Office of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities 
Case No: 97/1024/2018/02
Mr. Mohd. Faizan Vs Director, DSW and The Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce.
The complainant person with 75% intellectual disability through his father complained that he had not received disability pension since February, 2017. DSW asked him to link his Aadhar to the Bank Account Number in Oriental Bank of Commerce on NPCI mode.
The complaint was taken up with the respondents. The Branch Manager informed that the said account had been linked to Aadhar on NPCI mode on 03.02.2018.
From the interaction with the complainant during the hearing, it was observed that the complainant was very hesitant to narrate his experience in the office of District Social Welfare Officer fearing reprisal and further harassment by the concerned officials.
As none appeared on behalf of DSW, Smt. Saroj Rawat, Deputy Director, DSW was contacted on telephone. She checked the record and informed that the Aadhaar Number of the complainant was not correct and no information had been updated by the District Officer. She however promptly updated the record and assured that the pension would be credited to the account of the complainant by end of March, 2018.
Director, DSW was advised to look into the matter and take appropriate action so that persons with disabilities in need were not harassed by the officials whose duty is to serve them.
Deputy Director (FAS), DSW vide letter dated 28.03.2018 informed that necessary corrections have been made in the data base and the payment of Rs. 20,000/- has been released into the Aadhar linked account of the complainant.
The complaint was disposed of with the advise to the respondent No. 1 to issue appropriate advisory to all concerned to induct disability as a component for all the Social Welfare Officers and other functionaries of DSW as required u/s 47(1)(b) of the Act.
Nothing should stop duty bearer from doing his/her duty. Hard work must get appreciation while any laxity at the cost of citizens, that too persons or their families with disabilities must be made to realise that neither good nor the bad deeds go unnoticed.
Case No: 149/1024/2018/03 & 108/1024/2018/02
Sh. Sainik Gulam Asgar Vs DTC
The complainant, a person with 30% locomotor disability vide his compliant dated nil received from the Court of CCPD vide letter dated 01.03.2018 submitted that he was appointed as Driver in DTC on 13.07.1979. He met with an accident while on duly on 08.11.1983 and both of his legs were injured. On his return to duty, he was re-designated as Conductor on 24.12.1986 but was terminated on 20.05.1987. During his termination period, he went to his home town and got a disability certificate of 50% locomotor disability from Basti, UP. He was reinstated with back wages vide order dated 26.11.2001 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. He was sent to Lok Nayak Hospital for re-examination, who found his disability to be 41% vide letter dated 10.01.2013. He was accordingly given the Transport Allowance at double the normal rate w.e.f. 10.01.2013 to 31.05.2014 i.e. upto the date of his retirement. The complainant requested that he should be given Transport Allowance at double the normal rate w.e.f. 01.01.2008 as he was given disability certificate of 50% disability by CMO, Basti on 16.09.2008.
The complaint was registered as Case No. 108/1024/2018/02 and was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 15.02.2018. The complainant also submitted a complaint addressed to the Commissioner for PWD which was registered as Case No.149/1024/ 2018/03. The respondent vide letter dated 16.03.2018 submitted that the complainant was assessed to have 30% locomotor disability by AIIMS vide certificate dated 01.10.1987. Thereafter, he produced the disability certificate dated 16.09.2008 for 50% disability issued by CMO, Basti. As the complainant was residing in R.K. Puram at the time of his accident, he was referred to Lok Nayak Hospital who vide letter dated 10.01.2013 informed that the complainant had 41% disability. So the complainant was paid the Transport Allowance from 10.01.2013 to 31.05.2014 i.e. upto the date of his retirement.
To sort out the dispute of the issuance of disability certificate, both the parties were directed to submit the genuineness of the certificate issued by CMO, Basti.
The complainant vide his letter dated 14.06.2018 submitted the original copy of the letter dated 07.06.2018 of CMO, Basti addressed to this Court who confirmed the genuineness of the disability certificate issued by CMO, Basti. Respondent vide letter dated 16.07.2018 submitted that the disability certificate of the complainant had been verified from the O/o CMO, Basti and is found to be genuine.
As the CMO, Basti had verified and confirmed that the complainant’s disability certificate (50% locomotor disability) is genuine, the complainant was disposed of with the recommendation that the Transport Allowance at double the normal rate w.e.f. 16.09.2008 to 31.12.2012 be paid to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Vide letter dated 07.02.2019, DTC, Noida Depot informed that Rs. 1,84,392 towards T.A. at the double rate w.e.f. 16.09.2008 to 31.12.20012 had been paid to the complainant through RTGS in his saving account which was confirmed by the complainant vide letter dated nil received on 04.02.2019.
Do whatever that is needed to get to the truth.
Case No: 142/1024/2018/03
Sh. Karmaveer Singh Vs Director, Directorate of Education and Principal Raisina Bengali School
The complainant, a person with 50% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 23.02.2018 submitted that he was working in Raisina Bengali School as Assistant Teacher under PH category and his salary was not released by Education Department even after lapse of 17 month
The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 08.03.2018. In the meantime, the complainant informed that he had received his salary for the months of January to May, 2018 on 04.07.2018 and all the issues had been resolved by the school Management and the Department. He further informed that school management had assured that attached washroom with class-room would be provided soon. The case was disposed of.
Case No: 86/1150/2018/01 & 4/1712/2017-Wel/CD
1. Sh. Kapil Kumar Aggarwal VS Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner Transport Deptt.
2.Ms.Suvarna Raj Vs Chairman Transport Deptt. MLO, DTC Mall Road MLO, DTC Loni Road
86/1150/2018/01 Sh. Kapil Kumar Aggarwal vide his complaint dated 23.12.2017 submitted that many people with disabilities in Delhi are not able to get the driving license and hence were getting deprived of employment. Some people with disabilities are able to drive commercial vehicles but due to unavailability of driving license, they are not able to earn their livelihood
86/1150/2018/01 The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 24.01.2018 followed by reminder dated 19.04.2018 and a hearing was scheduled. During the hearing, the complainant was also accompanied by Sh. Virender Singh and Sh. Nitin Gupta, persons with locomotor disabilities, the affected persons who had difficulty in getting the driving license. After hearing the complainant and the accompanying two persons, the representatives of respondent clarified that the driving license is not denied to a person with disability merely on the ground of his or her disability. A person with disability like any other person is required to submit a certificate of fitness from a doctor of Govt. Hospital. Thereafter the Motor Licensing Authority assesses and examines the fitness of the person with or without disability to ascertain whether he/she can drive the vehicle. In respect of persons with disabilities seeking driving license to drive invalid carriage vehicle, they are issued leaning license even without possession of vehicle. Every permanent driving license is issued only after they are in possession and modified/invalid carriage vehicle in the name of applicant himself or herself. The license of applicant with disability bears the number of invalid carriage vehicle. They further clarified that online application form had some problem which required the applicant to fill the vehicle number which has now been rectified and removed from the application form. Now a person with disability who applies for learner’s license would not be required to fill in the vehicle number. They also submitted the copy of four driving licenses issued to four persons with disabilities.
4/1712/2017-Wel/CD The complainant, a person with 90% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 27.06.2017 submitted that she purchased an Activa Scooter on 25.05.2017 and modified it with side wheels. She had to go to Nagpur in connection with Accessible India Campaign. She sent her husband to Mall Road Motor Licensing Authority on 28.05.2017 for registration of the vehicle. He was informed that registration of vehicles of persons with disabilities are now done at the Motor Licensing Authority at Loni Road. She sent her brother-in-law to the Loni Road Authority. He was told that the owner of the vehicle was required to be present for registration, though it was not necessary.After coming back from Nagpur, she went to Loni Road Authority alongwith the husband on 12.06.2017. The officials there did not behave properly and refused to register the vehicle. They again went to Mall Road Authority and after she narrated what transpired at Loni Road Authority, the vehicle was registered at Mall Road. However, she had to pay a fine of late fee of Rs.2,000/- though the Licensing Authorities were responsible for the delay. She further requested that Transport Department should be directed to issue directions to all MLOs to issue licenses to persons with disabilities without harassing them.
4/1712/2017-Wel/CD The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 06.09.2017 followed by reminder dated 10.10.2017. The MLO and Registering Authority, North-East Zone vide letter dated 12.10.2017 addressed to the complainant informed that He was not posted in Zonal Office on the said date therefore, question did not arise to misbehave with the complainant as stated in the above said complainant. In the matter of issuance of driving licenses to such person they may visit this Zonal Office on any working day along with all requisite document as prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 & rules framed thereunder and may contact the concerned inspector or MLO for their work to be done on priority basis. Sh. Pradeep Raj H/o Smt. Suvarna Raj, the complainant also appeared and stated that although the license has been issued, yet his wife had to visit different Motor Licensing Offices. As the issues involved in the cases had been sorted out. The cases were disposed of.
Case No: 374/1023/2018/07
Ms. Latika Kapoor Vs. Nestle India Ltd., Gurugram (Haryana)
Ms. Latika Kapoor, a peson with disability vide email dated 12/07/2018 submitted that she is working as HR Contact Centre Associate, Nestle-India Ltd, Gurugram (Haryana) regarding discrimination at workplace. She was hired under “Diversity Hiring for Nestle-India” on 05.04.2017 and is posted at Nestle-india in Gurugram (Haryana). She has been facing discrimination on the ground of her disability and has been told to leave the job.
Although, Ms. Latika Kapoor is a resident of Delhi, yet she was working in Nestle-India, which is located in Gurugram (Haryana). Therefore, while her complaint was forwarded to State Commissioner, Disabilities, Govt. of Haryana with a copy to Chairman & Managing Director, Nestle-India Ltd (Haryana) vide letter dated 13.07.2018. It was brought to their notice that Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 has been enacted to implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and its principles of respect for inherent dignity, non-discrimination, equality of opportunity and equality between men women with disabilities are the hallmark of the Act. In order to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy equal opportunities and are not discrimination against, Section 21 of the Act and Rule 8 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 mandate that every establishment (including private establishments) shall notify Equal Opportunity Policy and register the same with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, as the case may be.
This was done with view to aware the company and the concerned authorities who are expected to take initiatives and if required, go extra mile to contribute to making the rights of persons with disabilities in India ‘Real’.
Vide email dated 21.07.2018 and 02.08.2018 Nestle-India Ltd redressed the grievances of the complainant and extended her contract for another one year which was further confirmed by the complainant vide her email dated 02.02.2018. She requested to close her case as the matter had been resolved.
Case No: 166/1011/2018/03
Sh. Jai Pal Singh Vs. The Director, Directorate of Education
The complainant vide his complaint received on 12.03.2018, submitted that his son Sh. Pawan Kumar Singh, a person with 100% hearing impairment applied for the post of Art Teacher (Guest Teacher) for the session 2017-18 in Dte. of Education, South District, New Delhi. He further submitted that Dte. of Education had declared the result and filled 18 vacancies. Out of them, 11 candidates belong to General Category, 4 to OBC, 2 to SC and 1 to ST. None of the appointed persons is a person with disability.
The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 25.05.2018 seeking ATR within 15 days. As there was no response, a hearing was scheduled on 25.07.2018. In the meantime, E-V Branch of DoE vide letter dated 18.07.2018 wrote to Deputy Director of Education, District South to attend the hearing on 25.07.2018. However, none appeared. Vide RoP dated 25.07.2018, it was pointed out by this court that in case No. 4/1631/2017-Wel/CD filed by the complainant, the respondent vide notice dated 08.06.2017 was advised to make a provision in the online application for guest teachers (Drawing) to enable Sh. Pawan Kumar Singh, a person with hearing impairment and other applicants with hearing impairment to apply as the post of Art Teacher/Instructor is identified for persons with locomotor disability and hearing impairment as per Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment dated 29.07.2013. The respondent was therefore directed to inform whether any vacancy was reserved for persons with disabilities in general and persons with hearing impairment in particular and whether Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, son of the complainant was considered against the reserved vacancy for persons with disabilities. The matter was scheduled for hearing on 29.08.2018. In the meantime, Deputy Director of Education, District South vide letter dated 03.08.2018 informed that Sh. Pawan Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Jai Pal Singh has been engaged as Guest Teacher (Drawing Teacher) under PH category in Sarvodaya Co-Ed Vidyalaya Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi vide order dated 03.08.2018. The complainant also confirmed the joining of his son. The complaint was disposed of.
Extract and find the ways to achieve the objective and the purpose of legislation. Just don’t go by the obvious.
Case No: 277/1024/2018/05
Ms. Sanyogeeta Vs. The Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Ms. Sanyogeeta a person with more than 40 % locomotor disability vide her email dated 18.05.2018 submitted that she was working in MCD as Public Health Nurse from 9th June 2013 to 11th Sep. 2014 at Bawana School Health Service. Her salary arrears were pending in MCD Narela Zone for the last 3 years.
The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 24.05.2018. The respondent vide letter dated 20.06.2018 informed that Ms. Sanyogeeta was appointed to the post of PNH on contract basis vide order dated 05.05.2013. She resigned on 12.09.2014. The salary of all the contractual nursing and paramedical contract employees were modified and as a result of fixation of pay and arrear bill of Rs. 252719/- was sent to Accounts Department, Narela Zone in June 2015 after affixing due budget. The proposal for payment of arrears was forwarded to DCA (HQ) on 15.05.2018. A hearing was scheduled on 16.08.2018 after submission of rejoinder by the complainant on 13.07.2018. Sh. Manoj Kumar, DHO, M & CW, Narela Zone informed that his office received the amount from the Accounts Section Narela Zone in the morning of 16.08.2018 and the said amount had been transferred to the account of the complainant. The delay was primarily due to paucity of funds. The complainant confirmed receipt of amount in her account. The complaint was disposed of.
Case No: 433/1031/2018/08
Dr. Usha Bhatnagar, Chairperson, Shubhakshika Educational Society (NGO) Ms. Kajal (Victim) Vs. (1) The Director, Department of Social Welfare (2) The Principal, School for Deaf and Dumb, NPS Building, Near, Vishram Chowk, Rohini Sector-4, New Delhi.
Dr. Usha Bhatnagar, Chairperson, Shubhakshika Educational Society (NGO) vide her email dated 15.08.2018 submitted that an 11 year old girl, Ms. Kajal D/o Sh. Girish Kumar is a child with hearing impairment. Her parents approached the school for Deaf & Dumb in Sector-4, Rohini under the Department of Social Welfare for her admission in July 2018. She had disability certificate and Aadhaar card. She was asked to submit School Leaving Certificate and a certificate that Kajal is not a mentally challenged person. However, she was not admitted on the ground that the admission had been closed and the child did not have school leaving certificate.
The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide notice dated 23.08.2018 in light of the provisions of Section 16 and 31 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Prima-facie, denial of admission to Ms. Kajal appeared violation of the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 and the RTE Act. The respondents during the hearing on 04.09.2018 submitted that the parents were handed over the Admission Form on 30.07.2018 and they submitted the duly filled in application form on 20.08.2018 alongwith supporting documents and the directions of the CWC-III dated 16.08.2018. In the meantime the petitioner also approached the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on 16.08.2018. In compliance of the direction of the CWC-III, Ms. Kajal was admitted on 30.08.2018. As the child had been admitted in the school for Deaf & Dumb, the complaint was closed and disposed of.
Case No: 189/1101/2018/04
Sh. G. B. Singh, Chief Executive, Confederation of Cooperative Housing Societies Vikas Marg, 85 Mausam Vihar, Delhi Vs. (1) The Commissioner East DMC; (2) The Chief Engineer, Shahdara, EDMC, O/o the Dy. Commissioner, Shahdara, EDMC
The complainant vide his complaint dated 26.03.2018 pointed out that none of the many parks near the Confederation of Cooperative Housing Societies, Vikas Marg has proper facilities for wheelchair users. He also enclosed copy of the editorial published in Hindustan Times dated 23.03.2018 captioned “The disabled are still being short changed” that highlighted inaccessibility of public buildings, parks, schools and other public places.
The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide notice dated 06.04.2018. As there was no response, a hearing was scheduled on 12.07.2018. Sh. Mewa Rampal, Dy. Director (Horticulture), EDMC who appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 informed that although he has been directed to attend the hearing, he is not the concerned officer. The concerned Department is Engineering Department of EDMC and PWD has nothing to do in this matter. In view of this, PWD was removed from the array of respondents vide RoP dated 16.07.2018 and the Chief Engineer, Shahdara, EDMC was impleaded as respondent No. 2. On 31.07.2018, Assistant Engineer (Civil) Sh. Yasho Vardhan who appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 1 submitted that the list of parks has been collected from the respective zones and the action plan for making them accessible was being finalized. He sought some more time to submit the action plan. On the next date of hearing 20.08.2018, the complainant informed on telephone that the gate of one of the parks has been opened but encroachment has not been removed. Respondent No. 2 vide email dated 28.08.2018 submitted a location wise action plan/progress report in r/o 257 parks under the jurisdiction of EDMC the targated dates for making the parks accessible are upto 31.10.2019. The complainant informed that the encroachment has also been removed at the park where ramp had been constructed and the gate widened. The case was disposed of.
Case No: 4/408/1013/2018/08
Dr. Gunjan Nain Vs Dean, MAMC
The complainant, a person with 64% locomotor disability submitted that she applied for the post of Senior Resident in MAMC against notice dated 04.07.2018 in which one seat out of 37 was reserved for persons with disabilities. But no candidate with disability had been selected and the post had been left vacant. She requested for appropriate action.
The case was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 07.08.2018. The respondent vide reply dated 29.08.2018 in response to notice of this court submitted that one post was reserved for person with disabilities in any of the speciality notified and there was threshold/benchmark of 40 marks for selection for which separate Selection Committees had been constituted for each speciality. As per the minutes of the Selection Committee constituted for Pathology, for which the complainant appeared, as Dr. Gunjan Nain could not clear the threshold/ benchmark of 40 marks, her name could not be recommended.
It was observed that the Selection Committee was not informed about the provision for relaxation of standard of selection as envisaged in Para 11 of the DoP&T’s OM dated 15.01.2018 and thus vacancy reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities was not filled by a person with benchmark disability thought it was available.
It was also noted that the medical profession is a highly skill based profession. Therefore, the principal criterion for deciding the suitability of a candidate for the job of a doctor should be possession of the prescribed qualifications in the relevant speciality and experience. The weightage for performance in interview should comparatively be much less. Moreover, para 11 of the DoP&T OM dated 15.01.2018 provides that if sufficient number of candidates with benchmark disabilities are not available on the basis of general standard to fill all the vacancies reserved for them, the standard of suitability should be relaxed in respect of the candidates with benchmark disabilities unless they are found unfit for such a post.
In light of the above, it was recommended that the complainant be appointed as Senior Resident against a reserved vacancy for persons with benchmark disabilities, as otherwise it would violate the provisions of Section 34 of the Act and instructions of DoP&T mentioned above and the complainant will be deprived of her entitlements. Address all the issues that act as barriers in getting the entitlements, even if the complainant has not prayed for it.
Vide Action Taken Report dated 24.09.2018, the respondent intimated that the complainant had been given offer of appointment on the post of Senior Resident on regular basis in the Department of Pathology, MAMC vide their letter dated 24.09.2018.
Case No: 378/1011/2018/07 & 387/1011/2018/07
Sh. Rajesh Upreti & Sh. Kapil Pal Vs. (1) The Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare (2) The Chairman, DSSSB
1. Sh. Rajesh Upreti, a person with benchmark disability (65% cerebral palsy) vide his complaint/email dated 16.07.2018 submitted that DSSSB in the advt. No. F(1) 477 DSSSB/P&P/2018/ Advt/432 dated 05.07.2018 for the post code 2/18 (Pharmacist) had mentioned that the post is identified only for OL, BL.
2. Sh. Kapil Pal, a person with benchmark locomotor disability (more than 40%) vide his complaint dated 13.07.2018 submitted that the Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare, GNCT of Delhi should be asked to comply with the directions passed in order dated 09.05.2018 vide which the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities directed Safdarjung Hospital to include OA, OAL, HH also as suitable for the post of Pharmacist.
The above complaints were taken up with the respondents vide notice dated 2.07.2018 & 24.07.2018. DSSSB submitted that the eligibility criteria such as upper age limit, educational qualification, experience etc. are being fixed by the Board as prescribed in the Statutory RRs/Requisition of the post which is framed by indenting/user department. Department of Health & Family Welfare submitted that as per notification dated 29th July 2013 of Deptt. of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, it has not been mentioned that the post of ‘Pharmacist’ is suitable for persons with disabilities in one arm and one leg, both leg(BL) and hearing impairment(HH). The post of pharmacist is suitable only for OL, BL. The complaints were disposed of with the recommendations that the post of ‘Pharmacist’, irrespective of the Group, should be deemed to be identified for all the above categories of disabilities i.e. OA, OL, OAL, BL and HH. The Department of Health & Family Welfare was advised to amend and send the requisition indicating suitability of the categories of persons with disabilities for which the post of Pharmacist is identified so that DSSSB can accordingly issue corrigendum to that effect. The Department of H & F W was also advised to ensure that in future, before sending requisition for recruitment to DSSSB or any other recruiting agency, the categories of persons with disabilities suitable for the posts be thoroughly examined with reference to the posts in different Groups and with different nomenclatures having identical functions overlooking any anomaly such as discussed above.
Department of Health and Family Welfare vide their letter dated 23.10.2018 addressed to DSSSB, requested that the categories of disabilities for the post of Pharmacist of H&FW Department may be modified as OA, OL, OAL, BL & HH and accordingly issue necessary corrigendum in this regard.
Case No: 405/1121/2018/08
Sh. Upendra Kumar F/o. Ms. Priyanka Kumari Vs. The Medical Superintendent Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital.
The complaint dated Nil received in this office on 24.07.2018 submitted that he is a resident of Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Distt. East, He has been trying to get a disability certificate for his daughter, Ms. Priyanka Kumari from Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, who rejected the application on the ground of jurisdiction.
The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 06.08.2018.
The Respondent vide letter dated 10.09.2018 informed that the complainant’s daughter had been issued disabilities certificate for 75% Permanent Multiple disability on 20.08.2018.
The complainant, who was contacted on his mobile on 13.09.2018, confirmed that the disability certificate has been received after the intervention of this court.
Case No: 528/1141/2018/10
Mr. Mohd. Muzzmmil Hussain Vs The In charge, Hiring Zone Building Careers
The complainant, a person with blindness vide his complaint received from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 29.06.2018 submitted that the Call Centre namely the Hiring Zone Building Careers, Near Kotak Mahindra Bank, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi (E-mail: hiringzone.z@gmail.com) took Rs. 3750/- from him but did not provide him job. He requested to get his money back. He alleged that the employees of the company though promised, but had not returned his money. He requested to help him in getting his money back.
The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 11.09.2018. Though the letter was received back due to incomplete address yet the matter was taken up through email to the respondent on 18.10.2018.
On 26.11.2018, the complainant informed that the company had returned full amount of Rs. 3750/-. The matter was disposed of.
Case No: 311/1092/2018/05
Ms. Shruti Vs The Director, DSW
The complainant, mother of Master Ishu Aggarwal, a person with 75% intellectual disability vide her complainant received on 29.05.2018 submitted that her son is not getting the revised disability pension @ Rs. 2500/- per month on the ground that his account is not linked with Aadhaar. She further submitted that her son becomes violent when he is taken in front of bio-metric machine. Therefore his Aadhaar Card could not be made.
The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide Notice dated 11.06.2018. The respondent vide letter dated 26.11.2018 submitted that as per the pension record, Aadhaar Cad of Master Ishu Aggarwal had been linked on 11.10.2018 and enhanced pension would be r4l4aw4r with arrears w.e.f. April, 2018 as per Cabinet Decision No. 2605 dated 31.07.2018.
During the hearing on 27.11.2018, the representative of the respondent informed that the enhanced pension alongwith the arrears had been credited to the account of the complainant, which the complainant confirmed.
The complainant was disposed of.
Case No: 222/1111/2018/05 & 507/1111/2018/09
Sh. Guddu Srivastava Vs. The Post Master Grade, Gukulpuri Post Office
The complainant, a person with 90% locomotor disability submitted a complaint dated 01.05.2018 and alleged that one Sh. Dinesh who is working as a clerk in Gokulpuri, Post Office abused him and tried to manhandle him on 28.04.2018 between 10.15 – 10.30 A.M. when he visited that Post Office for sending a letter. Sh. Dinesh also used derogatory language, intimidated, insulted and humiliated him. He also said to him that one of his legs has been broken by the God and he would break the other one if he argued with him. This all happened because the complainant did not have the change
The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 29.09.2018. The respondent vide letter dated 08.11.2018 informed that no person by the name of Sh. Dinesh was working at the Speed Post/Registered Post counter on 28.04.2018. Sh. Naresh Kumar was working at the Speed Post/Registered Post counter on 28.04.2018 whose statement was taken. He showed his ignorance about such an incidence which is 6-7 months old. A postal Asstt. by the name Sh. Dinesh Tewari was working at the savings counter for the last one and a half years. The respondent further submitted that the functionaries in the Post Office respect the senior citizens and persons with disabilities and extend all the help to them and in case the complainant faced any inconvenience at the Post Office, he would like to apologise for the same.
The complainant submitted that the respondent was trying to protect the staff.
The respondent conducted an inquiry into the matter and a report dated 28.12.2018 was filed vide therir letter dated 31.12.2018.
After taking into account the fact and submissions of the parties, the case was disposed of with the following recommendations:-
(i) DCP(N/E District) should get the matter inquired and take appropriate action against the concerned official, if found guilty.
(ii) The respondent should conclude the disciplinary action expeditiously. And an ATR on Para (1) of the order be intimated to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act.
The respondent i.e. office of Sr. Supdt. of Post Office, Delhi East Division took the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 against Sh. Naresh Kumar, and found him guilty for misbehaviour with the complainant. The department imposed a penalty of withholding of next increment of pay of Sh. Naresh Kumar for a period of three months without cumulative effect.
The purpose is not to see someone punished. It is to bring out the realisation and create sensitivity among the masses.
Case No: 374/1024/2018/06
Smt. Sridevi Sreekumar Vs. The Director of Education (Respondent No.1 ) & The Principal, S.S Memorial Secondary School, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 (Respondent No. 2)
The complainant, a person with 60% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 28.06.2018 submitted that she was appointed as UDC under PH category in Swami Sivananda Memorial Secondary School, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi on 19h February, 2018. She alleged that she had not received her salary ever since joining.
The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide notice dated 12.07.2018.Vide letter dated 15.12.2018, Department of Education (R.No.1) informed that arrears of salary had been disbursed to the complainant through ECS on 06.12.2018 which was confirmed by the complainant when contacted on her mobile number. The complainant was disposed of.
Case No: 622/1022/2018/12
Dr. Musafir Singh Vs North DMC
The complainant, a person with 60% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 06.12.2018 submitted that he has been transferred from Kasturba Hospital, North DMC to Narela Zone in violation of Para “H” of the DOP&T’s OM dated 31.03.2014 as per which employees with disabilities may be exempted from rotational transfer policy/transfer and be allowed to continue in same job, where they would have achieved the desired performance.
The Complaint was taken up with the Additional Commissioner, North DMC vide communication dated 13.12.2018.
The respondent vide letter dated 29.01.2019 informed that complainant had been retained at Kasturba Hospital vide order dated 19.12.2018.
The Complainant also confirmed vide his e-mail dated 02.02.2019 that he had been retained at same place. In view of the above, the matter was disposed of.
Case No: 1134/1024/2019/09
Dr. Manish Singh Vs Medical Superintendent, Hindu Rao hospital and North DMC
The complaint dated 05.08.2019 of Dr. Manish Singh, a person with 95% locomotor disability and a wheel chair user was forwarded by Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 03.09.2019 regarding non-payment salary and enhanced TA by North DMC Medical College and Hindu Rao Hospital.
The matter was taken up with, Medical Superintendent, Hindu Rao hospital and North DMC vide letter dated 19.9.2019.
The respondent vide letter dated 09.10.2019 informed that the complainant had been paid Rs. 2,19,908 on account of salary, enhanced TA and security money. The complainant vide e-mail dated 03.10.2019 confirmed the receipt of the amount.
Prompt action on your part sends a message of urgency and most often than not, the effect and outcome is positive.
Case No: 602/1111/2018/11
Sh. Virender Singh, Smt. Poonam and Sh. Omkar Singh Vs Directorate of Education, The Principal, Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya, The President, Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Society and Secretary, Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Society
Sh. Virender Singh, Local Guardian of Ms. Bhawna, a person with blindness vide his complaint dated 27.11.2018 submitted that Km. Bhawna, an 11 year old girl is the daughter of his wife’s sister, who lives in Bulandshehar (U.P.). She was admitted in Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya at Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi in Class-I in the year 2012. On her promotion to Class-VI, she was shifted to Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya at Vikaspuri, New Delhi. The Society runs schools with hostel for children of Class-I to V at Rajinder Nagar and for children of Class-VI to Class-XII at Vikaspuri. In August, 2018. The school authorities called them and informed that Km. Bhawna had been expelled from school as-well-as the hostel allegedly for stealing money without giving anything in writing.
The complaint was taken up with respondents vide notice dated 03.12.2018. The DDE, Zone-18 vide letter dated 17.12.2018 informed that Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalayais a recognized govt. aided school. Km. Bhawna was expelled from the school and the residential hostel facility on the ground of stealing money/theft.
As there was no response from the Respondent No. 2, a hearing was scheduled on 04.01.2019.
During the hearing, the complainant reiterated his written submissions and added that there was no complaint whatsoever about stealing or any misconduct by Km. Bhawna at School during the last 5 years.
After the intervention of the State Commissioner, before the next date of hearing on 22.01.2019, a phone call was received that Km. Bhawna had been admitted in the RVAKV at Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. This was confirmed by the complainant when he was contacted.
As Km. Bhawna was admitted back in the school taking a lenient view of the matter, the action against respondent number 3 & 4 was not recommended for contravention of the provisions of the Act. They were however, advised to be sensitive, humane and should respect the dignity and honour of a child with disability especially when they are in the business of education of girl children with blindness. In view of the above the matter was disposed of.
Any blatant violation of the rights of persons with disabilities, that too of a girl child with blindness by an organisation working for their education, must not be spared and dealt with if exemplary action.
Case No: 717/1014/2019/02
Sh. Ajit Kumar Ms Sujata Sh.Vivek Ms. Geeta Sh. Nitin Kumar Sh. Vinor Kumar Sh. Parveen Kumar
Sh. Mahesh Kumar, and Ms. Munazza Vs DSSSB
The complainants Sh. Ajit Kumar and 08 others personally appeared before the State Commissioner on 04.02.2019 and submitted a representation stating that DSSSB vide Notice No. 760 dated 01.02.2019 had published the cut off marks for uploading e-dossier. As per para 4 of the said notice, 93 vacancies were shown for PH(OH) instead of 133 vacancies. The complaints requested that e-dossiers of PH (OH) be called for 133 vacancies for the post of PRT (Primary) instead of 93 and cut off marks be determined accordingly.
The complaint was taken up with Secretary DSSSB with request to give an audience to Sh. Ajit Kumar and Others and do needful. Vide letter dated 12.02.2019 the Secretary, DSSSB informed that 40 unfilled vacancies of post code 70/09 added to the post code 01/18 and accordingly the vacancies of OH category had then been increased to 133 (93+40) and a corrigendum dated 11.02.2019 was also issued. The case was disposed of.
Case No: 687/1092/2019/01
Ms. Babita and Sh. Nazmuddin Vs The Director (SW), and District Social Welfare Office,(East District)
The complainants Sh. Nazmuddin and Ms. Babita, the person with 84% locomotor disability and blindness respectively vide their complaints received on 23.01.2019 and 21.01.2019 submitted they had applied for disability pension in District welfare Office (East) on 24.03.2018 but despite visiting the DSO (East) many times, the pension was not sanctioned.
The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide Show Cause cum Hearing Notice dated 01.02.2019 and 04.02.2019 respectively. In both the cases vide e-mail dated 18.02.2019, the DSWO (East) informed that application of both the complaints were scrutinized and discrepancies found in the application were got rectified and pensions were sanctioned and sent to FAS Branch of Social Welfare Department for remittance of payment.
Case No: 1(11)/Grv./09-10/CD
A complaint was filed by Sh: Devender Singh regarding non payment of his arrears against Dy Education Officer, Narela Zone, and MCD.
On intervention of Commissioner , Disabilities his arrears has been paid by MCD. Also MCD sent circular to all Zonal Dy. Commissioners and HOD”s for monitoring such grievances of persons with disabilities at their level on priority.
Case No: 1(65)/Grv./09-10/CD
A complaint was filed by Sh: Manjesh Kumar regarding non relaxation in cut off marks for appearing examination in primary Teachers in MCD.
On intervention of Commissioner, Disabilities user MCD & DSSSB have provided 5% relaxation in cut off marks in Sr. Secondary to appear examination of primary teacher in MCD by issuing corrigendum to concerned advertisement.
Case No: 1(64)/Grv./09-10/CD
A complaint was filed by Sh: Banu Sahoo regarding termination from the job without prior notice by Hole-in-Wall Education ltd. & V.R. Management services.
On intervention of Commissioner , Disabilities Hole-in-Wall Education ltd. & V.R. Management services provided compensation (3 months salary) against termination of job without prior notice.
Case No: 1(75)/Grv./10-11/CD
A complaint was filed by Master Ishank regarding non issuance of disability certificate by IHBAS.
On intervention of Commissioner , Disabilities, Disability certificate has been issued by the IHBAS to him and few more such cases.
Case No: 1(75)/Grv./10-11/CD
A complaint was filed by Smt. Kamlesh regarding Financial & mental harassment by Sh. Kapil Kumar Aggarwal, Gen. Secretary, Viklang Sahara Samiti Delhi.
On intervention of Commissioner, Disabilities, Sh. Kapil Kumar Aggarwal returned the collected money amounting Rs.22, 150 for allotment of DDA flat to Smt. Kamlesh
Case No: 4/1729/2017-Wel/Cd
A complaint was filed by Sh. Desh Raj, a person with 50% locomotor disability filed a complaint regarding transfer near his residence. He was facing difficulty to reach his present place of posting as that office is approx. 30 km. from his residence.On intervention of State Commissioner, Sh. Desh Raj was transferred near his residence. The complainant also confirmed that he had joined.
Case No: 78/1011/2018/01
Suo-motu cognizance of an advertisement published in Hindustan Times dated 06.01.2018 regarding filling up of 201 vacant posts of Junior Residents was taken. In the advertisement it was mentioned that 3% seats shall be reserved for PwDs on horizontal basis.
In compliance with the direction of State Commissioner,a Corrigendum providing for 4% reservation for the persons with disabilities.
i.e. 8 vacancies of Junior Resident was issued by the respondent.
Case No: 4/1716/2017-Wel/Cd
Sh. Ghanshyam, filed a complaint on behalf of his daughter, Ms Sonam, regarding difficulty in getting her disability certificate.
On intervention of State Commissioner, the complainant informed that disability certificate was issued by the hospital.
Case No: 4/967/2015/Wel/Cd
Dr. Satendra Singh, a person with 70% locomotor disability submitted that Feroz Shah Kotla Cricket Stadium is not accessible for persons with disabilities.
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities recommended that Feroz Shah Kotla Stadium be made fully accessible to persons with disabilities and be developed as a model accessible stadium for persons with disabilities in Delhi which can be replicated
elsewhere in the country.
Case No: 4/1121/2017-Wel/CD
Complainant was working as T.G.T Sanskrit and had been selected for P.G.T by DSSSB. She went for medical examination to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Delhi and was declared medically unfit. She applied for disability certificate in Satyawadi Raja Harish Chandra Hospital, Delhi. Despite lapse of more than 3 months, she did not get the disability certificate.
On intervention of State Commissioner,the SRHCH issued disability certificate after receiving report from the Guru Nanak Eye Centre for 100% visual impairment on 04.01.2018 and she was appointed on the said post.
Case No: 4/1743/2017/Wel/CD
The complainant, a person with 81% locomotor disability requested for issuing him New ID Card which was refused by the Department. He also alleged harassment and intimidation by the employees of the office.
On intervention of State Commissioner, the Depot Manager informed that the complainant had been issued new ID card and that the Department had taken appropriate action against the erring staff.
Case No: 4/1746/2017/Wel/CD & 15/1014/2017/10
The complainant, a person with 65% locomotor disability submitted that he was working as GDMO in North DMC and his salary for the months of July & August, 2017 had not been released.
On intervention of State Commissioner, the salary of the complainant for the months of July & August, 2017 was released and his contract appointment beyond June, 2017 was extended.
Case No: 4/1499/2017/Wel/CD & 4/1547/2017/Wel/CD
Sh. Rajender Das the complainant requested to transfer him to his preferred school on priority basis.
On intervention of State Commissioner, the respondent informed that Sh. Rajender Das was transferred to one of his preferred schools i.e. SV, Jor Bagh.
Case No: 4/1658/2017/Wel/CD
A complaint was filed by Ms. Neeta Sarkar, Mrs.Sulata Sarkar, Sh. Bhanu Gopal Sarkar,
Against D.S.W.
The complainants submitted that they had not received enhanced disability pension from the month of April 2017.
On intervention of State Commissioner, Sh. B. G. Sarkar, the head of the family confirmed that the complainants had started getting the increased disability pension @ Rs. 2500/-
Case No: 4/1167/2016/Wel/CD
A complaint was filed by Sh. Arvind Kumar Singh,a person with visual impairment working as lecturer of Pol. Science in GVSSS, Seemapuri, He submitted that his LTC claim for travel by taxi had been denied.
On intervention of State Commissioner,the complainant confirmed that the matter had been resolved.
Case No: 4/1471/2017/ Wel/CD
The complainant, a person with 62% locomotor disability submitted that the respondent assured the then Commissioner for PwDs on 07.10.2015 that he would be allotted govt. accommodation as soon as possible. But he had not been allotted the quarter till date.
On intervention of State Commissioner, the complainant was allotted the quarter out of the 5% quota reserved for specific categories.
Case No: 4/1311/2016/Wel/CD
A complaint was filed by Sh. Ravi S/o Sh. Bharat Lal against The Medical Supdt., DDU Hospital Complainant submitted that he was in Jail No. 4 of Tihar Jail. He applied for a Disability Certificate but was assessed to be having only 17% physical disability. Aggrieved by the decision of the Medical Authority at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, GNCTD, the complainant approached this court for review of his case.
On intervention of State Commissioner, the respondent informed vide letter dated 06.03.2017 that the complainant had been issued a Disability Certificate of 41.20% vide No. 46/2017 dated 04.03.2017.
Case No: 4/1025/2015/Wel/CD
Sh. Vishamber Verma, a person with more than 40% locomotor disability submitted that he wanted a loan of Rs. five lakh for self-employment. He had also applied for loan under
PMEGP.
On intervention of State Commissioner, the complainant informed vide his e-mail dated 29.2.2016 that he had been sanctioned a loan of Rs.3.32 lakh for setting up
cyber cafe.
Case No: 4/1372/2016/Wel/CD
The complainant, a person with 52% locomotor disability alleged delay in releasing his salary, etc.
On intervention of State Commissioner,the Complainant vide his letter dated 19.05.2017 informed that the issue concerning DA arrear, Medical Bills, Bonus and deduction of NPS had been sorted out.. He was fully satisfied.
Case No: 141/1121/2018/03
Ashfak Ali Khan F/o Humairaa Khan vide his email dated 01.03.2018, submitted that he is facing enormous problem in getting Disability Certificate of his daughter. The complaint was taken up with the respondent On intervention of State Commissioner, G.B. Pant Hospital vide letter dated 17/03/2018 informed that the Complainant‘s daughter has been issued disability certificate for approximately 73% Permanent Physical & Mental Disability on 08.03.2018.
Case No: 106/1121/2018/08
Ms. Simmi Chopra vide her email dated 11.02.2018 informed that she had been trying to get a disability certificate for her son, Master Manith Chopra since 02.03.2017. The complaint was taken up with the concerned authorities vide show-cause- cum-hearing notice dated 16.02.2018.The complainant was separately advised to intimate the updates of her visits to the hospitals/authorities to know and understand the problems that she may face in obtaining the disability certificate and the issues involved.
On intervention of State Commissioner, and after hearing the representatives of hospital, Safdarjung Hospital vide letter dated 20.04.2018, informed that disability certificate in respect of Master Manith Chopra had been Issued. A number of recommendations were also made to the H&FW Department, GNCTD for streamlining issuance of disability certificates.
Case No: 4/920/2015-Wel/CD
A complaint was filed by Ms. Pooja against General Manager, Delhi SC/ST/OBC/ Minorities & Handicapped Financial Development Corporation.
The complainant alleged that the medical bills of her late husband who acquired disability while in the service of the respondent had not been reimbursed fully and she should also be appointed on compassionate ground. State Commissioner vide order dated 13.03.2018 directed/ recommended:
1. The question of appointment of the complainant on compassionate ground be decided by the Committee constituted for the purpose in accordance with the DoP&T OM No. 14014/02/2012- Estt./(D) dated 16.01.2013.
2 . Medical Bills be reimbursed within one month.
The respondent informed vide letter dated 18.06.2018 that the balance amount on account of medical bills had been reimbursed to the complainant.