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 etc ,
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 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 DoP&T 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 Minister Shri.V.Narayanasamy
III:
Requirement of making ad-hoc service permanent.
The above information was submitted as a written reply
to a question in the Parliament by the
(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:
Honorable 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