Organisational Structure

Working Group (WG)

The Working Group is a democratic and main decision making body of CEHAT. It monitors and reviews all projects/activities, finances, personnel and administrative matters and takes relevant decisions for implementation. It is also responsible for staff recruitment, staff evaluation, redressal of grievances and planning future strategies of the organisation. The processes within the WG represent a democratic and transparent way of functioning where decisions are taken by consensus. The members of the WG are elected by the staff. It has a representation of staff from all levels which includes administrative and project staff. The Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator are the ex-officio members of the WG.

Members: Sangeeta Rege, Sanjida Arora, Sujata Ayarkar, Rajeeta Chavan, & Pramila Naik


Program Development Committee (PDC)

The Program Development Committee has been constituted to provide programmatic direction to CEHAT. The primary objective of the PDC in CEHAT is to monitor and maintain the quality of CEHAT's work. It also monitors whether the work undertaken by CEHAT is in consonance with the overall objectives of the organisation. All the materials produced namely reports, working papers, policy briefs, manuals, research proposals, posters and social messages are reviewed by the PDC. It also dwells upon the methodology related issues of all the projects and certifies them accordingly.

The PDC comprises of members from various disciplines like social sciences, social work, law, journalism and others. Senior researchers from within the organisation and a panel of experts from outside the organisation constitute the present PDC. In addition to this, experts from other fields are also consulted on important documents pertaining to policy advocacy. The PDC is convened by a researcher from CEHAT.

Members: Padmini Swaminatha, Padma Prakash, Padma Bhate-Deosthali, Renu Khanna, Vibhuti Patel, U. Vindhya, Sanjida AroraSangeeta Rege


Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC)

Institutional ethics committee at CEHAT is a multi-disciplinary independent body which reviews all its research activities as defined in Standard operating Procedure. The IEC consists of both external and internal members which are selected by trustees of Anusandhan Trust based on their expertise and scientific knowledge.

IEC Members


External Members


Dr. Anant Bhan, Independent Researcher and a visiting faculty at several institutes.

Dr. Surinder Jaswal, Prof. Deputy Director, Dean - School of Research Methodology, TISS, Mumbai

Dr. Nilangi Sardeshpande, Independent Researcher, Pune

Ms. Anubha Rastogi, Independant Lawyer, Mumbai

Ms. Kajal Jain, Program Coordinator, MASUM, Pune



Dr. Sanjida Arora (Member Secretary), Research Officer, CEHAT, Mumbai

Ms. Deepali Yakkundi Researcher. SATHI, Pune


Address c/o Anusandhan Trust, Sai Ashray, Aaram Society Road, Vakola, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400055

Email Id:, Phone: 022-26673154



Social Accountability Group

The Social Accountability Group is a body of independent persons appointed by Anusandhan Trust to review CEHAT’s work in terms of its stated objectives. The main function of the Social Accountability Group is to carry periodic social audit of the organisation.

Members: Medha Kotwal: Doctorate in Political Science. Involved in the women's movement. Founder and Director for 10 years of Aalochana, a feminist documentation Centre, in Pune.

R. Nagraj: A senior economist in the area of development economics working with Indira Gandhi Institute for Development Research, Mumbai.

Ravi Narayan: Ex-professor, Department of Community Medicine, St. John Medical College, Bangalore, Involved in a variety of Community Health Policy issues for two decades. Coordinator, Community Health Cell, Bangalore.

Ravindra R.P.: Teaches pharmacy at the SNDT University, Mumbai. Has been involved over a decade in the Rational Drug Policy Movement and the movement against prenatal sex selection and selective sex abortions.



An employee aggrieved by any decision/action or dispute on any issue may approach the WG for redressal after an attempt is made to sought the grievance within the team at an informal level. While decision of the WG will be binding, the employee will have a right to appeal against it to the GB. The decision of the GB will be final. The GB should not be approached directly unless the grievance is of that nature eg. Grievance against the Coordinator. The grievance should be signed by the concerned person. Anonymous grievance will not be accepted. In case where a grievance is being put forth on behalf of someone else, consent should be taken from the aggrieved party.


  • The acceptance of resignation should be made contingent upon completion of inquiry. Perhaps the person should be informed immediately that an inquiry is started and would report in two weeks. And till then the acceptance or rejection of resignation has been kept in abeyance and when the decision is taken after the inquiry report made available (not more than 2 weeks from the date of resignation letter), the organisation would be very flexible about the notice period.
  • The authority receiving the complaint should immediately seek written reply from all persons accused in the resignation letter. Not more than a week should be made available to such persons to submit a reply. And such person, without waiting for the meeting of WG/ Trust should appoint one person to inquire into charges.
  • The inquiry should be summary one, using all documentary material and the complaint cum resignation letter and replies, and of course interview of complainant and accused. The person doing inquiry should take less than two weeks to give report.
  • If the decision-making bodies (WG/Trust) are not able to meet to review the inquiry report and take decision, they MUST empower appropriate person (Coordinator, Managing Trustee) to decide on the issue. Such decision must include (i) position taken by the organisation on the allegations, (ii) decision on resignation (whether person requested to reconsider or acceptance of resignation), (iii) if the allegations or some of them are found to be correct their proposal for action against the person found guilty.

The grieved person can approach any person who he/she is comfortable with and that person can act as a staff advocate for that occasion.

Members: Rajeeta Chavan, Sanjida Arora 

Internal Complaints Committee 

CEHAT is committed to a working and learning environment, free of discrimination and intimidation. It is committed to tackling the complaints of sexual harassment promptly, impartially, sensitively and confidentially. A committee is formed to scrutinise the complaints of sexual harassment. As the definition by the Supreme Court of sexual harassment is open to varied interpretations, CEHAT has specified behaviour that could constitute sexual harassment.

Members: Presiding officer: Sangeeta Rege

                  Internal: Sujata Ayarkar, Pramila Naik and Sanjida Arora.

                  External: Manisha Tulpule

Read More