Deepak Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shahdara District | Case No. 3000/1111/2021/07/3752-54 | Dated: 19-01-2022

 In the Court of the 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. 3000/1111/2021/07/3752-54                             Dated: 19-01-2022

In the matter of:

Sh. Deepak Gupta
S/o. Sh. Raman Chand Gupta,
3700-D/8, Gali No. 6-7,
Shanti Mohalla Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031.
(e-mail: ygyashgupta9718@gmail.com)                 .....Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Shahdara District,
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shalimar Park, 
Delhi-110032.                                       .....Respondent

Date of Hearing:  18.01.2022

Present: Sh. Deepak Gupta, Complainant.

Ms. Ritu Sharma, Property Dealer

Sh. Rajneesh, SHO Krishna Nagar appeared on behalf of Respondent.

ORDER

Sh. Deepak Gupta father of Ms. Vaishnavi, a child with 100% mental illness filed a complaint dated 22.07.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 herein after referred to as the Act, regarding harassment by the property owner and property dealer. 

2. The complainant Sh. Deepak Gupta stated that his 16 years old daughter Ms. Vaishnavi is a child with 100% mental and physical illness.  In 2018, he was looking for a one-room set on rent to stay. Thereafter, a property dealer named Ms. Ritu introduced him to Manoj Gupta as property owner and he decided to take his one room-set with a security of Rs. 2.5 Lacs. After this, a security agreement was executed between him and Smt. Megha Gupta, wife of Manoj Gupta on 29.01.2018 in respect of one-room set in property number X/3774/4, Gali No. 08, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi for a period of 11 months and the agreed security amount of Rs. 2.5 Lac was paid by him to the landlord. On 01.04.2018, when he along with his family members went to move in the said property, Manoj Gupta & his family members did not allow his family to enter the house due to the disability of his daughter. After some time, Manoj Gupta gave the said flat to another person. The complainant alleged that the property owner Sh. Manoj Gupta, did not allow him to live in that property on account of his PwD child who is lap bound being disabled which is a clear act of discrimination.  He did not refund his security amount of Rs. 2.5 Lacs till date in spite of repeated requests. He requested appropriate action in the matter. 

3. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 27.07.2021 & followed by reminder dated 14.09.2021, 18.10.2021 and 23.11.2021. In response, the respondent vide letter dated 25.10.2021 received on 26.11.2021 informed that an enquiry into the matter was conducted through ACP/Gandhi Nagar. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and no Police action is warranted in the matter. 

4. The complainant vide his rejoinder dated 15.12.2021 submitted that no action was taken by the respondent in this matter and the case was wrongly termed as civil in nature. This is the case of social stigma, harassment, cruelty and discrimination against a child with disability. The complainant again requested that appropriate action be taken against accused persons. A hearing was scheduled on 18.01.2022. 

5. Complainant reiterated his written submission and added that he has faced great agony, mental torture because of discrimination, ill-treatment of his PwD child and non-payment of security amount  by the Property Owner and his family.  He again requested for strict action against the alleged persons.

6. Ms. Ritu Sharma, Property Dealer who settled the deal between Property Dealer and complainant was also of the view that Sh. Manoj Gupta is behaving very arrogantly and he refused to return back the security amount to the complainant after several requests made by her also.

7. SHO, Krishna Nagar, Sh. Rajneesh appeared on behalf of respondent also submitted that the alleged person Sh. Manoj Gupta is not cooperating in the matter despite of local Police’s intervention.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 3 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act mandates “Equality and non-discrimination -(1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity equally with others. (2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to utilise the capacity of persons with disabilities by providing appropriate environment. (3) No person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (4) No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty only on the ground of disability. (5) The appropriate Government shall take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities”.

9. The court observed that the accused persons - Sh. Manoj Gupta / Smt. Megha Gupta has acted wrongfully and shown arrogance as well as ignorance besides lack of empathy towards the daughter of complainant, who is a child with 100% mental illness and physical disability and thereby flouted the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 with discrimination, prejudice and insensitivity. 

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

(i) Property owners -  Sh. Manoj Gupta / Smt. Megha Gupta are directed to return back the amount of  Rs. 2.5 lacs  deposited by complainant as security deposit with interest @10% to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.  Failing which, respondent/local police is directed to lodge FIR against the Property Owners – Sh. Manoj Gupta / Smt. Megha Gupta   particularly violating Section 92 (a) and other sections of the RPwD Act,2016  & Rules and further produce the case before the concerned Additional Session Judge -02 designated as Special Court vide Notification No. 1/19/2018/Judl./Suptlaw/1499-1507 dated 19.08.2019 to try the offences under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016 for imposing strict punishment as an example (copy enclosed). 

(ii) It is also recommended that Sh. Manoj Gupta and his family members should amend their attitude towards the persons with disabilities and it should also be made mandatory for them to apologise to the parents of child in writing for their wrong doing. 

11. The complaint is disposed of with the above recommendations.

12. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19th day of January, 2022. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Encl:As above

Copy to :- Sh. Manoj Gupta & Smt. Megha Gupta (Property Owners), R/o X/3774/4, Gali No. 8, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.

Ms. Sanju Prasad Vs. The Director Department of Women and Child Development | Case No.2386/1014/2021/10/3750-51 | Dated:19/01/2022

 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.2386/1014/2021/10/3750-51 Dated:19/01/22

In the matter of:

Ms. Sanju Prasad, 
H.No. K-277, SouravVihar, Jaitpur,
Badarpur, Near Vatika Public School,
New Delhi-110044                                            ...……….Complainant

Versus

The Director
Department of Women and Child Development, 
Government of NCT of Delhi,
MaharanaPratap ISBT Complex,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006                        ................Respondent 

Date of Hearing: 18.01.2022

Present: Ms. Sanju Prasad, Complainant

Ms. Anita Gaur, Sr. Supdt. and Ms. MagdaliviPute, CDPO on behalf of Respondent 

ORDER

    Ms. Sanju Prasad, a person with 50% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 05.10.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act, alleged that she had been wrongly terminated from the service of Aganwadi Worker, harassed by C.D.P.O & not paid the salary from February, 2021. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 07.10.2021 & followed by reminder dated 27.10.2021. The respondent vide reply dated 08.11.2021 informed that the termination order dated 22.06.2021 was issued to the complainant on the basis of the following facts:-

(i) Ms. Sanju Prasad, Ex. AWW after receiving nutrition (THR) for AWC No. 17, ICDS Jaitpur project locked up the centre, but remained absent on the day of distribution of THR i.e. 18.02.2021 resulting in non-distribution of THR amongst of the ICDS beneficiaries as per schedule. 

(ii) Ms. Sanju Prasad, Ex. AWW was found indulging in objectionable behaviour using insulting & derogatory language towards her colleagues& seniors amounting to insubordination & disobedience.

(iii) Taking a sympathetic view of her disability, Ms.Sanju Prasad, AWW was warned to mend her behaviour & improve her conduct thereby ensuring smooth & timely delivery of ICDS services in the greater interest of target beneficiaries under the ICDS Scheme. The transfer order for Ms.Sanju Prasad from ICDS Badarpur was also issued, giving her an opportunity to mend her behaviour. 

(iv) Ms.Sanju Prasad Ex. AWW denied to receive the transfer order and misbehaved with CDPO Jaitpur. It is therefore, evident that Ms.Sanju Prasad was not found suitable to continue as an Anganwadi Worker as she was found involved in dereliction of duty and misbehaviour with colleagues as well as seniors. 

(v) Therefore, as per the decision taken by the Competent Authority, the services of Ms. Sanju Prasad AWW of ICDS Jaitpur Project were terminated, in the greater interest of ICDS Scheme.

3. It was also informed by the CDPO, Jaitpur that the due honorarium in respect of Ms.Sanju Prasad, Ex. AWW had been paid as per norms by the Department. Hence, there is no pending payment in respect of the complainant and in case the complainant has any document in support that she had been denied payment despite being on work, she can always show the same to the Department which can be settled. 

4. The complainant vide rejoinder dated 30.11.2021 clarified the points submitted by the respondent.  Respondent vide e-mail dated 28.12.2021 submitted that the department had already conveyed its decision.  A hearing was scheduled on 18.01.2022. 

5. During the hearing, the complainant reiterated her submissions and submitted that she received the THR on 18.02.2021 and could distribute it to some households as she was not well and her helper was absent w.e.f. 17.02.2021 to 26.02.2021 without any information.  CDPO broke the lock of the centre on 25.02.2021 and after that she was not allowed to enter the centre.  She further submitted that she had not received the salary after February, 2021 and she had never misbehaved with her seniors and colleagues. Her husband had also lost his job due to Covid-19 and requested to restore her service.

6. The representatives of the respondent also reiterated their submissions and submitted that the complainant uses insulting and derogatory language towards her colleagues and seniors amounting to insubordination and disobedience.  Regarding payment of salary, it was informed that she attended the office till February, 2021 for which the salary had been paid.  It was also informed that the complainant had not returned the office property under her possession i.e. Smart Mobile Phone, Sim Card, SD Card, Office Registers, Toys and other related records.  All these facts were also brought to the notice of Joint Secretary, M/o Women & Child Development, Govt. of India vide theirletter dated 11.11.2021.

7. After due deliberation and discussion, it was noted by the Court that the complainant apart from being a person with disability is also passing through a mental trauma due to which she is finding it difficult to shoulder the responsibilities entrusted with her service.  Taking an empathetic view in the matter and the financial & mental condition of the complainant, it is recommended that:-

(i) The respondent may consider the continuation of service in the department to the complainant with lesser responsibility so that she can perform her duty efficiently taking into account her physical and mental condition and also she can earn her livelihood with dignity. 

(ii) The complaint is advised to improve her behaviour and isdirected to hand over the office property under her possession to the department immediately.

8. This court be informed of the action taken on the above recommendations within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.

9. The complaint is disposed of with the above recommendations.

10. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 18th day of January, 2022.

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

  State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

M.L. Tiwari Vs. The DCP South West District & Anr. | Case No. 3020/1062/2021/08/3462-64 | Dated:16-12-21

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. 3020/1062/2021/08/3462-64             Dated:16-12-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. M.L. Tiwari (Principal),
Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School,
KG-I/II, Vikas Puri, 
New Delhi-110018.
 (E-mail: vikaspuri16180185@gmail.com             ………Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
South West District,
Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-110070                  ………..Respondent No.1

The Director,
EMARRET RESOURCES Pvt. Ltd.,
B-120, Sewak Park, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059. ………Respondent No.2

Date of Hearing : 16.12.2021

Present: Sh. M.L. Tiwari, Principal, Complainant

Sh. Mahavir Kaushik, Advocate and Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, W/o Sh. J.B. Singh, on behalf of the respondent No. 2 

None for respondent No.1

ORDER

      Sh. M.L. Tiwari, a person with 100% visual impairment vide his e-mail dated 30.07.2021 & 06.08.2021  alleged that Sh. Jang Bahadur Singh, Director of Emarret Resources Private Ltd.  had taken a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs) on the pretext  of  providing a 100 gaj flat at B-1/34 (upper ground), Sewak Park Delhi.  He had made the above payment to Sh. Jang Bahadur Singh in installments from his wife Mrs. Namita Tiwari’s account.  He further stated that Sh. Jang Bahadur Singh had also got him to sign the Agreement To Sale And Purchase (Bayana Agreement)  for  Rs. 35 Lacs instead of Rs. 32 Lacs (the actual cost informed earlier) in a deceitful manner.  Now after payment the dealer is making different excuses and trying to exploit him being visually impaired.  He is under deep mental stress and wants his money returned with interest.  He also approached Economic Offence Wing, Delhi Police in this regard but no action was taken till date.  Therefore, he prayed this Court for seeking relief.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondents vide letter dated 13.08.2021 followed by reminders dated 07.10.2021 and 29.11.2021 for submission of their comments.  However, no reply was received from respondents till date.  

3. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 16.12.2021, which was attended by Sh. M.L. Tiwari, complainant and Sh. Mahavir Kaushik, Advocate and Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, W/o Sh. J.B. Singh  for respondent No.2.   None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1.

4. Complainant reiterated his written submissions and inter-alia added that he was in great mental agony due to financial loss he invested his well earned money in the said property. 

5. Representatives appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that the company EMARRET RESOURCES Pvt. Ltd has faced great financial loss and due to that the said property deal could not be finalised. 

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) Court has taken serious view about the absence of Respondent No. 1 during the hearing after being summoned.  However taking a lenient view no fine is being imposed this time. 

(ii) Complainant & Respondent No. 2 need to sit together and sort out the exact amount to be repaid to the complainant within next 10 days i.e. 26th December’2021 and confirm the same to this Office.

(iii) Respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to settle the dispute in connnivance with the complainant and return the due amount  as settled as per Para (ii) above to the complainant  by 26th of January 2022 with applicable interest @ 6% per annum.

(iv) Respondent No. 1 is also directed to ensure that the complainant is not harassed, abused, or discriminated by any person in any manner and his rights are not infringed as per Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 

8. Accordingly, the case is disposed of. 

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

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Sachin Gupta Vs. The Director Directorate of Education & Anr | Case No. 2256/1031/2021/07/3363-65 | Dated: 09-12-2021

  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. 2256/1031/2021/07/3363-65 Dated: 09-12-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Sachin Gupta,
E-15/26-27, Sector-8, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.             ………Complainant
Email: sachin_aman@yahoo.com, wmirza47@gmail.com

Versus

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

Email: diredu@nic.in
The Principal/HOS
Maxfort School, Parwana Road,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
Email:info@maxfortpitampura.com             .........Respondent No.2

Date of Hearing : 08.12.2021

Present: Sh. Sachin Gupta, Complainant.
Sh.  Rahul Dev, Legal Assistant appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1
Sh. Manish Hasija, Accounts Manager & Sh. Manoj Ahuja, Office Incharge appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

ORDER

      The complainant, Sh. Sachin Gupta, F/o the child Ms. Hridyanshi Gupta, a  person with 73% multiple disability has filed a complaint dated 29.06.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act and alleged that his daughter, Ms. Hridyanshi Gupta, Registration No. 20210023186, aged 07 years, was allotted Maxfort School, Parwana Road, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 for admission in Cass-1st under EWS/DG category for academic session 2020-21 through computerized draw of lots system conducted by Directorate of Education.  In spite of her daughter’s selection, the school has yet to admit her and unnecessarily delaying the matter on one and other pretext.  Thus, he requested to take appropriate action to resolve his grievance.

2. The matter was taken up with the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 08.07.2021, followed by reminder dated 26.08.2021.  However, no reply was received from the respondent till date.  

3. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 08.12.2021.  

During the hearing,  Sh. Sachin Gupta, Complainant was present. Sh.  Rahul Dev, Legal Assistant appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sh. Manish Hasija, Accounts Manager & Sh. Manoj Ahuja, Office Incharge appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

4. Complainant inter-alia added that the School Authorities has not started admission of EWS/DG category in spite of the directives passed by the Govt. to complete the admission process at the earliest.

5. Representatives of Respondent No. 2 submitted that Ms. Hridyanshi Gupta was allotted  S.No. 59 for admission and as per Directorate of Education’s Circular No. DE.15(22)/PSB/2021-22/1897-1904 Dated 15.06.2021  school has to give admission to the selected candidates in order of the Serial Number allotted to the candidate through computerized draw of lots as available on the online module. 

6. Representative of the respondent No. 1 submitted that as per computerized lottery result of Maxfort School for the category of children with special needs for the academic session 2021-22,  out of  five total allotted seats, only one child is admitted, one has not reported and remaining three seats are in waiting. He further added that necessary directions have already been given to all the Private Unaided Recognized Schools of Delhi to implement the inclusive education in line with the provisions of the RPwD Act.

 7. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 31 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates “Free education for children with benchmark disabilities -Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009), every child with benchmark disability between the age of six to eighteen years shall have the right to free education in a neighbourhood school, or in a special school, of  his choice”.  And Section 16 of the RPwD Act, 2016 also  provides  that  the  appropriate Government and the local authorities shall endeavour that all educational institutions funded or recognized by them provide inclusive education to the children with disabilities, hence to achieve this, all educational institutions are required to comply & act as per provisions of section 16 of said Act in letter and spirit.

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

(i) Court has taken serious view about the absence of Head of School, Maxfort School during the hearing after being summoned.  However taking a lenient view no fine is being imposed this time. 

(ii) Reason given by respondent No. 2 for not admitting Ms. Hridyanshi Gupta as per old directives of Directorate of Education is not tenable.  However, as per latest directives and keeping in view the inclusive education norms for Children with Special Needs, the school is bound to admit Ms. Hridyanshi Gupta daughter of Sh. Sachin Gupta.  Thus, Court directs respondent No. 2 to confirm admission to Ms. Hridyanshi Gupta within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order failing which necessary steps as per provisions of the law would be taken by the Directorate of Education. 

9. Accordingly, the case is disposed of. 

10. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 08th day of December 2021.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Sachin Kumar Vs. The Director, Directorate of Education | Case No. 1911/1024/2020/08/3350-52 | Dated:08-12-21

 In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1911/1024/2020/08/3350-52                                       Dated:08-12-21
 
In the matter of:

Sh. Sachin Kumar, 
(E-mail:- kumarsachin0601@gmail.com)          …… Complainant

Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
(E-mail:- diredu@gmail.com)     ....Respondent No. 1

The Principal/HoS,
Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School,
Sunder Nagri, North-East, Delhi-110093 ....Respondent No. 2

Date of Hearing: 08.12.2021

Present: Sh. Sachin Kumar, Complainant
Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Assistant on behalf of Respondent No. 1
Sh. Babu Ram, Head of School, Respondent No. 2

ORDER

The above named complainant, Sh. Sachin Kumar, a person with 48% locomotor disability vide e-mail dated 31.07.2020 submitted that he was working as Guest Teacher till 08.06.2020 in Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Sunder Nagri, Delhi-110093. He further mentioned about a circular dated 13.07.2020 of DoE according to which he should have got further engagement as Guest Teacher in the school. Head of School had not appointed him but appointed to a person junior to him, due to his personal intention. He is not able to support his family financially and requested for help. 

2. The matter was taken up with Director, Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 26.08.2020 followed by a number of reminders. However, no Action Taken Report was received and a hearing was scheduled on 08.12.2021.

3. During the hearing, complainant reiterated his submissions. Respondent No. 2 submitted the Action Taken Report dated 03.12.2021 vide which it was informed that the complainant was working as TGT Math as Guest Teacher. His tenure for engagement was expired on 08.05.2020 due to completion of academic year.

4. It was further submitted that in pursuance of circular dated 13.07.2020, mentioned by the complainant, he had not submitted willingness for online teaching learning activities. The request of the complainant for unlocking his ID was forwarded to concerned Branch for further engagement. 

5. It was also informed that the complainant is presently working in GBSS (School ID– 1106263), Block GH, Old Seemapuri w.e.f. 16.01.2021.

6. The representative of respondent No. 1 submitted that when the complainant is already engaged as Guest Teacher in GBSS, Block GH, Old Seemapuri, his claim for appointment in GBSSS, Sunder Nagri is not justified.

7. After going through the submissions of the complainant and respondents, and taking into account that the complainant is appointed in another school, the case is closed and disposed of. 

8. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 08th day of December, 2021. 

    

       (Ranjan Mukherjee)

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Suo Motu Vs. The Pr. Secretary, General Admin Department, Delhi | Case No. 3007/1015/2021/08/3220 | Dated: 23-11-2021

 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. 3007/1015/2021/08/3220                       Dated: 23-11-21

In the matter of:

Suo-motu                                       ……..Complainant

Versus

The Pr. Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
Delhi-110002                          ……..Respondent

ORDER

As per Section 21 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (The Act), “(i) Every establishment shall notify equal opportunity policy detailing measures proposed to be taken by it in pursuance of the provisions of this Chapter in the manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) Every establishment shall register a copy of the said policy with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be.”

2. Rule 8 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017(RPwD Rules) & Rule 12 of the Delhi Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018(Delhi RPwD Rules), provide as under:

 “Manner of publication of equal opportunity policy.- 

(1) Every establishment shall publish equal opportunity policy for persons with disabilities within a period of six months from the notification of these rules.  

(2) The establishment shall display the equal opportunity policy preferably on their website, failing which, at conspicuous places in their premises. 

(3)  The equal opportunity policy of a private establishment having twenty or more employees and the Government establishments shall inter alia, contain the following, namely:- 

(a) Facilities and amenities to be provided to the persons with disabilities to enable them to effectively discharge their duties in the establishment; 

(b) list of posts identified suitable for persons with disabilities in the establishment;  

(c) the manner of selection of persons with disabilities for various posts, post-recruitment and pre-promotion training,  preference in transfer and posting, special leave, preference in allotment of residential accommodation if any, and other facilities; 

(d) provisions for assistive devices, barrier-free accessibility and other provisions for persons with disabilities;

(e) appointment of liaison officer by the establishment to look after the recruitment of persons with disabilities and provisions of facilities and amenities for such employees. 

(4)  The equal opportunity policy of the private   establishment having less than twenty employees shall contain facilities and amenities to be provided to the persons with disabilities to enable them to effectively discharge their duties in the establishment.” 

3. Vide  letter No.F.5/1766/2017-wel/CD/5134- 5292 dated13.02.2018 followed by reminders dated 15.06.2018 and 18.01.2019, the respondent was advised as under:

(i) to have the Equal Opportunity Policy(EOP) in respect of their Department/Organisation and the establishments under their control, published and registered with the State Commissioner; and 

(ii) provide a list of private establishments registered with or connected to their department/organisation alongwith their full addresses and contact details in soft copy;

4.    As per the Public Notice published in the Times of India dated24.11.2019 (copy enclosed), all the Govt. Establishments and the Private Establishments, covered under the Act and had not framed their EOPs were directed through this public notice to frame and register their EOPs with this office.

5.    As  there  was  no  response  from the respondent, the respondent was directed to show cause why the equal opportunity policy in respect of his/her Department and all the establishments (Govt. as well as private establishments) registered or connected to his/her Department should not be notified and registered with the State Commissioner vide notice dated 03.08.2021.

6.    The respondent vide letter dated23.10.2021  has submitted the copy of EOP in respect of the General Administration Department, GNCT of Delhi for registration. The said EOP has been registered with registrations No. EOP/DL/Discom/117/2021. 

7.    The matter is disposed off.

8.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 23rd November, 2021.

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

                              State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Preeti Agarwal Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South West District | Case No.2337/1111/2021/08/3158-3160 | Date: 09-11-2021

 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-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.2337/1111/2021/08/3158-3160                      Dated:09-11-21

In the matter of:

Ms. Preeti Agarwal,
U-12, First Floor, Green Park Main,
New Delhi-110016.
(Email: namaste.preeti@gmail.com)                    …………Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
South West District,
Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-110057.                               ………..Respondent 

Date of Hearing : 08.11.2021

Present : Ms. Preeti Agarwal, Complainant

Sh. Vikram Lamba, SI, PS Safdarjung Enclave, on behalf of respondent

ORDER

Ms. Preeti Agarwal, the above named complainant, a person with 90% hearing impaired filed a complaint dated 09.08.2021, forwarded from the Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide email dated 23.08.2021, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, regarding harassment by neighbor Sh. Pankaj Gandhi, resident of U-12, Ground Floor, Green Park Main, New Delhi-110016.

2. The matter was taken up with DCP, South District vide letter dated 26.08.2021. Complainant vide letter dated 03.09.2021, submitted that the Inquiry Officer SI Vikram Lamba came to her house and told her to give a letter stating that the problem has been resolved, which she refused. As they were locked from outside by their downstairs neighbour Mr. Pankaj Gandhi which was duly captured in the CCTV camera yet, there was no action taken by Police against such inhuman and criminal activities of Mr. Pankaj Gandhi, which bothered them and that’s why she requested the police authorities to prevent any such harassment in future.  

3. The matter was again taken up with the DCP, South District vide reminder dated 06.09.2021 which was forwarded to the office of DCP, South West District vide their letter dated 22.09.2021.  Respondent vide reply dated 06.10.2021 submitted that an enquiry was conducted in the case and it was found that the matter was a petty issue between the neighbours.  No cognizable offence was made out and hence the complaint was filed.

4. Complainant vide rejoinder dated 13.10.2021 strongly protested against the subject of the letter from the Police, and contested the same.

5. A hearing was scheduled on 08.11.2021. During the hearing, complainant reiterated her submissions and stated that locking up two hearing impaired women from outside was not a petty issue.  The same was case of criminal intimidation and an atmosphere of fear for them. She further submitted that she got no apology or assurance that no such intimidation/ harassment would happen in future. She also objected to the action of the concerned SI insisting on signing of letter for reconciliation in the matter. 

6. The representative of the respondent submitted that he visited the premises of the complainant and directed both the parties to maintain peace in future. The Court took serious concern on the action taken by the concerned SI. 

7. After taking due cognizance of submissions made by the complainant & the respondent, the Court recommended the following:

(i) First of all, Court takes objection to sending a relatively junior officer of the rank of Sub Inspector during the hearing which was duly brought to the notice of area DCP and should not be repeated.

(ii) The reply furnished by the representative of respondent was not acceptable wherein he tried to project that it is a mere altercation between two neighbours and the Court hereby orders the local police to deal such cases of intimidation against PwDs with due care respect and regard specially to the disabled ladies, who are being regularly harassed by the neighbours from downstairs and issue warning to them.  They should be asked to refrain from such uncivilized behaviour and activities, failing which necessary action as per the law and RPwD Act, 2016 should be initiated. 

(iii) Sh. Vikram Lamba, SI was directed to personally look into this matter seriously and assure that the complainant and her sister were not intmidated or humilated by anyone. 

8. The complainant was asked to feel free to contact the Office of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (SCPD) in case of repetition of such activities by her neighbours. 

9. The matter is disposed with the above recommendations.

10. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 08th day of November, 2021. 

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Note: 

SHO of the Area Police Station (Safdarjung Enclave), Sh. Shalender Tomar did come and meet SCPD later. He assured that the case would be looked into and resolved in the correct perspective as per advice of the court. He also requested for sensitisation of the Police personnel of the area to which SCPD agreed to do the needful. 

Copy to:

The Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001.