Refund the amount deducted for HRA - HC

 

The Madras High Court Bench here has directed the superiors of a government servant to refund House Rent Allowance (HRA) deducted from her salary even though she refused to occupy a dilapidated residential quarters allotted to her since it was in an uninhabitable condition.

A Division Bench of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and N. Kirubakaran passed the order while allowing a 2011 writ appeal filed by S. Radhamani Thangatchi, then serving as the manager of Government Industrial Training Institute (ITI) at Pettai in Tirunelveli district since February 2, 2009.

A single judge of the High Court had on November 18, 2010 dismissed her writ petition, for refund of HRA, by citing a 1995 Supreme Court ruling that a government employee had to either accept the accommodation offered by the employer or forfeit the HRA if he/she preferred to live elsewhere.

However, not in agreement with the view taken by the single judge, the Division Bench said that a look at the photographs of the house allotted to the appellant as well as a report of a Public Works Department official would make it clear that the house was not in a good condition.

“It is very unfortunate that though the appellant requested the respondents not to allot the quarters, the second respondent (ITI Principal) erroneously allotted the quarters in favour of the appellant and deducted the amount towards rent from the salary of the appellant.

In eight weeks:
“The appellant cannot be made to pay rent for the quarters even though she had not occupied it. Therefore, the order of the principal as well as the order of the single judge are set aside and further direction is given to refund the amount within eight weeks,” the judges ordered.

Implementation of judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6046-6047 - Extension of the benefit of judgment to non-appellants - regarding

To see detail click here

Temporary Status Group 'D' is entitled for OLD Pension Scheme even though appionted after 1.1.2004 To see the copy of judgment of High Court of Karnataka, please

To see the copy of judgment of High Court of Karnataka, please 

click here

Another Mile Stone Judgment in favour of Pre-2006 Pensioners

20 years’ Service enough for full pension 

even for  Pre-2006 Pensioners

Outcome of Supreme Court Judgment on this issue

Apex Court dismissed SLP No.C…/2014 CC No (s) , 20144/2014 on 20-02-2015. This SLP was arising out of final judgment of Kerala High Court at Ernakulam dated 07.01.2014 in OPCAT No.8/2014 viz., Union of India vs M.O.Inasu.

The Kerala High Court judgment under question was a judgment of Ernakulam Bench of CAT filed by Mr.M.O.Inasu and Mr.K.Ramachandran Unnithan made on re-hearing as directed by the Kerala High Court that ordered to implement the  6^th CPC recommendation of reducing the required 33 years of service into 20 years’  for grant of full qualifying pension of 50% of LPD or 10 months average whichever is greater to Pre-2006 Pensioners.

Kerala Comrades have supplied the judgment of CAT Ernakulam Bench viz., OA No.715 of 2012 with OA No.1051 of 2012. The OA No.715 of 2012 pertains to the case filed by Mr.M.O.Inasu  and the OA No.1051 of 2012 pertains to the case filed by Mr. K.Ramachandran Unnithan . Both of them were retired Deputy office Superintendent in Excise Department. The above referred Kerala High Court judgment and the dismissal of SLP by the Apex Court have come as final outcome of both of their OAs in Ernakulam Bench of CAT.

The crux of the judgment of Ernakulam Bench of CAT upheld by Kerala High Court as well as by the Apex Court is as follows:

1. Both M.O.Inasu and K.Ramachandran Unnithan are Pre-2006 Pensioners. They were Ex-Servicemen and thereafter Deputy Superintendent in Excise Department before retirement. Their combined services were less than 33 years of service and therefore they were granted only pro-rata pension and not full pension @ 50% of 10 months average pay.
2. Both claimed for full pension @ 50% of their last pay drawn as recommended by the 6^th CPC for employees with 20 years of qualifying service instead of 33 years.
3. Tribunal initially considering as to whether the Pre-2006 Pensioners are eligible for 50% of the minimum pay in the relevant Pay Band plus GP even if they do not have put in 33 years of qualifying service came to the conclusion that they are not entitled to and dismissed the OAs as above.
4. The Pre-2006 Pensioners appealed in Kerala High Court against the order of the CAT Ernakulam.
5. Kerala High Court had set aside the order of the CAT Ernakulam Bench vide O.P.(CAT) Nos.898/2013 and 1409/2013 vide judgement dated 04.06.2013 and directed the CAT to re-hear the applications and consider entries at Sl. Nos. 2 and 12 of the Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29.08.2008 of the Ministry of Finance.
6. The Ernakulam Bench of CAT based on the observation made by the High Court thereafter had pointed out the para 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008, that there is no  stipulation of any minimum period of service for eligibility of  pension @ 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band  plus Grade Pay of the post from which the pensioner had  retired. According to para 4.2, it is made clear that the pension should in no case shall be lower than 50% of the  minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay  corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Therefore, denial of 50% f the pay  as basic pension is illegal and arbitrary.
7. The Ernakulam Bench also pointed out the order of the Principal Bench of CAT Delhi that quashed the OM dated 03-10-2008 and 14-10-2008 and therefore the above two OMs are no more valid and no more in force. Therefore the decision of the CAT Delhi Principal Bench is also applicable to the applicants.
8. The Bench also referred to the Principal Bench judgment and ruled that the benefit of 50% of minimum of pay in the pay band plus relevant Grade Pay shall be paid to the Petitioners even though they did not render 33 years of qualifying service.

The judicial verdict is another blow to the Government’s mis-interpretation on the following two counts:

1. The minimum of Pay Band plus relevant GP instead of minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus relevant Grade Pay of the Pre-2006 pensioners;
2. 20 years Qualifying service instead of 33 years of qualifying service is applicable only for post-2006 retirees and not for Pre-2006 Pensioners.

In the background of this historic judgment all are requested to find out about such Pre-2006 pensioners who are denied full pension for not putting in 33 years service and make them represent for grant of full pension @ 50% of the minimum of pay in Pay Band plus Grade pay for the particular cadre in which they retired before 2006.

Honourable Supreme Court Guidelines regarding sanction for prosecution.

To see detail  click here 

                   Kindly refer to Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement regarding Criminal Appeal no.1838 of 2013 in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is an obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case. Grant of sanction is not a mere formality. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide said order has explicitly laid down guidelines for grant of sanction for prosecution which need to be complied upon. Your particular attention is drawn to para 8 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court aforesaid judgement. (Copy enclosed)

                         2. In this regard attention is also invited to the guidelines issued by this Deptt vide letter No.142/4/2012 dated 28th July,2014 wherein it has been conveyed that complete proposals as per the checklist would only be accepted for further detailed scrutiny and examination to consider sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. All administrative authorities are requested to adhere to the aforesaid guidelines while deciding grant of sanction for prosecution. 

Government Welcomes Court Decision on 66A - Ravi Shankar Prasad

Following is the text of the statement made by the Union Minister for  Telecom & IT, Sh Ravi Shankar Prasad on Supreme Court judgement on  section 66-A of IT act:

“The Union Government welcomes Hon’ble SC’s decision on 66A. When the UPA Govt came out with draconian provisions under 66A, BJP in opposition firmly opposed it and said that ’66 is unacceptable in current form’. BJP resolutely stood up against the censorship and blocking on social media done by UPA Govt.

Once in Govt, it took its opposition to the draconian provisions of 66A on record in Court Proceedings. New Affidavits filed by NDA Govt in Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly show the marked difference in the approach from UPA Govt.

NDA Govt, in what can be dubbed as a landmark moment in India’s Internet history, has accorded the same amount of freedom of speech and expression that a citizen of India is granted in normal life under our constitution by our founding fathers .

After detailed discussion with the Central Government at the highest possible level, the Central Government filed an Affidavit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court making its stand absolutely clear that the Government respects the freedom of speech and expression.  The relevant paragraphs are verbatim quoted:

A.      “This counter affidavit is being filed only for the purpose of assisting this Hon’ble Court and to satisfy this Hon’ble Court that the impugned Sections of the IT Act neither seeks to curtail nor the Central Government desires any interpretation which seeks to curtail any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens including the right under Article 19(1)(a) i.e. fundamental right to free speech and expression. 

B.      This counter affidavit seeks to point out the necessity and desirability of the provisions which are challenged in these petitions and to bring it on record that the usage of cyber space either by social media or otherwise is not even remotely intended to be curtailed either totally or partially at instance of Union of India.

C.     Central Government encourages beneficial use of cyber space and the Act only seeks to regulate the use of cyberspace which would fall within any of and/ or all categories stipulated under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

D.     That the penal provisions of the Act can never be interpreted so as to take within its sweep political debate, any form of honest decent, decent humour, political satire etc.  With a view to avoid possibility of any misconstruction of the expressions used in the penal provisions of the Act, the Central Government has prepared an advisory / guidelines to be strictly followed by law enforcement agencies which would ensure that the honest and legal use of cyber space does not result into any harassment to any citizen of the country.”

Thus in a layman’s language, the Government absolutely respects the right to freedom of speech and expression on social media and has no intention of curbing it. Only reasonable restrictions apply on social media, as they do in routine normal day to day life in the physical world under Article 19 (2) of the constitution of India. We will have to understand that we cannot set a different standard of Public Morality for Speech & Expression in Cyberspace from Speech in other mediums and in the Public Domain

It is important to understand that Section 66A is in several parts and only a portion of it deals with issues which can raise question of freedom of speech and expression.

During the course of oral submissions also, it was categorically pointed out that the Central Government shares the anxiety that expressions like “grossly offensive” etc. referred above may be abused at some local level.  The Central Government, therefore, requested the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the said expressions be read confined to Article 19(2) of the Constitution only and to ensure that no right of any citizen is scuttled, the said phrases be narrowly tailored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself to obviate any possibility of any abuse of any law enforcing agency to scuttle the free speech and expression of the citizens.

There can be no parallel of our stand on this matter with that of the previous UPA regime. We have in writing confirmed that we stand for freedom of speech and expression, while the previous UPA Govt tried to make this law an instrument to curb dissent, satire and anything else which did not suit it. “

I have myself set an example by standing up for free speech and rights of a teenager recently arrested at the complain of Azam Khan for posting on Twitter and Facebook.

https://twitter.com/rsprasad/status/578921257376165888

https://www.facebook.com/RaviShankarPrasadOfficial/photos/a.10150653350208329.407036.68315058328/10153108500593329/?type=1&theater

NNK/MD

(Release ID :117633)

ARREARS WEF 01.01.06 MATTER- JUDGMENT/ ORDER OF THE HSC IN THE SLP- CA CASES IS AS FOLLOWS:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 8875-8876 OF 2011

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

VINOD KUMAR JAIN & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A. No.1998 of 2012,

C.A.No.3564 of 2012,

C.A.No.3907 of 2012,

C.A.No.4581 of 2012,

C.A.No.4952 of 2012,

C.A.No.4980 of 2012,

C.A.No.4599 of 2013,

C.A.No.1 of 2015

AND

SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013,

SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 &

SLP(C)No……… of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904)

O R D E R

Heard.

Delay condoned.

C.A.Nos.8875-76 of 2011, C.A. No.1998 of 2012, C.A.No.3564 of 2012, C.A.No.3907 of 2012, C.A.No.4581 of 2012, C.A.No.4952 of 2012, C.A.No.4980 of 2012:
We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.

The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed.
C.A.No.4599 of 2013, C.A.No.1 of 2015 :

No substantial question of law of general/public importance arises for our consideration in these applications for leave to appeal.

The prayer for leave to appeal is accordingly declined and the applications for leave to appeal dismissed.

SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013

SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014& SLP(C)Nos………..of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904):

We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.

The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General,
however submits that in view of the nature of the controversy as also the extent of financial burden arising out of the implementation of the impugned orders, the petitioners-U.O.I.
may be given reasonable time to do the needful. That prayer is not opposed by counsel opposite.

We accordingly grant four months’ time from today to the petitioners to comply with the impugned orders failing which the contempt petitions pending before the Tribunal can be revived by the concerned petitioners and taken to their logical conclusion.
All impleading and intervention applications are also dismissed.
…………………..J

(T.S. THAKUR)

…………………..J

(R. BANUMATHI)

NEW DELHI

DATED 17th March, 2015.

source-http://scm-bps.blogspot.in/2015/03/arrears-wef-010106-matter-judgment.html

Implementation of Supreme Court’s judgement dated 31.10.2013 in WP(Civil) No. 82/2011 in the matter of Shri T.S. R. Subramanian & Others vs. UOI & Others

G.I., Dept. of Per. & Trg., O.M. No.F.No. 41017/2/2015-Estt.A, dated 9.3.2015

Subject: Implementation of Supreme Court’s judgement dated 31.10.2013 in WP(Civil) No. 82/2011 in the matter of Shri T.S.R.Subramanian & Others vs. UOI & Others — Parliament Assurance in Rajya Sabha Unstarred Q. No.988, answered on 17.07.2014, on ‘Amendment in Rule 3(3) of All India Service (Conduct) Rules’ — regarding.

The undersigned is directed to state that in reply to part (b) of the above Rajya Sabha Unstarred Q. No. 988 for 17/07/2014, the Parliament was, inter-alia, informed that ‘the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the PIL filed by Shri T.S.R. Subramanian and others were brought to the notice of the various Ministries / Departments who are the Cadre Controlling Authorities of the Central Civil Services for compliance’. This part of the reply has been treated as an Assurance.

2. It may please be recalled that, following the Supreme Court’s judgement dated 31.10.2013 in WP(Civil) No. 82/2011, the Ministries / Departments were requested to take steps for implementation of the judgement. In view of the above Parliament Assurance, all Ministries / Departments are requested to please send a line in confirmation of the implementation of the above judgement in respect of the Cadre(s) under their administrative control by 20.03.2015 so that the Assurance can be fulfilled. The Cadre(s) under the administrative control may also please be indicated for records.

3. The Ministries / Departments, which are not Cadre Controlling Authorities for any cadre, may also kindly send a communication in this regard for the records of this Department.

Click to view the original order issued by DoPT

Supreme Court sets bar on suspension of Govt employees

A government employee can't be kept suspended for more than three months if not formally informed about the charges, the Supreme Court said Monday.

Based on the principle of human dignity and the right to speedy trial, the landmark verdict is expected to affect lakhs of government employees across India, many of whom are under suspension for years pending departmental proceedings.

"Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration," a bench headed by justice Vikramjit Sen said.

If the charge sheet or memorandum of charges was served within three month, the suspension could be extended, it ruled.

"If it (suspension) is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning…, this would render it punitive in nature," the court said.

It agreed with petitioner's senior counsel Nidhesh Gupta that a suspension order can't continue for an unreasonably long period.

Protracted periods of suspension had become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be, the court said. It drew a parallel with criminal investigation wherein a person accused of heinous crime is released from jail after the expiry of 90 days if police fail to file the charge sheet.

The suspended persons suffers even before being charged and "his torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination". "Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement," the court said, setting aside a direction of the central vigilance commission that required departmental proceedings to be kept in abeyance pending a criminal investigation.

The government, however, was free to transfer the officer concerned to any department in any of its offices to ensure the employee did not misuse contacts for obstructing the probe, the court said.

The order came on a petition filed by defence estate officer Ajay Kumar Choudhary, who was suspended in September 2011 for allegedly issuing wrong no-objection certificates for the use of a four-acre land parcel in Kashmir. After failing to get relief from the Delhi high court, Choudhary had moved the top court in 2013.

Since a charge sheet had already been served on Choudhary, these directions would not apply to his case, the court said.

Source : http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/supreme-court-sets-bar-on-suspension-of-govt-employees/article1-1317561.aspx

Processing of files referred to DOP&T for advice/clarification procedure to be followed.

F.No.43011/9/2014-Estt.D
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
———

North Block, New Delhi
Dated the 13th February, 2015

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Processing of files referred to DOP&T for advice/clarification procedure to be followed.

This Department had issued detailed instructions prescribing the procedure to be followed by various Ministries/Departments of Government of India for referring the files to this Department for advice/clarification, vide O.M.No. 20034/2/2010-Estt(D) dated 13th August, 2010. These instructions were followed by instructions prescribing the procedure to be followed by various Ministries/Departments of Government of India for referring the files to this Department for advice/clarification to facilitate processing of court cases, issued vide O.M.No.20034/2/2010-Estt(d) dated 30th November, 2011.

2. Inspite of these instructions, the Ministries/Departments continue to refer the files to this Department without following the procedure enunciated in the above mentioned two OMs, resulting in avoidable procedural delays, grievances and unwanted litigations. To avoid such a situation and avoidable delays in decision making and disposal of the cases, while reiterating the above mentioned instructions, all the Ministries/Departments are advised to henceforth observe the following procedure for referring the proposals including court cases to this Department:-

i. All the proposals should be referred to DOP&T with the approval of the Joint Secreatry of the Administrative Ministry/Department.
ii. All the pages should be properly number, docketed, referenced/cross referenced.
iii. A legible copy of orders/rules/instructions/circulars/O.M. etc. issued by the Administrative Department or DOP&T etc. and cited in the noting portion should be placed on file under reference. Besides flagging the cited documents, page numbers should also be invariably indicated in the noting portions.
iv. Telephone number of the concerned Director/Deputy Secretary/Under Secretary level officer who has processed the case should be indicated in the noting portion.
v. The Proposal relating to amendments of Recruitment Rules etc., for which a proforma has been prescribed, should be referred to DOP&T in the prescribed proform only.
vi. Any proposal having financial implications referred to DOP&T for advice/clarifications should have approval or comments of the concerned Financial Adviser (FA) in the Ministry/Department.
vii. The proposal for advice/clarifications should be referred to DOP&T only on file.
viii. All the proposals referred to DOP&T should invariably indicate, in the concluding paras, the relevant rule position and the difficulty faced in its interpretation which necessitated the referral to DOP&T i.e. the point(s) of doubt in respect of which clarification/advice of DOP&T has been sought should be clearly brought out.

3. Further as regards court cases referred for advice to this Department by various Ministries/Departments, it may be mentioned that this Department’s O.M.No.20036/23/1988-Estt(D) dated 06.01.1989 provides that since each court case is to be contested on the basis of the specified facts and circumstances relevant to it, the administrative Ministry/Department will be in a better position to defend the case. If, however, any clarification is required on the interpretation or application of the rules or instructions relevant to the case, the concerned Department in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions may be approached for that purpose. It further provides that the primary responsibility, however, for contesting such cases on behalf of the Government will be that of the administrative Ministry/Department concerned. Also, the Cabinet Secretariat’s D.O. letter No. 6/1/1/94-Cab dated 25.02.1994 and the Department of Expenditure’s O.M. No.7(8)2012-E-II(A) dated 16.05.2012 inter-alia provide that (i) a common counter reply should be filed before a Court of Law on behalf of the Union of India by the concerned Administrative Department/Ministry where the petitioner is serving or has last served; and (ii) a unified stand should be adopted instead of bringing out each Department/Ministry’s point of view in the said reply. It further provides that it is primarily the responsibility of the Administrative Ministry to ensure that timely action is taken at each stage a Court case goes through and that a unified stand is adopted on behalf of Government of India at every such stage. In no case, should the litigation be allowed to prolong to the extent that it results in contempt proceedings.

4. Kind attention is also invited to the directions of Cabinet Secretary, conveyed via his D.O. letter No.403/1/4/2014-CA-V dated 24th December, 2014 wherein he has pointed out that in many litigation cases pending before various courts, where the Union of India (UoI) is either the Petitioner or the Respondent, Government interest is not being defended with adequate diligence. The Cabinet Secretary has, therefore, emphasized the need of putting a system in place so that the cases are regularly monitored and the interests of the UoI are properly safeguarded before the Courts of Law.

5. All the Ministries/Departments are accordingly, advised to keep the procedure/instructions mentioned in the preceding paragraph in mind while dealing with Court Cases. Further, while referring Court Cases for advice to this Department, the referring note should invariably indicate:

i. Brief history and facts of the case;
ii. Relief sought by the petitioner/applicant;
iii. Earlier advice/opinion of DOP&T in the matter;
iv. Stand taken by the Department before the Court/CAT;
v. Opinion of the Government Counsel on the Court/CAT order;
vi. Operative part of the judgment/direction;
vii. Action proposed to be taken by the Department.
viii. Present rule position and specific point on which advice/opinion of DOP&T is sought.

6. The content of the O.M. may be given wide publicity and brought to the notice of all concerned.

(Rakesh Moza)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Tele: 2304-0339

There should be No Reservation in Promotions – Supreme Court

Supreme Court in a landmark judgement has ruled out reservation in promotion for SC/ST categories.

New Delhi: January 10

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that there could be no quota for SC and ST employees for top posts in public sector banks but reservation for them was permissible in posts from scale-I till scale-VI.

A bench of J.Chelameswar and A.K.Sikri held that though there was no provision for reservation in promotion in banks for officers from scale-I onwards but an office memorandum issued by Department of Public Enterprises in November 2004 permitting quota up to scale-VI.

The bench informed that “the policy of no reservation in the matter of promotion is applicable only from Scale-VII and above. It, therefore, clearly follows that in so far as promotion from Scale-I to Scale-II, Scale-II to Scale-III, Scale-III to Scale-IV, Scale-IV to Scale-V, Scale-V to Scale-VI are concerned, reservation is to provided”. The bench said: “It is clarified that at present there is no provision for reservation in promotion by selection only in respect of those posts which carry an ultimate of 5,700/- per month (revised to 18,300 and 20,800/- per month in respect of those public sector undertakings following IDA pattern). Qua (with regard to) appellant Banks, that would be in respect of Scale-VII and above. Therefore, to carry out promotions from Scale-I upwards upto Scale-VI, reservation in promotion in favour of SC/ST employees has to be given.”

The court passed the order on a bunch appeals filed by banks challenging the Madras HC order directing them to provide reservation on the ground that there is no adequate representation of SC/ST category of officers in Group-IV and above.

The apex court held that HC in its verdict of 2009 has gone by the lofty ideals enshrined in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution as well as the fact that in there banks there is no adequate representation of SC/ST category of officers in Group-IV and above.

“That may be so. It can only provide justification for making a provision of this nature.

“However, in the absence of such provision, same cannot be read by overstretching the language of office memorandum dated August 13, 1997″, it said.

Clarifying its verdict, the bench said, it would have the effect of allowing the writ petitions with directions to the appellant banks to make provision for reservations while carrying out promotions from Scale-I to Scale-II and upward upto Scale-VI.

Source: www.govemployees.in

MACP on Hierarchy: Pr. CAT directs to implement the judgement of High Court

Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) on Promotional Hierarchy:  Hon’ble Principal Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), New Delhi directs Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development to implement the judgement of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Union of India & others v. Raj Pal & another (CWP No.19387/2011) decided on 19.10.2011 to the applicant within 4 weeks.

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi

O.A.No.2553/2013

Monday, this the 15th day of September, 2014

Hon ble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)
Hon ble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A)

1. All India CPWD Office Staff Association
Through its General Secretary
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
C Wing, Ground floor
Near Generator Room
IP Bhawan, New Delhi-2

2. Mr. Pradeep Singh Bist
Age 44 years
s/o Mr. K S Bist
r/o Flat No.167, Sector 5
R K Puram, New Delhi-22

3. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
Aged 48 years
s/o Mr. Chandra Bhan
r/o F-2887, Betaji Nagar
New Delhi-23

4. Mr. Pankaj Atri
Age 42 years
s/o late Mr. R C Sharma
r/o 165/16, Shivaji Nagar
Gurgaon (HR)
.. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. S K Gupta)

Versus

Union of India through

1. Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi

2. Director General
Central Public Works Department
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
..Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Rajinder Nischal)
O R D E R (ORAL)

Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj:
Learned counsels for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in the present Original Application is, in all fours, of the decision of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Union of India & others v. Raj Pal & another (CWP No.19387/2011) decided on 19.10.2011.

2. In view of the aforementioned stand taken by the parties, the Original Application is disposed of with direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of the said judgment of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court to the applicants herein also within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.
( V.N. Gaur ) ( A.K. Bhardwaj )
Member (A) Member (J)

Implementation of CAT Judgement in respect of grant of GP 5400 to AAOs in lieu of MACPS

ALL INDIA AUDIT & ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATION
C SV WARRIER BHAWAN

Reference: AIAI 34/44/2014

20th August 2014

To
The Comptroller & Auditor General of India,
9, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,
New Delhi – 110124

Subject: Implementation of CAT judgement in respect of grant of GP 5400 to AAOs in lieu of MACPS – reg.
Sir,

I am to invite a reference to the judgement given by CAT, Chennai in OA No 966/2009 and 967/2009 on grant of GP 5400 in PB2 to AAOs by extending the benefit of MACPS from the day others are given the GP of 5400 under MACPS.

The Department moved a WP in HC of Madras which upheld the judgement of the CAT. The SLP moved at Supreme Court against the decisions given by the CAT, Chennai and HC of Madras has also been turned down.

It is therefore requested that the judgement of CAT directing extending the benefit of MACPS by granting GP 5400 in PB2 to AAOs with all consequential benefits may please be implemented without any further delay.

It is further requested that the judgement of the CAT Chennai directing extending the benefit of MACPS by granting GP 5400 in PB2 to AAOs with all consequential benefits may be implemented in favour of all similarly placed AAOs.

GRANT OF MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY-

Indian Ordnance Factories Gazetted Officers Association writes to Government

Indian Ordinance Factories Gazetted Officers Association (IOFGOA)had written a letter (given below) to the Government in view of the CAT Principle Bench New Delhi judgment dated 01/05/2014, directing the Government to implement MACP on promotional hierarchy within 3 months from the date of the judgment. Since the Government has not taken any action on the matter so far the Association has filed contempt of Court and the next date of hearing of the case is 11/11/2014.

As regards the SLP filed against Shri Babu Ram & Ors, according Shri S B Chaubey, General Secretary, his Association has decided to bear the expense of one Advocate to defend the case in Supreme Court.

CAT Madras stayed MTS Recruitment

To view interim order issued by Hon'ble CAT, please CLICK HERE. 

CAT case for upgradation of GP of IPs at Ernakulam Bench ......updates!!!

As per decision taken in AIC Ahemdabad, Counsel was asked to prepare rejoinder to be filed against the counter reply of respondents in OA No. 289/2013. 

To view the copy of rejoinder to be filed by Association at Hon'ble CAT Ernakulam Bench, please CLICK HERE. 

Dopt Orders for this week between 5th May to 10th May 2014

 

Department of Personnel & Training 
(http://www.persmin.gov.in)

The Department of Personnel & Training is the coordinating agency of the Central Government in personnel matters, specially in respect of issues concerning recruitment, training, career development and staff welfare.

DOPT- It is as powerful as a magical spell for Central government employees. 

This is the powerful department that decides on all the service-related issues of the Central Government employees. One of the important duties of the department is to resolve all the problems and issues faced by Central Government offices all over the country. 

The Department of Personnel & Training, under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions is the coordinating agency of the Central Government in personnel matters, specially in respect of issues concerning recruitment, training, career development and employees welfare.

Four-five years ago, the Dopt’s website was not regular in updating and releasing all the relevant Government Orders. But, things have changed now and, along with timely updates, the website has also become a very reliable forum to clear doubts. 

We have made it a habit to publish the orders to the knowledge of all Central Government employees as soon as DOPT releases them.  

DOPT is the coordinating agency that has the power to decide the fate of Central Government employees.   

              

Dopt Orders Highlights (5.5.2014 to 10.5.2014)

Date	Order No.	Subject	Link
09.05.2014	No.22011/5/2013-Estt.(D)	Procedure to be observed by Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) - Assessment of entries and gradings in ACRs/APARs - Reg.	Read OM
09.05.2014	No.21/1/2014-CS.I(U)	Web Based Cadre Management System for CSS Officers of Under Secretary and above - instructions for Nodal Officers to forward the cadre clearance request online for deputation.	Read OM
08.05.2014	No.36036/4/2014-Estt.(Res.I)	Arrangement of training of Liaison Officers for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.	Read OM
02.05.2014	F.No.9/4/2013-CS.I(S)	Writ Petition Civil No.2735_2013 filed by Shri Sauranshu Sinha and Others vs UOI and Others in the honble High Court of Delhi - regarding	Read OM

Agenda for next meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Council JCM - BPMS

BHARATIYA PRATIRAKSHA MAZDOOR SANGATHAN

(AN ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF DEFENCE WORKERS) 

(AN INDUSTRIAL UNIT OF B.M.S.) 

(RECOGNISED BY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVT. OF INDIA) 

REF: BPMS / MACPS / 64 (7/3/M)

Dated: 05.05.2014 

To,

Shri Shiva Gopal Mishra,

Secretary, Staff Side,

National Council JCM,

New Delhi. 

Subject: Agenda for next meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Council JCM: Grant of MACP benefit to the eligible employees in the Hierarchy of promotional grade.  

Dear Sir,

I have come to know that a meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Council JCM is scheduled to be held on 07.05.2014 under the Chairmanship of Secretary (P). Being a constituent of National Council (JCM) but not of Standing Committee, I would like to submit one of the issues regarding grant of MACP benefit in the hierarchy of promotional grade instead of hierarchy of grade pay. 

An affected employee had challenged the Government’s decision on the subject vide his O.A. No. 1038/CH/2010 in CAT Chandigarh and that the Hon’ble CAT Chandigarh vide its order dated 31.05.2011 granted the prayer of the petitioner and directed the authorities to grant MACP benefit in the hierarchy of promotional grade. Thereafter, the Union of India represented by the Secretary, DoP&T appealed to the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide CWP No. 19387 of 2011. This appeal of the DoP&T was subsequently dismissed vide order dated 19.10.2011. The Government thereafter approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP No. 7467/2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP. In view of the above, the issue now stands settled that eligible employee needs to be given MACP benefits in the promotional hierarchy only. 

Recently, CAT Principal Bench has issued direction on 12.03.2014 in OA No. 864/2014 that once an order has been passed by this tribunal and it has also been upheld at the level of the Supreme Court, there is no question of waiting for an approval from any Govt. department for implementation of the same. 

 Further, your attention is invited to Para 126.5 of 5th Central Pay Commission which reads as under: 

Extending judicial decisions in matters of a general nature to all similarly placed employees. - We have observed that frequently, in cases of service litigation involving many similarly placed employees, the benefit of judgement is only extended to those employees who had agitated the matter before the Tribunal/Court. This generates a lot of needless litigation. It also runs contrary to the judgment given by the Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C.S. Elias Ahmed and others v. UOI & others (O.A. Nos. 451 and 541 of 1991), wherein it was held that the entire class of employees who are similarly situated are required to be given the benefit of the decision whether or not they were parties to the original writ. Incidentally, this principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in this case as well as in numerous other judgments like G.C. Ghosh v. UOI, [ (1992) 19 ATC 94 (SC) ], dated 20-7-1998; K.I. Shepherd etc. Accordingly, we recommend that decisions taken in one specific case either by the judiciary or the Govt. should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing the other employees to approach the court of law for an identical remedy or relief. We clarify that this decision will apply only in cases where a principle or common issue of general nature applicable to a group or category of Government employees is concerned and not to matters relating to a specific grievance or anomaly of an individual employee. 

Contrary to above, DoP&T has replied (letter No. No. P-26012/5/2011-AT, 19.08.2013 & No. P-13025/11/2014-AT, dated 04.04.2014) under RTI Act that the SLP was dismissed on technical grounds and not on merit, hence, the Department had decided to implement the order dated 31.05.2011 of CAT Chandigarh Bench for grant of financial upgradation in the promotional hierarchy under MACP to Shri Rajpal on personal basis not to be treated as a precedent 

The stand taken by DoP&T is a matter of great concern for the trade unions as whether Govt of India wants to add 35 Lakh more court cases filed by each and every Central Government Civilian employees where the courts are already overloaded and several lakhs of litigants are waiting for judgment for decades. 

You may be agree that the JCM Forum has been evolved for promoting harmonious relations and securing the greatest measure of cooperation between the Government, in its capacity as employer, and the general body of its employees in matters of common concern and increasing the efficiency of the public service. Hence, it is our moral and legal responsibility to protect the rights of our fellow members through JCM forum also. 

Therefore, you are requested to add the above agenda point in the meeting and try your level best to prove the worthy of existence of this National Council (JCM) by resolving the issue without further delay and litigations in the interest of employees. 

Thanking you.

 Yours Sincerely 

 SADHU SINGH 

 Member, National Council (JCM) & 

 Organizing Secretary/BPMS 

Source: www.bpms.org.in

MACP – Stepping up case court order implemented in Department of Posts

IMMEDIATE/CAT CASE/REGD

No.33(3)/10/PA-Admn.I/1481
Government of India,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Department of Posts,
Postal Accounts Wing,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi. 110 001

Dated: March, 2014.

To
All General Manager (Postal Accounts Finance), All Directors of Account (Postal).
(BY NAME)

Sub: Implementation of judgment of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, in OA No.2124/2011 upheld by Hon’ble High Court, filed by AIPAEA.

Sir/Madam,

I am directed to refer on the above subject and to state as under;-

1 That the orders dated 1.2.2013 of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhiin OA No.2124/2011 has already been complied by conveying the approval of competent authority vide this office letter No.33(3)/10/PA-Admn.I/128 to 153 dated 14th February 2014 for extending its benefit to the applicants/individuals working under the jurisdiction of your Postal Accounts Offices.

2. That further exercise regarding extending the benefit of stepping up of pay to the applicants are to be completed by the concerned Postal Accounts Offices, as the applicants covering under these orders for grant of benefit of stepping up of pay are posted in circle Postal Accounts Offices and circle Postal Accounts offices are the sole custodian of their service records etc., by issuing further orders after obtaining a certificate that the same are subject to outcome of the SLP filed in the APEX Court by the Department.

3. That the Hon’ble CAT while hearing CP 392/2013, on 25.2.2014, has directed the respondent to put before the Horeble CAT the orders of the individuals benefiting out of CAT’s orders of stepping up of pay.

4 That since the action in this regard is to be taken by the PA0s, you are therefore, requested to complete the whole exercise regarding stepping up of pay in respect of officials covered under this judgment on or before 28th March 2014 and forward the orders issued in compliance to the Hon’ble CAT’s judgment in respect of all such cases where the stepping up of pay has been done to this office by 28th March 2014 so that the compliance report may be submitted to the Hon’ble CAT to avoid further contempt in the matter.

5. This may be treated as urgent.

Yours faithfully,
sd/-
(SANJAY KUMAR)
Director (Bgt& Admn.)

click here - Implementation of Court Orders 

CAT JUDGEMENT STEPING UP CASE.pdf- https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0rqvSYMJv2IazRGZDJHeHRKa28/edit?pli=1