Chandigarh: Hefty charges, insufficient services at Group Home weighing heavy on parents’ mind
One of the parents at a press conference held at Chandigarh Press Club said dealing with mentally ill and intellectually disabled persons required different set of facilities, but the Chandigarh administration was not taking cognisance of this
Parents of persons with mental illness and intellectual disabilities have reiterated their concerns over high charges, insufficient facilities and delay in starting the Group Home in Sector 31.
At a press conference held at Chandigarh Press Club, Sector 27, on Wednesday, one of the parents, Rajni, said dealing with mentally ill and intellectually disabled persons required different set of facilities. But the UT administration was not taking cognisance of this.
The parents also termed the security deposit and monthly charges too high for middle-class families, adding that no professional staff had been recruited till date.
While the security deposit has been set at ₹20 lakh, the monthly room charges range from ₹16,000 to ₹35,000. Besides charges for electricity, vocational classes and cross subsidy will also be added and the fee will be hiked annually by 5%.
They said the department had mentioned in its standard operation procedure that charges waived for EWS applicants will be charged from other residents. Member of the executive committee of Group Home, Dev Raj Paul said if the administration had kept quota for economically weaker section (EWS), it should be footing the cost. Another parent Shiwani Dhillon said the administration had not been transparent about the services offered despite levying such high charges.
Barkhu Ram, resident of Daria and a single parent of a son with schizophrenia, said his annual income was more than ₹1.5 lakh but below ₹8 lakh, the national income limit for EWS eligibility. However, the department had set the income limit at ₹1.5 lakh for EWS quota.
Another parent KK Monga, aged 75, raised concerns over the complexity of the application form, stating that details of three guardians and three siblings had been sought, which was not possible in every applicant’s case.
