Hi
Congratulations for a favorable order. Would be good precedence.
At the end of the order it states if compliance status is not submitted
then it will be assumed as non compliance and reported to parliament.
Question to legal luminaries, What does parliament do with such
defaults? Can we conduct a study? Can we make a case of non compliance
and trigger a momentum to move away from recommendation mode to give
more power to CCPD to start applying penalties?
Harish
On 21/12/2022 22:38, Himanshu Sahu wrote:
ccpd-VIBEWA Vs. SBI-01Dec2022.pdf
.ffi ffi
Rr{ilErq Uq ffifr f{arirrqq
COURT OF CHIEF COMMISSIONCN}ON PCNSONS WITH DISABILITIES
(DNryANGJAN)Feizrqq TIYlftro-rur furyq7 p6*'1r"nt of Empo,rerment of
Porsons with Disabitiuos
(Div]ranqlan)mqrfuo qrq qt{ orffir qTrirq,/ Minisry of sociar Justice
and Empowerment
ql\rd EffiIt,/Govemment of lndia
Case No : 1334811021 12022
Complainant: Shri Subhash Chandra Vashishth Advocate E-mail:
<subhashcvashis...@gmail.com>
Respondent: 1. The Chairman State Bank of lndia, State Bank Bhawan
Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400021 E-mail:
<dmd....@sbi.co.in>
2.
DMDCDO
State Bank of lndia E-mail:<dmd....@sbi.co.in>
3.
DGM lndustrial Relations State Bank of lndia
E-mail:<dgm...@sbi.co.in> GIST of the Complaint:
The complainant shri subhash chandra Vashishth, Advocate filed a
complaint dated 03.07.2022 on behalf of Visually lmpaired Bank
Employees Welfare Association
(VIBEWA) challenging the impugned promotion policy issued by State
Bank of lndia on 21.01.2022to the grades of SMGS-IV and SMGs V
(2022-23) being discriminatory
to persons with visual
impairment.
2.
He has submitted that VIBEWA is an association of visually impaired
people working in the banking, insurance and other financial sectors
in lndia and it
is the first association in
the country formed exclusively for the empowerment and welfare of
visually impaired employees in the banking and other financial
sectors. lt is represented
by Mr. Himanshu Sahu, General Secretary, who has been duly authorized
to represent the organization in the
present matter through advocate/legal counsel.
sff qfu.i. \.arrrd\.s6 rec. (dz qo. -.fl-2. taer-r o. il{6r. i-{
firctfr-r r oozr; {rqrrl: ori-20892361.2oas227s 5" Floor, NISD
Building, Plot No.G-2,
Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-l'|0075; Tel.: 011-20892364,20892275
E-mail:c...@nic.in ; Website:www.ccdisabilities.nic.in
(vqr qfqq q q{rqn d fdc swiffi qr{a,z d-s dsr q-{rq ftrd)
(Please quote the above flle/case number in future correspondence)
,,.2,,,
3.
He further submitted that the VIBEWA challenges the impugned promotion
policy issued by the state Bank of lndia on 2110112022 to the grades
of sMGS lv
and sMGS V 2022-23 bringing in marks for branch experience, mandatory
branch manager assignment,
credit assignments etc. for persons with vision disabilities thereby
discriminating against visually impaired officials on the basis of
their disability.
4.
He has requested to pass recommendations to the following effects:
a)
Exempting visually impaired officials from the marks assigned to
branch experience in promotions to SMGS lV and SMGS V in arriving at
final merit
list, as a reasonable accommodation.
b)
Exempting visually impaired officials from mandatory assignments in arriving
at final merit list for all promotions, similar to exemption from RUSU
assignment, as a reasonable accommodation.
c)
To identify roles/ jobs that are performed by visually impaired
officials and count the jobs/ work experience of visually impaired
officers relating to
marketing, recoveries, digital promotions, HR, kaining, research,
monitoring and follow up etc. as equivalent to the current mandatory
assignment introduced
by the impugned policy with respect to vision impaired employees,
as a reasonable accommodation.
d)
ln respect of any visually impaired official who is eligible for promotion to
SMGS lV and SMGS V in the promotion year 2022-23, the respondent needs
to exclude the mandatory branch manager/credit assignment and
reconsider the candidature
of such officials for the purpose of arriving at the final merit list.
The final merit of such an official be arrived at excluding the marks
for branch
experience by normalizing their score to 100 by the marks they have
scored out of 95.
5.
The matter was taken up with the Respondent vide letter dated
13.07.2022 under Section 75 of the RPwD Act, 2016
6.
Respondent vide letter dated 02.08.2022 has inter-alia submitted that
the Bank is not only sensitive and committed to the cause of
empowering the persons
with disabilities but is
3....
fully cognizant of its responsibility towards persons with
disabilities and thus framed an
Equal opportunity Policy for persons with disabilities (2021 -2024).
Respondent further
submitted that the promotion policy of the Bank dated 21.01.2022 to
the grades of sMGS lV
and sMGS v for 2022 -23 is in tine with Rights of persons with
Disabitities Act, 2016.
Respondent further submitted that Bank's Promotion Policy and the
conditions thereat do
not violate any provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 as alleged in
the complaint and the Policy does not discriminate against any person
with disability on the
ground of their disability and rather treats them on equal footing
with other employees. The
Bank's Policy does not deprive any person with disability of their
personal liberty on ground
of their disability and that the Policy does not discriminate against
any person with disability
in any matter of employment or deny promotion to any person with
disability on the ground
of the disability. The allegation made in the complaint is not correct
and therefore, the relief
prayed therein are unreasonable and unjustified.
7.
After considering the respondent's reply dated 02.08.2022 and the complainant's
rejoinder dated 23.09.2022, it was decided to hold a personal hearing
in the matter and therefore, the case was listed for personal hearing
on 21.10.2022
but due to administrative exigency, hearin g re-schedu led on 01.1 1.2022.
Hearing: The case was heard via Video conferencing by chief
commissioner for persons with Disabilities on 01.11.2022. The
following were present in the
hearing:
. . Shri Himanshu Sahu, Shri Rajesh Asudani, Shri Krishnamurthy
alongwith Shri . . Subhash Chandra Vashishth, Advocate -complainant
Advocate Abhijeet Joshi
and Shri Shailesh, AGM on behalf of respondent
Observation/Recommendations:
8.
complainant has challenged the promotion policy of the respondent
establishment. Complainant submits that the respondent establishment
has framed new promotion
policy and notified it on 21.01 .2022. The policy relates to the
promotion to the grades of sMGS-lV
and SMGS-V. Complainant alleges that this promotion policy is
discriminatory with Divyangjan with Visual lmpairment. Complainant
submits that as per promotion
policy marks for 'branch experience', 'mandatory branch manager
assignment' and 'credit assignment'
....4....
will be taken into account while considering the promotion. As per the
complainant this is discrimination with Divyangjan with Visual
Impairment because
in order to perform these mandatory assignments functionality of
vision is essential and it is technically impossible for a Divyangjan
with 100% Visual
lmpairment to perform such assignments. This will result into a
situation where divyang employees with Visual lmpairment will be
automatically excluded
from the promotion posts.
9.
Further, the complainant submits that the impugned promotion policy
provides for 5% weightage in the form of marks with respect to work
experience in branches.
This is also discdmination with Divyangjan with Visual lmpairment
because majority of such Divyangjan are posted in establishment
offices such as Regional
Offices, Zonal Office, credit processing cells etc. Such situation
will also result in discrimination with Visual lmpairment divyangjan
because such employees
will automatically loose 5 marks at the very beginning itself.
'10. Respondent refuted the claim that the promotion policy is
discriminatory with divyangjan with Visual lmpairment and provided
justification behind
the promotion policy, Respondent submitted that the provisions of
mandatory assignments were introduced because such assignments provide
the officers adequate
operational and managerial exposure in order to enable them perform
higher responsibilities in higher scales. Similarly, on the issue of
awarding 5 marks,
the respondent submits that it is to encourage the employees to take
up work in branch so that they can equip themselves with wide
experience. Respondent
further, submits that the bank also provides employees with various
assistive devices to enable them to discharge other duties
effectively.
11.
During online hearing this court enquired from the complainant as to
why visual impaired divyang employees cannot perform branch
assignment, performance
of which are mandatory in order to be considered for promotion.
Complainant informed this court that functions related to branch
manager are such that
they cannot be performed by Divyangjan with visual impairment without
assistance of any other employee. For instance transaction of big
amount has to be
approved by branch manager. This function is such that it cannot be
completed without assistance of other employee. Unavoidable
intervention of other employee
in completion of task automatically puts divyang employee in
vulnerable situation in which high probability of commission of fraud
exists.
lr
12.
Further, this court enquired the procedure which existed before this
impugned promotion policy came into effect. Respondent informed this
courtthat prior
to the impugned policy requirement of operational assignment was not there.
13.
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides for equality in
employment. lt is certain that intention of the statute is that no
policy can be
framed which is discriminatory with divyang employees. As far as
present promotion policy is concerned this court is inclined to
conclude that the fact
that marks for branch experience, mandatory branch manager assignment,
credit assignment will be taken into account while considering the
promotion will
indeed exclude Divyangjan with Visual lmpairment because these
functions cannot be performed by such employees in independent
capacity. These functions
can only be performed with assistance of other employees. Such a
policy will leave divyang employees with Visual lmpairment in
situation where they will
either be dependent upon mercy of other employees of whom they are
taking assistance of or else it will be impossible for them to perform
such functions
in individual capacity and hence they will never be considered to
promotion to the posts of SMGS-IV and SMGS-V. The impugned promotion
policy excludes
divyang employees with Visual lmpairment hence, such a policy must be
done away with or reasonable accommodation for visually impaired
should be provided
for
in the policy.
14.
ln order to remove this exclusion following points are recommended to
the Respondent -:
a)
ln case of divyangjan with Visual lmpairment similar weightage in
marks should be given to them for performing some other functions
which they can be easily
performed in individual capacity and without exposing themselves to
unnecessary risk.
b)
Complainant in its reloinder has given list of various posts.
Functions associated with such posts can be performed by divyangjan
with Visual lmpairment
in individual capacity. Hence, Respondent is recommended to consider
performance of divyang employees with Visual lmpairment holding such
posts while evaluating
them for promotion, instead of considering 'branch experience',
'mandatory branch manager assignment' and 'credit assignment'.
c)
Accordingly, the policy should be reviewed to prevent exclusion and
provide reasonable accommodation for giving them equal opportunity in
promotion.
6
15.
Respondent is directed to submit the compliance Report of this order
within 3 months from the date of this Order. ln case the Respondent
fails to submit
the Compliance Report within 3 months from the date of the order, it
shall be presumed that the
Respondent has not complied with the order and the issue will be
reported to the
Parliament in accordance with section 78 of Rights of persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016.
'16. The case is disposed off.
I q-fg.
k^a
(Upma Srivastava) Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Dated: 01.12.2022
--
Disclaimer:
1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the
person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity;
2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent
through this mailing list..
Search for old postings at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AccessIndia" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to accessindia+unsubscr...@accessindia.org.in.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/MAZPR01MB71687D53D25CBF86452811E6D2E89%40MAZPR01MB7168.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
