Does "harassment" of male appellants by women IC's constitute "sexual harassment" ?
RTIwanted From: sroy1947 <[email protected]> Many thanks to an alert PIO (:-) who closely follows CIC orders. (s)He clarifies that it is actually a case of "sexual harassment" against IC(OPK) and there is even a CIC order on this relying upon the Vishaka judgement. So now we know why CIC formed that "womens cell" <rol> http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Orders/ WB-07102008- 01.pdf The curious part is that admittedly this lady PIO is made to attend CIC hearings as part of her work. Yet Mr H has held that since the CIC "is not her workplace" the SC Vishaka judgement does not apply to CIC or protect her. Now will Mr H also do something for male applicants who are faced with lady PIOs (one from DDA springs to mind immediately) who routinely insist that they were assaulted / outraged by the citizens on CIC premises? Sarbajit --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com, "sroy1947" <sroy1...@.. .> wrote: > > The Delhi High Court has taken grave note of PIO Gloria Kumar's pletitions > alleging harrasment (and corruption) against IC(OPK). > > Ms Kumar was the PIO of Delhi's high profile Regional Passport Office and was > the "victim" of IC(OPK)'s numerous "sadistic" orders such as this one :- > http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Orders/ Decision_ 01032007_ 01.pdf > > Now the High Court has taken heed on her petition and ordered the Solicitor > General of India to be impleaded to assist the court in this matter. > > http://courtnic. nic.in/dhcorder/ dhcqrydisp_ o.asp?pn= 24835&yr= 2009 > > IC(OPK)'s fondness for "egregious" language has landed him in hot water > (again). > > Sarbajit > _. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
