Important Judgments/Orders, Office Memoranda: and that of the Honorable SUPREME COURT OF INDIA/ and other High Courts’ Judgments/orders:

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 Judgment: 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)  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). 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.

9). Had the Railway Board, DG, RPF, 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 I too could have retired as DSC, like my juniors and got my legitimate Pensionary benefits in 2006 itself. The Railway Board without assigning any reasons for the delay and without intimating of its failure to conduct the DPC by April,2006, held the DPC at their leisure time some time in 2007and in 2009, duly dropping the names of the seniors/for the vacancy period of 2005/2006 wherein our names could have been cited, but wantonly dropped our names  and included the names of more than 100 of my juniors in the DPC’s Panel Lists, promoted them to the rank of DSCs, some of whom are now retired and enjoying the pensionary benefits of higher grade pay than me as DSCs. It is learnt that these facts have not even brought to the notice of the Honorable High Court of Delhi.  The Railway Board, the DG, RPF in this matter found to have unscrupulously and with an intent to bring the juniors in our places by suppressing the DoP&T Orders mentioned herein.

(18): Dept. of Personnel & Training OMs and Orders:

(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:

6):  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).

7) OM No.35035/7/97-Estt. (D) Dated 16-02-2005- DPC guide lines- No suppressions in promotions:

8)  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; 6. OM No.35035/7/97-Estt. (D) Dated 16-02-2005- DPC guide lines- No suppressions in promotions:

II:

While the promote ASCs as ad hoc for several years- started to rotten, retire with loss of pensionary benefits, by eliminating and dropping their names, their juniors get regularization and higher ranks in their place due to belated DPCs, mismanagement /manage-otherwise process; ad hoc ASCs totter in hope of DSC. The Railway Board, the Respondent- the DG, RPF shoulders the responsibility of conducting the DPCs as per DoP&T, UPSC- OMs in time-schedule, made its headway in regularizing the ad hoc ASCs at their will, announce the panel names by dropping the names of the retirees on the ground that they were not in service on the dates/year of selection/DPC Panel date. This misinterpretations of DoP&T Orders, like -OM No.22011/4/98-Estt.(D) dated 12-10-1998-‘ Procedure to be followed by the DPCs in regard to retired employees’-but wantonly not followed. This can be best depicted with the reply of the Respondents- the Railway Board, the DG,RPF to one of the queries raised by the Petitioner—which is reproduced herein along with the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 12-10-1998 cited therein by the Respondents to the Petitioner’s query:

(C):

As per Department of Personnel &Training Office Memorandum No.22011/4/98-ESTT. (D), Dated 12-10-1998, the Departmental Promotion Committees , if held in later years have to include the names of the retired employees also in the panel lists against the year wise vacancies even by preparing extended panels.

It is sincerely opined that if this OM is followed scrupulously and implemented in right spirit at least now, by preparing extended Panels as per the seniority list of the Inspectors from the year 1983—first Inspectors-Grade-I list and then followed by Inspectors-Grade-II list, which the Railway Board wants to combine and maintain a consolidated list of Inspectors from the year 1983 onwards (by their Notification dated 19-4-2012),  duly brining the names of the seniors, by proper interpolation of the names of the retired Inspectors/ad hoc ASCs also, and list their names, now retired, just above to their juniors names who are already enjoying the fruits of the seniors, the senior citizens of RPF Pensioners/Family Pensioners shall have the benefit of pension fixation at par with their juniors and also the problem of issue of First Class ‘A’ Pass to the ad hoc ASCs who have not completed three years of service but retired shall also be resolved amicably.

(D):

It is not known as to why and under what circumstances or pressure group acts, the DG, RPF, the IPS officer, the Railway Board, the Director (Estt.),RPF and further on have acted otherwise than that of the DoP&T Orders/OMs, applied unscrupulously followed own methodology in dropping the names of retirees for over decades without even thinking of the fate and curse of the retirees, and now  are tight lipped and /or silencing the matter now and protracting this on one or the other way even to de throw downward to the worst of  the image of the Force . It is presumed that there may some type of vengeance and proactive action, on proof positive that the DG,RPF Directorate had already brought out Group ‘B’ Cadre Officers seniority list with and at par with that of the Group ‘A’ Officers list and updated the same from 1980s or so as per Honorable Apex Court Orders. Without making any delay, the Railway Board, the DG, RPF can act as opined above or as deem fit and proper by inclusion of the names of the retired also by giving step up formulae in fixing proforma pension at par with their juniors.

Now that the directly recruited Group ‘A’ Cadre officers entering in to the RPF, not as Organized Group Cadre Officers as like other Central Govt. or Railway Officers, but as ASCs/Group ‘A’ cadre Post – under direct entry, fore-shoot to higher grades/pay/ranks than in other CPOs/CPMFS are somehow, get promotion as DSCs/Commandants immediately on completion of three of service and go on to get more and more promotions by keeping the departmental promotes at the same place as ad hoc ASCs or till they/Railway Board/DG,RPF Directorate find their choice ad hoc ASCs in the seniority list, hold DPCs and bring their names in place of retired employee’s vacancies and by regularization, promote them to the rank of DSCs.

                    

The DoP&T, the UPSC and even the Honorable President’s Secretariat pass the DPCs recommendations without any hitch as they have nothing to do the internal administration of RPF like holding DPCs in time; informing the DoP&T, UPSC about ad hoc ASCs continuance for more than one year; dropping the names of the ASCs ad hoc from the DPCs Panel lists and incorporating the names of their juniors duly surpassing/suppressing the DoP&T Orders on the matter, and thereby propagated for making way for higher promotional prospects to the direct officers on the one way in time schedule and propel a thesis for making late DPCs on one or other account, and later on conclusively dropping the names of the retired ASCs from the Panel lists, induct their choice juniors in their places and promote them to the rank as fortuitous DSCs, etc. This is found to be continuing without any check by diffident ways and means since decades in the RB.

(E):

The impecunious persons like me and the other Family pensioners getting some pension around Rs.20,000/- with interest have to stage manage the family affairs on monthly basis with elitism; some fixed deposits as future fund for/with fore knowledge for self/wife’s funereal expenses, as one cannot dream to go on spending money in Writ Petitions and Appeals and awaiting for several years for its final Orders, even if comes shall be thrashed at the DG’s office like in the case of one DSC-late Mr.Nambiar.  Another case of one ASC-Mr. Gnana Sambandham is pending for final hearing since around 6 years. The fate of the case of ASCs/Mr.Sony Verghees and others stands in the doll-drums and the honorable DG, RPF found it fit to fight against them in the Honorable Supreme Court of India, lest its genuineness.

                      

The names of the retired ASCs dropped from the DPCs Panel Lists for the last two decades or so by thrashing the DoP&T Orders; they might like to have cancan with encomium by near and dear while persons like us and family pensioners perish?

Kindly go through honorable Supreme Court’s comments cited above; pride and prejudice if comes on the way between the master and the servant of the lords/ the GOI, the DG, RPF? The public servants of GOI stand where?  After all we are the servants of the government?

(F):

A day may not be far away to tap the doors of the Honorable Supreme Court of India under ‘LETTERS PETITION’ through one or the other family pensioner as a victim in the hands of the Railway Board and the DG, RPF whose FRs; the human rights have been submerged in deep seas by their personal views, voice, and one sided decision making of the matters of their choice. Hence now as a living RPF pensioner/ad ASC we pray for justice, as justice delayed, justice not only denied but also buried once for all. Let there be one more NAKARA IN RPF also? to get justice.