Ashok Kumar Vs. The Medical Superintendent, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital & Anr. | Case No. 2437/1121(UDID)/2021/12/4016-18 | Dated:22-02-22

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

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016)

Case No. 2437/1121(UDID)/2021/12/4016-18            Dated: 22-02-2022

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashok Kumar,
J-7, Keval Park, Azad Pur, 
Delhi-110033.
(Email: jantakasewak1@gmail.com)        ……………..Complainant

Versus

The Medical Superintendent,
Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110054.
(Email: msbjrmh.delhi@nic.in)         …………….Respondent No.1

The Pr. Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare
GNCT of Delhi, 9thLevel, A-wing,
I.P. Estate, Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi-110002.                 …………….Respondent No.2

Date of Hearing: 22.02.2022

Present: Shri Ashok Kumar, Complainant

Shri Rahul Jain, Counsel of the Complainant

Dr.Seema, Chairman (Disability Board), BJRMH, on behalf of Respondent No.1

Dr.YogeshKataria, DHS, on behalf of Respondent No.2

ORDER

Shri Ashok Kumar, the complainant vide email dated 06.11.2021 filed a complaint against Dr. A.K. Saini, Medical Superintendent, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospitalunder the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The complainant inter-alia alleged that Dr. A.K. Saini, M.S., BJRM had issued forged disability certificate No. DL0240419630002711 dated 20.01.2021 to Shri L.N. Sharma, working as Pharmacist in the same hospital indicating permanent Hearing Impairment disability (both ears) as 95%. He further alleged that Shri L.N. Sharma can perform various activities like driving, hearing over telephone and may try to avail the benefits like double T.A. on the basis of forged disability certificate. He further submitted that Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Sr. Accounts Officers is saving both the officers.  The complainant has requested to take strict against them. 

2. The matter was taken up with the Medical Superintendent, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 07.12.2021 followed by reminder dated 12.01.2022. However, no response was received.

3. The complainant vide letter received in this Court on 28.01.2022 submitted that he is receiving threats from some unsocial elements who are pressurising him to take back the complaint.  He further added that if any harm is done to him or his family, Dr. A.K. Saini and Shri L.N. Sharma be held responsible.  A hearing was therefore scheduled on 22.02.2022.

4. During the hearing, complainant reiterated his submissions and added that during his visit to BJRMH, Shri L.N. Sharma misbehaved with him on the issue of non availability of certain medicines.  Representative of Respondent No.1 submitted reply dated 21.02.2022  vide which it was submitted that Shri L.N. Sharma, Pharmacist has been working in BJRMH since 01.04.2008.  Copies of Disability Certificates issued to him in the year 2015 and 2021 were also furnished and was submitted that record of Disability Certificates have been checked and found to be genuine.  It was further submitted that the certificates have been issued on the basis of the prevalent guidelines and parameters for disability of Hearing Impairment of the person by the Disability Board.  It was also added that only the ‘Disability Board’ is authorised to issue the Disability Certificate and Medical Superintendent of the Hospital has no role to issue a Disability Certificate.  Therefore, the allegation of connivance of M.S. in issuing the Disability Certificate is completely denied.  Shri L.N. Sharma has applied for claiming the double TA as applicable but the same has not yet been considered by the Hospital Authorities.

5. After due deliberation and discussion, it was observed by the Court that the allegation of connivance of Medical Superintendent in issuing the Disability Certificate is not correct.  However, with regard to genuineness of the Disability Certificate and other issues, it is recommended that:-

(i) A fresh Board be constituted by Respondent No.1 to assess the disability of Shri L.N. Sharma, Pharmacist and check whether he can drive with or without Hearing Aid taking into account the orders of the Ministry of Surface Transport, Govt. of India, on the subject.

(ii) Respondent No.1 in consultation with R.T.O. concerned should see if Shri L.N. Sharma, Pharmacistcan be allowed to drive with 95% Hearing Impairment and can a Driving License be issued to him taking into account his disability. 

(ii) Respondent No.1 should counsel and sensitise Shri L.N. Sharma, Pharmacist and other staff of the Hospital for their behaviour towards general public visiting the Hospital and ensure a cordial and civilised environment at all times.

6. 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.

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

8. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 22nd day of February, 2022. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Smt. Tanuja M/o Ms. Amisha Vs. HOS Rashtriya Virja Nand Andh Kanya Vidyalya & Anr. | Case No. 2431/1032/2021/12/3833-35 Dated: 02-02-2022

 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. 2431/1032/2021/12/3833-35                    Dated: 02-02-2022

In the matter of:

Smt. Tanuja M/o Ms. Amisha,
R/o A-136, Jwala Puri Camp No-4,
Sunder Vihar, New Delhi-110087.                    ………………..Complainant

Versus

The HOS/Principal,
Rashtriya Virja Nand Andh Kanya Vidyalya,
Main Ring Road, J-Block,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018.                           ………………..Respondent No. 1

The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054                        ………………..Respondent No. 2

Date of Hearing: 02.02.2022

Present: Sh. Neilmani, Counsel for Complainant

Ms. Hemlata Jaimini, Manager, RashtriyaVirja Nand Andh Kanya Vidyalya,Vikaspuri, New Delhi, on behalf of Respondent No. 1

Ms. Nitu Bisht, Section Officer, DOE and Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Asstt., DOE(IEB), on behalf of Respondent No.2

ORDER

Ms. Tanuja M/o Ms. Amisha, a person with visual impairment filed a complaint dated 26.11.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act.The complainant submitted that her daughter is studying in Class-X in Rashtriya Virja Nand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya, Vikaspuri, New Delhi and HoS/ Principal of the said school has denied her daughter to provide the hostel facility. The complainant had also made some other allegations against the school.  She has requested this court to help her to provide the hostel facility to her daughter.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent No.1 & 2 vide letter dated 03.12.2021. Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 11.12.2021 submitted that the Hostel Authority had made a policy after reopening of school after Covid Lockdown that the students who have some health issues should continue taking online classes as it would be safe for them to not stay in hostel. The complainant was advised to keep her daughter at home and take online classes for her betterment.  It was further submitted that the allegations made against the school authorities are completely false.  Letters were also sent to the complainant to send her daughter to attend the school and join the revision classes for pre board and Board Examinations but she refused to take the letter.  It was further submitted that the school authorities are totally devoted to the betterment of the visually impaired students and the rules made in the school are also for the betterment of the students.

3. The complainant vide rejoinder dated 05.01.2022 submitted that the reply furnished by the Respondent No.2 is not correct and she is not satisfied with the reply.  Upon considering the response of the Respondent No.1 and rejoinder filed by the complainant, a hearing was scheduled in the matter on 02.02.2022.  

4. The complainant and the child were not present as the child was suffering from fever, as informed.The Counsel of the complainant reiterated the submissions filed by the complainant and also submitted that the child had an Appendix operation, which is not infectious, on the basis of which the school authorities denied the hostel facility to the child.  He also added that it is difficult for a visual impaired person to take online classes from home and requested that the child be allowed to avail the hostel facility.  Legal Asstt. present on behalf of Respondent No.2 submitted that the child was earlier provided the hostel facility and school authorities may consider providing the same to the child.

5. The representative of Respondent No.1 submitted that the child was not denied hostel facility because of her Appendix operation but due to Covid pandemic and low immunity level, the chances of infection increases and thats why she was advised to stay at home and take online classes through the recordings sent on mobile phone.  Further, it was also informed that the child is not well and therefore not attending the classes.  Moreover, the hostel facility is meant for students from outside Delhi.  If there is any vacancy in the hostel, other students are also considered for hostel facility.  It was also submitted by the Manager of the School Authorities that the child did not appeared for pre-board exams just because of not being provided hostel facility and also there were several behavioural issues of the child which was not cordial and she was also involved in some unwanted activities detrimental to other inmates.

6. After due deliberation and discussion, it was observed by the Court that the complainant/child was not cooperating with the school authorities and not behaving properly.  However, taking an empathetic view in the matter and request of the complainant, it is recommended that:-

(i) The school authorities may consider accommodating the child if vacancy exist in the hostel.  The complainant/child should give an undertaking, format of which is to be given by the school authorities, to the effect that the child will behave in a disciplined manner and follow all instructions/ guidelines issued by the school and hostel authorities.

(ii) The Counsel of the complainant was advised to counsel the child alongwith the guardian so as to ensure proper behaviour and remain disciplined in the school and hostel and to follow the instructions/guidelines. 

7. 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.

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

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 02nd day of February, 2022. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

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