+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 102

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

  1. #41
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Sir,
    Your attention is invited to the reply at part (a) of the question, which was as follows:
    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.
    As mentioned earlier consolidated guidelines on holding oF DPCs were issued way back in 1980/1989. One of the Central Department faced problems with the UPSC for considering retired officials who were eligible for such consideration. After considering the matter in the light of the provisions contained in the consolidated guidelines and various judgements of Supreme/High Court, in consultation with Department of Legal Affairs some clarification to the earlier consolidated guidelines was issued vide OM dated the 12th OCTOBER, 1998 by the DOPT. The clarification viewed in the light of the various judgements discussed in the notes and the advice of the Department of Legal Affairs, meant that retirees should be given notional benefits. However, DOPT has been taking a different stand at different time. They are sticking to one of their stands in reply to the question. What we have to challenge is the interpretation the DOPT is providing to the OM of 1998, which simply a clarification and not instructions as claimed in reply to the question. Clarification cannot create any new rule etc. but the DOPT is doing that, which goes contrary to the consolidated guidelines issued in 1980/1989

    Gopal Krishan

  2. #42
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Respected VN Sir,
    You had approached the DOPT for some information under RTI Act. Any development?
    Gopal Krishan

  3. #43
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    DEAR SHRI GK JI,

    AS I HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE RTI QUERIES WRT GSI - MY DEPT- THE QUERIES WERE SHUNTED TO GSI FOR REPLIES.
    I AM PURSUING THE CASE.
    I GOT MY DPC PROPOSAL COPIES IN PART FROM GSI THRU RTI.

    THEY HAD NOT SUPPLIED MY SENIORITY INFO - WHICH IS CRITICAL FOR MY FIGHT.
    I HAVE SENT A DETAILED APPEAL TO GSI WHICH IS NIW AN ATTACHED DEPT - WITH DGGSI HAVING WIDE POWERS.

    IN THE MEANWHILE , I HAVE ALSO TAKEN UP THE "NFU" DISPARITY .
    A NUMBER OF RETIRED GSI OFFICERS - WHO RETIRED POST 1 1 2006 BUT PRE 24 APRIL 2009 DOPT ORDERS OF PAY PARITY SCHEME OF NFU AS PER 6 CPC RECOS WHICH WERE GAZT NTOIFIED BY MOF/DOE ON 29 AUG 200B have been showered benefits like "NFU even after retirement - not actually being in service- in effect can not be fall-back option- based on their eligibility asper extant Rules when they were inservice" .....

    THUS, IN EFFECT, UNDER THIS SCHEME, THE TRISANKU RETIREES HAVE BEEN GIVEN NFU FROM SAG TO HAG SCALE - IN THE NON-FUNCTIONAL MODE -EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD RETIRED IN 2007/2008/2009 PRIOR TO POLICY NOTIFICATION .

    When sought clarification, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN IS THAT THE PAY PAIRTY SCHEME IS EFFECTIVE FROM 1 1 2006 AND SO THEY WERE ALL GIVEN THE BENFIT, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT IN SERVICE ON THE DAY OF NOTIFICATION OF POLICY OR EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS!!!.

    WHEN ASKED WHY THE SAME BENEFIT "EVEN NOTIONALLY" IS NOT BEING EXTENDED TO PRE-2006 RETIREES same way as the trisanku retirees (AS IT IS A PAY PARITY SCHEME WHICH IN ESSENCE WOULD MEAN PENSION APRITY SCHEME ALSO), OUR ORGANISATION SAYS THE "RELEVANT DOPT ORDERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ".......

    WHAT TO DO.

    THE GAZ RESOLUTION NEVER STATED THAT THE SCHEME IS NOT APPLICABLE TO PRE 2006/ OLDER RETIREES!!! .
    FAQ OM OF DOPT DT 1 8 2012 SIMPLY SAYS, THE NFU COVERS THE RETIREES ALSO (without specifying pre/ post 2006 etc) !!!!!
    TAKING THE ABOVE TWO POINTS, WE HAVE TO LITIGATE.......




    ....SO I AM SEEKING INFO ON :

    "IS THERE ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTIVE FROM DOPT OR UOI OR ANY GOVT SOURCE WHICH CATEGORICALLY DECLARES THAT "PAY PARITY (NFU) SCEME WILL COVER ONLY POT 1 1 2006 RETUREES AND NOT THE PRE 2006 RETIREES REPEAT "NOT PRE 2006 RETIREES"


    We shall be going to pb cat soon on follow up of MMP SINHA PATNA HC JUDGMENT IN CWJC 10757/2010 DT 18 MAY 2015 WHERE IN IT IS RULED "HIGHER GRADE PENSIONERS CAN NOT DRAW PENSION LESS THAN THE LOWER GRADE PENSIONERS'......on the same issue, also tagged with FULL PARITY....also tagged with NFU which is widening the pension disparity between pre and post 2006 retirees...

    CAN U HELP ME WITH SCAN COPIES OF RTI REPLIES (FILE NOTES) U GOT REG DELAYED DPC ETC....

    Regards,

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 12-07-2015 at 07:15 AM.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Sir I have obtained a lot of material from DOPT regarding delayed DPCs. If you could indicate details of the copies of notes etc received, I would send whatever additional I have with me.
    Gopal Krishan

  5. #45
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gopal Krishan View Post
    Sir I have obtained a lot of material from DOPT regarding delayed DPCs. If you could indicate details of the copies of notes etc received, I would send whatever additional I have with me.
    Gopal Krishan
    Dear Shri GK ji,

    AS MY RTI QUERY WAS SPECIFIC WRT MY CASE, THE DOPT FOUND IT CONVENIENT TO SEND IT TO MIN OF MINES, WHO INTURN SENT IT TO GSI, WHO GAVE ME PAPERS (PART ONLY) CONCERNING MY DPC PROPOSAL, THEN THE COPY OF FINAL ORDER ISSUED WHICH WAS AFTER RETIREMENT.

    THE GSI CAREFULLY AVOIDED SENDING SOME OF THE ANNEXURES WHICH WOULD PROVE MY POINT OF NOT SHOWING MY SENIORITY PROPERLY AND OTHER DETAILS.

    IN ANTHER RTI QUERY RELATING TOFILE NOTINGS ON NFU IN GSI, THE DOPT AGAIN INFORMED THAT THEY DO NOT RETAIN ANY FILES SENT BY THE DEPARTMENTS AND AS PER THEIR PRACTICE, THEIR VIEWS/ DECISIONS ARE RECORDED IN THE FILE SENT BY THE DEPT AND THE SAME IS SENT BACK. NO DATA/ INFO ARE RETAINED BY THEM.

    IN BOTH CASES, AS MY QUERIES WERE LINKED TO MOM-GSI, I HAVE NOT GOT ANY FILE NOTE OF USEFUL PURPOSE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANY USEFUL MATERIAL "PERTAINING TO DELAYED DPC" WHICH ACTUALLY LED THE DOPT TO ISSUE SUCH AN OM , THAT TOO NOW IN 2014. WHAT PROMPTED THEM TO ISSUE IT IN NOV 2014? WHICH CASES?

    I WANT TO KNOW WHY SUCH A DIRECTIVE WAS ISSUED? WITH WHAT PURPOSE? IS IT ONLY A WASTE PAPER? HAS T GOT OTHERWISE ANY MEANING? ANY CASES SETTLED THERAFTER?...LIKE THAT...some such material to tell the CAT why we are approaching them late in the day....I have already made a detailed appeal to DG GSI on this delayed DPC as u know, based on the RTI material I received from GSI pointing out the deficiency/ omissions in the DPC proposal as wellas subsequent DPC selection that took place omitting me/ few others like me who were in the original proposal.

    YOU MUST HAVE SEEN MY BRIEF ON MY CASE. BY BELONGING TO 1962 UOSC GRA DIRECT INTERVIEW BATCH, I WAS EFFECTIVELY NEXT TO DG GSI IN 1995 WHO ALSO BELONGED TO THE SAME UPSC INTERVIEW BATCH AS THE IN-BETWEEN OFFICER LEFT GSI TO JOIN SCHOOL OF MINES AND OPOTED TO REMIAN THERE . ALL 3 OF US WERE CLASS-MATES OF IIT- KHARAGPUR!!!!.

    vnatarajan

  6. #46
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Sir
    Almost a similar problem our group and one of my friends in the Ministry of I and B are facing. In that connection we had prepared some brief and also some material was prepared for the MP. The same is reproduced below. About the OM of the 14th November, 2014, I have obtained information from the DOPT. According to the information obtained the direction were given by the ACC headed by the Prime Minister when a case for promotion to the level of Director from Ministry of Defence was placed before them. For the detailed of the case I have requested the Ministry of Defenc. From them final reply is still awaited.



    As back as the 30th December,1976 and then on 10.4.89 consolidated policy guidelines on the Departmental Promotion Committee were issued by the Government of India, in the Department of Personnel and Training. These guidelines did not lay down any restriction on (i) consideration of retired officials, who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant year; (ii) inclusion of the names of suitable officials in the panels while preparing year wise panels; and (iii) then giving to all those included in the panels notional promotion and notional pensionary benefits.

    2.Later, however, as need arose, because of some difficulties about considering retired officials faced by one of the Departments, viz-a-viz UPSC, a general clarification to all the Ministries/Departments with reference to the guidelines referred to above was issued by the Government of India, in DOPT in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs on 12.10.98 stating that (i) retired officials should be considered during the year they were due for such a consideration while preparing year wise panels (ii) names of those found suitable included in the panel(s) and (iii) they shall have no right to actual promotion

    3.In view of these policy guidelines various Ministries/Departments, including the Ministry of Personnel etc. were/are considering retired officials for the year-wise panels of the relevant years. Accordingly, some of the Selection Grade officers of CSS were considered for inclusion in the Suitability Lists of Directors for the years 2000 and 2001after retirement. Unfortunately, names of some of the officers were not considered. Not only that even names of those found suitable for the lists for the years 2000 and 2001 were not included in the lists on the plea that they had retired by then.

    4.In this connection your attention is invited to the answer to Lok Sabha unstarred question No. 6439 stating that the Department of Personnel and Training has not made any change in instructions contained in OM dated the 12th October 1998 and reiterated vide OM dated the 14th Novembr, 2014. It would be relevant to mention here that the latter OM was issued at the instance of the PM.

    5. From the copies of the notes available with the aggrieved officers I have noticed that because of the violation of the policy guidelines on the part of various Ministries/Departments to consider some of the retired officers at the relevant time the Prime Minister had to intervene and direct that such non-consideration/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.

    6. In the circumstances, I am sure, you would agree that there is need to look in to the matter at your level and to see that the direction of the Prime Minister are implemented by your Department.


    ------------------------------------------------------------


    4 .In this connection it may be stated that:-

    (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, (Annexure I), 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;

    (g)the undersigned is being put to injustice in the matter of promotion as the DPC could not be held in time because of administrative fault; and
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 18-07-2015 at 05:50 PM.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    DOPT has convened a meeting of the officers of the Departments of Legal Affairs, Expenditure and Revenue to sort out the issues.
    Gopal Krishan

  8. #48
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    R. Devaraju of Chennai, who retired as Joint Director, ESI also suffered because of delayed DPC. He showed interest in joining any legal action in this regard. Others interested could also come forward for further action in the matter.
    Gopal Krishan
    9911178250
    gopalkrishan60@yahoo.com
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 31-10-2015 at 07:15 PM.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Shri Inder Raj of Ambala has filed a case in CAT Chandigarh. He is depending on very important and recent judgements givene by Hon'ble Supreme Court (Maj. General HM Singh, Jan 2014). According to him under this judgement once some is included in a select list it becomes his fundamental right to get promotion. The other case is of Subhash Chander Parashar dated the 3rd August, 2013 - 6464/2013 decided by the Chandigarh High Court. The case of Shakti Chand dogra is also favourabel which by decided by the Himachal High Court on the 22nd April, 2014.
    Gopal Krishan

  10. #50
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    According to the SMS received earlier Shri RC Mehta retired on the 31st December, 2004 and the DPC was held in April, 2005. Obviously he also suffered financial loss which is getting compounded every month.
    Gopal Krishan
    9911178250
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 10-11-2015 at 01:24 PM.

  11. #51
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    A few days earlier I received a call from Shri Bachan Lal an engineer of Door Darshan, who also suffered loss in pension because of delayed holding of DPC by the Government.
    Gopal Krishan
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 18-11-2015 at 12:37 PM.

  12. #52
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Reference post at No. 46. The meeting had been postponed. The matter is yet to be discussed and a final view taken.
    The DOPT are consulting the other Departments of Expenditure/Pension/Legal Affairs etc.
    Gopal Krishan

  13. #53
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    As I had received a couple of telephone calls inquiring the latest in the matter. I am indicating the same as follows:

    In August, 2015 it was felt by the DOPT to reconsider the matter in the light of the (i) reference from the MP and (ii) advice of the Department of Legal Affairs and also the fact that (iii) the earlier views of the Department of Expenditure as available with the DOPT were fifteen years old and (iv) the Pension Rules had undergone changes.

    With that end in view on the Ist September, 2015 a meeting was convened by the JS(Estt.) of DOPT.

    In this connection it would be relevant to mention that initial policy guidelines of 1976 were issued in consultation with the Department of Expenditure etc. and those guidelines do not put any bar to (i) consider retirees (ii) include them in the select lists etc and then (iii) giving notional pensionery benefits to those included in the select lists. Those guidelines have not undergone any change. As such denying notional pensionery benefits to those included in the select/suitability lists would be in violation of the original policy guidelines. This is in line with the thinking of the DOPT which is reflected in the previous files of the DOPT while examining the objections raised by the UPSC relating to consultation of Department of Expenditure in connection with the issue of October, 1998 clarification. In the note dated the 16th September, 1998 it was specifically stated that “no new practice is being introduced which may require consultation with Ministry of Finance & Department of Pensions. Ministry of Law have already consented to the proposal.” As such there is no need to consult the MOF or DOPPW at this stage.
    What is required is to issue clarification in continuation of the earlier one that retires are to be given notional pensionery benefits.

    Accordingly a representation was submitted to the PM. The PMO has directed the DOPT to give a reply and that the same may be uploaded on the portal. The matter is in process in the DOPT. Others interested could also send the same to the PM.
    Gopal Krishan
    9911178250
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 31-12-2015 at 02:45 PM.

  14. #54
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    During the first week of December, 2015, the DOPT referred the matter to the Departments of Expenditure and Pensions for their comments. Their comments are awaited by the DOPT. This is for the information of those interested in the matter particularly those who rang up to check up the latest position.
    Gopal Krishan
    9911178250



    Quote Originally Posted by Gopal Krishan View Post
    The consolidated guidelines on the DPC were last issfued on the 19th April, 1989. The earlier DPC instructions also had similar arrangements. Briefely, the guidelines did not put any specific bar on consideration of retired employes while preparing year-wise panels of those who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant yer. In other words these instruction provided for consideration of the ritired employees for promotion if tey were eligible for consideration in the relevant year . The concept of year wise panel was also introduced in the year 1980. Subsequently, when faced with a problem raised by the Department of Telecommunication about consideration of retired employees retrospectively when they had become eliogible for consideration during the period they were in service, the Department of Personnel examined the matter in the light of various judgements of High Courts and the Supreme Court and in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs issued an OM on the 12th October, 1998 clarifying the postion with reference to the consolidated instructions. According to the clarfication (i) the retired officers who were within the zone of consideration at the relevant time should be considered while preparing year wise panels; and (ii) such officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion. Unfortunately, the Department of Personnel has been interpreting (ii) above in such a way that even if some one is included in the panel retrospectively he would not be entitled to even pensionery benefits. As such all those aggrived started goint to CATHigh Courts/Supreme Court. Obviously, the CAT/HighCourts/Supreme Court generally started directing the Government for giving benefits to them. The DOPT instead of modifying their OM of 12th Otober, 1998 decided to restrict the benefits to only those who got favourable decision form CAT/High Court. That being a wrong policy we had represented to the DOPT in this regard. DOPT, in turn referred the matter to the Department Legal Affairs, who advised that where the DPCs were not held on time and promotions were not granted to the employyes concerned there a legal right accrues on all those eligible retired officers included in the selcti/suitability lists after holding DPC retrospectively to get notional promotion. This advice was received by DOPT as back as Ist week of September, 2010 . The matter is lying at that stage still. As such the same is required to be pursued by all sufferes in this regard.

    Gopal Krishan
    9911178250
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 26-01-2016 at 02:49 PM.

  15. #55
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    It is understood that comments from the Department of Pensions as well as from the Department of Expenditure have been received by the DOPT. At the same time it has been noticed from the copies of the notes earlier obtained from DOPT that it was not necessary to obtain comments of both the Departments as initially the policy guidelines relating to DPC were issued after consulting both the Departments as well as UPSC. The OMs issued in Oct. 1998 and on the 14th November, 2014 related to clarification and not fresh instructions. As such some of us who are interested in the matter intend to write to the DOPT seeking information as to under which rule/instructions comments of both the Departments were sought. At the same time we intend to request for copies of the comments received from both the Departments by the DOPT
    Gopal Krishan

  16. #56
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Although we had written to the Department of Personnel and Training almost a month before under RTI Act, their reply is still awaited.
    Gopal Krishan
    9911178250

  17. #57
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear all- hope all fine...yes I am also on the hot track on this issue.....with my dept....my dpc proposal was sent 18 months late , 35 days bfore my retirement, with wrong eligibility list, and no seniority list, with no reasons for delay in the second year, and finally when sent, they had put the remark that as i do not have 3 months time for service if promoted, name may not be considered as per prevailing guidelines at that time (april 25, 1997- i retired in may 1997).

    In spite of a slp ruling in july 1991 itself , my seniority was not corrected by vested interests and i was not at all aware of the hsc slp ruling which i had come to know only after the nov 214 om of dopt when i tried to do some research on such a case.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 22-03-2016 at 08:01 PM. Reason: typo

  18. #58
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Despite strict instructions issued from time to time by the Government of India in the DOPT about timely holding of DPC meetings, various Ministries/Departments in violation of the same delayed holding of DPCs but meticulously followed the illogical/irrational/illegal policy of the DOPT which deprive the employees of the pensionery benefits, who missed promotion as a result of delayed holding of DPCs and retired on superannuation in the mean time

    As back as the 30th December, 1976 vide OM No. 22011/6/75-Estt(D), the Department of Personnel and Training issued consolidated instructions on the constitution and functioning of the Departmental Promotion Committees and the procedure to be followed in processing and implementing their recommendations. Thereafter, instructions had also been issued from time to time clarifying/modifying certain aspects included in the instructions. Accordingly some instructions were issued relating to bringing out of year-wise select lists. These instructions did provide for convening of DPCs at regular annual intervals to draw panels which could be utilized for making promotions against the vacancies occurring during the course of a year. It was also laid down that it was essential for the concerned authorities to initiate action well in advance of the expiry of the previous panel. On 10.4.89 consolidated policy guidelines in the form of . “Guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committees” were issued by the Government of India, in the Department of Personnel and Training. Still there had been delays in taking advance action in various Ministries/Departments, which resulted in reiteration of earlier instructions. Such a reiteration was also done vide of OM No. 22011/9/98-Estt(D) dated the 8th September, 1998 stating that delays in promotions resulted in considerable frustrations amongst officers, thereby adversely affecting their morale and overall productivity. As a remedial measure a time schedule for convening DPCs was also prescribed. Still DPCs were not being held in advance. Need for strict compliance of the instructions was reiterated vide OM No. 22011/9/98- Estt(D) dated the 14th December, 2000. The unsatisfactory position also created problems to UPSC inasmuch as the Commission had to stop accepting incomplete proposals wef the Ist August, 2010. In March, 2011, referring to instances of delays, the DOPT also brought to the notice of the Ministries/Departments that administrative delays in holding DPCs had been viewed adversely by the courts and was the main reason for litigation before CAT and various High Courts. The Department also observed that non-adherence to time frame of DPCs was a matter of serious concern to the Government. The Department also desired that an officer of the level of JS should be designated to ensure timely holding of DPCs.

    2. Despite strict instructions from the Government of India in the Department of Personnel and Training meetings for preparing panels for promotions were and are not being held in advance of the vacancy year. As a result officials, particularly on the verge of retirement were/are suffering financially for no fault on their parts. However, those who had/have assumed charge even for a day get pension for the higher post although suffer in terms of arrears of pay and allowances for no fault on their part. But in the cases of those who retired on superannuation in the meantime and missed promotion for no fault on their parts suffered financially, which is getting compounded with the passage of time. Unfortunately the DOPT is not bothered for the plight of the retirees, who were/are suffering financially. The DOPT continue with their illogical/irrational/illegal stand, which they are changing from time to time resulting in continued denial of justice to the retired old pensioners in terms of arrears of pay and allowances as well as pensionery benefits.
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 04-05-2016 at 09:58 PM.

  19. #59
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    3. Coming to the shifting stand of the DOPT from time to time it may be mentioned that the guidelines issued in April, 1989, referred to above, did not lay down any restriction on (i) consideration of retired officials, who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant year; (ii) inclusion of the names of suitable officials in the panels while preparing year wise panels; and (iii) giving to all those included in the panels notional promotion and notional pensionary benefits.

    4. Later, however, as need arose, because of some difficulties about considering retired officials faced by the Department of Telecommunication, viz-a-viz UPSC, a clarification repeat clarification and not new instructions to all the Ministries/Departments with reference to the guidelines referred to above were issued on 12.10.98 by the Government of India, in DOPT in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs. The clarification stated that (i) retired officials should be considered during the year they were due for such a consideration while preparing year wise panels (ii) names of those found suitable included in the panel(s) and (iii) they shall have no right to actual promotion. It would be pertinent to mention here that the difficulties referred to above related to the fixation of inter-se seniority in a particular grade in the Department of Telecommunication by merging two different streams. From one of the two streams promotions were made on regular basis whereas from the other ad-hoc promotions could be effected. ONLY with reference to the latter category (officers of that category did get pension on the basis of the pay drawn in officiating capacity) the expression in general term for all the posts/services in various Departments/Ministries whereas the decision was taken with reference to the facts as prevailed in the Telecommunication Department. Not only that the expression is being wrongly given a meaning in general terms , i.e. even after inclusion in the panel the empanelled retired officers would have no right even to notional pensionery benefits. This stand of DOPT with reference to a clarification is not only (i) illogical/ irrational/illegal but also (ii)contrary to the policy guidelines issued in April, 1989 wherein no such bar had been prescribed.
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 04-05-2016 at 08:38 PM.

  20. #60
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    5. When the matter was referred to the department of Legal Affairs in the year 2009 at the instance of the CS Division of the DOPT, that Department advised that such officers do have a right for notional promotion and notional pensionery benefits. Unfortunately, the concerned Division of the DOPT sat over the legal advice for years. Pending a final view on the advice of the Department of Legal Affairs, based on the direction of the ACC of September, 2012, headed by the Prime Minister the DOPT issued an OM dated the 14th November, 2014 directing all the Ministries/Departments to include names of all the eligible officers who are due to retire before the likely date of vacancies. The ACC observed that non inclusion of the names of such officers is against the principles of natural justice.
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 24-03-2016 at 01:17 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... 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