SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD.
(REG.No.1126/2012)
(Affiliated To All
India Retired Railwaymen’s Federation)
Head office: Block No.303, Railway Colony High School,
Chilkalguda,
Secunderabad-500025.
President: General
Secretary Treasurer
V.SESHADRI. G.V.V.N.RAJU. M.SRINIVASULU.
9642164777 9652347477 9948089970
Letter
No. RPFPWA/SCR/2013
Date: 31-01-2013
To
Honorable
Minister of State,
Prime
Minister’s Office,
Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions, GOI,
North
Block, New Delhi-110001
Honoured
SIR,
Sub:
Representation from-V. Seshadri, Asst. Security Commissioner, RPF,
Waltair Division/East Coast Railway,
Visakhapatnam /Retired- senior's
Names dropped from the Inspectors/ASCs'
Ad hoc list and juniors given
Regularization and Promotion as Commandants/DSCs
in RPF –
Pray
justice and to remove Disparity and Anomaly - reg.
Ref:
1).Honorable PMO’s Office, New Delhi – Dy.No.2475/VIP/MOS (PP)/12
Dated 17-9-2012 ;(2)- PRSEC/E/2013/000152
dated 03-01-2013;
3).Honorable
President of India’s Secretariat, New Delhi –
Sl.No.P1/D/1407110087;( 4).Hon’ble
MR, Reg. No.MORLY/E/2012/03392 dated 31-
5-2012; and
5).Railway Board. Reg.No. MORLY/E/2013/00062
dated 03-01-2013.
<><><><><>
May
I take this opportunity to put forward my heartfelt happiness and to express
that highest Ministries, like PMO’s
Office-MOS(PP);President’s Secretariat; the Ministry of P, in India are taking
very prompt action on my representations/letters/Minutes reflected on the
subject referred to above and sending reply to me. Ironically, the same effect
is not forthcoming from the Railway Board, and/or from the Director General,
Railway Protection Force, New Delhi who are the ultimate authorities to decide
and issue Orders.
As
per the Dept. of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances, and Pensions, Office
Memorandum No. 22011/4/98-ESTT. (D), dated 12-10-1998, DPCs have to be
conducted in time, to promote and appoint the RPF Inspectors as ASCs, Group ‘A
‘ Cadre Posts. In the event of failure to conduct the same in time schedule,
due to any administrative delay, the names of those Inspectors/ ad hoc ASCs retired in the intervening period should find
place in the DPCs held in the later years against the post(s) as selected for
that year of vacancy, if need be, by preparing extended Panel(s). Though such
retired employees do not get actual promotion from the date of vacancy, they
are entitled to pro-forma fixation and benefits thereof, such as Railway passes,
pensionary benefits etc at par with their juniors and pay fixation/pension.
Unfortunately,
in sheer violation of the above Orders, ironically, joining hands with some vested interests at
the helm of affairs of RPF department , Railway Board, unscrupulously have wantonly
either delayed to conduct the DPCs , or by unduly misinterpreting the DoP&T
OM cited, not included the eligible retired Inspectors/AD HOC ASCs names in the
DPCs-Panel List(s) conducted in later years, with ulterior motive to suppress
actual promotions of the seniors in time, thereby benefitted the juniors of their choice, and thus, perpetrated great
injustice to the seniors, by illegal means and even by not adhering to the
Orders of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, and that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on
AD HOC issues cases to suit to their choice of management system.
As a result, even from 1990s to 2007, some
Inspectors/ ad hoc ASCs likely to be retired in the rank of ASCs/DSCs have
retired as Inspectors/ad hoc ASCs only. In my considered opinion, this injustice
continued till 2007 when myself and some other retired ASCs-ad hoc started
bringing above facts to the notice of all concerned. Suffice to mention their
state of mind on this issue, is the reply given in the RTI queries-- Railway Board, RTI Cell/RPF
Reply—Para-ii, iv, and v: of the Letter No. 2007/Sec (E)/RTI/2 dated
19/22-Sep/2008.(COPY ENCLOSED ALONG WITH DoP7T OM CITED ABOVE,WHICH IS
CONNECTED IN THE RTI CELL REPLY).
Despite
the fact that this matter has been highlighted in the Minutes of many meetings,
individual representations, and brought
to the notice of the officials of the Ministry of Railways; DoP&PW;
Honorable PMO’s Office; and the Honorable President’s Secretariat, no action to
remove this injustice and prepare a separate year wise Panel List(s) as per the
senior’s eligibility and place them above to the juniors who are/were already
been regularized and promoted to higher rank as Security Commissioners, RPF,
and fix pay/pension as per their entitlement. No action is taken yet and
therefore, it is still continued.
I am submitting this representation to YOUR
kind honor with a great hope and aspiration that some miracle can happen if
YOUR kind self give
some time-bound Order to the Railway Board, Director General for
submitting their Action Taken Report and
Reply on this issue, by which, I presume, the DG,RPF may have some impact and
revise the year wise DPC(s) Panel(s) lists of Asst. Security Commissioners’,
RPF- Group ’A’ Cadre Post, duly rectifying their error/mistake even by making
out extended Panels as detailed in the
DoP&T Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/98-Estt (D) dated 12-10-1998, and at
least from now onwards follow the DoP&T OMs on the issue of AD HOC
promotions; holding of DPCs in time schedule; and regularization and promotion
to higher ranks ,etc. This can happen only when YOUR kind honor direct them to scrupulously
follow and conduct DPCs for departmental RPF officers as per Orders of the GOI
unscrupulously and without misinterpretations, etc. and the seniors are
protected as per Law and Rules without suppression of promotions to them also
and treat them at par with the direct ASCs who are now promoted as DSCs,
immediately on completion of three years of service in the post of ASCs.
In brief, it is to submit that I have joined
the Railways, as Sub-Inspector, RPF in the year 1969, promoted and worked as
Inspector from 1983 to 2002. On promotion as Asst. Security Commissioner, RPF,
Group ‘A’ cadre Post, I was transferred to South Eastern Railway, worked there
till August,2003 and on transfer to East Coast Railway , on posting at the
Waltair Division, Visakhapatnam as ASC, RPF I worked till my retirement ,that
is, up to 31-8-2006, after serving the
Railways for over 37 years.
Kindly help me - all the other similarly
placed ASCs, RPF/now retired will be benefitted by your great gesture towards
them, and do the needful to get justice to one and all in this and to get
benefit of fixation of pension at par with their juniors.
Most respectfully and humbly, submitted for
kind consideration and Orders please.
Yours
faithfully,
Encl:
(-11- ).
(V.SESHADRI)
ADDRESS:
ASC/RPF/Retd.
V.SESHADRI,ASC/RPF/Retd.
H.No.24-147/4/2,
East Anandbagh,
MALKAJGIRI,
Secunderabad-500047.
List of EnclL1).Minutes of the Meeting of the RPFPWA,SCR,SC dated 12-01-13;(2)PMO’s
Office,MOS(PP)Ltr.No.Dy.No.2475/VIP/MOS(PP)/12dated27-9-12;(3)President’s-Secretariat-Sl.No.P1/D/1407110087
dated 14-7-12;(4)Ltr.No.PRSEC/E/2013/000152 dated 02-01-13;(5) RTI Cell/Rly.Bd.
Reply Ltr.No. 2007/Sec(E)/RTI/2 dated 19/22-9-2008;(6) DoP&T- OM
No.22011/4/98-Estt.(D) dated 12-10-1998;(7) My Ltrs. dated 26-11-12; 16-10-12
submitted to Hon’ble MR; and (8) My letter dated 24-01-2013 submitted to
Hon’ble the President of India.
(A):
Railway
Board, RTI Cell/RPF Reply—Para-ii, iv, and v: of the Letter No. 2007/Sec (E)/RTI/2
dated 19/22-Sep/2008-(copy enclosed): (1).Sri. GnanaSambandham, ASC/RPF/AD HOC since 1991
retired in June, 2004- (Names of the retired employee dropped by quoting the
DoP&T OM No. 22011/4/98-Estt (D) dated 12-10-1998);
(2).
While the actual meaning is very clear to include the
names of the retired employees also in the DPC Panel List(s), even by making out extended
Panels, the interpretation of the DoP&T OM No.
22011/4/98-Estt (D) dated 12-10-1998 by RPF Directorate, Railway Board is reflected in
the following Para. This clearly reflects the minds and determination of the
vested interests sitting at the Railway Board level who are stage managing
entire affairs at the Railway Board level even by misdirecting the other higher
officials the UPSC, the Honorable President of India’s Secretariat, and getting
sanction and approval of their choice Panel(s) names lists duly dropping the
names of the retired RPF Inspectors/ad hoc ASCs by making out delayed DPCs to eliminate
the eligible person’s names out of the list/s on this pretext of retirement.
“…the DPC recommendations were given effect to from 04-06-2004. Since Shri.
Gnanasambandham (DOB-12-03-1944) had ceased to be in service as on 04-06-2004, the promotion order in his case
was not issued, in terms of DOP&T’s instruction contained in its OM No.
22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated 12-10-1998…”;
What a typical type of
interpretation made to suit to their choice of inclusion and the same is being
followed for the last 3 decades in RPF.
In addition to the above, it seems , the RPF, Railway Board, as
Respondents in one of the case filed by the above named have also submitted the
same (above ) information to the Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad, which if you require, we can get from him…
(B). DoP&T OM No. 22011/4/98-Estt.(D)
dated 12-10-1998—very imp. Minutely read…
|
Prescribed
period of Ad-hoc service in Central Government...
Prescribed period of Ad-hoc service in Central Government
Services…The
period prescribed for ad hoc service under the Central Government and rules
laid down for making ad hoc service permanent…The total period for which the
appointment/promotion may be made, on adhoc basis, is limited to one year. In
case there are compulsions for extending any adhoc appointment/promotion
beyond one year, the approval of the Department of Personnel & Training
has to be sought. Also, the Department of Personnel & Training has
delegated powers to the administrative Ministries/Departments for appointing
the officials of Group ‘C’ and erstwhile Group ‘D’ posts on ad-hoc basis upto
a period of three years, in consideration of exigency of work.
As
per the extant policy of the Government, all posts are to be filled in
accordance with provisions of the applicable Recruitment Rules.
Promotions/appointments on ad-hoc basis are resorted to in exceptional
circumstances, to a post which cannot be kept vacant in consideration of its
functional/operational requirement. Such ad-hoc appointees have to be
replaced with regular incumbents, selected in accordance with procedure
prescribed in the relevant applicable statutory Recruitment Rules, at the
earliest. In view of this, there is no requirement of making ad-hoc service
permanent.
The
above information was submitted as a written reply to a question in the
Parliament by the Minister Shri.V.Narayanasamy
III:
(A).
DoP&T
OM No. 28036/8/87-Esst. (D) dated
30-3-1998: AD HOC Appointments through promotions will be subject to the
overall restriction of one year. Ad hoc appointments through promotions made
on seniority-cum-suitability by “Selection” after proper screening by the
Appointment Authority, if made, will be limited to one year only. Beyond one
year, approval of the DoP&T to be obtained in advance of two months
before completion of one year of ad hoc service…
For
example: in the CSS posts made on ad hoc arrangements, the DoP&T vide
Order No. 5/11/2006-CS-II(C) dated 13-01-2012 issued letter and given
approval and permission for extending such ad hoc continuance in the CSS
posts…
III
(B).DoP&T OM No. 28036/1/2001-Estt.(D) dated 23-7-2001- Ad hoc
appointments and continuation beyond one year;
III(C).DoP&T
OM No. 39021/1/94-estt.(B) dated 22-7-1994; OM No.28036/3/97-Estt.(D) dated
17-2-1998- reporting of ad hoc appointments to the UPSC-Orders reiterated in
OM NO. 39036/02/2007-Estt. (B) dated 14-11-2008…
IV:
Supreme
Court Judgments:
1):
Prem Devi Vs. Delhi Admn.—SCC-SLPL-1989ATLJ 330 (or check up for 730) dated
17-4-1989…
The
facts as are not in dispute the case of one of the employees having been
decided by the Court it was expected that, without resorting to any of the
methods, the other employees identically placed would have been given the
same benefits which would have avoided not only un-necessary litigation but
also of the waste of time and the movement of files and papers which only
waste public time..”
2).
Yanamandra Guananada Sharma Vs. Union of India and others— 1991 (2) ATJ 123
(Calcutta)—30-5-1991.
“… We have noticed that, in spite of
several judgments of the Tribunal and confirmation of the said decisions by
the Supreme Court, the respondents, the Union of India are sticking to their
own views & are not extending the benefits of decided cases to the
persons similarly circumstanced until they are constrained to move the Tribunal.
In short, the respondents are indirectly fomenting unnecessary litigations
and wasting public money, making it prestige issue. This attitude of the
respondents is deplorable and we express our deep displeasure over the same. The respondents as model
employers are expected to take reasonable attitude and rational view of the
whole thing and to act according to settled law of the land instead of bittering
the relationship of the master and servant in this manner. We expect in
future, respondents (Govt.) will behave rationally as a model employer
instead of driving the desperate employee to take to legal recourse. All
decisions of this type should be treated as judgments in rem and be applied
to the persons similarly circumstanced…””… as we are opinion that the
respondents could have prevented this unnecessary litigation by themselves
extending the benefits to the applicant as prayed by him, by treating earlier
decisions on this issue as judgments in rem, which they actually are, we
direct the respondents to pay the assessed costs of Rs.1000 to the
applicant.”
|
||||
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE No.:Appeal (civil) 4222 of 2006
PETITIONER: Union of India & Anr.
RESPONDENT:Tarsen Lal & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/09/2006
BENCH:ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:J U D G M E N T(Arising out of SLP (C) No.
23021 of 2005)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Union of India and its functionaries call in
question correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellants and affirming
the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,
Chandigarh (in short the ’CAT’). Background facts in a nutshell are as
follows :
Respondent filed the Original Application claiming
that he was entitled to pay and
allowance from the date on which proforma promotion was given and not from
the date of actual promotion. Appellants relied on circular dated 15/17
September, 1964 to contend that the claim was untenable.
According to CAT the only question which was to be
decided was whether the respondent was entitled for his pay and allowance
from August, 2001 on which date he was actually promoted as M.C.M. or with
effect from 9.9.1997 from which date he has been given promotion on proforma
basis. Appellants denied him the
arrears with effect from 9.9.1997 on the ground that he has not worked on the
promotional post during the said period and as such he was not entitled for
the revised pay from that date. Reliance was placed on paragraph
228 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (in short ’IREM’) Volume I dealing
with employees who have lost promotion on account of administrative error. It
inter alia provides that in such cases the pay should be fixed on proforma
basis and the enhanced pay was to be allowed from the date of actual
promotion and no arrears on this account was to be paid for the past period
as he did not actually perform duties and responsibilities of the higher
post. The
Tribunal relying on a decision of this Court in Harbans Singh v. State of
Punjab and Others (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 471) held that the stand was
unsustainable. Tribunal’s order was assailed before the High Court.
The High Court as noted above dismissed the writ
petition relying on the judgment in Harbans Singh’s case
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA .
Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the view of the Tribunal as affirmed
by the High Court does not reflect the correct position in law. Para 228 of IREM was pressed into service
to contend that the Tribunal or the High Court in the instant case did not
express any view on the legality of the provision. The CAT and the High Court merely relied on
Harbans Singh’s case (supra) without indicating as to how the factual scenario
of that case has any application to the facts of the present case. There is
no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice. Para 228 of
IREM reads as follows:"228. Erroneous Promotions \026 (I). Sometimes
due to administrative errors, staff are over looked for promotion to higher
grades could either be on account or wrong assignment of relative seniority
of the eligible at the time of ordering promotion or some other reasons. Broadly, loss of seniority due to the
administrative errors can be of two types:-i. Where a person has not been
promoted at all because of administrative error, and ii. Where a person has
been promoted but not on the date from which he would have been promoted but
for the administrative error.Each such case should be dealt with on its
merits. The staff who have lost
promotion on account of administrative error should on promotion be assigned
correct seniority vis-‘-vis their juniors already promoted, irrespective of
the date of promotion. Pay in the higher grade on promotion may be fixed
proforma at the proper time. The
enhanced pay may be allowed from the date of actual promotion. No arrears on this account shall be payable
as he did not actually shoulder the duties and responsibilities of the higher
posts." This
court has occasion to deal with the same issue in Union of India and Ors. v.
P.O. Abraham and Ors. in C.A. 8904 of 1994 decided on 13.8.1997. In that case the appeal was filed against
the order of the Ernakulam Bench of CAT. Reliance was placed by the Union of
India and its Functionaries in that case on Railway Board’s Circular dated
15/17 September, 1964 which inter alia provided as follows: "No arrears
on this account shall be payable as he did not actually shoulder the duties
and responsibilities of the higher post. "
One Bench of CAT held that clause to be
invalid. But in Virender Kumar,
General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi
v. Avinash Chandra Chadha and
Others (1990(3) SCC http://JUDIS.NIC.IN
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3 472) the view was held to be not
correct. The order in Abraham’s case (supra) reads as follows: "This
appeal is directed against the order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in O.A.No.
649/90 dated 30th September, 1991. Though the appeal challenges the order in
its entirety. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the appellants, fairly
stated that the appeal is now confined only to the payment of back-wages
ordered to be given by the Tribunal. By the order under appeal, the Tribunal
has allowed the application which challenged the Railway Board Circular dated
15/17 September, 1964. The said Circular inter alia, contains the following
clause: "No arrears on this account shall be payable as he did not
actually shoulder the duties and responsibilities of the higher posts."
Consequent to the deletion of the above clause,
further directions were given. Learned counsel submits that the clause, which
has been directed to be removed, is in accordance with the judgment of this
Court in Virender Kumar, General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi V.
Avinash Chandra Chadha & Ors. (1990 (2) SCR 769). This Court, in that
case, held on principle of ’no work no pay’ that the respondents will not be entitled to the higher
salary as they have not actually worked in that post. The clause, which has
been directed to be deleted by the Tribunal, being in consonance with the
ruling of this Court, we are of the
opinion that the Tribunal was not right in directing the deletion of that
clause.
Accordingly, to that extent this appeal is allowed. The
result is that the respondents will be given deemed promotion, if any, before
retirement and also the benefit in the matter of fixing pension. No costs."
In view of what has been stated in Virendra’s case
(supra) and P.O. Abraham’s case (supra), Tribunal and the High Court were not
justified in granting relief to the respondent. Reliance on Harbans Singh’s case (supra)
was uncalled for. The orders are set aside. The appeal is allowed but in the
circumstances without any orders as to costs.
<><><><><><>
V: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad- W.P. No. 971/1980—
Judgment
dated 17-9-1982.--- L.N.Malgattikar, A.P.Purnanadam Vs. UOI and others—
“… I do not consider the ground of delay urged
by the Railways as valid ground to be taken note of. In the absence of such
third party objections, I hold that no third party interests have intervened
that would prevent the grant of relief to the petitioners against
un-constitutional orders. Secondly in the matters of petitioners’’ rights
guaranteed under article 16 this court should not normally accept what
Bhagwati J., called this jejune objection and allow fundamental rights to be
whisked away. Violation of fundamental rights by the State should be repaired
unless the innocent third party interests suffer. No such third party
appeared before me. I therefore reject this argument also …”
”… The writ is allowed as
indicated above. No costs…”
|
SECURITY DIRECTORATE/RPF: SECURITY
(E)
1. Deputation of police officers and
military officers in the R.P.F
below the rank of administrative
officers.
2. Re-employment of Police and
military officers in the R.P.F. below
the rank of administrative officers.
3. Terms and conditions of deputation
and re-employment of
military and police officers in the
R.P.F. in Class-III posts.
4. Rules and Regulations governing
the R.P.F. administration on
Railways, i.e., recruitment, training
and promotion, etc.
5. Discipline and appeal rules
applicable to R.P.F.
6. Appeals and Petitions from R.P.F.
staff (I.G. being the
appellate/reviewing authority for
R.P.F. staff).
7. Training of R.P.F. personnel in
R.P.F. Training Schools and
National Fire Service College,
Nagpur, and other Police Training
Schools/Centres.
8. Inter-Railway transfers of R.P.F.
Staff and transfers within
Railways.
9. Tours and Inspection Notes by I.G.
and other superior officers.
10. Annual Administration Reports.
11. Complaints against superior
officers of R.P.F.
12. Cash Rewards etc. and sanction
thereof to R.P.F.
13. Promotion/Selection of Class-III
posts in R.P.F. and formation of
panels thereof.
14. Training of Assistant Security
Officers in the Police Training
College, Moradabad. 15. Constitution
of Selection
Board/Examination Boards and
according approval to selection
proceedings.
16. Setting up of Libraries at R.P.F.
Training Schools, Centres; legal
assistance to R.P.F. personnel in a
suit or proceedings against
them for any act done in the discharge
of their duties.
******
No comments:
Post a Comment