Mohd. Iqbal Vs. The Director, Directorate of Education | Case No.1792/1024/2020/03/3026-27 | Dated:25/10/2021

 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-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.1792/1024/2020/03/3026-27                 Dated:25/10/2021

In the matter of:

Mohd. Iqbal,
R/o-240, Street No. 5,
Joga Bai Extension, 
Jamia Nagar,New Delhi-110025         ............Complainant
                                                      Versus
The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat,Delhi-110054                  ……......Respondent

Date of Hearing: 01.03.2021

Present: Sh.Mohd. Iqbal, Complainant

Dr.Shamshad Ali, DDE Zone-29, Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Assistant & Sh. TanveerAlam, Legal Assistant, Zone-29 Respondent, Dte. Of Education on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 80db to 93.3db percent hearing impairment has filed a complaint dated 09.01.2020 received on 14.02.2020 from the court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act, 2016, herein after referred to as the Act. The complainant submitted that he is working in Govt. Boys Sr. Secondary School (Director of Education), Jasola Village, Distt. South-East as a TGT. He further submitted that Directorate of Education is not giving him double Transport Allowance (TA) @ normal rate w.e.f. 01.09.2008 to onwards but they are giving to other disabled employee.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent on 09/6/2020 for submission of their ATR/Comments followed by reminders dated 16/9/2020, 27/11/2020, no response has been received from the respondent. Therefore, hearing held on 01/3/2021, the respondent was directed to send a D.O. letter to Ministry of Finance and obtain the clarification on the OM dated 16/9/2014 & dated 07.07.2017 and on receipt of the clarification from the Ministry of Finance, the matter may be taken up further.

3. It has brought to the notice of the Court that despite direction of this court vide Record of Proceeding dated 02.03.2021, no compliance has been initiated by the Dte of Education, till date

4. It seems the Respondent is indifferent to the issue and deliberately not taking cognizance of the order of the Court, which waspassed in the Court proceeding while administering the justice as per RPWD Act, 2016. It is a matter of serious concern that any public servant is acting in such casual or negligent manner and is having no regard to the orders of Court of Law. 

5. Non-compliance of Court order in the course of administering of the Justice, by the Respondent, is a gross violation and is an offence and respondent may be penalised under Section 93 of the the RPWDs Act, 2016, which reproduced as under:

“Whoever, fails to produce any book, account or other documents or to furnish any statement, information or particulars which, under this Act or any order, or direction made or given there under, is duty bound to produce or furnish or to answer any question put in pursuance of the provisions of this Act or of any order, or direction made or given thereunder, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees in respect of each offence, and in case of continued failure or refusal, with further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day, of continued failure or refusal or refusal after the date of original order imposing punishment of fine."

6. Accordingly, respondent is recommended to pass a speaking order if, transport allowance @ double the normal rates, subject to fulfilment of the stipulated conditions is admissible to Mohd. Iqbal as per extant rules for the period from September, 2008 to July, 2014. It may be ensured the complainant should not be denied benefit that he is entitled to under the rules and should not be subjected to any discrimination and harassment on the ground of his disability and because he has approached to this court for redressal of his grievance.

7. The Action Taken Report is to be sent to this court within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to complainant as required under Section 81 of the Act. The matter is disposed of accordingly.

8. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 25th day of October 2021.

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner of Person with Disabilities

Advocate Meena Kadian Vs. The Pr. Secretary, Department of Home, GNCTD | Case No. 2370/1016/2021/09/2006-09 | Dated:12/10/2021

 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. 2370/1016/2021/09/2006-09                    Dated:12/10/21

In the matter of:

Advocate Meena Kadian,
D/o Sh. Kirpal Singh,
RZ-74, B-Block, Netaji Lane,
Near Surakhpur Road,
Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043.
(Email: meena.kadian@live.com)                   .....……Complainant                          
Versus

The Pr. Secretary,
Department of Home,                               
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
5th Level, ‘C’ Wing,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P Estate, 
New Delhi-110002.                                                       ……..Respondent

Case No.2371/1016/2021/09                                         

In the matter of:

Sh. Surya Joshi,
H.No. 9527, Pocket  C-9,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070.       ....Complainant
                           
Versus

The Pr. Secretary,
Department of Home,                               
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
5th Level, ‘C’ Wing,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P Estate, 
New Delhi-110002.                                                       ……..Respondent

Date of Hearing: 11.10.2021

Present: Advocate Meena Kadian, Complainant on telephone 
Sh. Surya Joshi, Complainant
                        Sh. L.K. Gautam, Deputy Secretary alongwith Sh. Aditya Trehan, APP on behalf of                                Respondent (in both cases)

ORDER

Advocate Meena Kadian, a person with 100% locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 28.01.2021 and Sh. Surya Joshi, a person with 40% Specific Learning Disability filed another complaint dated 29.01.2021, both received from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letters dated 20.09.2021 and 16.09.2021 respectively, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The complainants alleged that Department of Home, GNCT of Delhi had forwarded a requisition for filling up of 80 vacancies of Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), which was advertised by UPSC vide Advertisement No. 2-2021 (Vacancy No. 21010211223). However, UPSC has ignored the Benchmark Disability i.e. Both Leg & Specific Learning Disability (SLD) respectively in the said vacancy.

2. Both the matters were taken up with the respondent vide show cause-cum-hearing notice dated 24.09.2021. As the subject matter in both the cases is similar, a common hearing was scheduled on 11.10.2021. 

3. During the hearing, complainants reiterated their submissions. Respondent department vide their submission dated 11.10.2021 submitted that Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities), GOI, issued the gazette notification on 04.01.2021 notifying the amended eligibility for the post of APP in Central Government by adding new category of disability MF in functional requirement and SLD in suitable category of benchmark disabilities in addition to the earlier eligibility categories. Whereas Home Department submitted the proposal for recruitment of 80 Posts of APP vide letter dated 05.10.2020 which was advertised by UPSC vide Advertisement No. 02/2021 dated 23.01.2021.

4. It was also submitted that a Committee was constituted vide order dated 19.02.2019 for identifying the post of APP in the Directorate of Prosecution. The Committee after considering all the relevant factors relating to the role and responsibilities of APPs of GNCT of Delhi identified the following categories (a) blindness and low vision (b) hard of hearing (with not less than 60% with assistive device) (c) locomotor disability (OA, OL) including leprosy cured, dwarfism and acid attack victims (d) Multiple disabilities from amongst persons (a) to (c).  

5. Further, It was informed that the matter was referred to Law Department and Services Department, GNCT of Delhi and it was advised that “the appropriate Government in case of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi is different than the Appropriate Government in case of Central Government. The Expert Committee constituted by this Government has independently identified the PH requirement for the post of APP in Directorate of Prosecution, Delhi. The above position show that the advertisement issued in case of APP in Directorate of Prosecution, Delhi should be in conformity in the policy decision taken by the Appropriate Government of NCT of Delhi.”

6. Complainants informed the Court that they have appeared in the examination held for this post.  Respondent department informed that meeting of the Competent Committee is scheduled on 13.10.2021 for considering suitability of PwD Candidates for recruitment to the post of APP, GNCT of Delhi, as per Gazette Notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities.

7. After due deliberations and discussions, taking due cognisance of submissions made by the complainant & the respondent, it is observed that the identification of posts by Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities is valid for entire country and all organisations have to follow it.  The respondent department should have taken exemption if there was any deviation from the notification issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities.  In view of the above, the case is disposed with the following recommendations:-

(i)  A corrigendum in respect of re-advertisement/re-examination be issued in respect of those PwD candidates whose categories are identified as per S.No.584 of the list of identified posts issued vide Notification No.38-16/2020-DD-III dated 04.01.2021 by Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India. 

(ii)  The Respondent Department should place the matter in respect of both the complainants and other similarly placed PwD candidates before the competent Committee constituted for the purpose of identification of posts of APP whose meeting has been scheduled on 13.10.2021 regarding their re-appearance for the examination and take decision accordingly.

 8. This court be informed of the action taken by the respondent within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of RPwD Act, 2016.

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 12th day of October, 2021.

 (Ranjan Mukherjee)

      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities 

Sikandar Vs. The DCP North East District | Case No. 2016/1111/2020/11/1914-15 | Dated: 07-10-2021

  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. 2016/1111/2020/11/1914-15         Dated:07-10-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Sikandar 
S/o Wali Mohammad, 
R/o H.No. 288, Ahata Patwari, 
Balupura, Pakka Talab, 
Ghaziabad, UP-201001
(e-mail: foziyajahan786@gmail.com        ………Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
North East District,
Seelampur, GT. Road, Delhi-110053.                  ………..Respondent 
(e-mail: dcp-northeast-dl@nic.in)

Date of Hearing : 05.10.2021

Present: Sh.  Sikandar, Complainant alongwith his daughter 
Ms. Foziya.
Sh. Vijay Kumar, SHO, PS (Welcome) on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

        Sh. Sikandar, a person with 45% locomotor disability vide his e-mail dated 17.10.2020 alleged that a Community/Khap Panchayat  was organised on 06.08.2020 in Kabir Nagar, Delhi to settle an issue wherein the so called and self employed Sarpanch and other members of that Panchayat gave  verdict  against him and his family  and ordered the community to not to have  any contact  with him & his family in any manner (Hookah Paani Band).  They were forced to do sit up in front of them so as to reverse their orders. Thus they felt persecuted and discriminated by the above act of the Community/Khap Panchayat.  The incident was also reported at the corresponding Welcome Police Station and details of the accused party members were given in the complaint / FIR No. 8130452001128.  Therefore, he sought relief as per the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities.   

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 06.11.2020 followed by reminders dated 17.12.2020 & 12.01.2021 for submission of their comments. A reply was received from Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, North East District dated 22.01.2021 vide which it was informed that an enquiry into the matter was got conducted through ACP/ Bhajanpura/NED.  During the course of enquiry statement of complainant was recorded. He stated that he is permanent resident of Balupura, Ghaziaband, UP and runs a tyre repairing shop at Meerut road.  His son namely Faizal Khan married to Shabnam D/o Ansari in the year 2018.  Soon after the marriage, his daughter in law returned to her maternal home.  He alleged that some members of his community intervened in the matter and convened a meeting in Kabir Nagar, Delhi on 06.08.2020 to sort out the dispute between both the families. The complainant alleged that the members of Committee humiliated him in the meeting and they also issued order to others members to not keep/maintain any relation with the complainant and his family.  During enquiry complainant accepted that he participated in the Community Panchayat as per his own will.  Further with regard to his grievance, he did not make any PCR call on that day.  Further local enquiry was made in Kabir Nagar, Delhi and as per enquiry the community people denied such order of panchayat. Police reported that the matter was found to be matrimonial dispute, hence allegations were not substantiated. 

3. The complainant vide another email dated 07.08.2021 informed that in spite of his repeated requests, no progress has been made in his case. Police authorities are not taking appropriate action in the matter as they did not serve a single Notice to the opposite party.  Now, the opposite party ganged up against him and he was also receiving threats call.  Thus he again requested to take serious actions and expedite the process. 

4. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 05.10.2021, which was attended by complainant, his daughter and representative of respondent.  

5. Complaint reiterated his written submissions and inter-alia added that during the meeting of self employed  Community / Khap Panchayat held on 06.08.20210 he was not only humiliated but also beaten up for not complying their orders.  Police has not taken appropriate action in his case and especially the Investigating Officer, Mr. Sudheer has adopted an indifferent approach in investigation of his case. 

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.   

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

(i) As per statement of the complainant, he was taken into a secluded place and bitten up  “BY ORDERS OF SO CALLED COMMUNITY / KHAAP LEADERS” for not complying to their orders on 06.08.2020.  Thus, the respondent should try to  identify the so called members / persons of Community / Khaap Panchayat with the help of complainant and  initiate necessary action against them with due jurisprudence as per law. 

(ii) Court also observed that the Investigating Officer deployed in the case should have been more empathetic towards the complainant and acted in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which he has failed to do so. Thus, necessary sensitisation towards persons with disabilities is required for not only the concerned Investigating Officers but also for all the personnel of Delhi Police. (Reference is made to this Court’s letter No. SCD/07/Misc./Pt. File/1856/19/1836 dated 30.09.2021 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi) 

8. The case is closed with the above recommendations and an Action Taken Report be intimated to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 05th day of October, 2021.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Dr. Ram Kishan Vs. The Director, SCERT | Case No. 2127/1023/2021/02/1855-56 | Dated: 04/10/2021

 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-2

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

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2127/1023/2021/02/1855-56                              Dated: 04/10/21                

In the matter of:

Dr. Ram Kishan,
H.No. 224, Sarai Pipal Thala,
Near Adarsh Nagar, 
Delhi-110033.
(Email ID: ramkishan.diet@gmail.com)                    …………..Complainant 

Versus

The Director,
State Council of Educational Research and Training,
Varun Marg, Block-C, Defence Colony,
New Delhi-110024
(Email: dir12scert@gmail.com)             ……………..Respondent 

Date of Hearing: 27.09.2021

Present: Dr. Ram Kishan, complainant
Sh. A.K. Goel, Deputy Director and
Sh. Mahesh, Section Officer on behalf of respondent

ORDER

Dr. Ram Kishan, the complainant, a person with 80% locomotor disability and Assistant Professor, DIET, Keshav Puram vide his complaint dated 23.02.2021, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act, 2016 herein after referred to as the Act, inter-alia alleged that he was granted MACP w.e.f. 06.12.2018 instead of 01.06.2014 after 03 years and 06 months. He also alleged that he was compelled for re-evaluation of his disability certificate and is being continuously harassed by SCERT. 

2. The matter was taken up with SCERT vide letter dated 08.03.2021 and followed by reminders dated 13.4.2021 and 19.4.2021.  Vide reply dated 14.06.2021, the respondent submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were processed against the complainant with the approval of the competent authority and the date of MACP was deferred as per the recommendations of the DSC.  Competent authority also approved re-examination of physical disability of the complainant.  It was further submitted that the complainant is habitual of non-cooperating with the office.

3. The reply of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant. In response, the complainant filed a rejoinder dated 23.07.2021 that he was not satisfied with the reply of the respondent.    

4. Upon considering the response dated 14.6.2021 & 10.8.2021 of the respondent and rejoinder dated 23.7.2021 & 03.09.2021 of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 14.09.2021. 

5. Vide ROP dated 15.09.2021, the respondent was directed to conduct an inquiry and come out if the complainant can be granted MACP with effect from 01.06.2014 and if so, the actual financial implications thereof to the department.  Regarding issue of medical re-examination, the respondent as a department should consider the necessity of the same and take this issue administratively as per existing rules/norms.  The court also directed the department to investigate/inquire about the representations/grievances of the complainant and give him a personal hearing by the concerned authority, so that he can represent his case which can be resolved accordingly.   

6. During the hearing on 27.09.2021, the respondent submitted letter dated 27.09.2021 reiterating their submissions in detail pertaining to First Financial Up-gradation under MACP Scheme in respect of the complainant. 

7. In this regard kind attention was invited to point 2 of DoPT OM No. 22011/04.2007-Estt.(D) dated 21-11-2016 which states that “Questions have been raised by ministries and Departments asking whether this is applicable in the case of ‘Censure’ also. In this regard, it is reiterated that paragraphs 7(d), 7(f) and 7(g) are applicable in all the penalties under CCS (CCA) Rules including the minor penalty of Censure as well which no currency has been prescribed, it would mean that as per para 7(g), if the DPC considers the officer fit for promotion notwithstanding the award of censure, he can be promoted without referring to the currency of penalty”.

8. Para 7(g) of the said OM states that “In assessing the suitability of the officer on whom a penalty has been imposed, the DPC will take into account the circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty and decide whether in the light of general service records of the officer and the fact of imposition of penalty, the officer should be considered for promotion. The DPC, after due consideration, has authority to assess the officer as ‘unfit’ for promotion. However, where the DPC considers that despite the penalty the officer is suitable for promotion, the officer will be actually promoted only after the currency of the penalty is over (paragraph 13 of DoPT OM dated 10-04-1989)”.

9. In the instant matter penalty of ‘Censure’ was imposed which has no currency. Since penalty of ‘Censure’ has no currency & as per 7(g) the officer can be actually promoted only after the currency of penalty is over, Dr. Ram Kishan was granted Ist Financial Up-gradation under MACP Scheme from the date of issue of order imposing penalty of ‘Censure’ on him. It is very much clear that Ist Financial Up-gradation under MACP Scheme can not be granted before the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings against the employee. Hence Ist Financial Up-gradation under MACP Scheme was granted w.e.f. date of penalty i.e 07.12.2017.

10. It was submitted that no discrimination was made against Dr. Ram Kishan, Asstt. Professor on the grounds of his disability. The action has been taken as per rules. 

11. During the course of hearing, complainant reiterated that the respondent deliberately delayed the disciplinary proceedings against him by more than 3 years despite the fact that it should have been concluded within timeframe of 6 months as prescribed by various circulars/orders of CVC, which consequently caused delay in granting of MACP. The matter has been examined at length and taking into account the submissions given by SCERT as well as information/record available in the file, it was found that the respondent department is not solely responsible for delay in completing the proceedings of the inquiry against the complainant. No doubt there were some delay due to administrative reasons viz. change of Inquiry Officer etc., it was also delayed because of non-cooperation of the charged officer i.e. the complainant viz. seeking extension of time for submitting his reply and later demanding Hindi version of charge-sheet and other documents. The complainant could have asked for the same at initial stage. The same was also observed by the CIC in its order dated 19.08.2015 which clearly states:

 (i) “Though, an employee facing disciplinary charges does not have any moral or legal right to skip the inquiry or defy the process of inquiry and go on filing plethora of RTI applications seeking information not related to allegation against him, but to harass the officers who he suspect to have complained or gave evidence or provided information or took action against him. 

(ii) The RTI is not a rendezvous for suspended employees or those erring personnel facing inquiries to serve their personal interests in protecting their misconduct or preventing the authorities from proceeding with penal proceedings enquiring into misconduct. 

(iii) The Commission directs the appellant to face the inquiry with all material he has and cooperate with the inquiry officer to complete the process in reasonable time.”

12. After due deliberations and discussions, taking due cognisance of submissions made by the complainant & the respondent, it is observed that the respondent department i.e. SCERT besides examining all available records should have completed the administrative actions within the prescribed time frame.  The respondent should have tried to minimise the delay in completing the inquiry, which in the subject case did not happen. Undue delay is unfortunate.

13. It is recommended that the respondent should be careful in future while dealing with such a time bound case especially involving person with disabilities.  Besides, Director, SCERT is advised to dispose of all the representations submitted by the complainant during the course of personal hearing given by him to the complainant and ensure that no discrimination is made against the complainant. 

14. The matter is disposed of accordingly.

15. This court be informed of the action taken by the respondent within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of RPwD Act, 2016. 

16. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 04th day of October, 2021.

 

 (Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities 

Ms. Rachna Vs. The Principal, Mt. Columbus School & Anr. | Case No. 1284/1111/2019/11/1813-15 | Dated: 28-09-2021

 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-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. 1284/1111/2019/11/1813-15                              Dated:28-09-21

In the matter of:

Ms. Rachna,
1280, Pushp Vihar, Sector-03,  
New Delhi – 110017.     ................ Complainant
    
Versus

The Principal,  
Mt. Columbus School, 
C-Block, Dakshinpuri, Near Madangir Market,
New Delhi-110062.               ..............…Respondent No.1
The Director,
Directorate of Education, 
GNCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.               ..............…Respondent No.2

ORDER

The above named complainant, Ms. Rachna, a person with 70% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 07.11.2019 alleged that she was harassed by the Principal, Mount Columbus School, where she was an employee as a Music Teacher on contract basis. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent No. 1 vide show cause notice dated 15.11.2019.  The brief facts of the case were mentioned in the Interim Order dated 12.08.2021.

 3. Vide ROP dated 24.12.2019, this court observed that relieving the complainant before completion of her tenure of six months without issuing any warning letter or notice is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. Respondent No. 1 was directed to maintain status quo ante and let the complainant work till she completes six months. Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was impleaded as Respondent No. 2 and was directed to constitute a committee to enquire into the matter and submit the report bringing out the facts.

4. Respondent No. 2 submitted the inquiry report dated 26.02.2021, exhaustively bringing out the facts in a chronological manner. Vide ROP dated 26.03.2021, the school authorities were directed to submit clarifications on Point No. 4 , 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the inquiry report submitted by the Directorate of Education. 

5. After due deliberations during the course of several hearings on the matter, following were recommended vide ROP dated 09.04.2021:-

(i)  The school authorities need to clarify the points raised by Dte. of Education and this Court by 16.04.2021.

(ii) The Dte. of Education to go through the sanctioned establishment of posts of teachers and staff of the school and ascertain if there is provision of a permanent post of music teacher.

(iii) Post receipt of the response from the School/Respondent No. 1, Dte. of Education was to submit final recommendations to this Court as per existing guidelines/rules. 

6. Vide submission dated 02.08.2021, the representative of Respondent No. 2 reiterated that the complainant was appointed on 06.07.2019 on Temporary basis for a period of 6 months and was not on regular or permanent basis. There was no discrimination with the complainant. There had never been any violation on the part of the Respondent School but always acted in good faith in accordance with the rules. 

7. The court reserved the final recommendations in the subject case till receipt of response from Directorate of Education, GNCTD. 

8. Directorate of Education, GNCTD vide their e-mail dated 22.09.2021 submitted that recruitment of employees in private unaided recognised schools, other than minority school is governed by Rule 96 to Rule 106 of DSEAR and among the aforesaid rules there is no provision for appointing teachers on adhoc basis.  Further, the recruitment to the post of the teachers in the private unaided recognised schools shall be according to such posts created/formulated by the DOE and whose RRs have been duly enacted and published in the Gazette.  It is also implicit in Rule 101 of the DSEAR, 1973 that recruitment to part time teachers other than female teachers in the primary schools shall not be lawful.  

9. It was further added by DOE that the post of Music Teacher is a regular post and teachers are appointed on regular basis in schools under DOE, GNCT of Delhi and all private aided/unaided recognised schools whereas it is taught as one of the subject.  However, it is not a compulsory subject.  It is relevant to mention that in the submission of school against the complainant was that she was appointed on temporary basis for a period of 6 months only and that she was aware of the same and she was employed for a short term period and her employment is not regular or permanent, does not augur well as per DSEAR, 1973.  

10. Further, the services of an employee of private unaided school can be terminated only with the approval of Director (Education) as per Section 8(2) of DSEAR, 1973 read with Rule 120(2) of DSEAR, 1973 for violation of the Code of Conduct by the teacher as specified in Rule 123 of DSEAR, 1973 and after following the due procedure as envisaged in Rule 117 to 120 of DSEAR, 1973 and the protection of Section 8(2) of DSEAR, 1973 is applicable for those employees whose recruitment is done in accordance with the provisions of DSEAR, 1973 on the post for which they are found eligible as per the qualification mentioned in the notified RRs.

11. In the present case, the school and the complainant knew irregularities in appointment.  The DOE has no role to play in such type of matters which accelerates the illegalities.  However, the said school management failed to adhere to the provisions of the DSEAR, 1973 in appointment and termination of the complainant for which a Show Cause Notice had already been issued to the school authorities.

12. In view of the facts of the case, submissions of the complainant & respondents, existing rules & regulations on the subject and the observations given in the Interim Order, the following is recommended:-

(i) It is observed that the rules and regulations were not followed by the school authorities as per the DSEAR, 1973 regarding appointment of the complainant who is a Person with Disabilities, as Music Teacher. Moreover, procedure was also not followed for discontinuing the appointment of the complainant which is arbitrary and discriminatory, specially the complainant being a PwD. As per RPwD Act, 2016, the complainant is to be allowed to continue to work as Music Teacher in the Mt. Columbus School.

(ii) DOE to take appropriate action with reference to Show Cause Notice issued to the School Authorities as per DSEAR, 1973. 

13. The case is disposed of accordingly.  

14. An Action Taken Report be submitted to this Court within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order as required under Section 81 of the RPwD Act, 2016.

15. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 28th day of September, 2021. 

           (Ranjan Mukherjee)

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities 

Ajay Kumar Vs. Principal Secretary, Planning Deptt GNCTD | Case No.2246/1021/2021/06/1811-12 | Dated: 28-09-2021

 

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, 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.2246/1021/2021/06/1811-12             Dated:28-09-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Ajay Kumar 
H.No. 30, Sharda Niketan, 
Delhi-110034
Email ID: karan.vohra5@gmail.com      …………Complainant

Versus
The Principal Secretary,
Planning Department, 
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
6th Level, B-Wing, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002        ........... Respondent 
Email: psfin@nic.in

DOH: 27.09.2021

Present: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Complainant

Sh. K.R. Chhibber, Dy. Director appeared on behalf of respondent.

ORDER

    The complainant Sh. Ajay Kumar, a person with 40% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated ‘Nil’ (received on 16.06.2021) submitted that he was appointed as Statistical Assistant  in the Planning Department under the category of person with disability.  He alleged that he is presently working in the Directorate of Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi as an Assistant Director.  He was not given any financial and physical benefits till date.  Length of service for the eligibility to his next promotion had not been counted, which should be counted w.e.f. 29.12.2015 with reference to the Planning Department’s rectification Order No. 1158-73 dated  20.02.2020. He made various requests to the Planning Department but no action has been taken till date.  He further added that due to above mistake of department he had not given promotional benefit.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 01.07.2021 for submission of their comments. However, no response was received from the respondent in spite of reminder dated 10.08.2021.  

3. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 27.09.2021.  

Sh. Ajay Kumar, complainant was present.  Sh. K.R. Chhibber, Dy. Director (Planning)  was present on behalf of respondent. 

4. Sh. K.R. Chhibber, Dy.Director (Planning) appeared on behalf of respondent has confirmed that the issue of the complainant would be resolved by 15th October, 2021.

5. After due deliberations and discussion on the case, it is recommended that respondent should consider the plea of complainant as per the existing RRs and provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and dispose it accordingly by 15.10.2021.

6. The case is disposed of. 

7. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 27th day of September, 2021.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Qamar Aleem Vs. The Director, Education Department (HQ), North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 2171/1024/2021/03/1760-62 | Dated:24-09-21

 

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. 2171/1024/2021/03/1760-62                                                      Dated:24-09-21

In the matter of:

Mr. Qamar Aleem,
Flat No. H-801, Amaatra Homes, 
Plot No-GH-02C, Sector-10, Greater Noida West,
Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh- 201308
Email ID: qamaraleemsaifi@gmail.com                       ……………..Complainant 

Versus

The Director,
Education Department (HQ),
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
15th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, J.L.N. Marg,
New Delhi-110002                          ………..Respondent No.1

The Principal,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation School,
Jharoda Majra-II, Civil Line Zone,
W-8, New Delhi-110084                 ………..Respondent No.2

D.O.H.: 23.09.2021

Present: Mr. Qamar Aleem, Complainant

Sh. Puranmal, S.I.Education/CLZ appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.1

Sh. Parth Sarthi Gupta, Principal appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

ORDER

  The above named complainant, a person with 40% locomotor disabilities filed a complaint dated 08.03.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act.  He  inter-alia submitted that he is presently working as Primary Teacher at North Delhi Municipal Corporation School (NDMCS), Jharoda, Majra-II, W-8 New Delhi-110084 and his transport allowance from the month of October 2020 to December 2020 was deducted by the Principal of NDMCS.  He was harassed and discriminated by the school authorities. Thus, he requested for grant of  his TA as deducted by North DMC from his salary for the month of October 2020 to December 2020.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent No. 1 & 2  vide letter dated 25.03.2021 for submission of their comments. Assistant Director, Education/CLZ, North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), Education Department, Civil Lines Zone informed that Principal, NDMC School Jharoda Majra-II, Civil Line Zone, W-8, Delhi vide their letter dated 27.07.2021 informed that Mr. Qamar Aleem, Teacher did not take part survey in the month of October to November 2020 which was conducted for enhancement of admission in Municipal Schools.  Despite departmental orders / directions, the complainant Sh. Qamar Aleem did not distribute the textbooks to students thereby disobeyed the order of competent authority.  Apart from the above, complainant remained absent from duty during the month of December 2020.  In view of the above stated facts Principal of the school had deducted the TA of Sh. Qaleem Aleem, for the month of October to December’2020.

3. Complainant vide his rejoinder dated 24.08.2021 inter-alia submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of Education Department, NDMC/CLZ. He did work of book distribution on 5,6,9,12,13,14,17 & 21 in the month of October 2020, he attended office in November 2020 and also he did work from home in December 2020.  He further stated that all other teaching staff got TA for above three months except him.

4. Sh. Parth Sarathi Gupta, Principal MCPS Jharoda Mazra-II, respondent No. 2 vide his written submission dated 06.09.2021 inter-alia submitted that the work and conduct of Sh. Qamar Aleem is not found satisfactory.  On several occasions he had been involved in unauthorised activities which are inappropriate for a govt. employee. His TA was deducted on the ground that he disobeyed the orders of superiors and had not worked during the months from October to December’2020.

5. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 09.09.2021, which was attended by complainant and representative of respondent No. 1.   Complainant submitted copies of his attendance record from the month of October, 2020 to December, 2020, which had been perused and taken on record.  As the same was not duly authenticated, it was desired that the HoS should see and do the same. Sh. Puranmal, S.I. Education/CLZ, appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1, submitted that salary of the complainant was released by his office on the basis of attendance record sent by Principal, North Delhi Municipal Corporation School, Jharoda Majra-II, Civil Line Zone, New Delhi.  In view of the above, Court directed respondent No. 1 to have an internal inquiry into the matter and submit an action taken report to this office by 17.09.2021 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 23.09.2021 at 11.30 AM.

6. During the hearing on 23.09.2021, complainant, Sh. Puranmal, S.I. Education/CLZ, for respondent no. 1 and Sh. Parth Sarthi Gupta, Principal NDMC School,Jharoda Majra-II, Civil Line Zone, respondent no. 2 all were present. 

7. Sh. Puranmal, S.I. Education/CLZ, representative of the respondent no. 1 confirmed that the complainant had attended the school during the month of October and November’2020 and there is no proof of his attendance in the month of December’2020. Thus, he is eligible for TA from the month of October & November’2020.   He has also filed duly verified copies of attendance register, which has been taken on record. 

8. In view of the above, the Court recommends as under:

(i) As per attendance register report by the S.I. Sh. Puranmal in this Court and existing norms / rules, complainant is entitled for Transport Allowance for the month of October & November’2020,  thus, respondent No. 1 & 2 are directed to release the TA  to complainant for the above months. 

(ii) Complainant is also directed to be careful in future to adhere the orders / directions given by his superiors i.e. the Head of School in this particular case. 

9. The case is disposed of. 

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

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities