Friday, March 25, 2022

Suo-Motu Regarding “Accessibility & barrier free movement for PwDs in the National Capital Territory of Delhi” Vs. 35 Respondents (Enclosed List)

 
In the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-110002
Phone-23216001-04, Email: comdis.delhi@delhi.gov.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.2345/1101/2021/09/4343-4380      Dated : 25-03-22

In the matter of :

SUO-MOTU Regarding “Accessibility & barrier free movement for PwDs in the National Capital Territory of Delhi”

Versus

As per enclosed list          .............. 35 Respondents

Date of Hearing : 23.03.2022 

Present: As per enclosed list


ORDER

It has been observed/noticed that there are many obstructions/ barriers/encroachments, illegal squatters/vendors etc. on the footpaths and roads in the National Capital Territory of Delhi which creates a lots of hindrance/problem of “Accessibility” for the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) besides Women, Children & Elderly. Consequently, the common public spaces are becoming inaccessible and unsafe not only for persons with disabilities and elderly but also for general citizens. Some of the common flaws are as under:-

(i) There are narrow spaces between bollards on the foot paths making it impossible for a wheel chair user to pass through;

(ii) Some sign boards on the foot paths are of low height and at times on the tactile making it dangerous for visually impaired persons;

(iii) Obstructions such as lamp posts, gutters, protruding objects, sign boards, trees on foot paths especially on the guiding tiles/ warning blocks make them unsafe for persons with visual impairment;

(iv) Many Roads/footpaths are encroached by the vendors/hawkers and in open violation of the existing norms and procedure besides orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein the open, hazardous, unhygienic cooking and selling of food goes on;

(v) Excavated roads/ footpaths by various agencies are not repaired quickly or haphazardly done.

2. Section 40, 41, 44, 45 and 46 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 here in after referred to as the Act, mandate the appropriate Government to ensure accessibility of existing built environment and transport among other things, to persons with disabilities under an action plan within five years and undertake the new construction only as per the prescribed standards. The said Sections are reproduced below:

“40. The Central Government shall, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner, formulate rules for persons with disabilities laying down the standards of accessibility for the physical environment, transportation, information and communications, including appropriate technologies and systems, and other facilities and services provided to the public in urban and rural areas.

41. (1) The appropriate Government shall take suitable measures to provide—

(a) facilities for persons with disabilities at bus stops, railway stations and airports conforming to the accessibility standards relating to parking spaces, toilets, ticketing counters and ticketing machines;

(b) access to all modes of transport that conform the design standards, including retrofitting old modes of transport, wherever technically feasible and safe for persons with disabilities, economically viable and without entailing major structural changes in design;

(c) accessible roads to address mobility necessary for persons with disabilities.

(2) The appropriate Government shall develop schemes programmes to promote the personal mobility of persons with disabilities at affordable cost to provide for,—

(a) incentives and concessions;

(b) retrofitting of vehicles; and

(c) personal mobility assistance.

44. (1) No establishment shall be granted permission to build any structure if the building plan does not adhere to the rules formulated by the Central Government under section 40.

(2) No establishment shall be issued a certificate of completion or allowed to take occupation of a building unless it has adhered to the rules formulated by the Central Government.

45. (1) All existing public buildings shall be made accessible in accordance with the rules formulated by the Central Government within a period not exceeding five years from the date of notification of such rules:

Provided that the Central Government may grant extension of time to the States on a case to case basis for adherence to this provision depending on their state of preparedness and other related parameters.

(2) The appropriate Government and the local authorities shall formulate and publish an action plan based on prioritisation, for providing accessibility in all their buildings and spaces providing essential services such as all primary health centres, civil hospitals, schools, railway stations and bus stops.

46. The service providers whether Government or private shall provide services in accordance with the rules on accessibility formulated by the Central Government under section 40 within a period of two years from the date of notification of such rules:

Provided that the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Commissioner may grant extension of time for providing certain category of services in accordance with the said rules.”

3. Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, here in after referred to as the Rules, notified by Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Government of India, standards as specified in the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment for Persons With Disabilities and Elderly Persons issued by Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India in March, 2016 and standard for Bus Body Code for transportation system as specified in the Notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide G.S.R. 895(E) dated 20th September 2016 are to be followed. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy has also developed and published “Footpath design: A Guide for creating footpath that are safe, comfortable and easy to use”;

4. Therefore, the undersigned has taken suo motu cognizance under Section 80 (b) of the Act of the above mentioned state of the built environment and of the fact that even at some places in Delhi new constructions are being carried out without following the prescribed standards. The respondents were accordingly directed to show cause as to why the existing built environment meant for public use in the National Capital Territory of Delhi should not be made fully accessible to persons with disabilities as mandated in the Act, the Rules and the guidelines and why all the new construction of built environment and transportation should not be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the standards prescribed for each of the facility vide Notice dated 13.09.2021 followed by reminder dated 27.10.2021, dated 24.02.2022.

5. A hearing was scheduled on 23.03.2022 on the subject. The respondents were further advised to stop forthwith any construction activity of built environment meant for public use without following the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the prescribed standards until appropriate corrective action is taken to ensure their accessibility to persons with disabilities. 

6. A joint hearing was held with all the respondents, annexed at ‘A’ on 23.03.2022 at 11.30 AM.  List of participants is annexed at ‘B’.  Initiating the hearing, State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (SCPD) deliberated and briefed about the aim, objectives and need of implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in Delhi in true spirit.  It was brought to the notice of all that deadline for making public buildings accessible is expiring on 15.06.2022 and for public facilities and services it had already expired on 15.06.2019.

7. A Power Point Presentation covering important aspects of the RPwD Act, 2016 was shown and deliberated upon during the hearing.  The contents of the PPT in short are as under:-

(i) Barrier Free Environment

(ii) Basic Components of Accessibility

(iii) Definition of Public Building & Public Facilities and Services as per the RPwD Act, 2016.

(iv) Section 45 & 46 of RPwD Act, 2016 and Delhi RPwD Rules, 2017 provides for deadline for making built in environment barrier free as 15.06.2022. 

(v) Harmonised guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India 2021 issued by MoHUA.

(vi) Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan

(vii) 10 Basic Features of Accessibility

(viii) Standards for Accessible facilities for PwDs.

(ix) Short coming of Accessibility in  different localities of NCT of Delhi

8. Some glaring shortfalls in respect of Accessibility carried out by the audit team of the Office of SCPD were pointed for benefit of all present.   SCPD also mentioned about a news clipping which appeared in Times of India dated 13.03.2022 regarding Public Works Department, Delhi starting clearing footpaths encroachment as per orders of Hon’ble High Court to cover entire capital similar to the one issued by SCPD in this regard.

9.   SCPD stated that there is lack of awareness among the general public/officials of executing agencies regarding Accessibility.  SCPD also stressed about the need for sensitisation among all the stakeholders specially the implementing officials.  It was desired that Delhi should become the model city for PwD for Accessibility and other States should replicate the same.   

10. SCPD sought the views and suggestions from the Members of the Advisory Committee/Domain Experts.  Dr. Satendra Singh, Professor of Physiology, University College of Medical Sciences & GTB Hospital, Delhi, Domain Export and a Person with Locomotor Disability expressed his views about the current status of accessibility in Delhi.  He explained that Delhi is not friendly so far as accessibility is concerned for persons with disabilities and all concerned Departments responsible for executing accessibility have failed.    Due to such infrastructure barriers, persons with disabilities are facing great difficulties.  Even the number one premier AIIMS Hospital in Delhi is not disabled friendly/accessible for which case is pending in the Court of CCPD.  All Hospitals, Markets, Stadias, Theatres, Cinema Halls etc. in Delhi need to be  disable friendly.  He highlighted various existing short comings and need of right approach to overcome these short comings.  Shri Subhash Chandra Vashishth, Advocate and a an Accessibility Auditor, CABE Foundation addressing the participants stated that the major problem is that we have not looked up RPwD Act, 2016 with seriousness that it deserved. Lackadaisical approach is still prevailing among the municipal agencies/ implementing ageicies.  As per Section 45(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and in order to achieve the objective of accessibility, all the Departments are primarily required to frame an Action Plan based on prioritisation of how they would address accessibility and put it before the SCPD and publish it on their websites. The matter has already been delayed as above action plans were required to be submitted / framed earlier by the year 2017.  

11. Engineer-in-Chief, PWD informed that currently all norms of accessibility are being followed in respect of new construction/works.  As far as old works are concerned, which are owned by other departments, they are facing problems like space constraints, site restriction and in getting sanctions for these works.  On this, SCPD asked for a list of such works/departments.  He also mentioned that in respect of Government buildings, they have provided the required provisions for PwDs and uploaded the list of such buildings on their website.

12. It was made clear by the SCPD that after the deadline prescribed under the RPwD Act and Rules, some punitive action may be initiated against the defaulters.  Provision of imposition of penalty would be considered.  

13. After due deliberations and discussions, the following recommendations are made:-

(1) As Public Works Department (PWD) is the main road owning agency covering almost 85% of the roads in NCT of Delhi, it is the duty and responsibility of the PWD to maintain all roads and footpaths under its jurisdiction in proper manner specially catering to the needs of persons with disabilities mainly Persons with Visual Impairment, Persons with Locomotor Impairment and those who are wheelchair bound. Apart from other points, following are the important actionable points for the PWD:-

(i) Awareness:- Awareness about Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, Universal Design of walkways/footpaths/signages. Engineer-in-Chief, PWD to chair a meeting upto the level of Junior Engineer and get them aware about the need of accessibility.  This office can help them on this aspect.

(ii) Training:- No organisation can survive or improve without continues training to sensitize and update the personnel of the organisation with the latest developments/procedures to be followed. It is recommended that the executing officials of the Public Works Department should be imparted training on accessibility preferably through access auditors. A report to this effect be sent to this Court.

(iii) Monitoring:- Continuous monitoring be done by the agency that no one violates the conditions of roads and footpaths.

(iv) Pelican Signals:- Provision of Pelican signals should be considered on the roads for larger public interest.

(v) Retrofitting work should be done to create barrier free environment for PwDs. 

(vi) This Court specifically authorises Public Works Department and all respective road owning agencies to take all possible measures to keep roads and footpaths under its jurisdiction PwD friendly, accessible and encroachment free.

(2) These recommendations are not only for Public Works Department but for all road owning agencies/concerned departments.

(3) It is often seen that footpaths are illegally encroached by squatters, hawkers, rehris, vendors, illegal parking, illegal sign boards, illegal construction of porta cabins for guards etc. which obstructs easy movement of PwDs and all pedestrians .It is the duty and responsibility of the road owning agencies i.e. PWD, MCD, Delhi Police etc. to ensure that there is no encroachers of the pavement/footpaths. It is also the responsibility of the Delhi Police to ensure that adequate action is taken for immediate removal of such illegal encroachers from the footpaths. Special time bound drive is required to remove all such encroachments by 6th April 2022 and ATR be submitted.

(4) It is the duty and responsibility of concerned Dy. Commissioner of the Municipal Corporations to ensure that no illegal hawker or tehbazari is allowed to sit on the road and pavement restricting movement of PwDs/Pedestrians. There has to be a Joint Action and Enforcement Team in this regard consisting of licensing inspectors of MCD alongwith Delhi Police.

(5) Delhi Police should sensitise all Police personnel specially all SHOs and Beat Constables to keep Delhi Roads and Footpaths encroachment free and PwD friendly.

(6) While providing Sewer and Water connection to the individual households, relaying of sewer and water lines in colonies or housing societies, DJB often, has to dig roads for connecting water and sewer. Unfortunately, it has been observed that after completion of the work of relaying or new connection, roads and pavement are never brought back to its original condition which creates obstacles in movement of PwDs and other persons. DJB to take strict action/impose penalty against the persons/ organisations that does digging work without their permission. Also other service providers like IT, Power companies etc. does the same. A certificate be given by the concerned agencies that the roads and pavements are brought to its original condition after completion of the work.   

(7) DTC was directed to make Bus Queue Shelters Audio Video friendly for PwDs.

(8) Director, UTTIPEC, DDA being the nodal agency for Unified Traffic regulation in the Capital, need to take cognizance of this important factor and hearing to initiate and take appropriate action accordingly.

(9) Each District Magistrate is the overall incharge of the district to ensure that there is not a single obstruction with respect of accessibility issue for PwDs and others such as Elderly, Women and Children. Each DM is the Nodal Officer in the respective district to ensure that all concerned agencies such as PWD, MCD, Delhi Police etc. do carry out their duty in effective and efficient manner to create barrier free, Accessible PwD friendly roads and footpaths in the District.

(10) An Action Plan in this regard by all the road owning agencies/concerned departments is to be submitted to the Office of SCPD through the District Magistrates immediately for making a barrier free environment for PwDs.

(11) DSW may like to issue notification regarding declaration as per the RPwD Act that the Deputy Magistrates are Additional Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities to assist SCPD in this regard.    

 14.     This court be informed of the action taken by all the concerned respondents within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of RPwD Act, 2016.  In addition about the Action Plan for implementation by all respondents by 25th April, 2022.

15. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 25th day of March, 2022. 


 (Ranjan Mukherjee)
      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Copy to:-

The Pr. Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate, New Delhi-110 002. 



Annexure – ‘A’
 

List of Respondents in Case No.2345/1101/2021/09

In the matter of :

SUO-MOTU Regarding “Accessibility & barrier free movement for PwDs in the National Capital Territory of Delhi”

Versus

35 Departments

**********
 
1.    The Vice Chairman, DDA, A-Block, 1st Floor, Vikas Sadan, Near INA, Market New Delhi-110023.
2.    The Commissioner of Police, GNCT of Delhi, 2nd Floor, MSO Building Police Headquarter, ITO Delhi-110002
3.    Engineer-in-Chief, O/o The Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, 12th Floor, MSO Building, I. P.Estate, New Delhi: 110002
4.    The Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, 9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi -110002
5.    The Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 4th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi -110002
6.     The Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation,419, Udyog Sadan, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi -110096
7.    The Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council, Palika Kendra, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.
8.    The Deputy Commissioner (South Zone), South Delhi Municipal Corporation Sri Aurobindo Marg, Block A, Green Park Extn. Green Park New Delhi-110016
9.     The Deputy Commissioner (Najafgarh Zone), South Delhi Municipal Corporation Najafargh Dhasana Road, Near Bus Stand, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043
10.     The Deputy Commissioner (West Zone), South Delhi Municipal Corporation 290, Road Number 28, Nehru Nagar, Shivaji Place, Basai Dara pur New Delhi-110027.
11.     The Deputy Commissioner (Central Zone), South Delhi Municipal Corporation MCD Zonal Office, Shiv Mandir Marg, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi -110024.
12.     The Deputy Commissioner (City-SP Zone), North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 2nd floor, Idgah Road, Near Sadar Bazar PS, New Delhi-110006.
13.    The Deputy Commissioner ( Keshavpuram Zone), North Delhi Municipal   Corporation, Dr Satpal Sachdeva Marg, Keshav Puram, Tri Nagar,Delhi, 110034
14.     The Deputy Commissioner ( Karolbagh Zone), North Delhi Municipal Corporation, DB Gupta Road, Christian Colony, Block 17 B, Dev Nagar, Anand Parbat, New Delhi, Delhi 110005
15.    The Deputy Commissioner ( Civil Line Zone ), North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 16,Rajpur Road, Kamla Nehru Ridge, Civil Lines, Delhi, 110054
16.    The Deputy Commissioner (Rohini Zone), North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Rohini Institutional Area, Sector 5, Rohini, Delhi, 110085
17.     The Deputy Commissioner (Narela Zone), North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 13 RI-178, MDR 138, Rajeev Colony, Swatantra Nagar, Narela, Delhi, 110040
18.    The Deputy Commissioner (Shahdara South Zone),East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Vishwas Nagar, Institutional Area, behind Karkardooma Court Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi, Delhi 110032
19.    The Deputy Commissioner (Shahdara North Zone), East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Kehsav Chowk, Near Shyam Lal College, Delhi-110051
20.    The Managing Director, Delhi Transport Corporation, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002
21.    The Managing Director, DTIDCL, Transport Department, 5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi
22.    The District Magistrate (North East), D.C. Office Complex, Nand Nagri, Opposite Gagan Cinema, Delhi-110093.    
23.    The District Magistrate (South East), Old Gargi College Building, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024    
24.    The District Magistrate (New Delhi), 12/1, Jam Nagar House Sahajahan Road, New Delhi
25.    The District Magistrate (North), Alipur, Delhi-110036
26.    The District Magistrate (North West) Kanjhawala, Delhi-110081                           
27.    The District Magistrate (Shahdara), Nand Nagri, Opposite Gagan Cinema, Delhi-93        
28.    The District Magistrate(Central), 14, Darya Ganj, New Delhi 02. 
29.    The District Magistrate (East), L.M. Bund, Shashtri Nagar, Delhi-110031.                     
30.    The District Magistrate (South West), Old Terminal Tax Building Kapashera, New Delhi-110037   
31.    The District Magistrate (South), M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi-110068.             
32.    The District Magistrate (West), Old Middle School Building Lawrance Road, Rampura, Delhi- 110085. 
33.    The CEO, Delhi Cantonment Board, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt-10.
34.    The Director, UTTIPEC, VIKAS MINAR, 2nd Floor, New Delhi, Delhi 110002.
35.    The CEO, Delhi Jal Board, Varunalaya Complex, Jhandewalan Extension, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110005.  

Tuesday, February 22, 2022

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


Wednesday, February 2, 2022

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




Wednesday, January 19, 2022

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



Thursday, December 16, 2021

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







Thursday, December 9, 2021

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