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

akhilesh akhil.akhil29 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 29 05:29:07 EDT 2010


Hello subramani sir and all,
I've personally talked to the aggrieved person and it is quite clear
that whatever MR. TD. Dharial has done is not expected and reasonable
at all in any circumstance.
Now, how many of us are ready to mail our concerns to the CCPD
directly about its attitude?
I've personally experienced the carelessness and irresponsible
attitude of Dy commissioner for persons with disabilities.
Most of the employees in the office of CCPD are not good at all, and
they behave very badly.
They don’t like to call the guilty party for hearing, they don’t like
to decide the matter within the time frame stipulated under the pwd
act, and they also don’t like to adhere the provisions of pwd act.
Many matters are being dragged for years, and no hearing at all!!!
Just reminders after reminders to the culprit, promoting the
wrongdoers against persons with disabilities in a well organized
manner.
I personally request to the persons who are working in media sector to
make this information to public.
Now start a mail campaign against the Dy. CCPD to tell that we’re well
aware whatever they’re doing.
I’ve experienced it all, and that’s why I’m talking from my experience.
Please keep writing on this, and express your views.
Its not the matter of shalini sethi only, but of whole community.
Expecting a massive response from you all,
Akhilesh.


On 6/29/10, niranjanraj urs <niranjanursb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Really very sad indeed. A complaint to National Womens Commission
> could be helpful.
> Niranjan
>
> 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
>>
>
> 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
>


-- 
===
Visit my blog at:
freestuff4indians.blogspot.com
Skype ID:
akhil.akhil29
===




More information about the AccessIndia mailing list