Dear Vashishth sir, I fully agree that they're handling huge numbers of petitions. but what would you say, when a girl is exposed to risks, she's being denied from the hostel facility only due to the fact that the head of the hostel wanted to satisfy her ill intentions, when the same girl prays before respected officer to give her the justice and the mr. Dharial becomes angry and says that I can not call them here and I can not force them by holding their collar to give you the hostel facility. I'm referring to the Delhi University’s same case with which I've met you in your office. For the information of others, it was the case in which the aggrieved female student had no place to live anywhere in delhi and she was staying one day here and another day there. It was all informed to the Dy Commissioner and after that he responded this way.
Another problem that I noticed that they don’t want to interpret the provisions of PWD act, and they have a tendency to stick with the same wording as laid down under the act. We surely need change and it will happen, and will happen for the better. On 6/30/10, SC Vashishth <subhashvashis...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Friends, > > To come back to the main discussion, I do agree there are shortcomings in > the working of the office of CCPD and I find precisely four reasons for it: > > (a) No full time independent Commissioner > (b) Lack of staff vis-a-vis number of complaints received per day > (c) No power to direct, its more of advisory nature, so often respondents > don't take CCPD seriously and do not reply or appear. > (d) staff transferred from other ministries/departments on deputation with > no knowledge of the disability, laws and its practice and how does a court > work. > > Mr. Dhariyal is now an experience hand at the office of CCPD we have our own > interest in retaining him. In fact when we had full time CCPD and two Dy > Commissioners, (Ms. Sunita Singh, if you remember who looked after the court > work) the work started to roll but Ms. Sunita Singh was recalled soon. > > Its less of his fault than of the system that he works in. I am not > defending the officer, but the sheer number of staff and multiple > responsibilities that have been handed over to the counted staff is mind > boggling and the Ministry is least bothered about it for no one is > agitating. None of us would be able to justice with that pendency number > with higher expectations of the sector from them. Then gradually when they > can't handle the sheer number they start prioritizing and take action on > cases which are urgent in nature, or on which there is likelihood of > ministry or media or court taking a note of. This further rottens the system > and most cases start dragging for years with no justice seems coming. > > Also lot of work that the state commissioners should be doing is falling on > the office of CCPD being the central office and half the time the CCPD does > only post office work - forwarding representations from states to state > commissioners - ofcourse with handly much action happening on them. > > I think the way out is to expand the CCPD office and provide trained staff > to the office. At least four Dy. Commissioners and one full time CCPD with > trained staff and fully computerised system of tracking matters. I would > agree with the idea of having a judge or an advocate experienced in > disability law & human rights holds this office instead of Babus and NGO > heads. The Ministry of Social Justice has to seriously take a note of it and > disability sector should lead a strong agitation. > > On George's point of removal of employee with disability on ground of > non-performance, we have got an infamous order from none other than Hon'ble > Supreme Court in the case Union of India Vs. Devendra Kumar Pant, on which I > wrote my reflections on my blog: > http://disabilityrightsthroughcourts.blogspot.com/2009/07/reflections-on-supreme-court-judgement.html > > However, before deciding the legality of removing a person with disability > from job on account of non-performance, I would say, it is necessary to look > at whether the employee was given reasonable accommodation, assistive aids > and devices required to perform that job and sufficient training. Also > whether the bad behaviour has been construed because the employee demanded > such accommodation and support and was not given. > > Mere declaring a person useless and charge him with bad behaviour is the > easiest thing to do which is often done by insensitive employers and > colleagues.There is an urgent need of guidance to the employers to this > effect- both in Govt. and in private and also there is an urgent need of > providing support systems like technology, assistive aids, adaptation and > reasonable accommodation at the cost of Government to provide equitable > opportunities to those experiencing disabilities. > > regards > > Subhash Chandra Vashishth > Advocate-Disability Rights > 09811125521 > 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-requ...@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 === 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-requ...@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
