May be you should request CCPD. There email ID is c...@nic.in
-----Original Message----- From: accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of mukesh jain Sent: 20 March 2012 12:41 To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Subject: Re: [AI] Useful CCPD judgement for Public Sector Employees hello sir, another great move in the disability sector. thanks for sharing this infor. could you please tell me where to get the signed copy of this order? thanks, mukesh. On 3/20/12, Prashant Ranjan Verma <pr_ve...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Pasted below is another recent judgement on payment of special > conveyance allowance to employees with disabilities. As per my reading > of the judgement Public Sector companies must pay the special > conveyance allowance at double the rate paid to non-disabled > employees. This allowance was apparently withdrawn by many companies after the 6th Pay commission implementation. > > > > > > > Case No.: 183/1028/11-12 > > Dated: 22.01.2012 > > > > > Despatch No.... > > > > > > > > In the matter of: > > > > > > > > > > Shri Laxmikant Vijayvargiya > > 339, Durgesh Vihar, J.K. Road > > Bhopal-462041 > > > > > > .. Complainant > > > > > Versus > > > > > > > Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises > > Through the Secretary > > Department of Public Enterprises > > Block No.14, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road > > New Delhi-110003 > > > > > > > > > > .. Respondent No.1 > > > > > Ministry of Finance > > Through the Secretary > > Department of Expenditure > > Room No.129-A, North Block > > New Delhi-110001 > > > > > > > > > > .. Respondent No.2 > > > > > Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited > > Through the Chairman & Managing Director > > BHEL House, Siri Fort > > New Delhi-110049 > > > > > > > > .. Respondent No.3 > > > > > > O R D E R > > > > Dates of hearing: 22.09.2011 and 19.01.2012 > > > > Present: > > 22.09.2011 > > (i) Shri Laxmikant Vijayvargiya, the complainant. > > (ii) Shri Pankaj Sinha, Advocate, Counsel for the complainant. > > (iii) Shri Madan Mohan, Jt. Director, Dept. of Public Enterprises > for Respondent No.1. > > (iv) Shri Augustin Xaxa, Sr. Manager, BHEL representative for the > respondent No.3. > > (v) Shri A.K. Roy, Advocate, Counsel for the respondent No.3. > > (vi) None appeared for the respondent No.2. > > > > 19.01.2012 > > (i) Shri Laxmikant Vijayvargiya, the complainant. > > (ii) Shri Pankaj Sinha, Advocate, Counsel for the complainant. > > (iii) Shri Rakesh Bhartiya Director, Shri Madan Mohan, Jt. > Director, Ms. Jyoti Mathur, Under Secretary and Shri R.K. Jha, Under > Secretary, Dept. of Public Enterprises for Respondent No.1. > > (iv) Ms. Suguna Swaminathan, Sr. Manager, BHEL representative for > the respondent No.3. > > (v) Shri A.K. Roy, Advocate, Counsel for the respondent No.3. > > (vi) None appeared for the respondent No.2. > > > > > > Shri Laxmikant Vijayvargiya, a person with more than 50% locomotor > disability, submitted a complaint dated 28.11.2004 before the Chief > Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCD) stating that his > entire left leg is affected with polio and he uses a crutch to walk. > He was appointed as Deputy Manager (Finance) in the pay scale of > `16,000-640-20,800 by Bharat Heavy Eelectricals Limited (BHEL) and was > posted at Piplani, Bhopal. The company is paying transport allowance > to its employees who are blind or orthopaedically handicapped with > disability of lower extremities @ 5% of basic pay subject to a maximum > of `100/- per month over and above the transport subsidy/subsidized transport/conveyance reimbursement facilities. > The transport allowance is being paid as per Department of > Expenditure's OM No.19029/2/86/E.IV dated 16.04.1986 which has been > suppressed by OM > No.21(1)/97/E.II(B) dated 03.10.1997 with retrospective effect from > 01.08.1997. The transport allowance was earlier known as conveyance > allowance. As per the said OM, the transport allowance to blind and > orthopaedically handicapped Government employees would be double the > normal rate. > > 2. The complainant further submitted that Department of > Public Enterprises vide OM No.6(7)/2002-DPE(SC/ST Cell) dated > 05.09.2003 extended the benefit of Department of Expenditure's OM > dated 03.10.1997 with some amendments w.e.f. 05.03.2003 instead of > 01.08.1997. The complainant also contended that DPE's OM is > applicable only to those employees of PSEs who are in the Central DA > pattern (CDA), although Department of Expenditure's OM does not mention about IDA or CDA pattern. > > 3. The complaint was disposed of after hearing the opposite > parties namely, BHEL and Department of Public Enterprises vide order > dated > 26.05.2006 with the following directions: > > "13. In the light of the above facts, BHEL should ensure that the > complainant is compensated for the extra expenditure he has to incur > on account of accessories in the car, extra fuel and maintenance which > can be up to double the normal rate of transport allowance subject to > his fulfilling the required conditions in terms of DPE's OM dated 5th Sep. 2003. > Alternatively, the respondent should pay an amount arrived at by > proportionately increasing `100/- to the corresponding increase in the > amount of conveyance expenditure over the period since `100/- was > first allowed to the eligible blind and orthopaedically handicapped > persons. Each time the conveyance expenditure was increased by the > respondent to the concerned CPSE, the transport allowance to blind and > orthopaedically handicapped employees must also be increased > proportionately. This benefit should also be extended to all other > employees with disabilities in BHEL and CPSEs who are eligible for > transport allowance. Otherwise, the eligible employees with > disabilities will be subjected to discrimination. DPE is also > directed to issue necessary clarifications to all concerned to follow > the above principle in the matter of grant of transport allowance or > by whatever nomenclature the allowance is known, to eligible employees > with disabilities to avoid inconvenience to them. The respondent shall submit action taken report within three months of receipt of this order." > > 4. The complainant filed Writ Petition No.6529 of 2007 > against the order dated 26.05.2006 of Chief Commissioner for Persons > with Disabilities before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and sought the > following > reliefs: > > "i. Set aside the order dated 26.5.2006 and the clarification dated > 10.11.2006 by the Ld. Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. > > Ii. Direct Respondent No.4 (Ministry of Finance, Department of > Expenditure) to amend the order No.21(1)/97/E.II(B) dated 3.10.1997 so > that the provisions for Transport Allowance for disabled persons > therein are made applicable to all persons with disabilities as > defined in Section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities Act. > > iii. Direct Respondent No.2 (Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public > Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises) to amend it's order > dated > 5.9.2003 so that the provisions regarding Transport Allowance payable > to eligible disabled employees in Government of India, Ministry of > Finance order No.21(1)/97/E.II(B) of 3.10.1997, as amended per prayer > (ii) above, are extended, with no additional restrictions, to the > eligible disabled employees of PSEs following the IDA pay scale > pattern, including Respondent > No.1 BHEL, with retrospective effect from 1.8.1997. > > iv. Direct Respondent No.1 BHEL to pay Petitioner and the other > eligible disabled employees the Transport Allowance in accordance with > the provisions regarding Transport Allowance payable to disabled > employees in Government of India, Ministry of Finance order > No.21(1)/97/E.II(B) of > 3.10.1997 with retrospective effect from the disabled employees' date > of joining or 1.8.1997, whichever is later. > > v. Direct Respondent No.1 BHEL to increase the limits of > reimbursement of conveyance expenditure payable to Petitioner and > eligible disabled employees to twice the normal limits specified in > the rules under Respondent No.1's scheme for the eligible employees > for owning and maintaining a vehicle for official duties. > > vi. Direct the increase in prayer (v) above to operate with > retrospective effect from the date of joining of the disabled > employee, or the date of inception of said scheme, whichever is later. > > vii. Award the costs of this petition. > > viii. And pass such other or further order/s as may be deemed just, > fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. > > 5. The said Writ petition was decided by Hon'ble High Court > of Delhi vide order dated 04.04.2011 with the following directions: > > "19. On a perusal of the aforesaid conclusions, it is not very clear > whether the Commissioner has, after issuing notice to all concerned, > determined whether the conveyance allowance paid by the respondent is > apart from the benefit available under the Office Memorandum which has > been extended to the other Central Government Undertakings and > Enterprises. As is manifest from the order, the Department of Public > Enterprises was made a party before the said authority. The purpose > of the scheme, the extension of the benefit of the scheme, the scheme > of the respondent No.1 are required to be addressed in a comprehensive > manner to arrive at the conclusion whether compensation, as put forth > by the petitioner, payable under the Central Government Scheme is > imperative, despite anything being paid as a conveyance allowance to > an employee. The same having not been appositely addressed, we would > direct the Chief Commissioner to address the same from that > perspective and record a finding. We may hasten to clarify that we > are not setting aside the order as certain benefits have been given to > the likes of the petitioner and the others and that would not be fair, > hence, we direct for limited reconsideration. To elaborate, the said > authority would only exclusively address with regard to the facet, > whether despite the benefit given by the respondent No.1 towards > conveyance allowance, for which possession of a vehicle by a > physically handicapped is a prerequisite, and the compensation has to > be paid in addition to the same; whether the person can opt for either > of the schemes and whether the amount given is adequate and further > same deserves to be revised and can be revised as a policy matter. We > may hasten to clarify that we have not expressed any opinion from any > aspects with regard to the limited grounds for reconsideration. We > may further proceed to state that we have been compelled to direct for > reconsideration of the matter, as we feel there can be an appropriate > discussion in the forum of Chief Commissioner where parties can address the grievance from all aspects and the authority can decide the matter by taking note of all aspects including comparative schemes in vogue." > > > > 6. Thereafter, Department of Public Enterprises, Department > of Expenditure and BHEL were requested to submit their comments on the > issues arising out of the order of Hon'ble High Court vide letter > dated 03.06.2011. > > 7. The response of BHEL (Respondent No.3) vide letter dated > 03.08.2011 and that of the complainant vide his e-mail dated > 15.09.2011 on each of the four points are summarised as under: > > (i) Whether the conveyance allowance paid by the respondent is apart > from the benefit available under the Office Memorandum of DPE's OM > No.6(7)/2002-DPE (SC/ST Cell) dated 05.09.2003 which has been extended > to the other Central Government Undertakings and Enterprises > > Comments of BHEL: > > Though the nomenclature such as 'Transport Allowance', 'Conveyance > Allowance', 'Reimbursement of Conveyance Expenditure', etc. has been > used at different times by the Government as well as BHEL for the same > benefit, yet the purpose of benefit has been the same i.e. to suitably > compensate the employees for the cost incurred on account of commuting > between the place of residence and the place of duty. BHEL has a > general scheme for 'Reimbursement of Conveyance Expenditure' for all > employees including all category of employees with disability and > 'Special Conveyance Allowance' as additional assistance for employees > with locomotor disability and blindness rather than 'Transport > Allowance'. These are essentially part of perquisites because these > are incidental to commute between office and residence. BHEL has concluded by saying that the 'Transport Allowance' > being paid to Government employees and the scheme for 'Reimbursement > of Conveyance Expenditure' and 'Special Conveyance Allowance' in BHEL > cannot be claimed simultaneously. > > Comment of the complainant: > > As per the complainant, the 'Special Transport Allowance' to employees > with disabilities is distinct and separate from the 'Conveyance > Allowance' paid to other employees. > > (ii) Whether compensation payable under the Central Government Scheme is > imperative, despite anything being paid as a conveyance allowance to > an employee > > > > Comments of BHEL: > > The compensation payable under the Central Government Scheme cannot be > imperative despite anything being paid as conveyance allowance to an > employee as there is large difference in pay, perks and allowances > between the employees of Central Government and that of the CPSEs. > BHEL has more beneficial scheme of reimbursement of conveyance > expenditure than in the Central Government. It has also been stated > that though DPE's OM dated > 05.09.2003 extended the Transport Allowance at double the normal rate > to CPSEs, it did not imply abandonment of the more beneficial schemes > of CPSEs and adopt the Central Government Scheme which was less beneficial. > > Comments of the complainant: > > The scheme of Central Government is imperative despite anything being > paid as conveyance allowance to an employee of CPSE because CPSEs are > not paying any allowance to commute between the place of residence and > place of work as per their own scheme. > > (iii) Whether despite the benefit given by the respondent No.1 > towards conveyance allowance, for which possession of a vehicle by a > physically handicapped is prerequisite, and the compensation has to be > paid in addition to the same > > Comments of BHEL: > > As per BHEL, under the BHEL's scheme, an officer of the level of the > complainant gets much more in BHEL than he/she would get under the > scheme of Transport Allowance at double the normal rate under the > Central Government Scheme. In effect, therefore, BHEL compensates an > employee with disability in a better manner under its scheme > 'Reimbursement of Conveyance Expenditure' than the Central Government > employees get under the Government's Scheme. > > Comments of the complainant: > > As per the complainant, the compensation to the employees with > disabilities has to be paid in addition to the normal conveyance > allowance as they have to spend much more than the non-disabled > employees. His conveyance allowance and that of a non-disabled > employee of his level is the same and thus, unless additional amount > is given, he cannot be compensated for the extra expenditure incurred for transportation. > > (iv) Whether the person can opt for either of the schemes and whether > the amount given is adequate and further same deserves to be revised > as a policy matter > > Comments of BHEL: > > The scheme of conveyance allowance in the Central Government and BHEL > are two different and distinct schemes for compensating the cost of > commuting from place of residence to place of duty and back. > Therefore, a BHEL employee cannot opt for either of the two. As per > clause 4 of BHEL Rules, "an eligible employee can apply in the > prescribed format through proper channel. All such applications will > be screened by DGMs/HODs/Committee formed for this purpose and > submitted to the Head of the Division/Unit with their > recommendations." Conveyance Expenditure scheme of BHEL is within the > broad guidelines by Government and is specific to BHEL employees. The > petitioner being an employee of BHEL, has agreed to avail > reimbursement of conveyance expenditure of BHEL as per the above rule > and therefore he has to essentially continue to avail benefits under > this scheme, or opt out of the scheme, but he cannot move out and opt > for Government scheme of Transport Allowance. The amount being paid > as conveyance allowance in BHEL (`5262 + > 200 = `5462) is a very reasonable amount and is within the range of > what the other profit making CPSEs are paying. The quantum of amount > being paid by BHEL is not inadequate. > > Comments of the complainant: > > According to the complainant, the two allowances - 'Reimbursement of > Conveyance Expenditure' and 'Special Conveyance Allowance' are > distinct and separate. Their comparison is not tenable. As both the > allowances are paid simultaneously by the CPSEs, the question of > opting either of the two does not arise. The persons with > disabilities in CPSEs must, therefore, get conveyance allowance / > transport allowance at double the normal rate in order to provide them equal opportunity. > > 8. Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure vide letter > dated 08.09.2011 requested Department of Public Enterprises to file a > consolidated reply on their behalf. However, no reply was received > from DPE and the case was scheduled for hearing on 22.09.2011. > > 9. During the hearing on 22.09.2011, the complainant > submitted that BHEL gives him 10% of the basic pay as conveyance > allowance for performing official duties. That amount is given to all > other officers of his level. The transport allowance at double the > normal rate is being paid to the Central Government employees with > disabilities in accordance with Department of Expenditure's (DOE) OM > No.21(1)/97/E.II(B) dated > 03.10.1997 for going to office and back. Thus, the conveyance > allowance in BHEL and the transport allowance in Central Government > are two distinct allowances for different purposes and hence are not > comparable. The complainant further stated that he is maintaining a > Maruti Zen ATX Car with modification. The cost of the modified car, > the consumption of petrol and cost of spare parts is more than double > of the regular Maruti Zen. The company pays him Rs.200/- per month as > special conveyance allowance, which is grossly inadequate to > compensate for the additional cost of maintaining and running the Car. > > 10. The Advocate speaking on behalf of the complainant submitted > that 50% cap on the perks was not crossed in respect of the > complainant before 2008 when the DA was merged in CPSEs following the > IDA pattern. BHEL has not implemented DPE's OM No.6(7)/2002-DPE(SC/ST > Cell) dated 05.09.2003 which was issued on the basis of DOE's OM dated > 03.10.1997 and has not paid the conveyance allowance at double the > normal rate to the complainant. He contended that the additional > amount of conveyance allowance to the disabled employees should not be > added to the allowances for the purpose of 50% cap as it is a > compensation for extra expenditure that a person with disability has > to incur on transportation as in case of non-practicing allowance, north east allowance, field area allowance, etc. > > 11. The Counsel for BHEL stated that copies of all the papers > that the complainant is relying on should be supplied to the > respondent. He further submitted that BHEL is following IDA pattern > of pay scales and has not adopted the Central Government pay scales or > the transport allowance. A Central Government officer with disability > of the complainant's level at Bhopal would get Rs.4832/- as transport > allowance as per DOE's OM dated > 03.10.1997 whereas the complainant is getting conveyance allowance of > Rs.5262/- + Rs.200/- as Special Conveyance Allowance. It would have > to be added to other allowances for the purpose of 50% cap as it is an allowance. > > > 12. The representative of Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) > submitted that the circulars of Ministry of Finance are not > straightaway applicable across the board to all the CPSEs as some of > them are loss making companies which may not be able to pay many > allowances including conveyance allowance. DPE's OM dated 05.09.2003 > was made applicable from the date of its issue. Therefore, there > cannot be a case for payment of arrears from the date DOE issued their > OM on 03.10.1997. He informed that a proposal to revise the transport > allowance of the employees of CPSEs is under examination in DPE. As > regards implementation of DPE's circular dated > 05.09.2003 in BHEL or otherwise, he stated that DPE has not received > any representation or proposal from the Ministry of Heavy Industries & > Public Enterprises which is the administrative Ministry of BHEL. PSEs > have to take up matters with their concerned administrative Ministries > and not with DPE directly. > > 13. After the hearing, the parties were advised to address the > specific issues that have been mentioned in the order dated 04.04.2011 > of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.6529 of 2007 and > reproduced in para 6. of this order. It was also made clear to them > that their submissions would be considered in the light of the mandate > in Section 58(c) and 59 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal > Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. > > 14. Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, > Department of Heavy Industry vide letter 08.11.2011 advised the > Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) to present the case on behalf > of Government of India as that Department is the concerned policy > department on issues relating to PSEs. In response to that letter, > DPE vide letter dated > 17.11.2011 requested the Department of Heavy Industries to present the > case in the hearing being the administrative department for BHEL and > the agency to monitor implementation of guidelines / instructions in > BHEL. Department of Expenditure vide their letter dated 21.11.2011 > also requested Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises to > present the case on behalf of Ministry of Finance during the hearing before the Chief Commissioner. > > 15. On the next date of hearing on 19.01.2012, the > representatives of BHEL, Department of Heavy Industries and Department > of Public Enterprises presented their respective cases. The > representative of BHEL also submitted written comments dated > 19.01.2012 on the rejoinder submitted by the complainant on the four > points / questions. In the said comments, the additional issues that have been brought out are: > > (A) DPE in their 5.9.2003 OM had not clarified whether the > payment of transport allowance to blind and orthopaedically > handicapped employees was to be paid at double the rate of the amount > already being paid irrespective of that quantum of transport allowance > being paid by different Central Public Enterprises (CPSEs). > > (B) BHEL is already giving its employees perks and allowance at > 50% of basic pay, it is clear that payment of transport allowance at > double the normal rate to blind and orthopaedically handicapped > employees will exceed the ceiling of 50%. > > (C) Transport allowance is compensatory in nature for all > employees whether physically disabled or otherwise. Central > Government has allowed payment at double the normal rate to blind and > orthopaedically handicapped employees not because there are separate > schemes for disabled and non-disabled employees, but to give more > benefits to the disabled employees within the same scheme. > > (D) Only `1600/- (i.e. double the normal rate of `800/- as > maximum slab applicable in Central Government in pay revision of 1997) > was exempted as Special Transport Allowance to disabled employees in > Income Tax Rules and not the higher amount which would have been > received by such disabled employees, had BHEL/other PSUs paid at > double the rate. This means that Income Tax Rules have taken in to > account only the highest amount payable to disabled employees as per the Central Government Scheme only i.e. > `1600/- (as per 1997 pay revision), not envisaging the amount higher > than `1600/-. This vindicates the respondent's position not to pay > double the normal rate since its normal rate is already more than the > double the rate under Central Government Scheme. > > (E) BHEL is still paying even that `200/- that was being paid as > special allowance, even though the quantum of benefit being paid by > BHEL is much more than double the rate of normal transport allowance, > pre-revision period as well post revision period after 01.01.2007. > > (F) Since there is no requirement of owning a car to get the > transport allowance, the petitioner's claim that he has to incur extra > expenditure to maintain special type of car, has also become irrelevant. > Now, all BHEL employees, whether they own a car or do not own a car, > can claim up to 10% of basic pay as transport allowance. Even if they > do not opt for transport allowance, they can opt for other items from > the list of perks and allowances (there are 22 items in the list) and > get overall limit of 50% of basic pay. > > 16. It is observed that DPE vide their OM dated 15.11.2011 have > issued instructions that the employees with blindness and locomotor > disabilities of lower extremities would be entitled to receive > transport allowance at revised rates as per the general guidelines > issued by DPE vide their OM dated 20.01.2009 based on Department of > Expenditure's OM dated 29.08.2008. The conditions for grant of the > transport allowance would however remain unchanged for blind and > orthopaedically handicapped employees with a ceiling of 50% of the > basic pay prescribed for perks and allowances in respect of the employees of CPSEs following IDA pattern of pay-scale. > The provision in the OM dated 05.09.2003 of DPE that in the cases of > those physically handicapped employees whose payment of perquisites in > allowance exceeds 50% of their basic pay may be decided on case to > case basis in consultation with the administrative ministry and DPE, > no more exists in the DPE's OM dated 15.11.2011. The parties were > advised to address the specific issues that have been referred to the > Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities by the Hon'ble High > Court of Delhi as mentioned in para 19 of their order dated 04.04.2011. > > 17. After detailed discussions, the following emerged: > > (i) The Conveyance Allowance paid by BHEL to all its employees > is apart from the benefit available under the DPE's OM dated > 05.09.2003 vide which DPE extended the benefit of double the normal > rate of Transport Allowance to the eligible employees with locomotor > disability of lower extremities and blindness subject to the condition > that the payment of perquisites in allowance would not exceed 50% of > the basic pay in respect of those PSEs following IDA pattern of > pay-scale. BHEL, which is following IDA pattern of pay-scales, has > its own scheme of 'Conveyance Allowance', 'Reimbursement of Conveyance Expenditure' and 'Special Conveyance Allowance' > for eligible employees with disabilities. The representative of BHEL > stated that it is likely that the complainant's perks and allowances > did not exceed 50% of his basic pay in the initial years of the > complainant's appointment in BHEL. It also transpired that BHEL has > not implemented the order dated 26.05.2006 of the Chief Commissioner > for Persons with Disabilities. After the said order, BHEL doubled the > Special Conveyance Allowance of `100/- to `200/- per month in respect > of the complainant and the other eligible employees with disabilities. > The amount of `200/- as Special Conveyance Allowance is paid to all > the eligible employees with blindness and locomotor disability of > lower extremities irrespective of their level. As has been amply > brought out in the order dated 26.05.2006, the purpose of giving > Transport Allowance at double the normal rate to blind and locomotor > disability of lower extremities is to compensate them for the extra > expenditure they are forced to incur to travel with escort by > public/privately hired transport or personal vehicle for commuting > between residence and place of work or for performing the official > work. Anything paid for this purpose has to be a reasonable amount so > as to suitably compensate such an employee for the extra cost of > transport. The purpose of Conveyance Allowance or the Reimbursement of > Conveyance Expenditure being paid by BHEL is not to compensate an > employee with disability for the extra expenditure that he/she is > required to incur as compared to the non-disabled employees. For > this, BHEL pays `200/- per month. On the other hand, the DPE's OM dated 05.09.2003 provides for such compensation by extending the transport allowance at double the normal rate. > > (ii) While the purpose and the principle for payment of > Transport Allowance at double the normal rate as under the Government > Scheme is imperative to compensate for the extra cost of > transportation, the actual amount would not be imperative, if BHEL > compensated its eligible employees with disabilities suitably and reasonably. > > (iii) The additional conveyance allowance to an employee with > blindness or locomotor disability of lower extremities including those > who may possess a vehicle of their own needs to be paid in addition to > the Conveyance Allowance or Reimbursement of Conveyance Expenditure > being paid by BHEL to its employees. > > (iv) An employee of BHEL cannot opt for either of the scheme as > he/she would have to opt for the scheme applicable to the CPSE > following IDA pattern of pay scales. As regards the question whether > the amount given is adequate and further the same deserves to be > revised as policy matter, > `200/- is clearly grossly inadequate to compensate the extra > expenditure that the complainant and other eligible employees with > disabilities have shell out as compared to non-disabled employees. > The principle and the logic on which increase in the conveyance > allowance and reimbursement of conveyance expenditure was recommended > in order dated 26.05.2006 do not seem to have been taken into > consideration by BHEL while doubling the amount of Special Conveyance > Allowance of `100/- to `200/- per month. This amount, therefore, > should be enhanced adequately including in respect of those employees > with disabilities whose perquisites exceed 50% of their basic pay in > accordance with DPE's OM dated 05.09.2003 in consultation with the > administrative ministry and the DPE till 15.11.2011 when DPE did away > with this provision. This does not seem to have been done in the case of the complainant. > > 18. Upon considering the facts of this case and the submissions > of the parties, the respondents are advised as under: > > (i) The complainant and other eligible employees with > blindness and locomotor disabilities of lower extremities in BHEL who > are following IDA pattern of pay-scale, be paid Conveyance Allowance/ > Reimbursement of Conveyance Expenditure at double the normal rate. > The complainant be paid the arrears of the said allowance with effect > from > 05.09.2003 when DPE's OM dated 05.09.2003 was made effective. In case > his perquisites in allowances exceeded 50% of his basis pay at any > point of time, BHEL should decide payment at double the normal rate in > consultation with the administrative ministry and DPE as required under the said OM. > > (ii) Since the higher rate of Conveyance Allowance / > Reimbursement of Conveyance Expenditure is given to eligible employees > with disabilities to compensate them for the extra expenditure they > are forced to incur for commuting to the office and back to their > residence, DPE may consider excluding such portion of the allowance > from the basket of perquisites that are considered for the purpose of 50% ceiling. > > (iii) If the respondent do not wish to pay double the normal > Conveyance Allowance / Reimbursement Of Conveyance Expenditure / > Transport Allowance or any other nomenclature used for the purpose, > then `200/- per month being paid as Special Conveyance Allowance to > employees with blindness and locomotor disabilities of lower > extremities be substantially increased with effect from 05.09.2003 in > respect of the complainant and other eligible employees with > disabilities. The basis of arriving at such an amount must be the > cost of extra expenditure an eligible employee with disability is > required to incur in consultation with the representatives of the > employees with disabilities. The basis for arriving at a reasonable > amount should be such as the wages of a driver. It should also be > ensured that the additional conveyance allowance or by whatever > nomenclature it is being known, be adequately enhanced each time the > conveyance allowance for rest of the employees of BHEL and other CPSEs > is increased. The decision in this regard be taken within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order. > > 19. The matter is disposed of. > > (P.K. Pincha) > > Chief Commissioner for > > Persons with Disabilities > > > > > > > > > > > Search for old postings at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ > > 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 > > -- Regards, Mukesh jain Email: mukesh.jai...@gmail.com Skype: mukeshjain211 Mob: 09977165123 "Face your deficiencies and acknowledge them; but do not let them master you. Let them teach you patience, sweetness, insight. " Helen Keller Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ 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 Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ 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
