Disposed

Ranjit Kumar Gupta v. Chief Commissioner for Persons With Disabilities and Anr.

Delhi HC6 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/2046/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a complaint regarding document verification for a visually impaired petitioner. The Court permitted the petitioner to submit a representation to the Second Respondent for a speaking order based on relevant guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to make a concise Representation to the second respondent within two weeks; the second respondent must deal with it by passing a speaking order within four weeks.

Ranjit Kumar Gupta Vs Chief Commissioner for… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Order : March 06, 2018 + W.P.(C) 2046/2018 & CM No.8435-37/2018

¶4

RANJIT KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Surabhi Kumari, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Nemo CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶7

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶8

Petitioner had filed a complaint in September, 2016 in the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disability asserting that petitioner was called for document verification on 12^th August, 2016 and this call letter appeared on the official website of second respondent only on 12^th August, 2016 and since petitioner was located in Delhi, he could not appear for document verification in Kolkata. Impugned order of 6^th November, 2017 notes that prima facie there is violation on the part of respondent with reference to the rights of the complainant/petitioner who is a disabled person with 100% visual impairment. However, while relying upon the point wise reply of second respondent, petitioner’s complaint has been dismissed while observing that no other mode of communication except uploading of the communication on the website which was followed by second respondent.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner assails the impugned order by

¶10

W.P.(C) No.2046/2018

¶11

Page 1

¶12

submitting that as per the Guidelines (Annexure P-3), document verification is to be undertaken on two block dates with a minimum gap of two weeks and since petitioner’s name did not appear in the first block date and had appeared only on the second block date, therefore, petitioner ought to have been granted one more opportunity to furnish the requisite documents for verification. Despite service of advance notice on the respondents, none appears on their behalf.

¶13

Upon hearing, I find that call letter for verification of document (Annexure P-4) was of 12^th August, 2016 i.e. the date when the petitioner was to appear for document verification in Kolkata. On which date this call letter was put on the official website by the second respondent has not been considered in the impugned order and so, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with permission to petitioner to make a concise Representation to second respondent within a period of two weeks and if such a Representation is made, then second respondent shall deal with it by passing a speaking order in light of the Guidelines (Annexure P-3) and uninfluenced by the impugned order of 6^th November, 2017 (Annexure P-9) . Needful be done within a period of four weeks of receiving the Representation and its fate be made known to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.

¶14

With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are disposed of.

¶15

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶16

MARCH 06, 2018 mamta

¶17

W.P.(C) No.2046/2018

¶18

Page 2

Ranjit Kumar Gupta v. Chief Commissioner for Persons With Disabilities and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Kumar Gupta v. Chief Commissioner for Persons With Disabilities and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Quayamuddin Vs All India Institute of Medical Science (Aiims) & Anr.

Vasundhara Celebration Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Shri Subhash Nagpal Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Engineers India Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court

Tulsi Ram Meena Vs UOI & Ors.

Vipin Kumar Vs N.D.M.C. & Ors.

Dharam Nath Singh Vs N.D.M.C. & Ors.

Occupational Health and Safety Association Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sita Rawat Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc)

Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs Bses Yamunar Powar Ltd.

Rohit Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Azad Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Suresh Kumar Kaushik & Ors. Vs Government of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Pushpender Kumar & Anr. Vs Indian Bank & Anr.

Delhi Public School Mathura Road Vs Directorate of Education