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

niranjanraj urs niranjanursb at gmail.com
Tue Jun 29 02:26:27 EDT 2010

Really very sad indeed. A complaint to National Womens Commission
could be helpful.

On 6/25/10, Subramani L <lsubramani at deccanherald.co.in> wrote:
> 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."
> Voice your thoughts in the blog to discuss the Rights of persons with
> disability bill at:
> http://www.accessindia.org.in/harish/blog.htm
> To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-request at accessindia.org.in with
> the subject unsubscribe.
> To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please
> visit the list home page at
>   http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in

More information about the AccessIndia mailing list