To
Date: 21-02-2013
The Director – Cum- DIG, RPF,
Office of the DG, RPF,
Railway Protection Force,
Railway Board, Rail Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001
(For
special attention of Sri. Anand Vijay Jha, Director-
cum- DIG,RPF please)
///Through proper Channel—through Sr.DSC,
RPF, Waltair Division,VSKP
and IG-CUM-CSC,RPF,East Coat Railway,
BBS///
Honoured SIR,
Sub: Representation from-V.Seshadri, Asst. Security Commissioner, RPF-
Retired- Senior’s names dropped from the Inspectors/ASCs' Ad hoc lists
and juniors given regularization and Promotion as Commandants/DSCs in
RPF –Pray justice and Remove Disparity and Anomaly – reg.
Ref: 1). IG-Cum-CSC,RPF,East Coast Railway,BBS Ltr.No.RPF/ECoR/E/08-
03/491 dated 28-01-2013;2). IG-Cum-CSC,RPF,East Coast Railway,BBS
Ltr.No.RPF/ECoR/E/08-03/4489 dts.05-9-2012;3). Railway Board Ltr.No.
2012/Sec(E)/RTI-243 dated 20-12-2012- &2012/Sec(E)/RTI-260
dtd.08-01-13:ID No.29371 &
29387;
<><><><><>
In
continuation to my letters on the matter, and in reference to above, it is to
submit that as per DoP&T, OM No. 22011/4/98-ESTT. (D), dated 12-10-1998, in the event of failure to conduct
the DPCs in time, due to administrative difficulty, delay, and if the DPCs are
held in later years to fill up the vacancies of previous years, the names of
those Inspectors/ ad hoc ASCs retired in the intervening period should find
place in the DPCs Panel Lists even by preparing extended Panel(s), if necessary.
Railway Board vide Notification No. E(O) I
/2004 /SR-6/17 dated 05-02-2010 circulated ‘ Inter-Se’ seniority list of direct
ASCs and Departmental promote ASCs showing them as regularized by the DPC for
the years 2003 to 2006- duly dropping the names of the retired ASC’s ad hoc.-
the juniors were later promoted as DSCs …who are most juniors to the retired
ASCs-ad hoc… like me.
But for delay in
holding the DPCs in later years, that is, held in May 2009 to fill up vacancies
of 2003-2006,etc,and by not following the Orders of the GOI cited above by the
DPCs and by dropping the names of the seniors on the plea that they are retired
and inducted juniors ‘ names in their place, the seniors lost pension benefits;
the Railway Board also not honored the Judgment Order of the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in W.P.(C) 12612 to 12615 of 2004 dated 07-02-2006 directed the
Respondent’s –UOI, Railway Board, etc.,
to hold Review DPC on or before 15-4-2006 and to give consequential
benefits to the Petitioners. In this connection, I have submitted my
representation also but no reply received.
The Apex Court and several High Courts also in its judgments’/Orders
have categorically depicted to apply its Orders even to the employees who are
not the petitioners in the Writ Petitions who are found to be in similarly
placed circumstances as that of Petitioners’. I have earlier submitted several letters since
about six-seven years on this issue, but no reply received so far. To cite
latest areL1).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).Hon’ble-President-of-India’s-Secretariat,S.No.P1/D/1407110087
(4).HonorableMR/Reg.No.MORLY/E/2012/03392
Dated31-5-2012; and a score of letters; Minutes of the
RPFPWA,SCR,SC;&(5).Railway Board. Reg.
No. MORLY/E/2013/00062 dated 03-01-2013. The same please be connected.
Copies of connected letters/documents are enclosed for favour of kind
perusal and to do justice please.
Thanking you Sir,
Yours faithfully,
(V.SESADRI)
ASC/RPF/Retd.
Address: V.Seshadri,ASC.RPF/Retd.,
# 24-147/4/2,East Anandbagh,
MALKAJGIRI,Secunderabad-500047.
1). 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…”; With
this typical type of interpretation made by the Railway Board, DG,RPF, to suit
to their choice of inclusion of juniors and exclusion of seniors’ names from
the DPCs Panel Lists, the DoP&T Orders were side-lined. These Orders have
been misinterpreted otherwise and the names senior employees/retired have been
wantonly dropped from the seniority lists also on the plea that they have since
retired from service and in their places juniors are regularized and promoted
to the rank of DSCs.
2). The earlier seniority
lists of Inspectors, Grade-I published in 2001, and others updated on 28-2-2005
and 04-8-2006 have not been finalized to fill up the vacancies of ASCs on
regular basis and further promotion as DSCs as arose during the period from 1990s
to 2007. All the Inspectors- Grade-I were in service during the period from
1983 to 2007. Further, the Railway Board, have published yet another seniority
list dated 19-4-2012, of Inspectors/AD HOC ASCs for the years from 1983 to 2009
for regularization of ad hoc ASCs and for promotion to the rank of DSC. The
names of the ad hoc ASCs have been dropped in the above list. The Inspectors/ad
hoc ASSCs/ retired have also lodged representations under Rule 102, but no
reply received so far. (Rule 102- Representation against assignment of
seniority);
On 04-8-2006 Railway Board
published a seniority list of Inspectors/ ad ASCs for regular promotion to the
post of ASCs. Without finalizing the names of Inspectors of 1,983/Grade-1 of
1991 batch, and by suppressing the above list, they have made out another list
on 19-4-2012 duly dropping the names of the retired persons and promoted
juniors in place of seniors on the plea that the seniors have since been
retired on the date/year when the OPCs were held in 2009: My name stands at
serial number 101 in the List of 04-8-2006, while the names of my juniors like,
S/Sri. K.Laxma Nayak (Sr.No.113), K.V.Babu (143), K.J.Joy (170), and a score of
others have been promoted to the rank of DSC duly sidelining the senior's names
like me.
In addition, Railway Board, DG, RPF also
found to have adopted their own methodology and adopted wrong application of
Law and Rules in not conducting regular DPCs as laid down in the DoP&T
several OMs, RPF Rules, RPF Act, UPSC Orders, and that of the Honorable Supreme
Court different High Courts' Orders on the issue of ad hoc continuance beyond
one year, .etc .This clearly indicate personal interests providing promotional
chances to the direct ASCs on completion of three years, and other vested interests,
etc and aimed to drop the names of the seniors only to bring-in the names of
junior in their place. This fact may even attract contempt of court.
2). Rules framed and implemented shall
have the effect of Law under Articles-14, 16, 235 and 309, unless and until
it is duly amended; it is binding on the government and its action in matters
cove red by the Rules must be regulated by the Rules; thus violation of such
Rules without amendments may attract action under provisions penal laws,
contempt of court etc.
3). (A). Had the Railway Board, implemented the
Judgment/Order dated 07-02-2006 of the Honorable High Court of Delhi in WP
(C) 12612 to 12615 of 2004, in time, on or before 15-4-2006, my name would
have been listed in the Panel List for the vacancy period of 2002-2007 by the
DPC, and seniors too could have retired as DSC, like their juniors and would
have legitimate Pensionary benefits.
This clearly indicate
failure of the Railway Board, DG,RPF to Honor the High Court’s Order and this
may tantamount to contempt of Court Orders.
(B): The Honorable Supreme
Courts' Judgment Order dated 02-5-2011, in SLP-Appeal (Civil) in W P No.14263
of 2004 in the Honorable High Court of Delhi envisaged - to effect promotion
from the date of eligibility and to extend this facility to all who are in
similarly placed situation and to give similar treatment, even though they are
not the Petitioners. The same principle may kindly be applied herein also
in my case.
(C): The Hon'ble High Court of
Madras, while dismissing the Writ Appeal No.538/2012 in W.P. No.16572 of 1998
filed by the Union of India, Railway Board, DG/RPF and others in its Judgment
Order dated 12-6-2012 upheld the judgment delivered in WP No.16572/1998
Directing the Appellants to consider the Seniority list within the fixed
time... Relief must be given to all the Petitioners since at the time of
filing of WP; they were very much in service.....
WE
have submitted our representations to DG, RPF but no action or reply received
from Railway Board.
(D).
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
4). DoP&T OM No. 28036/1/2001-Estt. (D) dated
23-7-2001- Ad hoc appointments and continuation beyond one year;
5). 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…
6).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.”
3. S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS-
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV-I.A.No.3 In Petition(s) for Special Leave to
Appeal (Civil)No(s).13133/2011-(From the judgement and order dated 05/10/2010
in WP No.14263/2004 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)-UNION OF INDIA
& ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS S.K.MURTI Respondent(s)-(With appln(s) for
directions and office report)-Date: 30/10/2012 This I.A. was called on for
hearing and Judgment/Order Pronounced: Learned counsel for the applicant says
that his client may be permitted to withdraw the I.A. with liberty to avail
other remedies. The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the I.A. is
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made.
4. S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A-RECORD
OF PROCEEDINGS- ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV-I.A.No.2 In Petition(s) for
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13133/2011-(From the judgement and order
dated 05/10/2010 in WP No. 14263/2004 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N.
DELHI)-UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS-S.K.MURTI
Respondent(s)-(With appln(s) for extension of time and office report):
Date of
Judgement: 26/07/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing and Judgment/Order Pronounced: In our view, the applicants have miserably failed to make out
a case for entertaining the prayer for extension of time. The application is
accordingly dismissed.
Since
the petitioners have failed to comply with the order passed by the High Court
and the direction given by this Court, let notice
of contempt be issued to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Government of India, New Delhi to show cause as to why proceedings may not be
initiated against him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, returnable on
26.08.2011.
5). S U P R
E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A:
2007AIR259, 2006(6) Suppl. SCR456, 2006(10) SCC145, 2006(9) SCALE485,
2006 (12) JT331: CASE No.: Appeal (civil) 4222 of
2006; PETITIONER: Union of India & Anr. ; RESPONDENT: Tarsen Lal &
Ors.; JUDGMENT: 21/09/2006
“… 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…” ”… 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."…
6).
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…”
7. Constitutional guaranteed Fundamental
Rights, Privileges, Status, Dignity of Senior Citizens denied: RPF-ASCs AD HOC
for more than one year- Injustice done-Justice Prayed, but denied, and buried
by the Ministry of Railways/RPF: connected and concerned Case Laws and the
Constitutional Provisions:
Promotions and protection of
seniority: (Article 309)-
Where a person entitled to
promotion under a Statutory Rule was unlawfully denied consideration, he would
be entitled to be considered for promotion with retrospective effect and his
seniority would also be re fixed on that basis. In such a case, those who,
would be affected by such Order cannot complain of discrimination, but the
court may issue suitable directions to avoid hardships to them (1- Ram Vs State
of U.P; AIR (1991) SC 1818 (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 114;(1991) 17 ATC 346; 2-
R.M.Ramaual Vs State of H.P. ;(1991) Supp.1 SCC 198: AIR (1991)SC 1171(1991)
Cri.LJ 1415-Para-3);
8. Rules framed shall have the effect of
Law- Constitute Law-(Articles-14,16,235,309):
A Rule made in exercise of the power under
the proviso to Article 309, Constitute Law within the meaning of Article 235; (
without violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution);
So long as a Rule framed under Article 309
is not duly amended, it is binding on the Government and its action in matter
covered by the Rules must be regulated by the Rules: ( 1-Bhatnagar Vs UOI;
(1991) 1 SCC 544; (1991) 16 ATC 501; (1991) 1 SLR 191; (1991)1 CLR 70-Para-13;
2-bansal Vs UOI; AIR (1993) SC 978; (1992 Supp.(2) SCCC 318; (1992) 21 ATC –
503; (1992) 4 SLR 445-Para-21);
9. Effect of continuous officiating-(Ad
Hoc arrangements for long period-number of years)- (Article309):
Even where the Order of appointment
may have stated that the appointment was temporary or stop gap, etc.,yet, where it is
established that the appointee has been working in that post for a long
period-number of years without break in service, the Court, may apply “
Principle of Continuous Officiation” and hold that he appointee be deemed to
have been regularized. (1-Nayar Vs UOI; AIR (1992) SC 1574;(1992) supp.(2)
SCC508;(1992) 21 ATC 695; 2-state of Haryana Vs Piara; AIR (1992) SC 2130;
(1992) 4 SCC 118; (1992) 21 ATC 403 (1992)Lab IC 2168-Para-12);
10. Effect of delay in holding
selections(DPCs)- ( Article 309);-5 cases:
A subsequent restructuring of the service or delay in holding the
selection for which the employee was not responsible cannot take away his
seniority for promotion; Nirmal Vs UOI;(1991) Supp.2 SCC 363-Para-4-6);
2-W.P.No:15143/1990 of Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh ‘Judgment-Order’
dated 26-3-1998- in Jaigopal Singh/RPF Vs CSC/RPF and Others- Cause - On Admn.
Delays-restoration of seniority and retrospective promotion even after
retirement from SI to ASC/RPF-Group ’A’ Cadre Post/ rank with all consequential
benefits;(3):W.P.No:4722/1985 of Honourable High Court of Andhra
Pradesh-‘Judgment-Order’- in Mir Moihiuddin/RPF Vs CSC/RPF and Others –Cause-
On Administrative Delays-restoration of seniority and retrospective promotion
from SI to ASC/RPF rank with all consequential benefits; (4):W.P.No:6631/2002
and WPMP No.9156/2002-Judgement/Order- Honourable High Court of Madras...contain”…it
has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the DPC should sit for every
year regularly before the appointed date and that the case of eligible
candidates within the one of consideration should be dealt with…” ;
11.Effect of wrong application of Rules
or without any reasonable ground – (Article-309):
The Court may direct
the competent Authority to place the employee in the higher grade with effect
from the date when his junior was placed therein, with consequential monetary
benefits ;( Dharam Vs Administrator; (1991) 17 ATC 925;AIR (1991)SC 1924; (1991)
Supp.(2) SCC 635; (1991) Lab IC 1695-Para-4);
12. Interpretation of Rules-
‘Appointment date ; Confirmation/ Regularizations’; ‘seniority’- (
Article-309);
When a person is
‘appointed’ to a post according to the Rules, his seniority is to be counted
from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his
confirmation /regularization; (1- Bhatnagar Vs UOI; (1991)1 SCC 544; (1991) 16
ATC 501; (1991) 1 SLR 191; (1991) 1 LLN 1 – Para-8-12; 2- direct Recruit Class
–II Engg.Officers’ Assn. Vs State of Maharastra; (1990) 2 SCC 715; AIR (1990)
SC 1607; (1990)13 ATC 348-Para-47l 3- (1990) 2 SCJ 377-Para-13; (1990) 2 SCC
715; (1990) 13 ATC 348; AIR (1991)SC 1607 (CB);
13.Temporary or ad hoc service: (
Article-309);
The State, should not keep a
person in a temporary or adhoc service for long period; ( for a number of
years). It should take steps for his regularization-(Deharwad District PWD
Literate daily Wage Employees’ Assn. Vs State of Karnataka;(1990) 2 SCC 396;AIR
(1990)SC 883; (1990) Lab IC 625-Para-23);
14. LIABILITY OF OFFICERS-(Articles-32,
14;16;309):
1.Bureaucracy is also accountable
for the acts done illegally, when the Court exercises Judicial Review:(State of
Bihar Vs Subhash Singh-AIR (1997) SC 1390-Para-3;(1997) 4 SCC 430);
2.‘ACTIONABLE WRONG-‘APPLICATION OF
DOCTRINE OF parens patriae’;
Where the Petitioners’ Fundamental
Rights’ are impaired by Legislation or Rules or ‘Government Orders’ , the
Court’s can interfere even if it is a matter concerning service; (
article-32;14;16;309);
(1. FCI workers Vs FCI- AIR (1990)-SC 2178; (1990) Supp.SCC 296; (1990)
4 SCR 745; 2. S.M.Mukharjee Vs UOI- AIR
(1990)SC1984; (1990) 4 SCC 594; (1990) Cri.LJ 2148; 3. Shesharao Vs Govindrao; AIR (1991) SC 76; (1991) Supp.(1)
SCC 367; (1991) 16 ATC-938; (1991) 2 LLJ 109-Para-3);
15. A Rule operates prospectively unless
it is made retrospective by express provision or by necessary Intendment- (Article-309);
(Mahendram Vs State of Karnataka; AIR (1990) SC 405- Para-5; 2.
N.T.Bevin Katti Vs Karnatak PSC- AIR
(1990) SC 1233; (1990) 3 SCC (1990) Lab IC 1009-Para-13);
|
16. Ministry of Personnel, PG and
Pensions, D/o Personnel & Training,
|
|
Establishment- Important OMs-
on promotion and appointment in Group ’A’ cadre Posts in RPF on Ad-hoc basis,
continuation without regularization for more than one year, names of Retired
Ad-hoc officers dropped from the Panel Lists, etc.
|
1) OM No.28036/1/2001-Estt.(D)
dated 23-7-2001:
Ad-hoc appointment and continuation beyond one year:
(PARA-7): Continuation of an adhoc
appointment beyond one year will, as per
existing instructions, continue to require the Prior approval of D o P&T as
before; (PARA-8): This Order takes effect from the date of its issue; (PARA-9):
All Ministries/Departments are requested to bring these Instructions to all
concerned for guidance and Compliance;
2) OM No.39036/02/2007-Estt.(B) dated
14-11-2008- and OM NO.39021/1/94-Estt.(B) dated 22-7-1994: Reporting of adhoc
appointments to the UPSC-Orders reiterated:
Reporting of adhoc
appointments on Group’A’ and Group’B’ Cadre Posts , which is likely to continue
for a period of more than one year from the date of appointment,
Ministries/Departments to ensure to furnish monthly and six monthly Returns to
UPSC as per the time schedule
prescribed;
3) OM No.28036/3/97-Estt.(D) dated
17-02-1998- Reporting of adhoc appointments to the D o P&T-Orders reiterated:
Adhoc appointments
made and continued beyond one year , to be got approved by the D o
P&T- for pay and allowance, etc.;
4) OM No.28036/8/87-Estt.(D) dated
303-1988:Adhoc appointments through promotions will be subject to the overall
restriction of one year:
Adhoc 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 D o P&T to be obtained in advance
of two months before completion of one year of adhoc service;
Adhoc appointments through promotions will be
subject to the overall restriction of one year;
Example: On reference as per the OM
above, Order No.5/11/2006-CS-II(C) dated 13-01-2012- D o P&T issued: given
approval and permission for extending such adhoc continuance in CSS posts;
5) OM
No.22011/4/98-Estt. (D) Dated 12-10-1998- PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE DPCs
IN REGARD TO RETIRED EMPLOYEED NAMES IN THE PANEL LISTS:
Para-2: Consideration of employees who
have since retired but would also have been considered, for promotion if the
DPCs for the relevant year(s) had been held in time;
Para-3: After examining the matter with the
Ministry of Law( Dept.of Legal Affairs),it may be pointed out in this regard
that there is no specific bar in the afore said OM dated 10-4-1989 or any other
related instructions of the D O P&T 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
their relevant year(s) but are not actually in service when the DPC is being
held, are not considered while preparing year –wise zone of consideration/Panel
and, consequently their juniors are considered, (in their place), 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 netunl promotion. The DPC(s), may, if need be,
prepare extended Panel(s) following the principles prescribed in the D o
P&T, OM No. 22011/8/87-Estt.(D) dated 09-4-1996;
Para-4: Ministries/Departments are
requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all concerned including
their attached and subordinate offices;
(Note) : (1): This OM is also copied to U P
S C, Dholpur House, Shahjehan Road, New Delhi-110011 for infn, N/A).;
(2): OM
No.22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10-4-1989 – contain the consolidated instructions
on DPCs – Provisions made in Para-6.4.1- lay down procedure for preparation
of year wise Panel(s), where for reasons beyond control, DPCs could not be held
for the year(s) even through vacancies arose during the year(s).
6) OM No.35035/7/97-Estt. (D) Dated
16-02-2005- DPC guide lines- No suppressions in promotions:
|
7)
OM No. 22011/9/98-Estt. (D)-Pt. dated 21-9-2006- earlier OM No. Even
dated 08-9-1998 reiterated- Procedure to be adopted by the DPCs – Model
Calendar for DPCs and related matters;
17).
|
MERCY
APPEAL- PRAY INTERVENTION- DO JUSTICE and TO REMOVE-ANOMALY UNDER PARA-222 (c)
OF IREM – I, V.Seshadri, Inspector, RPF-Grade-I of 1991 Batch got promoted and
appointed to the rank of Assistant Security Commissioner, (ASC) - RPF in June,
2002 duly approved by the Ministry of Railways. I have worked continuously,
without any break against clear & existing post up to 31-8-2006/till
retirement. The Order made by the RPF Directorate, Railway Board however, cited
the promotion as ‘AD HOC’. But for the reasons to be explained by them, they
did not conducted the DPCs in the Scheduled intervals as envisaged by the
Railway Board Orders/Notifications; and of the DoP&T; not even followed the
IREM Rules framed on the continuation of the AD HOC postings beyond one year;
also made a deaf ear on the Orders/Directions of the Honorable Supreme Court,
the Hon’ble High Courts delivered in different Writ Petitions filed by RPF
officers etc. RPF Directorate, the Railway Board also not adhered to the
Notifications and gone against the principles contained in the Standing
Orders issued Vide D o & P T- OM No:22011/4/98-Estt(D) dt. 12-10-1998,
thereby they have wantonly ignored to include my name in the Panel lists- for
the vacancies arises for the years from 2002-2006, later declared in 2009, by
which time(2002-2006), I was working as ASC, not retired then.I am ASC
appointee of 2002, and hail from 1991 Inspector-Grade-I Batch, but by dropping
my name brought out my juniors names in the Regularisation Panel, got approval
of the President of India, and then promoted them to the rank of DSC duly
throwing me down to earth on the ground that I have retired . This type of
colluded methodology followed even from the year 1991 onwards up to 2010
against the departmental AD HOC ASCs/RPF, made them to retire, and /or
conducted DPCs at their choice date and convenience year only to regularise the
juniors and then promote them to the rank of DSCs to next higher scale. This can
be got verified from the number of DPCs held for the years from 1990 to 2010,
the Year wise Panel Lists made out, by getting the total names of year wise ASCs/RPF worked for
1990-2010; also to see if the names of the retired ad hoc ASCs were included or
not. This Petition is filed for mercy consideration at least to have financial
Pension benefits to me and to the retired RPF/ASCs and their family
Pensioners/members. This ANOMALY ARISED ONLY DUE TO dropping their names from
the PANEL lists by holding belated held DPCs in RPF; they indulged in Violation
of Constitutional FR, Human Rights; Hon’ble Supreme Court, Different High
Court’s Orders, Judgments, Directions issued to RPF Directorate, Railway Board,
time and again, for holding time schedule DPCs, to regularize the AD HOC ASCs,
but they did not obeyed the same. They side lined these Orders/Directions, and
other Notifications of the DoP&T, Ministry of Pensions, PG&PW, UPSC,
Railways issued under IREM, in regard to AD HOC promotions and appointment in Group
’A’ Cadre Posts in RPF etc. RPF Directorate and the Railway Board continued
atrocities and irregularities, mischief acts against ASCs and in departmental
promotions to the rank of DSCs. My Representation/Petition pending since years,
even without acknowledgement - Pray intervention and do justice.
18).IMPORTANT RULES
NOTIFICATIONS,ETC APPARTAINING TO AD HOC /OFFICIATING ARRANGEMENTS IN THE GROUP ‘A’ CADRE POSTS IN THE RPF DEPARTMENT OF
THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD- REG:
(A): Railway Board vide Notification No.
E(O) I /2004 /SR-6/17 dated 16-11-2004 circulated ‘ Inter-se’ seniority
list of direct ASCs and Departmental promote ASCs showing them as regularized
by the DPC with effect from 04-6-2004, where in the names of the retired ASCs
also included as per its FOOT NOTE made at serial No.4; The above point may be
verified , so that, in the subsequent DPCs’ Panels names of the retirees have
been omitted/dropped/not included on point that the AD HOC ASCs have since been
retired from service on the date when the DPC made out its Panel Names for year
wise ASCs vacancies duly incorporating the names of the Juniors, in place of
the retired, ad hoc ASCs;
(B): Railway Board vide
Notification No. E(O) I /2004 /SR-6/17 dated 05-02-2010 circulated ‘
Inter-se’ seniority list of direct ASCs and Departmental promote ASCs showing
them as regularized by the DPC for the years 2003 to 2006- duly dropping the
names of the retired ASC’s ad hoc.- the juniors were later promoted as DSCs
…who are most juniors to the retired ASCs-ad hoc..but for delay in holding the
DPCs in later years, that is, held in May 2009 and by not following the Orders
of the GOI cited above by the DPCs and by dropping the names of the seniors on
the plea that they are retired and inducted juniors ‘ names in their place, the
seniors lost pension benefits;
(C): The Dept of Personnel and
Training ‘Notification’ No. OM NO. 22011/4/98-Estt.(D) dated 12-10-1998
Procedure to be followed by the DPCs with regard to inclusion of the
names of the retired employees also in the ‘Panel Lists found to have been/has
been violated in the RPF for the years – 2004 to 2009;
When in the Panel List of 2004,the names of retired ad hoc ASCs included,
why then , the names of ad hoc ASCs in the subsequent DPCs’ ‘Panel Lists their
names have been dropped, on what ground and by which RULE,LAE, Govt.
Order/Notification or Direction?;
5. Do P&T Notification: OM
No.22011/4/98-Estt. (D) Dated 12-10-1998- PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE DPCs IN REGARD TO RETIRED EMPLOYEES NAMES IN THE PANEL LISTS: Para-2: Consideration of employees who have
since retired but would also have been considered, for promotion if the DPCs
for the relevant year(s) had been held in time;
Para-3: After examining the matter
with the Ministry of Law (Dept.of Legal Affairs), it may be pointed out in this
regard that there is no specific bar in the afore said OM dated 10-4-1989 or
any other related instructions of the D O P&T 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 their relevant year(s) but are not actually in service when
the DPC is being held, are not considered while preparing year –wise zone of
consideration/Panel and, consequently their juniors are considered, (in their
place), 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 netunl promotion. The DPC(s), may, if need be,
prepare extended Panel(s) following the principles prescribed in the D o
P&T, OM No. 22011/8/87-Estt.(D) dated 09-4-1996;
Para-4: Ministries/Departments are
requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all concerned including
their attached and subordinate offices;
(Note) : (1): This OM is also copied
to U P S C, Dholpur House, Shahjehan Road, New Delhi-110011 for infn, N/A).
(2): OM No.22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10-4-1989 – contain the consolidated instructions
on DPCs – Provisions made in Para-6.4.1- lay down procedure for preparation of
year wise Panel(s), where for reasons beyond control, DPCs could not be held
for the year(s) even through vacancies arose during the year(s).
19): PENSIONER’S PORTAL; LODGED
ON 31-5-2012-ASC ADHOC MATTER: Registration Number is : MORLY/E/2012/03392 :
20): DoP&T
Office Memorandum No. 22011/5/86-Estt(D) dated 10-4-1989 containing consolidated instructions on DPCs have been
reiterated again vide OM No.22011/9/98-Estt(D) dated 08-9-1998 and again vide
OM No. 22011/1/2011-Estt)D) dated 11.3.2011—Para-4-indicated-“Non-adherence to
time frame of DPCs is a matter of serious concern to the Govt..Hence, all
concerned cadre controlling authorities are once again counseled to ensure
strict adherence to the …. OM. Dated
08-9-1998….”
<><><><><>
No comments:
Post a Comment