+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 102

Thread: Delayed holding of DPCs by the Govt. is resulting in financcial loss to retirees

  1. #21
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    MY RTI SENT TODAY 12 APRIL 2015 TO CPIO, MINISTRY OF MINES (MY CADRE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY) IS POSTED HERE TO START THE CAMPAIGN FROM MY SIDE TO FIGHT FOR "TRUTH & JUSTICE" FOR ALL.

    vnatarajan
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RTI EXTRACTS:
    QUOTE:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    KIND ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE RECENT DOPTs (MINISTRY OF P, PG & PENSIONS) issued OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D) dated the 14th November, 2014, based on the observation of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet, re-iterated/clarified once again that non-inclusion of the names of the retired officials in the panel(s) negated the very purpose of the OM dated the 12th October, 1998 and was also against the PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE , which meant that all those are to be given notional benefits in the light of the policy guidelines issued in 1980s, which could not be altered by 1998 clarification. SUCH BENEFITS INCLUDE PENSION AND PENSIONARY BENEFITS.

    RTI QUERIES FOLLOW WITH THE REQUEST TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIAL INFORMATION, FILE NOTE COPIES, OMs/GUIDELINES ETC :

    1.ACTIONS TAKEN FROM THE YEARS 1995 (repeat YEARS 1995) ONWARDS BY THE MINISTRY OF MINES AND THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (a) TO PREPARE THE DPC PROPOSALs IN TIME FOR FILLING UP VACANT POSTS OF SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERALS IN GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA AND (b) TO INCLUDE ( IN SERVICE / RETIRED) SAG LEVEL- DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERALS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (retrospectively as and if necessary) AS AND WHEN THEY HAD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION DURING THE SAID PERIOD (WHILE IN SERVICE/ even AFTER RETIREMENT AS PER the said DOPT GUIDELINES).

    2. WHETHER SUCH A LIST HAD TAKEN CARE TO INCLUDE MY NAME ( V NATARAJAN- one of the eligible Deputy Director Generals (Geology) of the Geological Survey of India for the said post of SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL IN GSI (served in that capacity since Aug 1993 onwards till date of retirement 31 May 1997 joined GSI in Jan 1961 as Asst. Geologist , later selected to Gr A Post in combined selection of Jr Mining Geologist IBM/ Geologist Jr of GSI (both under Ministry of Mines) in the UPSC Batch of 1962 Gr A since 17 Feb 1964 in IBM/ since 1 1 1966 in GSI after merger of Expl. Wing of IBM )

    3.If the reasons to sl no 2 are negative, provide all such material information/ documents, extracts of copies of seniority lists, relevant DPA panel lists , at the earliest.

    4. AGAIN, In case my name had NOT figured in the panel of lists in such proposal/ OR I had not been duly considered in such DPCs , then , PROVIDE SUPPORTIVE INFORMATION DOCUMENTS AS TO WHAT REMEDIAL ACTIONS HAVE BEEN INITIATED TO DO JUSTICE AND PROTECT IN THE LEAST MY PENSIONARY BENEFITS WEF DATE OF MY RETIREMENT (31 05 1997) AS I AM ENTITLED FOR NOTIONAL PENSIONARY BENEFITS AS MY JUNIORS BELONGING TO 1964 UPSC BATCH/ THOSE WITH WHOM I WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED FOR CONSIDERAION FOR THE THEN VACANT POSTS OF SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERALS OF GSI IN 1995, 1996, 1997 & BEYOND, HAVE BEEN PROMOTED WITHIN SHORT PERIOD AFTER MY RETIREMENT.

    5.AS REQUESTED , COPIES OF ALL MATERIAL INFORMATIUON/ FILE NOTES ETC MAY BE PROVIDED. NECESSAQRY FEE FOR THE SAME SHALL BE REMITTED ONCE THE AMOUNT / REMITTANCE DESTINATION ETC ARE INTIMATED BY THE CPIO

    UNQUOTE

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 12-04-2015 at 05:45 PM. Reason: typo correction

  2. #22
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    I ALSO POST HERE THE DOPT'S OM COPY AS ACCESSED FROM A WEBSITE FOR READY REFERENCE.
    ORIGINAL MAY BE ACCESSED FROM THE DEPT'S OFFICIAL WEBSITE.
    vnatarajan
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NO. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D)
    Government of India
    Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
    (Department of Personnel and Training)
    North Block, New Delhi - 110001
    Dated- 14th November, 2014
    OFFICE MEMORANDUM
    Subject: - Inclusion of eligible officers who are due to retire before the likely date
    of vacancies, in the panel for promotion-Regarding.
    ***
    The undersigned is directed to invite reference to the Department of Personnel
    and Training Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated October 12, 1998
    regarding consideration of retired employees who were within the zone of consideration
    in the relevant year(s) but are not actually in service when the DPC is being held. The
    said OM provides as follows:-
    There is no specific bar in the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated
    April 10, 1989 or any other related instructions of the Department of Personnel
    and Training for consideration of retired employees, while preparing year-wise
    panel(s), who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant year(s).
    According to legal opinion also it would not be in order if eligible employees, who
    were within the zone of consideration for the relevant year(s) but are not actually
    in service when the DPC is being held, are not considered while preparing yearwise
    zone of consideration/panel and, consequently, their juniors are considered
    (in their places), who would not have been in the zone of consideration if the
    DPC(s) had been held in time. This is considered imperative to identify the
    correct zone of consideration for relevant Year(s). Names of the retired officials
    may also be included in the panel(s). Such retired officials would, however, have
    no right for actual promotion. The DPC(s) may, if need be, prepare extended
    panel(s) following the principles prescribed in the Department of Personnel and
    Training Office Memorandum No.22011/8/87-Estt.(D) dated April 9, 1996."
    2. Appointment Committee of Cabinet has observed that DPCs often do not
    consider such eligible officers who are retiring before the occurrence of the vacancy in
    the panel year. These undesirable trends negate the very purpose of the above said
    Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated October 12, 1998 and it is also
    against the principle of natural justice.
    3. All the Ministries/Departments are therefore advised to ensure strict compliance
    of the instructions of the Department of Personnel & Training issued vide this
    Department's OM No. 22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated October 12, 1998.
    4. These instructions may please be brought out to the notice of all concerned
    including attached and subordinate offices.
    (S.K. rasad)
    Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
    Tele. No. 23040340
    All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.

  3. #23
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    DEAR SHRI GK JI/ SHRI R DEVARAJU JI/ SHRI SUNDARAR ,

    (name "GK" appears to be auspicious for me to start with......)

    IN ORDER TO HASTEN UP THE PROCESS OF LITIGATION AND ALSO TO HELP THOSE WHO ARE READY TO GO FOR LITIGATION (PRE 2006 S24 PENIONERS FROM CHENNAI LED BY MY COLLEAGUES - S SHRI K GOPALAKRISHNAN (GSI) etc. some actions are to be initiated.

    In this regard , I draw attention to GK ji's post of 9 Dec 2014 : "IN FACT on a reference to the Department of Legal Affairs by the DOPT, the former advised the Department that all such retirees have a legal right to notional promotion and consequential pensionary benefits. That advice of the Law Ministry is lying with the DOP FOR more than four years without any action thereon. We may have to press for that. Gopal Krishan 9911178250 ".....

    Do you have a copy of the said legal advice?. IF NOT IT IS NECESSARY FOR ME AND / OR SHRI SUNDARAR JI TO OBTAIN THE SAME FROM DOLA THROUGH RTI SOON.

    As you know such documents will be vital for fighting the FULL PARITY/ LPD BASED PENSION/ ORG SERV-ACP-ECP RELATED PENSION CASES soon if the Govt doesn't yield in time to do '"ONE TIME CORRECTION" JUSTICE to all.

    Shri GK ji/ Shri Sundarar pl. to help to get the 'LEGAL ADVICE copy soon thru RTI.


    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 14-04-2015 at 02:49 PM. Reason: EDITORIAL

  4. #24
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Respected Natarajan Sahib,

    I too have lot of blessings from Gopal Krishna of Gokul. In fact I had my schooling from Mathura only. With His blessings I am replying to your post.




    Thank your very much for the interest shown in the matter which is affecting a very large number of Government of employees because of the inertia on the part of the Central Government. I have been receiving calls as well as SMSs from various retired officials from all over, who are suffering for no fault on their part but because of the administrative delays in holding DPCs. Some of them are in CAT and some other are preparing for the same.

    Sir, I have already obtained copies of the notes from DOPT leading to the issue of (i) the OM on the 12th October, 1998 and (ii) the OM dated the 14th NOVEMBER, 2014. Copies of the note referring the matter to the Law Ministry and their advice are also available with me. Briefly, the Department of Legal Affairs advised the DOPT on a reference made to the former based on
    representations from Shri Rajaseshan (unfortunately expired after fighting for justice for about ten years) and myself that
    "(i) where the DPPcs were not held on time and promotions were not granted to the employees concerned there a legal right accrues on all those eligible retired officers included in the select/suitability lists after holding DPC retrospectively to get notional promotion. However, with regard to payment of arrears of salary with retrospective effect from the notional dates in view of the settled principle of law it does not arise since , indisputable they had never worked during that period in the promotional post.

    (ii) Any other view taken contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court may not withstand to judicial scrutiny and may put the referring department in an embarrassing situation."

    This advice was tendered as back as the 3rd September, 2010 and with the approval of the Additional Secretary. There after the advice is lying with the Division concerned with the policy guidelines on the subject, i.e., ESTT Division of DOPT. The advice was submitted by the under Secretary concerned to Director(Estt) on 21/10/2010. The file remained between them till 20/9/2012. On the 21st September, 2011 a somewhat positive note was recorded by one Deputy Secretary to the JS. However, on the 24th Sept. 2012 the JS ordered for status quo to remain.
    With regards
    Gopal Krishan
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 13-04-2015 at 09:30 PM.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Respected Sir,
    I am giving below the reason for issue of the OM of the 14th Novembr, 2014.

    The EO Div of DOPT in its ID Note No. 12/53/2012-EO(SM-II) dated the 4th September, 2012 had mentioned that
    “ As per extant practice, DPC does not include an officer for in the panel if he/she is due to retire before the likely date of vacancy occurring in his turn, even though the officer may have been found fit.
    2. The proposal of the Ministry of Defence seeking approval of the ACC for empanelment of officers for promotion the grade of Principal Director (PD) of Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service (AFHQCS) in the pay scale of Rs. 37400-67000/- + Grade of 1oooo/- for the panel year 2012-13 was submitted to ACC wherein Prime Minister has directed that all those found eligible by the DPC should necessarily be included in the panel even if they are due to retire before the likely date of vacancies as the likely date is susceptible to change in the event of death, resignation etc. off officers in the higher grade or the seniors in the panel. “

    Unfortunately, the direction of the Prime Minister were kept pending for more than 18 months and no action was taken by the Estt(D) side. As such, a reminder was sent by the EO side on the 4th April, 2014. At this stage a reply was sent, in a routine manner on the 29th April, 2014 stating that the existing instructions on panels, required to be prepared year-wise and not vacancy-wise, covered the suggestion of the EO Divn. Yet another communication was sent by the EO Divn. vide 18/18/2014-SM-II dated the 11the September 2014 stating that “the ACC has again directed the Establishment Division (DOPT) on 04.09.2014 while considering the recommendation of DPC to issue clarificatory instructions to remove ambiguity, if any , in enforcing the earlier ACC directions that all eligible officers under the zone of consideration should necessarily be assessed by the DPC for promotion even if the officer may be retiring before the occurrence of the vacancies in the panel year.”
    Only thereafter OM dated the 14th November, 2014 was issued.

    With regards, Gopal Krishan

  6. #26
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    Dear Shri GK ji/ Others affected- interested,

    I have sent a separate email to you (Shri GK) in this regard.
    Hope you will help us as required.

    A GROUP IS WORKING ON THE ISSUE - while going in for some other issue also , which may be legally "fruitful" without ambiguity.

    NOW WE REQUIRE THE OM OF MOF DT 1 5 1974- A SORT OF MOTHER OM - ON THE ISSUE OF ACP/ECP IN ORG SERVICES MODE FOR INCUMBENTS IN ALL CG DEPARTMENTS WHCIH MANY DEPARTMENTS DID NOT PURSUE AND IMPLEMENT.

    THE SAME IS CITED IN SOME JUDGMENTS ALSO....ON DELAYED DPCs.

    OM MAY BE COPIED AND PASTED HERE.
    LINK MAY BE PROVIDED FOR ACCESSING THE SOURCE.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 14-04-2015 at 02:56 PM.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Sir,
    If you could provide some more details about the OM of Ministry of Finance dated the Ist May, 1974 on the issue of ACP/ECP.
    Gopal Krishan

  8. #28
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    DEAR SHRI GK JI,

    IT IS MINISTRY OF FINANCE'S RESOLUTION.
    Ministry’s Resolution No.F.11/35/74-IC dated 1-5-1974.

    COULD BE A GAZETTED ONE.
    IT IS CAREFULLY REMOVED FROM ALL WEB SITES OF MIN OF FIN DEPARTMENTS.
    WHEREAS MANY CLARIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED AS OMs WRT THE SAME APPEAR IN THE ARCHIEVES OF THE MOF WEBSITE.

    OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS THE USUAL "NET STRATEGY" THAT IS ADOPTED SO THAT THE "RESOLUTION" IS NOT AVAILABLE EVEN TO KNOW THE CONTENTS, FOR PENSIONERS LIKE US.

    TRANSPARENCY IS QUITE OFTEN A CASUALITY IN OUR BUREAUCRATIC SYSTEM.

    vnatarajan

  9. #29
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Sir,
    I would certainly make an attempt from the record available with the Central Secretariat Library to locate and get a copy of the Resolution.
    The Delhi High Court in the case of Rajinder Roy (WP ©No. 20812/2005) ruled that unless a junior is promoted during he service period of a petitioner, he cannot be promoted notionally and as a result no pensionery benefits given. That judgement was against the direction of CAT to the UOI to consider Rajinder Roy for promotion to the post of JAG from the date on which the vacancy in JAG occurred on his turn, if the same was prior to his date of superannuation. The judgement was based on two Supreme Court judgements, i.e. in the case of (i) K.K. Vadera(1989 Supp(2)SCC 625) and(ii) Baij Nath Sharma(2.9.1998) (1998 SCC (L&S) 1754). In the case of the former the Supreme Court over-ruled CAT’s direction to give promotion from the date the promotional post was created. In the case of Baij Nath Sharma, he sought promotion on notional basis on the ground that there were vacancies in the said service before he retired. Obviously he could not be considered against a vacancy unless his turn had reached or any of his juniours was so considered when he was in service, i. e., before his superannuation. The case of Baij Nath was exactly the same as that of Rajinder Roy. In the case of Baij Nath the Supreme Court had observed that the question for consideration was very narrow - whether under the rules applicable to the appellant promotion was to be given to him from the date the post fell vacant or from the date when order for promotion was made.
    We have to keep this in mind while drafting a petition etc. for CAT etc.

    Gopal Krishan

  10. #30
    Senior Member Victor is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    New Delhi
    Posts
    1,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post

    DEAR SHRI GK JI,

    IT IS MINISTRY OF FINANCE'S RESOLUTION.
    Ministry’s Resolution No.F.11/35/74-IC dated 1-5-1974.

    COULD BE A GAZETTED ONE.
    IT IS CAREFULLY REMOVED FROM ALL WEB SITES OF MIN OF FIN DEPARTMENTS.
    WHEREAS MANY CLARIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED AS OMs WRT THE SAME APPEAR IN THE ARCHIEVES OF THE MOF WEBSITE.

    OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS THE USUAL "NET STRATEGY" THAT IS ADOPTED SO THAT THE "RESOLUTION" IS NOT AVAILABLE EVEN TO KNOW THE CONTENTS, FOR PENSIONERS LIKE US.

    TRANSPARENCY IS QUITE OFTEN A CASUALITY IN OUR BUREAUCRATIC SYSTEM.

    vnatarajan
    Ministry of Finance Resolution No.F.11/35/74-IC dated 1-5-1974 is available at the following link:

    http://www.egazette.nic.in/WriteRead...0105-56039.pdf

    I sincerely hope that this is the Resolution you require.

    Victor

  11. #31
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Mr Victor,

    Thanks a lot.
    SINCE THEN WITH THE LINK GIVEN BY YOU, I COULD ACCESS THE GAZ NOTIFICATION.

    IT IS A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVT OF INDIA.
    MUST BE BASED ON CAB DECISION /APPROVAL OF PRESIDENT OF INDIA.
    Must have had the CAG approval also.

    I and my friends shall be studying it for the firm and fair policy decisions emerging from the ACCEPTED RECOS of 3 CPC for further guidance.

    vnatarajan


    No
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 17-04-2015 at 03:51 PM. Reason: typo

  12. #32
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Sir,
    Another matter which is also based on the recommendation of the 3rd CPC relating to Injustice suffered all along by the 1.1.1928/1938/1946 born pensioners also require attention of your team. Of course the matter is to be discussed under another thread.

    Before the Third CPC Government servants used to retire on superannuation on their respective date of birth on attaining the age of superannuation on the preceding day of the date of birth, under the then statutory rules/regulations. As such those born on the Ist used to retire on the Ist on attaining the age of superannuation on the last day of the preceding month

    With a view to simplifying the accounting work, the 3rd CPC recommended "that the retirement of Government employees should take effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which the employee concerned attains the age of superannuation instead of the afternoon of the actual date of his superannuation." Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, with the approval of the cabinet, accepted the recommendation vide notification of November, 1973. In order to give effect to the acceptance of the said recommendation by the Government, the DOPT, issued orders on the 24th November, 1973 and May, 1974 stating that the Government servants shall retire from service with effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which their date of retirement falls. These orders meant that those born on the Ist of a month shall retire from the afternoon of the last day of the month of their birth.

    In the absence of any reference to those born on the Ist, in the orders issued by the DOPT which clearly stated that government servant shall retire from service wef the afternoon of the last day of the month in which their date of retirement according to FR 56 falls, doubts were raised by some Ministries/Departments, whether the decision about retirement of Government servants with effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which their date of retirement falls was also applicable to those born on the Ist of a month. In other words whether those born on the Ist were also required to be continued and retired on the last day of the month, as under the then existing rules/regulations, they were also being retired on the Ist on attaining the age of superannuation. That was the only limited question put forth by various Ministries/Departments before the DOPT. However, as the Ministry of Finance and DOPT had already taken a decision, without detailed examination of the recommendation made under some misunderstanding of the then existing provision, they, more so in the case of DOPT, worked very hard to justify their earlier action, particularly in view of the stand already taken on a reference from the DG P&T. before issuing the OM of June, 1974. This OM, specifically, one can say arbitrarily, provided that all those born on the Ist would retire on attaining the age of superannuation on the last day of the preceding month. Obviously the same was against the then existing statutory rules and as such void- ab- initio Subsequently, the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, not empowered to do so, modified the statutory rules based on ab- initio- void executive instructions. In the process Department of Personnel and Training lost the focus on the ONLY issue, as posed by some of the Ministries/Departments whether the decision to retire all the Government servants on the last day of the month, would be applicable to Ist day born instead orders issued in June 74 mentioned “that various Ministries/Departments have sought clarification from time to time regarding the date of retirement of officers having the Ist of a month as their birthday.” They also ignored number other important points specifically that the basic understanding of the Commission of the then existing provisions was misplaced.
    I have already prepared an OA on the subject, but the same being a general matter I am not sure whether I could file as an individual on behalf of all the pensioners of these categories.
    With regards
    Gopa KRISHAN
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 18-04-2015 at 03:14 PM.

  13. #33
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    DEAR SHRI GK JI,

    I NOTE FROM THE 1 5 1974 RESOLUTION FOLLOWING INFO (EXTRCATED) , WHOCH IS VERY SACRO SANCT - AND NONE CAN TAMPER WTH IT UNLESS THERE IS ANOTHER SUBSEQUENT CAB DECISION.

    MERE CLARIFCATIONS / MODIFICATIONS WRT STRANGE/ SOLITARY CASES LIKE YOURS MUST BE CHALLENGED :

    "ACCPETED" RECO OF 3 CPC ON DATE OF SUPERANNUATION WRT DATE OF BIRTH READS AS FOLLOWS: ....

    Date of Superannuation,

    40. Retirement of Government servants
    should take effect from the
    afternoon of the last day of the month
    In which they attain the age of superannuation
    instead of the afternoon of
    the actual date of their superannuation.
    (Chapter 60, paragraph 15)
    ACCEPTED


    NOW LEGALLY CONSIDERING:

    IF YOU ARE BORN ON 1 1 1946 YOU CAN NOT BE MADE TO ACCEPT 31 12 1945 AS YOUR DOB AND MAKE YOU RETIRE IN THE AN OF 31 12 2005 INSTEAD OF 31 01 2006 .

    BECAUSE - IN YOUR CASE OF SOLITARY NATURE AND WHICH IS RESULTING IN A GROSS "INJUSTICE" AND "MISADMINISTRATION OF RULE", THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION IS TO BE "LETRALLY INTERPRETED TO BE TRULY 60 YEARS AND CAN NOT BE 59 YEARS AND 365 WORKING DAYS " AND YOU "ATTAIN 60 YEARS" IT ONLY ON 1 1 1946 AND SO YOU CAN BE MADE TO RETIRE ONLY ON 31 JAN 2006.

    YOU MUST GET THE BENEFIT OF RELIEF IN A BONAFIDE MANNER.

    THE RESOLUTUON IS VERY CLEAR.
    I DONT THINK A "GENERALISED" REASONING CAN BE APPLIED TO YOUR CASE....

    YOU CAN GO TO CAT AND PROVE THE FALLACY.
    REST OF YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH FILE NOTES ETC MAY BE ADDITIONAL SUPPORTS.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 17-04-2015 at 04:16 PM.

  14. #34
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Sir,
    I AM SURE YOU MUST have noticed from the resolution (as reproduced below) that earlier a notification was issued on the Ist NOVEMBER, 1973 about the decision of the Government of India on the recommendation of the 3rd CPC. That has to be with the approval of the cabinet.

    " MINISTRY OF FINANCE
    (Department of Expenditure)
    RESOLUTION
    New Delhi, the 1st May 1974
    No. F.11/35/74-IC.—The decisions of the Government of India on the recommendations
    of the Third Central Pay Commission relating to civilian employees of
    the Central Government in Classes II. III and IV were notified in the Ministry
    of Finance Resolution No. 70(34)/73-Imp. Cell dated 1st November, 1973. Government
    have now given careful consideration to the recommendations of the Commission
    relating to the pay scales, allowances, retirement benefits etc. in respect
    of the Central Class I Services/posts, as also those in the All India Services, and
    have decided that the recommendations of the Commission on matters aforementioned
    in respect of these officers shall be accepted broadly, subject to the
    modifications mentioned below. A comprehensive review shall however be made
    of the system of special pays and the posts to which such pays should be
    attached. The decisions regarding non-practising allowance to medical personnel
    will be announced later."
    The Government after giving careful consideration to the recommendations of the Commission
    relating to the pay scales, allowances, retirement benefits etc. issued the resolution on the Ist May, 1974.
    with regards
    Gopal Krishan

  15. #35
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    In reply to a Lok Sabha question tabled by Shri Udit Raj, MP on the 6th May, 2015, the Minister for Personnel etc. stated that since the officers did not assume charge of the post they have no right for any benefits.
    Gopal Krishan

  16. #36
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Shri GK Ji,

    Yes. I have noted the reply.

    WE OLD PENSIONERS DO AGREE WITH THE LEARNED HON MINISTER'S REPLY

    WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ASSUMING CHARGE AND OBVIOUSLY NOT ASKING FOR BENEFITS.
    AT THE SAME TIME , THE HON MINISTER MUST BE AWARE THAT BASED ON "JUDICCIAL REVIEWS", DEPENDING UPON THE MERITS OF THE CASES AND RELIEFS PERMITTED BY JUDGMENTS, NOTIONALLY OFFICERS HAVE BEEN PROMEOTED AND ALLOWED DUE BENEFITS.

    WE ARE ONLY REMINDING THE GOVT. OF THEIR OWN ADMISSION OF OMISSIONS AND REQUESTING THEM TO PROVIDE RELIEF AS A "JUDICIAL SYSTEM WOULD ALLOW".

    OLD PENSIONERS CAN ONLY HOPE FOR "PENSION PARITY" OF THE TIMELY FRAMING OF RULES HAD TAKEN PLACE WHILE THEY WERE IN SERVICE AND ALSO IF TIMELY DPCs HAD TAKEN PLACE.

    Notional "Pension Parity" is the solution which has to be worked out and the same must be imp,emented as a policy for all aggrieved/ sufferers.

    vnatarajan

  17. #37
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Respected VN Sir,
    I am giving below the details of the question and its reply as it is. We intend to further take up the matter with the Minister through some MP.
    (a) whether the Government has since decided that the retired Government employees who missed their promotion due to late meetings of DPCs should also be given post retirement benefits of promotion.
    (b)if so, whether retired officers of the Central Secretariat service who were included in the Selection Grade Select List for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 and who were eligible for inclusion in the suitability lists for the post of Director for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 but missed their promotion on account of inaction/delayed action are being considered for such promotion by holding review DPCs.
    (c)if so, the details thereof and the reaction of the Government thereto; and
    (d)the time by which such DPCs are proposed to be held in this regard?
    ANSWER
    (a) Department of Personnel and Training has not made any change in instructions contained in OM no. 22011/4/1998-Estt(D) DATED 12.10.1998 and reiterated vide OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D) dated 14.11.2014. These instructions provide for consideration of retired employees, who are within the zone of consideration in the relevant year(s) while preparing year-wise panel(s) for promotion. Such retired officials, however, have no right for promotion as they are not available to assume charge of the higher post.
    (b) to (d) In view of (a) above, does not arise.

    In this connection attention is also invited to the following facts.

    (a) from 1980 it self there existed a policy as re-iterated/clarified in October, 1998 that all those included in the panels shall have no right to actual promotion, which by implication meant that they should be given notional promotion and notional pensionary benefits only.

    (b)not giving notional promotion and notional pensionary benefits is against the very guidelines issued by the Government of India in DOPT as back as 1980s, which did not put any restriction on giving notional pensionary benefits;
    (c) the clarification issued in 1998 could not create any new guideline/provision, as being interpreted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, as the same was simply a clarification of earlier guidelines;

    (d) a number of CAT/Court judgements are there in which directions had been given to the concerned Ministry/Department to give notional benefits;

    (e)based on some of the Supreme Court judgements the Department of Legal Affairs in the year 2010 had advised the DOPT in their file No. 2011/4/1998-Estt(D) that such officials do have a legal right to notional benefits;

    (f)vide recently issued OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D) dated the 14th November, 2014, the Government of India, in the Department of Personnel, based on the observation of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet, re-iterated/clarified once again that non-inclusion of the names of the retired officials in the panel(s) negated the very purpose of the OM dated the 12th October, 1998 and was also against the principle of natural justice, which meant that all those are to be given notional benefits in the light of the policy guidelines issued in 1980s, which could not be altered by 1998 clarification;
    Gopal Krishan
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 10-05-2015 at 08:43 PM.

  18. #38
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Shri GK ji,

    THANKS A LOT.
    ALREADY PRE 2006 S24 GSI RETIREES ARE GATHERING ALL INFO .

    SO ALSO PRE 2006 S29 GSI RETIREES.

    I have a doubt.

    DO THE TEXT FURNISHED IN PARAS e to f , AS "FOLLOWING FACTS" ARE ALSO ART OF THE REPLY AS EXPLANATIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTARUES?

    Can u REPRODUCE/ EMAIL TO ME DETAILS me the QUESTION NO. (LOK SABHA?) DATE NAME OF MP AND ALSO REPLY / EXPLANATONS ETC SO THAT THE FULL DETAILS WOULD BE USEFUL FOR FURTHER ACTIONS ?

    vnatarajan

  19. #39
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Respected VN Sir,
    That was a Lok Sabha unstarred question No. 6439 for 6th May, 2015 by Dr. Udit Raj, a BJP MP from Delhi soliciting information as at (a) to (d) from the Prime MINISTER. That being an unstarred question there was no question of any supplementaries. The facts as mentioned at (a) to (f) after the answer are the facts which are available with me based on the information gathered from DOPT under RTI ACT.
    In these facts at (a) to (f) there is mention about Ministry of I and B. The reason behind was that one of my fried from that Ministry has filed a case in CAT. As such a note was prepared for his advocate. The other part of the brief I had deleted.Some how at one place the name of the Ministry continues. In fact based on the advice of the DOPT various Ministries/Departments are interpreting the clarification of 1998 that no body is to be given notional promotion or notional pensionery benefits.
    Gopal Krishan

  20. #40
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Thanks once again Shri GK ji.
    I shall be framing someRTI queries soon.

    FOR US, THE INTERESTING PART OF THE QUESTION WAS "POST RETIRAL BENEFITS". THE QUESTION ITSELF HAD ADDRESSED THIS ITEM.

    BUT THE REPLY FURNSIHED DELIBERATELY AVOIDED ANSWERING THIS ITEM.

    So what is interesting is , "if nobody s to be given any notional promotion or notional pensionary benefits", then why the OM of 14 Nov 2015?

    I think The NW DELHI MP who asked the LS Question is perhaps an EX IRS SENIOR OFFICIAL (he himself woukld be a sub 20 yr retiree and must be suffering the prorate reduction) and he needs to be appraised by all aggrieved pensioners - particularly the pre 2006 lot and persuaded to act to get justice for all.....

    vnatarajan

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-08-2016, 08:28 AM
  2. Loss of CGHS Plastic Card
    By kumaranil in forum CGHS and Medical Attendance Rules
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-04-2012, 08:46 PM
  3. DPCs before 31.3.2011 and single window system in UPSC for on the spot scruitiny
    By krishnan09 in forum Contribution of admin contents and useful links by members
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-09-2011, 01:59 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 20-08-2011, 02:55 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28-01-2011, 09:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts