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);
No comments:
Post a Comment