+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 102

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

  1. #61
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    6.Despite direction of the ACC headed by the Hon’ble Prime Minister, various Ministries/Departments have not yet started considering and then including the names of officials found fit for inclusion in the suitability lists, what to talk of giving them notional pensionery benefits.

    7.It would not be out of place to mention that, with a view to denying the pensionery benefits, the DOPT has been taking illogical/irrational/illegal stand from the very beginning. After the issue of clarification of October, 1998, they started denying the benefits on one or the other pretext as would be seen from the record available with the DOPT more importantly the basis of the provision that they shall have no right

  2. #62
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    to actual promotion. This provision was not at all applicable to the officers other than those of Department of Telecommunication. Later in 2010 after the advice of the Department of Legal Affairs, the DOPT changed its stand but continued denying justice by taking a stand that the names of those retired persons were being included in the eligibility lists to arrive at a correct zone of consideration. At one stage they took a stand that even if they are given notional promotion that would not entitle them to pensionery benefits. Another stand has been that when those in service are being given promotion from a prospective date how can retirees could be given retrospectively (one wrong cannot justify another wrong) Now the latest plea is “while promotions will be made in the order of the consolidated select list, such promotions will have only prospective effect even in cases where vacancies relate to earlier years(s) i.e. from the date of assumption of charge in the higher post.” This was stated in response to a Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 6439 replied on the 6th May, 2015, although prior to that an official mentioned to the PTI that all those missed such a promotion would get notional benefits and order to that effect had been issued. That fact was reported in various new papers on the 2nd Feb. 2015. This stand of the DOPT in reply to the question is based on FR 17 (I), which exclusively pertains only to those officials, who are in service and not retirees. An MP had written a DO letter on the 18th May, 20015 in this regard. A reminder has also been sent by him on the 22nd September, 2015 and also in December, 2015. Similar stand had also been taken in the case of Shri DC Mehandiratta, a pensioner from the Ministry of I and B. This stand again is illegal as would be seen from Part IV of the consolidated instructions, which are applicable to those in service and would get promotion on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC. Moreover, these instructions being consolidated ones can not go contrary to the original instructions issued way back in 1976/1989. In any case the instructions under which the retirees are being now denied notional promotion and notional pensionery benefits are not at all applicable to them. In this connection an observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in almost a similar case of Janakiraman is relevant. The same is reproduced below:

    “The normal rule of ‘no work no pay’ is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that FR 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases.”
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 24-03-2016 at 01:27 PM.

  3. #63
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    8.In any case there is no possibility of retired officials’ assuming charge as they had already relinquished charge of the post on the day they relinquished the charge of the post they had held before attaining the age of superannuation. All this is resulting in Injustice by the DOPT even by changing their stand from time to time to the retirees who missed promotion for no fault on their part but because of delay on the part of the Government. There is every justification for notional pensionery benefits to them. Of course, there is every reason to take action against those officers who delay holding of DPCs in violation of the policy decision of the Government of India in DOPT.

    9. 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 available with the DOPT were fifteen years old and (iv) the Pension Rules had undergone changes.

    10With that end in view on the Ist September, 2015 a meeting was convened by the JS(Estt.) of DOPT. The meeting, however, was not held and it was decided to obtain the comments of the Departments of Expenditure and Pensions before a final view is taken on the reference from the M.P. Accordingly references were made to both the Departments in the first week of December, 2015.
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 04-05-2016 at 09:08 PM.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    11.In this connection it would be relevant to mention that initial policy guidelines of 1976/1989 were issued in consultation with the Department of Expenditure etc. 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 was no need to consult the MOF or DOPPW at that stage as well. As already stated above the 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. Whatever was done in October, 1998 was a clarification to the earlier policy decision, which cannot change the complexion of the original guidelines. As such denying notional pensionery benefits to those included in the select/suitability lists would be in violation of the original policy guidelines.
    What was required was to issue clarification in continuation of the earlier one that those retirees, who after consideration at the relevant tine are found fit, are to be given notional pensionery benefits. Unfortunately DOPT, instead of taking action against the officers, who are responsible for dalaying holding of DPCs despite their repeated instrunctions, are penalizing the retirees, even by shifting their stand from time to time. Need less to say that the retirees had suffered, without any fault on their part, in terms of pay and allowances because of omissions/commissions on the part of officers , who delayed the holding of DPCs.
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 04-05-2016 at 09:09 PM.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    As I had requested for some information and inspection of some of the files on the subject, the CPIO concerned has written to me for visiting him on mutual convenient date and time.
    Gopal Krishan

  6. #66
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    NOTED PL. KINDLY CHK IF AT ALL ANY RELIEF HAD BEEN GIVEN TO ANY AGGRIEVED RETIREE AFTER THE ISSUE OF OM OF 14 NOV 2014.....LIKE EVN NOTIONAL PENSIONARY BENEFIT.....IN MY DEPT., MY (DELAYED DPC / NON-PROVISION OF NFFU RELIEF) GRIEVANCE REPRESENTATION HAD BEEN "DISOSED OFF" STATING THAT THE MATTER IS SUBKUDICE IN THE OA 3590/2015 WHICH I (LEAD PETITIONER) & 84 GSI PRE 2006 S29 RETIREES HAD FILED WRT THE MMP SINHA CASE JUDGMENT (HIGHER GR PENSIONER TO GET PENSION HIGHER THAN MAX. OF HIS FEEDER GR OFFICERS) BASED ON SPS VAINS CASE PRECEDENCE, WHICH IS ALMOST A REM JUDGMENT.......I HAD ALSO CITED THE OM OF 14 NOV 2014 AS AN ANNEXURE ...
    vnatarajan

  7. #67
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Sir,
    I visited the CPIO, DOPT yesterday. Inspected various files relating the delayed holding of DPCs by various Ministries/Department resulting in loss to the retirees by way of losing promotion during their service period and then losing in pension also.

    In my humble opinion the stand of your Department that the matter is sub-judice is wrong as the issue in the OA referred in your post and the matter I am pursing with the DOPT are not the same. My posts at 58 to 64 give complete background of the matter. The OM of the 14th November, 2014 is simply reiteration of the OM of the 12th October, 1998, which provides that the retirees are to be considered at the relevant time when they were due for such consideration for promotion had they been in service and in case they are found fit their names should be included in the list for promotion. However, the present policy (may sound absurd) of the Government of India through DOPT which has to be followed by various Ministries/Department is that as even if their names are included in the promotion lists no notional pensionery benefits to be given as they had not assumed charge of the higher post. However, in August, 2015 the DOPT decided to review this matter in consultation with the Department of Pension, Department of Expenditure and the Department of Legal Affairs, although the same was not necessary as mentioned in the posts referred to above. I have obtained a copy each of the comments offered by the three Departments, which I am reproducing below:
    DOLA: "Where the DPCs were not held on time and promotions were not granted to the emp;loyees concerned there a legal right accrues on all those eligible retired officers included in the select/suitqabiloity lists after holding
    DPC retrospectively to get notional promotion. However, with regard to payment of arrears of salary with retrospective effect from notional dates in view of the settled principle of law it does not areise since, indisputably they had never worked during that period in the promotional post."

    D/Pension: (i)It is felt that when DPCs are not held in time due to administrative lapse/reasons and timely promotions are denied to the employees (whether service or retired) for no fault of their, it would be unfair/unjustified to deny them the benefit of notional promotion from the date from which such promotion would have been made if the DPC meeting had taken place on time. (ii) There would be no need for Review DPCs in such cases. As per the existing instruction. the DPC is required to prepare year wise panels for promotion based on the eligibility list for the respective years(iii) As opined by DoLA the arrears of salary from the date of wuch notional promotion would not be payable as such employees have not actually performed the duties of the higher post.(iv)in case a retired employees is allowed retrospective notinal promotion without payment of arrears of Pay and Allowamces from, the date of such notional promotion, the pension would still be determined on the basis of the pay acutally received by that employee immediately before retirement by virtue of provisions of Rule 33 of the CCS(Pension)Rules.(v) In case it is finally decided by DOPT to allow retrospective notional Promotion in cases delayed DPCs, Rule 33 of the CCS(P) Rules may also have to be simultaneously amended to provide for determination of pension based on the notional pay arrived at on the the basis of such notional retrospevtdive promotion
    D/Expenditure: i. Policy with regard to DPC procedures is the primary concern of DOPT and this Department does not have any direct role on the subject. As such this Department does not have any specific comments of offer on the subject. ii. However, the comments offered by this Department vide ID Note dated 24.5.200 is reiterated which states that if notional promotion to retired employees is allowed serving employees may also have a case to grant of notional benefit from the date DPC should have been constituted without being placed or acually performing the jnob of higher post. This will not be appropriate and the issue of revised general order is not warranted.

    Follow up action is being taken by the DOPT in the light of the comments of the three Departments to decide whether to issue further revised clarification or to continue with the old stand about retired officials who missed promotion and also suffered in terms of pensionery benefits.
    With regards
    Gopal Krishan

  8. #68
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    For the information of those who talked to me on telephone and those who tried but could not talk:
    The Government of India in DOPT is yet to take a final view in the matter.
    Gopal Krishan
    9911178250

  9. #69
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    DEAR SHRI GK SIR,

    WE ARE FIGHTING OUR CASE ON H GR PENSION WRT FEEDER GR MAXI PENSION AS MAIN RELIEF / PLUS FULL APRITY/ PLUS NFU PENSION DISPARITY AS THRESHHOLD .....THE FOUR CASES ARE GSI CENTRIC.....OA 3590/2015 PRE 2006 DDG GSI V NATARAJAN ORS VS GSI/MOM ETC IS MAIN CASE ....

    AS YOU KNOW WE HAVE CITED DELAYED DPC IS ONE OF THE ISSUES WE ARE POINTING OUT FOR LOSING OUR BENFITS.....IN GENERAL AND IN PARTICULAR CASES LIKE MINE.

    FILE NOTE COPIES WILL BE VERY USEFUL FOR MY CASE. I AM NOW IN FRISCO- TX USA.......I AM NOT SURE ....HOW EVER I HAVE REQUESTED MY COUNSEL ( SHRI G NATARAJAN, RETD S29 HSC ) TO TAKE NOTE OF THE POINTS YOU HAVE SUMMARISED IN THE EARLIER NOTE......

    ( MY CASE WILL COME UP ON 1 8 2016 AT PB CAT....)

    vnatarajan....24 06 2016

  10. #70
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Respected Sir,
    As rightly pointed out by you delayed DPC is the basic cause for losing benefits by pensioners in general including you. The latest unjustified stand of the various Ministries/Departments is that since retirees did not assume charge of the higher post so no pay and allowances of the higher post and consequently no pensionery benefits of that post. Of course, this stand is based on the policy guidelines of the DOPT. As mentioned earlier in my one of the posts the DOPT has decided to review its policy guidelines. The matter is still under consideration. Final view is yet to be taken.

    Sir, as you are aware I am pursuing this matter for quite some time. It would me my pleasure to assist your advocate in this regard on any point.

    With regards
    Gopal Krishan

  11. #71
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Final view is yet to be taken by the Government of India through the Department of Personnel and Training
    Gopal Krishan

  12. #72
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    After my last post of the 17th July, 2016, a number of calls, from all over the country, have been received inquiring about the latest position in the matter. As already indicated in my previous post that the Department of Personnel, the policy framer in the Government of India in this regard, have not taken a final decision in the matter. The same is still under their consideration. Those affected in the matter can send representations to the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi 110001 requesting him to get the decision expedited as the sufferers are all very senior pensioners in the age of 70+.
    In case any assistance is required I could be contacted on Mob.
    Gopal Krishan
    9911178250
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 25-08-2016 at 05:06 PM.

  13. #73
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    DEAR SHRI GK ,
    AS I AM IN USA AND SHALL BE BACK IN INDIA BY MID SEPT 2016 I CAN ACT. In my case, not able to reply my grievance inbwhich I HAD POINTED THE DEFECTIVE SENIORITY IN THE PROPOSAL EVEN AFTER THE DIRECTIVE OF AN SLP JUDGMENT, the Dept kept silent for 7 months and then linked it to a OA filed for H GR PENSION WRT JR GR RETIREES ( OA 3590 OF 2015 ) in which I happen to be lead petitioner for a group of 88 SAG S29 GSI RETIREES.....LINKING WAS DELIBERATE AS THEY CD NIT ANSER DELAYED DPC ISSUE.....Can u eml me what shd be my approach in the interim time....DOPT SIMPLY ACTS AS A PO ONCE MY LETTER SHOWS I BELONG TI GSI AND FIRWARD IT STATING FOR " SETTLING THE GRIEVANCE"....IF U GIVE SOME REFERENCE, I CAN VEHEMENTLY PUT THE FACTS BEFORE DOPT...VN

  14. #74
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Sir,
    As mentioned by you earlier your case was to come up on the Ist August, 2016. Kindly favour me with the gist of the orders passed on that date.
    Separately I had sought for some information from the Under Secretary concerned in the DOPT under the RTI Act. As no satisfactory information was forth coming from him and the FAA I had taken up the matter with the CIC. The Commission has directed him to allow inspection of various files to me on the subject. I am awaiting a reference from him. Perhaps thereafter I would be able to give you the latest in the matter. At present fact remains that the line of the DOPT, which is being implemented by various Ministries/Departments, is that as retirees were not in a position to assume charge of the higher post so not notional benefits to them. Of course this line of DOPT is absurd.
    Gopal Krishan

  15. #75
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    DEAR SHRI GK JI, OUR PRE 2006 GSI S29 CASE OF HGR PENSION IN OA 3590/2015 IS NOW POSTED TO 3 OCT 2016 TO ENABLE US TO FILE THE REJOINDER TO GOVT COUNTER AND ALSO AN ADDITIONAL MA TO SUBMIT JUDGMENTS/ DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE COME UP IN SUPPORT OF OUR MAIN RELIEF SOUGHT & RELATED ISSUES. IN CASE YOU GET OPPORTUNITY TO INSPECT DOPT FILES N THE DELAYED DPC ISSUES. KINDLY GET COPIES OF RECENT NOTES WHICH HAVE A BEARING IN OUR DELAYED DPC ISSUE. I HAVE REFEREED THE DOPT OM OF 14 NOV 2014 ON DELAYE DPC AS ONE OF THE CAUSES FOR ACTION TO GO FOR LEGAL REMEDY AS SUCH DELAYED DPCs HAVE RESULTED MY CHANCE TO GO TO HIGHER GRADE WHILE IN SERVICE AND NOW WIT THE NFUPP IN PRACTICE, EVEN NON-FUNCTIONAL SEL GR DIRECTORS WHO ARE OUR FEEDER GR/JR GRADE ARE DRAWING MORE PENSION. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE PRECEDENT JUDGMENTS .

    BEING NOT IN POSITION AND IN SERVICE , MAY BE OK FOR NOT PAYING THE ARREARS OF PAY FROM THE DUE DATE OF NOTIONAL PROMOTION, BUT THE PENSION HAS TO ACCRUE FROM THE DATE OF RETIREMENT. ( PL NOTE IN CASE OF INTRODUCTION OF A NEW S30 SCALE IN JULY 2009 , THE FINACIAL BENEFIT WAS PASSED ON TO EVEN PRE 112006 SEAMLESSLY, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE RETIRED LONG BACK/ EVEN DECEASED/ EVEN FAMILY PENSIONERS!!!!) .

  16. #76
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Respected VN Sir,
    I have a query at this stage. The OMs of the 12th October, 1998 and the 14th November, 2014 of the DOPT clarified that retirees if they could not be considered for promotion because of the delayed holding of DPCs have a right to be so considered and if found fit for promotion have a right to be included in the select list. Presently the issue whether such of the officers who are included in the select list are to be given notional promotion and notional pensionery benefits of the higher post, is under active consideration of the Govt. in the Department of Personnel.
    In case it is decided favourably by the Govt. in the DOPT and thereby you and others similarly placed get notional promotion/ benefits of the higher post whether your OA would become infructuous?
    With regards,
    Gopal Krishan

  17. #77
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    SHRI GK JI,

    IF DOPT GIVES SUCH A RULING, IT WILL RESOLVE ONE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION ...ONLY for A COUPLE OF OUR 88 MEMBERS FIGHTING THRU THE OA 3590 for HIGHER GR PENSION.

    2. MY DEPT HAD LINKED MY PERSONAL GRIEVANCE TO THE OA ONLY TO ESCAPE FROM THEIR OMSISSIONS AND ALSO FOR NOT FIXING CORRECT SENIORITY INSPITE OF A SLP HSC VERDICT and thus sending erroneous delayed dpc promotion and placing my ELIGIBILITY below my
    JUNIOR UPSC BATCH.

    3. OUR OA 3590 WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS PROBLEM BUT IT MAY HELP GOI GSI TO SAVE SOME EMBARASSMENTS IN COURT

    (I SENT ONE LINK ON SOME HSC JUDGMENT YDAY SEPARATELY. By eml . PL CHK)

    REGARDS,

  18. #78
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Respected Sir,
    We are yet to inspect the file although a letter had been received from DOPT long back for inspection. In fact the file in question is under submission for a final decision after the DOPT had decided a year back to review their earlier decision not to give notional pensionery benefits even to those who were included in the select/suitability list for promotion. Comments as sought for by the DOPT have been received from the Department of Legal Affairs as well as Department of Pension. The same are favourable. In my view consultation at this stage was not required and DOPT could have taken a view in the matter. That Department is solely responsible for the mess. The consolidated instructions on constitution and functioning of the Departmental Promotion Committees and the procedure to be followed in processing and implementing their recommendations were initially issued by the DOPT in consultation with the Department of Expenditure etc. These instruction did not put any bar on the (i) consideration of retirees at the relevant time, (ii) inclusion of the names in the select list of those found suitable and (iii) then giving them notional benefits. But unfortunately, a decision taken in Oct. 1998, which was limited to a set of officers of a particular Department was applied universally by the DOPT. That, according to my understanding was a mistake on the part of the DOPT. The DOPT instead of correcting the mistake despite number of opportunities to do so during the intervening period decided from time to time not to give the rightful due to the retirees on one or the illogical/irrational ground even after the advice of the Department of Legal Affairs which was received way back on 2009/2010. ( Incidentally I had sought for the information about the rule/instructions under which the legal advice had been ignored. The CIC has directed the CPIO to indicate the OM No. etc. to me). The latest absurd stand of the DOPT, which was conveyed to the Lok Sabha also in reply to a Parliament question is that as the retirees are not in a position to assume charge of the higher post, so no notional benefits. Of course this is absurd to expect any retiree to assume charge of the senior post. Now some how to get out of the situation the DOPT is trying to rope in the Departments of Expenditure, Pension and Legal Affairs, which is delaying the decision. As already mentioned above consultation was not necessary as the subject matter under consideration is solely within the purview of the DOPT. They had created a mess of the matter. Now instead of taking responsibility of the mistake/mess are involving other Departments and as a result delaying the justice to the sufferers
    With regards
    GK .

  19. #79
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Respected Natarajan Sahib,
    Kindly favour me with the developments in respect of the case in the court.
    With regards,
    Gopal Krishan
    Quote Originally Posted by Gopal Krishan View Post
    Respected Sir,
    We are yet to inspect the file although a letter had been received from DOPT long back for inspection. In fact the file in question is under submission for a final decision after the DOPT had decided a year back to review their earlier decision not to give notional pensionery benefits even to those who were included in the select/suitability list for promotion. Comments as sought for by the DOPT have been received from the Department of Legal Affairs as well as Department of Pension. The same are favourable. In my view consultation at this stage was not required and DOPT could have taken a view in the matter. That Department is solely responsible for the mess. The consolidated instructions on constitution and functioning of the Departmental Promotion Committees and the procedure to be followed in processing and implementing their recommendations were initially issued by the DOPT in consultation with the Department of Expenditure etc. These instruction did not put any bar on the (i) consideration of retirees at the relevant time, (ii) inclusion of the names in the select list of those found suitable and (iii) then giving them notional benefits. But unfortunately, a decision taken in Oct. 1998, which was limited to a set of officers of a particular Department was applied universally by the DOPT. That, according to my understanding was a mistake on the part of the DOPT. The DOPT instead of correcting the mistake despite number of opportunities to do so during the intervening period decided from time to time not to give the rightful due to the retirees on one or the illogical/irrational ground even after the advice of the Department of Legal Affairs which was received way back on 2009/2010. ( Incidentally I had sought for the information about the rule/instructions under which the legal advice had been ignored. The CIC has directed the CPIO to indicate the OM No. etc. to me). The latest absurd stand of the DOPT, which was conveyed to the Lok Sabha also in reply to a Parliament question is that as the retirees are not in a position to assume charge of the higher post, so no notional benefits. Of course this is absurd to expect any retiree to assume charge of the senior post. Now some how to get out of the situation the DOPT is trying to rope in the Departments of Expenditure, Pension and Legal Affairs, which is delaying the decision. As already mentioned above consultation was not necessary as the subject matter under consideration is solely within the purview of the DOPT. They had created a mess of the matter. Now instead of taking responsibility of the mistake/mess are involving other Departments and as a result delaying the justice to the sufferers
    With regards
    GK .

  20. #80
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Shri GK JI,

    I after inspired by yr prompting, Shri Deavaraju's appeal, and the repeated reminders of the DOPT on the issue of DELAYED DPC took up a meticulous exercise for building up sufficient documents and establishing an appropriate bunch of CAUSE OF ACTION for a separate OA , at least to plead for a higher grade of pension from the date allowable to me if I get a favourable verdict of justice. I started my actions in mid 2014 thru RTI with my dept.IN THE MEANWHILE , SHRI MMP SINHA CASE and PATNA HC JUDGMENT IN MAY 2015 AND its endet accepted by CAT WRT A RA IN AIS30PA JUDGMENT OF FULLPARITY,
    in Sept 2015, set the tempo for my legal action to go for a HIGHER GR PENSION ABOVE THE MAXIMUM OF FEEDER OR LOWER GR PENSION, AS THESE LATEST JUDGMENTS ARE PRECEDENT ON SPS VAINS CASES OF RETD MAJ GENS GETTING HIGHER PAY-PENSION ABOVE BRIGADIERS AND ALSO GET EQUAL PAY- PENSION AMONG THEIR EAQUALs.

    In gist what I did is narrated below.

    IN MY CASE, CAUSE OF ACTION WRT DELAYED DPC.HAD AUTHENTICITY , ( even) for a separate case. ( I MAY STILL DO IT LATER).

    I KNEW GSI HAD DELAYED THE DPC AND CERTAINLY MY NAME HAD TO FIGURE IN IT IF PROPOSAL HAD BEEN SENT IN TIME. SO I TOOK A CHANCE TO SEE IF THERE HAD BEEN MANIPULATION OF ANY KIND.

    SOON AFTER THE OM DT OF 14 NOV 2014, I SOUGHT FROM GSI THRU RTI CITING THE SAID OM, INFORMATION ON POSTS OF SR DDG VACANT IN 1995 96 97 DPC PROPOSALs SENT TO FILL THEM, AND IF MY NAME WAS INCLUDED OR NOT, COPY OF DPC PROPOSAL, ANNEXURES RELATED TO SENIORITY ELIGIBILITY ETC SENT WITH DPC...AND SO ON.

    I GOT PART OF THE PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS VIZ MINUS SENIORITY WHICH THEY NEVER FINALISED, DPC WAS SENT 39!DAYS BEFOR MY RETIREMENT, NEARLY ONE YR SIX MONTHS LATER THAN VACANCIES .... ETC.. PROPER REASONS FOR DELAYED SENDING OF DPC WAS NOT GIVEN. LIST HAD TEN NAMES FOR 3 VACANT POSTS WITH REMARKS THAT FOUR OF US MANY NOT BE HAVING 3 MONTHS TIME IF DPC IS NOT HELD IN TIME ETC....

    SO SUCH CRUCIAL MATERIAL PROVIDED ME CAUSE TO ACT AND SEEK JUSTICE....AS WE HAD POINTED OUT THAT GSI WAS LATE ALWAYS WRT SUBMISSION OF DPC PROPOSALS, MANY OF US HAD LOST CHANCES TO GET TO HIGHER GRADE POSTS AND SO ON.......

    I AM NOT SURE, HOW OTHERS CAN BUILD UP THEIR CASES METICULOUSLY.

    I HAVE HALF A DOZEN DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE CLINCHING ONE, WHERE GSI GAVE THEIR FINAL REPLY TO DISPOSE MY DELAYED DPC GRIEVANCE BY LINKING IT TO THE OA 3590 OF 2015 ( this case seeks relief for 88 PETITIONERS of higher pension than maximum of FEEDER grade ).. GSI's ACTION was funny .. stating the matter is subjudice. wrt my personal grievance !!!!!!!!!

    Now court has to decide what is relevant and not relevant.. I AM SAVED OF FILING A DELAYED DPC OA......ALL MATERIAL IS NOW SUBMITTED THRU A REJOINDER / MA AND IS LINKED TO THE OA ..

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