraj9751@gmail.com                   ………Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Rohini District,
Sector-23 Road, Pocket-5
Rohini, Delhi-110085.                         ………..Respondent 

Date of Hearing : 14.09.2021

Present: Sh.  Suraj Pal, Complainant.

Sh. Aditya Ranjan, SHO, PS Prem Nagar on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

  The complainant, Sh. Suraj Pal, a person with 65% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 07.06.2021  alleged that  Omprakash R/o of L-288, Mangol puri his wife Sushma, Kuldeep his wife Punita and Ishwar Chandra Maura are harassing him by abusing, mishandling  and  giving him threats to kill.  Sh. Omprakash and Sh. Kuldeep captured his shop and now they wanted to occupy his home forcibly. He had made complaint to Police Station Prem Nagar Rohini but the local police has not taken appropriate action against them.   

2. The complainant vide another email dated 01.07.2021 also informed that on 22.06.2021 when he went to buy some stuff from market  Sh. Kuldeep, Sh. Omprakash and Ms. Punita brutally attacked on his wife and daughter,  he called on 100 and PCR brought her wife to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for MLC. Consequently she was admitted there for four days.  After that on 22.06.2021 evening Inquiry Officer called him in Police Station Prem Nagar and arrested him and presented him in Rohini Court on 23.06.2021 and registered case 7/51.  He was shocked on the act of police that he had been harassed and tortured without any fault. Thus, he again requested this Court to help him to lodge an FIR against the above mentioned persons.

3. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 16.06.2021 followed by reminders  dated 28.07.2021 & 19.08.2021. As there was no response from the respondent, a hearing was scheduled on 14.09.2021. The complainant was present and Sh. Aditya Ranjan, SHO, Police Station, Prem Nagar was also present for respondent.

 4. Complaint reiterated his written submissions and inter-alia added that Police he had been tortured and beaten brutally by the Inquiry Officer Sh. Manglesh when he was taken into custody by Police overnight on 22.06.2021. However, no action was taken against alleged persons.  He has also alleged that the accused persons keep making rounds at his residence in groups and make intimidating gestures.  Police is adopting lackadaisical in investigating his case, he possessed a pendrive in favour of his claim but police is not considering it as evidence.    He, therefore, he fears unprotected and frightened for his family and his property.

5. Sh. Aditya Ranjan , SHO, PS Prem Nagar vide their written submissions dated 14.09.2021 informed that the enquiry into the matter got conducted through ACP Aman Vihar, which revealed that mother of complainant i.e. Shiv Kali Devi has this three storey building.  The ground floor was given to the complainant, one other floor to his younger brother Mukesh and rest floor to their nephew Kuldeep, who became an orphan at young age and since then as grandparents they have been looking after him as guardian.  Now nephew Kuldeep and complainant’s younger brother Omprakash is trying to capture the said property forcefully.  It further revealed that as per statement of mother of complainant she is the sole owner of the property and she has given other property to her three sons namely Surajpal, Mukesh and Om Prakash. None of her sons look after her and thus, she is currently residing with her grandson Kuldeep in the above said property.  She has rented the shop on the ground floor to one Ishwar Chand who is paying rent to her on monthly basis. Her son Suraj Pal and Mukesh wanted to sell this property of her and so they are trying to implicate her grandson Kuldeep and tenant Ishwar Chand in a false case. It was further stated that Suraj Pal and his brother Mukesh have filed a Civil Suit No. CS/570/2021 on the subject matter against the mother and the tenant Ishwar Chand Maurya in the Court of Sh. Abhinav Singh, Civil Judge, Rohini Courts in order to get the place vacated.  During the course of enquiry by the Police as per statement of Kuldeep, nephew of the complainant, it was also recorded that in all official documents the name of his grandfather Late Sh. Gangadin has been recorded in place of his father’s name as guardian.   All his uncles namely Suraj Pal (complainant), Mukesh and Om Prakash neglected their own mother hence she has been residing with him.  His uncles wanted to sell the property so they filed the Civil Suit No. CS/570/2021  against Ishwar Chandra Maurya, tenant of the shop and another Civil Suit No. CS/851/2021 against him (Kuldeep ) and his grandmother Smt. Shivkali Devi.  Further the complainant has already filed a complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as well as U/S 200 Cr. P.C before the Hon’ble Court of Ld. MM Rohini Court with the same allegations mentioned in this complaint and the case is pending before the Hon’ble MM Rohini Court CC No. 5800/21. Thus the matter pertains to family property dispute which is civil in nature.  The complainant has already filed two civil suits in Rohini Courts against her mother Smt. Shivkali Devi, his nephew Kuldeep and tenant Ishwar Chandra Maura.  Since the matter is already sub-judice, no police action is required. 

6. Section 6 & 7 of the Act  mandates the appropriate Government to take measures to protect persons with disabilities from being subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and  from all forms  of abuse, violence and exploitation and to prevent the same.  The concerned Executive Magistrate and the other Police Officers are required to take various measures to ensure protection of persons with disabilities from any abuse, violence and exploitation.   In this regard, Commissioner of Police vide Circular No. 28/2017 dated 25.10.2017 directed all the DCs(P) to take necessary action to make the IOs aware of the provisions of Act and to ensure its effective implementation. 

7. In view of the above facts, it is recommended that:

(i) The matter is a property dispute and currently sub-judice in Civil Court, thus the issue of settlement of property cannot be considered in this court. Complainant & Respondent should take appropriate measures as per outcome of the pending civil suit. 

(ii) Respondent is directed to ensure that the complainant is not harassed, abused, or discriminated by any person in any manner and his rights are not infringed.

(iii) SHO, Police Station, Prem Nagar, is also directed to check and go through the pendrive, which will be handed over by complainant (alongwith Certificate 65-B that it is not tempered / doctored) as an evidence to his claim that accused persons keep making rounds at his residence in groups and make intimidating gestures thereby threatening him and his family and if it proves that, adequate action to be taken against such culprits. 

(iv) SHO, Police Station, Prem Nagar is also directed to investigate and confirm that complainant was tortured and beaten up in Police custody overnight on 22/06/2021 by Inquiry Officer Sh. Manglesh or if the fact is otherwise and submit an ATR to this Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. 

8. Accordingly, the case is disposed of. 

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

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Bankey Lal Prashad Vs. The Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation | Date 14.09.2021

 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. 2139/1083/2021/03/1599-1600                                       Dated:14-09-21

In the matter of:

Sh. Bankey Lal Prashad,

D-81, Ramchander Enclave, 

Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, 

New Delhi-110059.                             ....……Complainant                      

Versus

The Commissioner, 

South Delhi Municipal Corporation

9th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Centre, JLN Marg, 

New Delhi-110092                             ..........Respondent 

D.O.H.: 09.09.2021

Present: Sh. Bankey Lal Prashad, Complainant.

        Sh. Satya Prakash Kumar, Admn.Officer/WZ and 

                Sh. Dharam Prakash, Asstt. Section Officer appeared on behalf of Respondent 

ORDER

      The complainant, a person with 59% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 01.03.2021 alleged that before 15.01.2018 he used to run a tehbazari shop at Transport Authority, Janakpuri District Centre, New Delhi but due to imprisonment and Covid pandemic he could not continue to run his shop w.e.f. 15.01.2018 to  25.01.2019. Now when he tries to run his shop / squat at that place,  local Police and South DMC staff do not allow him to do so. He also mentioned that at present survey of vendors is under process and if he is not allowed to squat at that site his name would not be included in the survey and he will not get the benefits resulting from the survey in future. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 11.03.2021 for submission of their comments. Addl. Dy. Commissioner West Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation vide his reply dated 07.09.2021 informed that the concerned Licensing Inspector of Ward 15-S has not seen Sh. Bankey Lal squatting at Authority Janakpuri near Police station, District Centre.  Sh. Bankey Lal submitted copy of Challan G8 No. 60632 dated 09.10.2015 and in this challan site is Nawada Metro station, Metro Pillar No. 731.  Earlier in case number 4/962/2015-Wel/CED/182 dated 27.04.2015, the then Asstt. Commissioner West zone vide his letter dated 08.05.02015 stated that all such applications are pending in West Zone and due to lack of paucity of space of squatting sites in West Zone,  no PCO booth is allotted since 2005.  However, the case would be considered on the basis of seniority and merits as and when site is available. Thus, it is evident from the Challan enclosed by the applicant that Sh. Bankey Lal Parshad, S/o Nagina Parshad squat at Nawada Metro Station, Metro Pillar No. 731. Further presently survey of street vendors is under process and any grievance in this regard would also be taken up by Zonal Town Vending Committee after the survey.   Thus, it was requested to file the case of Sh. Bankey Lal Prashad.

3. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was held on 09.09.2021.   Representatives of respondent and complainant were present. Complainant inter-alia submitted that being a person with disability he is facing great difficulty in earning his livelihood so he should be given permission to run his shop/vending at Janakpuri Transport Authority.  

4. Sh. Satya Prakash Kumar, Administrative Officer and Sh. Dharam Prakash, Asstt. Section Officer/Licensing Inspector appeared on behalf of respondent.  It was reiterated that no PCO booth was allotted to the complainant and the Challan submitted by complainant is for Nawada Metro Station Metro Pillar No. 731.  There is no proof that he was vending from the site of Janakpuri Transport Authority. However, the name of complainant is registered in the waiting list S.No. 9.  It was submitted by the MCD officials that the survey of street vendors is under process and any grievance in this regard would be taken up by Zonal Town Vending Committee after completion of survey. 

5. State Commissioner expressed his concern about the fact that being national capital, Delhi should be setting examples of high standards for all others to follow.  Municipal Corporations and  Local Police should effectively work towards the illegal squatting / tehbazari on footpaths, pedestrians and roads.  Besides the menace to general public, senior citizens and especially for persons with disabilities, it is an ugly site avoidable in the national capital.  Further while issuing tehbazari license, the three basic rules of tehbazari should be kept in mind firstly it is meant for a temporary period; secondly beyond five years it is expected that particular tehbazari person improves his economic condition and moves out of tehbazari slot and thirdly it is not transferable.  

6. Needy persons with disabilities also have rights to earn their livelihood in a dignified manner.  Hence, there is an urgent need to make balance of both the aspects.  It is the duty of local Police and  Municipal Corporations and other concerned departments to regulate this issue of street vending / tehbazari and take appropriate actions to identify safe / ideal sites for such activities.  It should not be like it is currently seen in some places of Delhi as uncontrolled, unregulated, over crowded with free for all sites which cause difficulty for any normal citizen to access the markets or encroached footpaths line above persons with disabilities. 

7. After due deliberations and discussion, the Court recommends as under: 

(i) Court directs respondent to hasten up the process of survey of street vendors and allotment of vending sites by the Zonal Town Vending Committee considering the facts that genuine and needy persons with disabilities may be given chance of earning their livelihood and live in a dignified manner.

(ii) Accordingly, complainant should be given allotment as per S.No. No. 9, ID.No. 160472 on the basis of his seniority / merits after completion of survey process by Zonal Town Vending Committee. 

8. The case is disposed of. 

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

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. The Director, Dte of Education | Case No. 2140/1023/2021/03/537-38 | Dated:10-09-21

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-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. 2140/1023/2021/03/537-38                               Dated:10-09-21                 


In the matter of:

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta,
R/o 30/LG-1, Teachers Apartment, Block-A,
Dilshad Colony, Delhi-110095.
[Email:rkg.vh2014@gmail.com]                        ……………..Complainant 

Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110054.                                  ……………….Respondent 

Date of Hearing: 09.09.2021

Present:

Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Consultant alongwith Sh. Praveen Kumar, HoS/Vice Principal, GBSS School, New Seemapuri on behalf of Respondent

Order on Summary of Evidence

As per the plea of the complainant, hearing was cancelled. Only a summary of records was done. As per the evidence put up by the Department of Education & HoS/Vice Principal, GBSS School, New Seemapuri, the following are the summary of evidence. 

2. The complainant, a visually impaired person filed a complaint dated 01.03.2021. The case has two aspects, one of his Compulsory Retirement & the other release of his Subsistence Allowance admissible to him since 05.01.2021 onwards.

3. The complainant inter-alia alleged that he was wrongly imposed penalty of Compulsory Retirement by Lt. Governor, Delhi and sought immediate stay on all pending Disciplinary Proceedings against him and also to withdraw Compulsory Retirement Order No. F.5/14/2017/DOV/94 dated 04.01.2021 issued against him.  

4. It was observed by this Court that the Hon’ble Lt. Governor, Delhi had considered all the relevant facts and records of the Case and observed the proven misconduct of the Charged Officer was grave in nature and was of the view that for the proven misconduct, the ends of justice would be met by imposing penalty of “Compulsory Retirement” upon the Charged Officer i.e. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the complainant.  

5. Moreover, the subject case is of Disciplinary nature where a departmental enquiry was conducted against the complainant as per CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.  It is not a case of discrimination on the ground of disability as per the provision of RPwD Act, 2016.  If at all, the complainant wishes to contest revoke of the Hon’ble LG’s Order, it is not within the purview of this Court.  The complainant should approach the Superior Court. 

6. Further, regarding the plea of payment of Subsistence Allowance admissible to complainant, it was informed by the representatives of the respondent that the admissible allowance had already been paid through ECS to the complainant till 04.01.2021 i.e. upto the date the complainant was under suspension.  

7. In view of above, as this complaint is not against non-implementation of any provision of the RPwD Act, 2016 or discrimination on the ground of disability, the complaint is closed. 

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

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities  

Anju Rani Vs. Directorate of Education & Anr. | Case No.2009/1014/2020/10/1541-43 | Dated:10-09-21

 

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.2009/1014/2020/10/1541-43                  Dated:10-09-21

In the matter of:

Ms. Anju Rani, 
Email: parminderpkm80@gmail.com …………….Complainant
                           
Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Education
Govt. of NCT Delhi
Old Secretariat
Delhi-110054                                    ...............Respondent No.1

The Chairman,  
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092                                             ...............Respondent No. 2

Date of Hearing: 27.07.2021

Present: Ms. Anju Rani, complainant.

Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Assistant on behalf of Respondent No. 1

Sh. K.K. Mishra, Dy. Secretary and Sh. R.P. Tripathi, S.O. on behalf of Respondent No. 2

ORDER

The above named complainant, Ms. Anju Rani, a person with 50% locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 04.06.2020 regarding non-selection for the post of Librarian under post code 02/13, which was received in this Office from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on 20.10.2020.  Vide her complaint, she also submitted that in compliance of order passed by Hon’ble CAT in OA No. 2330/2018 dated 01.06.2018, DSSSB passed a Speaking Order dated 17.09.2018 stating therein that she stands in waiting list of Post Code 02/13, Advertisement No. 01/13 and as on date no vacancy was lying vacant in OH category. However, during the validity of waitlist/panel (that was upto 09.11.2018) if the user department i.e. Directorate of Education (DoE) would request the DSSSB to forward the same, her dossier would be forwarded to them as per merit. She further informed that as per RTI reply sought from the concerned (User) Department the posts were still lying vacant.  She approached DSSSB several times for issuing the dossiers but the DSSSB refused to do so on the pretext that no post is lying vacant in UR OH category.  Thus, DSSSB had passed false Speaking Order.  She alleged that she should not be penalised because of in-coordination between the departments.  She requested for justice in the matter.

2. The matter was taken up with the DSSSB vide letter dated 11.11.2020 followed by reminder dated 17.12.2020 for submission of their comments. A reply was received from Dy. Secretary, DSSSB on 06.01.2021 vide which it was informed that the result of above post code was declared on 09.11.2017 for which waiting Panel was valid upto 09.11.2018.  The name of the candidate Ms. Anju Rani having Roll No. 69000113 was as per waiting panel in OH category.  However, no dossier was received back under the said category from the User Department during the validity period of Waiting Panel. Hence, her name could not be considered for selection.

3. The complainant vide her rejoinder dated 24.01.2021 stated as per DSSSB the result for the Post of Librarian, Post Code 02/13 was declared by them on 09.11.2017 so the wait list was valid till 09.11.2018. But the DSSSB contradicted its own statement when result Notice No. 610 dated 13.02.2018, result Notice No. 737 dated 12.11.2018 and result Notice No. 747 dated 16.01.2019 were declared by them for the same post code and advertisement number.  Complainant therefore, emphasised that wait list should be valid upto 16.01.2020 as per DSSSB Notification dated 13.06.2013 as it clarifies that the waitlist shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of declaration of result and vacancies arising due to non-acceptance of offer of appointment, not joining the post or due to resignation of the selected candidates within one year of joining the post shall be filled up from the reserved panel/waitlist.

4. The complainant further informed that as per DoE vacancy position sent to DSSSB on 05.04.2018, there were 18 vacancies that remained unfilled for the post of Librarian post code 02/13, out of these two vacancies were of UR/OH.  The DoE, vide its letter dated 29.12.2018, once again returned the dossiers of 15 candidates, who did not join or resigned including the dossier of one Sh. Dhananjay Kumar in UR/OH category.

 5. The matter was taken up with the Directorate of Education vide this office letter dated 04.02.2021 to seek explanation for delaying in submission of requisite dossier to the DSSSB (i.e. after expiry of validity of wait list panel) followed by reminder dated 11.03.2021.  

6. DoE vide its letter dated 15.04.2021 submitted that DoE received 289 dossiers out of total 382 vacancies for the post of Librarian under Post Code 02/13 till 13.02.2018 due to various cases pending in different courts.  The results of post code 02/13 were declared vide notice No. 445 dated 14.03.2016 and Notice No. 516 dated 27.07.2016.  Thereafter, these results were revised in compliance with various court orders and the last result was declared on 13.02.2018 vide result Notice No. 610.  The waiting panel for which was valid upto 09.11.2018 as per DSSSB.   The DoE vide letter dated 05.04.2018 requested DSSSB to send dossiers against 37 unfilled vacant posts and informed about 18 candidates who were terminated/resigned/not joined in the same letter.  At that time, it was not in practice to return the dossiers of terminated/resigned/not joined candidates to DSSSB.  But later on it was decided in consultation with and approval of higher authorities to send such dossiers to DSSSB. Therefore, 16 such dossiers were sent back to DSSSB on 26.12.2018. The dossier of Sh. Dhananjay Kumar was also included in these 16 dossiers.

7. Sh. Manak Singh joined the post of Librarian but later on resigned from the post. So his dossier was not returned to DSSSB. Further, Sh. Amresh Kundu sought extension for joining which was allowed upto 15.06.2019. However, he did not join and his candidature was cancelled on 12.07.2019 and his dossier was returned to DSSSB on 24.07.2019.

8. Although, it was not in practice to return the dossiers to DSSSB, however, the Department intimated the DSSSB well in time vide letter dated 05.04.2018 about unfilled vacancies and requested to fill up maximum possible candidates in the interest of students. 

9. The complainant vide rejoinder dated 16.06.2021 submitted that DoE and DSSSB are contradictory in their statements about the declaration of last result. The DoE stated that the last result notice No. 610 was declared on 13.02.2018. However, DSSSB declared the last result notice No. 747 on 16.01.2019. So the wait list should be valid till 16.01.2020 as per Govt. of NCT of Delhi letter No. F.No.1(192) DSSSB/P&P/13/5653-72 dated 13.06.2013.  It was further submitted that the Result Notice 747 dated 16.01.2019 is in continuation of result notice No. 445 dated 14.03.2016 and subsequent Result Notice No. 516 dated 27.07.2016 Result No. 597 dated 09.11.2017 and Result Notice No. 610 dated 13.02.2018. It is evident from these result numbers that the recruitment process was going on for the post of Librarian under post code 02/13, Advt. No. 01/13. Then, how can the validity of Waitlist expire when the last result was declared on 16.01.2019. 

10. Considering the replies of the DSSSB, DoE and the complaint & rejoinder of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 08.07.2021. Respondent No. 1 being User Department in the instant case was directed to ascertain the fact that whether the post of Librarian in the Post Code 02/13 under UR/OH category (Advertisement No. 01/13) was still vacant/existing or not.  Similarly, Respondent No. 2 was also directed to ascertain if the complainant was qualified age-wise on the actual closure of the post code.

11. DoE vide letter dated 15.07.2021 informed that the DoE had sent requisition of 382 vacant posts of Librarian which were advertised vide Advertisement No. 01/13 under Post Code 02/13.  Further, DoE has apprised the unfilled vacancies for the post of Librarian under post code 02/13 to DSSSB vide letter dated 05.04.2018 so that the dossiers of the candidates waiting in panel can be forwarded to the Education Department.  The Panel was valid till 09.11.2018.  However, appointment process for the post of Librarian under post code 02/13 was closed on 05.06.2018 and unfilled vacancies were returned to the user department as no suitable candidate was available in their respective categories i.e. 18 (UR-06(PH-HH), OBC-03(PH-HH), SC-01(PH-HH) and ST-08 including (PH-HH).  Further, the unfilled vacancies were carried forward in subsequent requisitions sent to DSSSB which were advertised vide advertisement No. 02/14 and 04/20.  It was further added that it was not feasible to accommodate the aforesaid candidate under post code 02/13 at this stage, as the recruitment process under the post code 02/13 had already been closed and the vacancies carried forward.

12. During the hearing on 27.07.2021, the Court observed that validity of the post of Librarian in UR/OH category was up to 09.11.2018, however as confirmed by the Education Department vide their letter dated 15.07.2021 that the appointment process of the subject post of Librarian under Post Code 02/13 was closed on 05.06.2018 itself and the unfilled vacancies were returned to the user department as no suitable candidate was available in respective categories.  DSSSB, Respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 18.09.2018 and 27.07.2021 had confirmed that the name of Ms. Anju Rani existed in the wait list/panel (at Sl. No. 1) and for which validity was upto 09.11.2018. Thus, how the appointment process for the particular post was closed by Education Department before the validity date.

13. DSSSB vide its letter dated 27.07.2021 submitted the status report reiterating its earlier submission. It was further submitted that the complainant filed an OA No. 2330/2018 in the CAT. In compliance of the order of Hon’ble CAT dated 01.06.2018, the candidature of Ms. Anju Rani, the complainant was thoroughly considered, examined and not found admissible and hence rejected. A reasoned speaking order dated 17.09.2018 was issued in the matter. 

14. This court took into account the order dated 08.07.2021 passed by Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in similarly placed case in OA No. 243/2021, Akhand Pratap Singh Vs. GNCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary, DSSSB, SDMC and North DMC.  Relevant Para 8 & 9 of the said order is reproduced below:-

Para-8: “if one takes into account, the very objective underlying the preparation and maintenance of waitlist, it is only to avoid the possibility of the post remaining vacant even after the selection process was concluded. The selecting agency has to make huge efforts to filter the candidates and then publish the select list. If for any reason, a selected candidates do not join, the looser will not be just the candidate or the selecting agency, but the user department, and thereby public at large. Once the selection process in this case was spread over seven years, counting of a day this way or that was should not make much difference, particularly when the applicant is a candidate with physical disability. We are of the view that the existing vacancy of the post of ALO reserved in favor of PH category can be offered to the applicant, who is next in the merit.

Para-9: We therefore, allow the OA and direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as ALO against the vacancy reserved in favor of PH category after due verification, by treating that the waitlist was alive, when the requisition was received. On being appointed, the applicant shall hold the office prospectively, without any benefit anterior to the date of appointment. The exercise in this behalf shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the dated of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

15. After going through the submissions of the complainant, respondents and due deliberations and discussion, the Court recommends the respondents to do the needful in this case on the similar lines as ordered by Hon’ble CAT in the OA No. 243/2021, Akhand Pratap Singh Vs. GNCT of Delhi and Ors. (Copy enclosed)

16. The case is closed with the above recommendation and action taken be intimated to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.

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

(Ranjan Mukherjee) 

                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Encl: As above

Jayant Singh Raghav Vs. Delhi Development Authority | Case No. 2146/1101/2021/02/1493-96 I Dated: 08/09/2021

 

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-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. 2146/1101/2021/02/1493-96 Dated: 08/09/2021

In the matter of:

Sh. Jayant Singh Raghav
Flat No. 323, Chandanwari Apartment,
Plot no. 8, Sector 10, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075
Email: jsraghav323@gmail.com             ……………Complainant

Versus

The Vice Chairman
Delhi Development Authority
D Block, VikasSadan, INA,
New Delhi-110023.                      .……………Respondent

Date of Hearing: 07.09.2021

Present: Sh. Jayant Singh Raghav, Complainant

Sh. Youvraj Singh, father of Complainant

Sh. Ajay Kumar Saroj, Director (Building) &

Sh. YogeshTyagi, Dy. Director (Building), DDA on behalf of respondent

ORDER

The above named complaint, a person with visual impairment, submitted a complaint vide his email dated 06.03.2021,under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act,regarding inaccessibility of extension work of flats in Chandanwari Apartments, Dwarka.The complainant further requested that construction work be stopped,accessibility audit of the infrastructure be conducted and if required penalty be imposed. 

2. The matter was taken up with the President, RWA, Chandanwari Apartments, Dwarkavide letter dated 19.03.2021.  The Presidentof the RWA, Chandanwari Apartments vide letter dated 04.04.2021 responded that RWA is bound to ensure equality of rights and accessibility to Persons with Disabilities.Complainant has not disclosed any particular instance or fact of violation of rights of Persons with Disabilities. He has simply pointed out that rights are being violated without specifying how they are being violated. Further, it was submitted that construction work in question in the present complaint was undertaken by the RWAafter taking the prior approval of DDA and other Development Authorities. All the Architectural plans were duly submitted with DDA and other concerned authorities and due procedure was adopted for obtaining the approval. Needless to say that DDA and other development authorities took into consideration all the guidelines issued by the different government departments with respect to construction of public building and facilities for Persons with Disabilities. It was also submitted that all the guidelines issued by the government from time to time are complied with and the infrastructure project being constructed is in complete harmony with National Building Code, Harmonized Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons in March, 2016 and other guidelines issued by appropriate Government from time to time. In addition to various facilities, Infrastructure project in question is comprises of ‘electronic lift’ for smooth and comfortable accessibility of Persons with Disabilities to any floor.

3. Further, RWA submitted that lift area is accessible for PwDs by the way of proper spaces ramps. Moreover, adequate care had been taken make parks and recreation areas accessible for PwDs by constructing enough ramps around such facilities and that parking area constructed is in accordance with the parking infrastructure as mandated by various guidelines of the government.

4. RWA’s effort to make the building accessible for PwDs is limited to the common space only. Occupant of the individual flat is at liberty to design the interiors of its accordance with its own choice.

5. RWA also submitted that the complainant has sought relief to stop the construction work with immediate effect. This relief cannot be granted in the light of law laid down by legislature and also cited judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala &Ors. V.Vinesh Kumar Bhasin (2010)4 SSC 368.

6. The comments of RWA were sent to the complainant vide this office letter dated 13.04.2021. Complainant vide email dated 27.04.2021 submitted his rejoinder. 

7. The matter was taken up with the Vice Chairman, DDA vide this office letter dated 18.06.2021followed by reminder dated 02.08.2021 to conduct and Access Audit of Chandanwari Apartments and to submit an Access Audit Report to this office.No response was received from DDA. VC, DDA was, therefore, impleaded as Respondent and a hearing was scheduled on 07.09.2021 vide summons dated 27.08.2021. 

8. During the hearing,complainant reiterated submissions. DDA submitted the status report on the complaint of Sh. Jayant Singh Raghavwith respect to provisions of UBBL-2016 with reference to Persons with Disabilities.

9. It was submitted that the scheme was sanctioned on 26.09.1995 after receiving NOC from DFS and DUAC, D Form issued on 19.06.2000, POC was issued on 30.01.2002 and revised sanctioned was granted on 23.08.2019 after receiving NOC from DUAC, DFS.

10. It was further submitted that as per the Unified Building Bye Laws (UBBL), 2016, Chapter 11, Clause 11.0, [modified vide SO no. 668(E) dated 12.02.2020], the provisions for Universal Design for Persons with Disabilities are applicable to the common areas in the ground level/stilts for Residential Group Housing.In this case, there is no stilt and therefore the provisions of design for Persons with Disabilities are to be provided for common areas at the ground floor as per chapter 11.0 of UBBL 2016.The provisions are to be provided by the Managing Committee of the Society.

11. The matter was discussed at length with both the parties. After due deliberation and discussion held, it was recommended as under:

(i) DDA should conduct an Access Audit of Chandanwari Apartments and bring out the deficiencies, if any. 

(ii) President and the Society Authorities of the Chandanwari CGHS Limited, Dwarka to ensure all the accessibility norms in the common area, lift area, proper signages, tactile etc., are fitted/retrofittedas per the RPwD Act, 2016 and Harmonised guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier free built environment for Persons with Disabilities and elderly persons, issued by Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India.

(iii) RWA/Society Authorities should adhere to the timings with respect to construction work, if any being carried out in the society premises as per the National Building Code of India)MBC) guidelines & norms i.e. 10:00 hours to 17:00 hours only.

(iv) DDA should also get the Standard norms enforcements checked in the society premises & report compliance or deviations if any, to this court before 90 days from the date of receipt of this order.

12. This court be informed of the action taken on the above recommendations within three months from the date of receipt of this office as required under section 81 of the RPwD Act, 2016. 

13. The complaint is disposed of. 

14. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 07thday of September, 2021.

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to:

1. The President, Chandanwari CGHS Limited, Plot No. 8, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075: (For ensuring the implementation of recommendations mentioned above and appraise this court of the action taken within three months from the date of receipt of this order)

2. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, GNCT of Delhi, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. (For appointing an Administrator, in case accessibility norms are not ensured by the Chandanwari CGHS Limited)