[AI] Pls Advise - Case of Shalini Sethi from Delhi

Subramani L lsubramani at deccanherald.co.in
Fri Jun 25 08:36:39 EDT 2010


This is certainly a case of serious and extreme harassment. It is
disappointing to know that CCPD, who is supposed to protect our rights
and due enforcement of the disability law, has abandoned the cause so
shamelessly and decided to side with the bank. Sometimes, you can't help
but accede to the cynicism of those in this list who sometimes we -the
over-optimists- often disagree with. Let us consider a few things we can
do: 

I am no legal specialist... All that I can think of is to take this up
as a citizen journalist exercise by one of us, record the statements of
all those involved (if possible on camera) and pass the tape to a news
channel. The best way is to name and shame those who show their courage
to persons with disability. Let them face the public... Another thing I
can think of is an open public campaign through press conference (making
the person involved nd her father speak to the press) and explain the
whole thing. Third thing is to take this to IBA and see if some remedy
can be sought. The person in question here has been subjected to
emotional stress for efficiently discharging her duty. The officials who
should have supported her in situations like this and who failed utterly
in their duties have to be brought to some sort of an open court and
questioned in full public glair. Let us see if they can still taunt
persons with disability again. This is not merely the experience of one
person, but a forewarning that something similar may happen to any
person with disability in future. This has to be severely dealt with. 

Subramani 



-----Original Message-----
From: accessindia-bounces at accessindia.org.in
[mailto:accessindia-bounces at accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of V.
Jayakumar
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 12:29 PM
To: accessindia at accessindia.org.in
Subject: [AI] Pls Advise - Case of Shalini Sethi from Delhi

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: shalini sethi <ss25134416 at yahoo.co.in>
Date: Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM
Subject: Fw: plight of disabled
To: dlu.south at gmail.com

----- Forwarded Message ----
*From:* shalini sethi <ss25134416 at yahoo.co.in>
*To:* secy-fs at nic.in
*Sent:* Fri, 21 May, 2010 4:07:00 PM
*Subject:* Fw: plight of disabled







 Respected Madam,



   1. I joined the IDBI Bank at its Chandni Chowk branch on
26.11.2007(later
   shifted to its Rajouri Garden Branch) as Executive , based on my
selection
   in the all India Test conducted by the said Bank, under the quota for
   persons with disabilities, as per the PwD Act, 1995. This post was
initially
   on contract, to be renewed year-to-year, to be absorbed in the
services of
   the Bank as Assistant Manager, an A category post, on availability of
   vacancies, performance and a further selection process.
   2. I was performing well, doing multi-task duties, as a Teller,
handling
   cash, preparation of demand drafts, handling Demat accounts, tax
collection
   matters. I also worked on cheque clearing seat. During this period I
also
   participated in two training seminars, conducted by the Bank. Trouble
   started for me when Shri Rajesh Kumar joined this Branch as Head in
July,
   2008. He was harassing me for no reasons, teasing me on my
disabilities,
   calling me mad, threatening the non-renewal of my contract etc.
Things came
   to peak on 21.11.2008, when I could not bear the daily bickering and
   indignities any longer, I talked on my mobile to Shri K.P.Nair, Head
HRD,
   who sits at Bombay Headquarters of the Bank, because he had earlier
helped
   me in my posting problem, expecting that he will again sort out my
problem.
   But instead of getting any relief I got a fax from his office at
5.00pm on
   25.11.2008, when I was leaving the Bank, after my days work,
informing me
   that my contract is not renewed and that I should apply to the Bank
for
   encashment of my leave etc. I talked to him in the evening the same
day on
   returning home but he informed me that the contract has not been
renewed
   because of performance. When I talked to him about my complaint, he
told me
   that he was looking into the matter. It took the Bank nearly 6 months
and
   several e-mails to honor encashment.
   3. Not getting any response, my father wrote to him on 1.1.2009
seeking
   proper justice, considering that I got this job quite late in my life
and
   now at the age of 38 yrs. I had no further job opportunities;
pleading that
   the state policy is to properly rehabilitate persons like me so that
they
   could live their lives with dignity and self respect to become a part
of the
   mainstream of the Society, but this letter failed to get any
response.
   4. Realizing that waiting further for justice from the Bank was
futility,
   my father formally lodged the first complaint with the Chief
Commissioner
   for persons with disabilities 24.2.2009, under Sec.59 of the PwD Act,
1995
   This relevant Section reads that apart from taking steps to safeguard
the
   rights and facilities made available for persons with disabilities,
the
   Chief Commissioner, on his own motion or on the application of the
aggrieved
   person or otherwise look into the complaints in matters relating to
   deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities,
non-implementation of
   laws,rules,bye-laws,regulations,executive orders, guidelines or
instructions
   made or issued by the appropriate Governments and the local
authorities for
   the welfare and protection of rights of persons with disabilities,
and take
   up the matter with the appropriate authorities. As per Sec. 63(1) of
the
   Act, the Chief Commissioner for discharging their function under the
Act,
   have the same powers as vested in a court under Code of Civil
Procedure,
   1908 while trying a suit in matters like summoning and enforcing the
   attendance of witnesses; requiring discovery and production of
document;
   requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or
office;
   receiving evidence on affidavits; and issuing commissions for the
   examination of witnesses and documents. Its proceedings are judicial,
within
   the meaning of Sec.193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. It is deemed
as
   Civil Court for the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXXVI of the
Code of
   Criminal Procedure, 1973.
   5.  In the above said complaint, while explaining the facts it was
   pointed out that no-renewal of the contract was an act of personal
vendetta
   because I complained against the Branch Head for humiliating me for
no
   reason. I expected that the Chief Commissioner, concerned with the
welfare
   of persons with disabilities and protection of their rights etc. will
kindly
   independently get the complaint investigated and take action against
the
   person who harassed me  for no reason leading to deprivation of my
right,
   as a person with disability, for gainful livelihood. It was also
explained,
   enclosing a copy of the terms and conditions, that it was not a
contract,
   where a person was hired only for a specific period, but was a
continuing
   contract from year to year, to be finally absorbed in the post of
Assistant
   Manager, on regular basis, subject to vacancies, performance and a
selection
   process . Subsequently, an e-mail was also sent to him on 1.3.2009,
   narrating the complete facts of harassment, requesting for a personal
   hearing I was surprised that two months later, without giving me an
   opportunity of personal hearing, he unilaterally decided that the
Bank had
   unconditional discretion not to renew the contract, making his
intervention
   inappropriate. He, it seems, also deemed it not necessary to look
into my
   complaint as a person with disabilities for undue harassment. The
Chief
   Commissioner is essentially a welfare officer for the persons with
   disabilities to look after their rights and welfare, to protect their
   interest. He has been given a judicial mechanism to quicken the
process of
   justice for persons falling short of abilities. Recruitment through
   contract, giving absolute right to hire and fire, is not the usual
fare with
   Government bodies. The Chief Commissioner, under the PwD Act is
empowered to
   look into such unusual practices, particularly when it hurt the right
of
   persons with disabilities, whose interest he is supposed to watch.
   6.   the Deputy Chief Commissioner, my father met to lodge the
complaint,
   demanded to produce information about the number of such Executives
   recruited since inception of this scheme, number retained, and
indicating
   number from the category of persons with disabilities to enable her
office
   to pursue this case further, whereas her office is duly empowered to
collect
   such information directly from the Bank officially in quick time. My
father
   had no means to supply this information instantly. It took sometime
to
   collect the required information through RTI Act. The information
procured
   from the IDBI Bank is appended at. This information clearly
establishes that
   the Bank is not complying with the extant instructions, guidelines,
   directions as contained in PwD Act, Sec.33 and36, relating to
reservations
   for persons with disabilities, DOP&T OM dated 29.12.2005. The Bank,
after
   its amalgamation as public sector Bank on 3.10.2006, which made it
obligated
   to follow these extant instructions, guidelines, directions,
recruited 5678
   A category employees, of which only 54 persons were recruited with
   disabilities, forming mere 0.95% of the total, as against the
requirements
   of 3%, thus leaving an appalling gap of 116 PwDs short. The
information
   furnished by the Bank that it has only 62 vacancies of PwDs , through
RTI,
   is misleading and incorrect. During this period they also recruited
1623
   Executives on contract, in the years 2007 and 2008, with the ultimate
   objective to absorb them in this A category over a period of 4 yrs.
subject
   to availability of vacancies, performance and further selection
process. In
   this they recruited 38 persons with disabilities, forming 2.34%. I
joined as
   Executive in the 2007 batch. However, by the end of the first year 9
of the
   20 PwDs, including me were not continued beyond our first year
contract.
   These Executives fulfilled the prescribed qualification as laid down
by the
   Bank, were selected through all India elaborate test, were
interviewed by
   the worthy senior management of the Bank, and found medically fit in
the
   medical fitness test conducted by the Bank Doctors. The data will
explain
   that the Bank was not fulfilling its required obligation as per the
PwD Act
   and the above cited OM; at the same time was also  not serious to
retain
   the PwDs recruited through their due selection process. Supported by
this
   data, my father again approached the Chief Commissioner for Persons
with
   Disabilities on 17.8.2009, requesting him to again look into my case,
more
   so because of new emerging facts to give me proper justice by
directing my
   reinstatement in as Executive in the Bank, also, if needed,
relaxation of
   standard as directed under DOP&T OM 29.12.2005 as also appropriate
action
   against the Branch Head, who unduly harassed me leading to losing my
job.
   7. I am sorry to say that the Chief Commissioner office, ordained to
   provide me quick justice, delayed the matter unnecessarily. After
nearly 2
   months on 16.10.2009 merely advised the Bank to take action in
accordance
   with the Dop&T OM No.36012/23/2009-Estt(Res) dated 4.5.2009 issued in
   pursuance to order  dated 19.12.2008 of the Hon'ble High court of
Delhi
   in W.P.(C)No.15828/2006 for compliance. The Chief Commissioner
office,
   however, forgot to forward a copy of my complaint to the Bank, on
which it
   was seeking action, resulting in further delay.. I could not locate
the
   above OM on the website, as claimed. I found that the said letter did
not
   give any binding direction to the Bank. Therefore, I had to request
again to
   the Chief Commissioner to arrange proper hearing of the case in terms
of
   Rule 42 framed under PwD Act. After a long wait the hearing came up
on
   22.3.2010. The order passed dated 5.4.2010 disposing off the case
without
   considering the facts.

    The Chief Commissioner did not give proper consideration to our
first
   application dated 24.2.2009and E-mail sent on 1.3.2009 ,. It was his
binding
   duty under Sec.59 of the PwD Act to look into my complaint about the
   maltreatment and misbehavior of the Branch Head..(also please read
pares4,
   5&6 of the facts mentioned above)

         Our representation dated 17.8.2009 was based on the facts and
data
   collected from IDBI which clearly proved that the Bank was not
following the
   extant instructions, guidelines and directions as contained in PwD
Act and
   DOP&T OM 29.12.2005 and accordingly the DCC advised the Bank to these
extant
   instructions etc.Their letter dated 16.10,2009 was incomplete and had
to be
   sent again on 7.12.2009, because of negligence of his office, not
forwarding
   my said representation, containing the vital facts and data, causing
   unnecessary delay in the proceedings. It was not an appropriate order
as per
   procedure prescribed in Rule 42, framed under PwD Act, and therefore,
vide
   my letter dated 19.11.2009, I made a request seeking, proper hearing
as per
   the laid down procedure, explained in para 7 of the facts.
    1.  the assessment was made at the last moment in hurry after I
      complained against the Branch Head; copies of 3 E-mails submitted
do not
      prove anything but rather seem to prove my charge of mischief
played by the
      inmical Branch Head;  there is no previous assessment to prove
that I
      was deficient in my work and behavior; the General Manager HRD
Corporate
      office never visited the Branch to make any personal assessment;
it clearly
      proves that the non-renewal of my contract was personal vendetta
of
      the Branch Head, after I complained against him;  the action was
taken
      in undue hurry ; I complained against the Branch Head on
21.11.2008 and
      within 4 days I was thrown out of the Bank. I am sorry to say that
the
      Deputy Chief Commissioner has not tried to look into these facts
that were
      duly placed before him resulting in his erroneous order He has
completely
      ignored the extant instructions. Guidelines and directions of the
      appropriate Government. The post of Executive on contract was a
route to
      selection to the regular post of Assistant Managers and their
continuance
      and absorption was definitely relaxation at the time of selection
and
      applicable, as per Dop&t OM dated 29.12.2005. Besides, being
designated as
      supposed welfare officer for persons with disabilities, he has
not bothered
      to look into my complaint of harassment and maltreatment,
despite my placing
      complete facts and incidents of harassment before him, not denied
and
      refuted by any of the respondents present. He it seems did not
consider it
      necessary to explain the charges again him. He seems to be too
lenient to
      him for reasons best known to him.









I am a disabled person who is fighting a case against IDBI Bank for non
renewal of contract & mental harassment under DOP&T OM Act in disabled
court
for a year. On 19 oct. 2009 disabled court told IDBI Bank to consider
their
under DOPT & OM ground without hearing.I made a complaint to you
regarding
this. My complaint no.is prsec/e/2010/03840.I am39 years old with almost
nil
job opportunities in govt. sector  My assigned officer was Ms.Vandita
Kaul
but was told she is unavailable. I took appointment to meet Mr.S.K.
Patnaik.When I reached shastri bhawan I was told that he too was
unavailable .
so I met Dr. Arbind Prasad & asked him to intervene. He assured me to
help
me. Now disabled court has disposed off my case under minor ground.
Govt.
is saying on one side to rehabilitate disabled person on the other side
rehabilted person is thrown out of the organization.  Please help me to
get
my job back



Shalini

B-1-B, MIG, Flats,

Mayapuri,

New Delhi-110064

PH 01125134416

M 09311275958

----------------------


----- Forwarded Message ----
*From:* "helpline at rb.nic.in" <helpline at rb.nic.in>
*To:* ss25134416 at yahoo.co.in
*Sent:* Sun, 14 March, 2010 1:57:25 PM
*Subject:* Online Request/Grievance registration in President's
Secretariat
He lpline

*Dear Sir/Madam, *

Your Request/Grievance has been registered vide Registration number
*PRSEC/E/2010/03840
*.Please quote the same in your future correspondance.

 ------------------------------





-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Picasso - "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."




More information about the AccessIndia mailing list