tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84240287918256371002024-03-05T16:50:15.291+05:30Postalinfo-an online referencer......Serving the common employees through correct information
( The site is not responsible for the authenticity of the information given here; as these are collected from different sources for quick reference of viewers.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger492125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-23317194584787959172014-06-07T15:48:00.004+05:302014-06-07T15:48:59.859+05:30Child Care Leave -no restriction on minimum day<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
No. 1 3018/6/2013-Estt.(L)</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Government of India</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
[ Department of Personnel & Training j</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2014</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
OFFICE MEMORANDUM</div>
Subject: Child Care Leave (CCL) in respect of Central Government Employees as a result of Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations — Clarification — regarding.<br />
<br />
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M No. 1 3018/2/2008-Estt.(L) dated 11/09/2008 regarding introduction of Child Care Leave(CCL) in respect of Central Government employees.<br />
<br />
Subsequently, clarifications have been issued vide OMs dated 29.9.2008, 18.11.2008, 02.12.2008 and dated 07.09.2010. Child Care Leave at present is allowed for a minimum period of 15 days. References have been received from various quarters seeking a review of this stipulation.<br />
<br />
2. The matter has been considered in consultation with Department of Expenditure, and it has been decided to remove the requirement of minimum period of 15 days' CCL. There is no change as regards other conditions of this leave.<br />
3. These orders take effect from the date of issue of this Office Memorandum.<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
( S.G. Mulchandaney )</div>
Under Secretary to the Government of India<br />
1. All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India, etcT. el.No.26164316<br />
(As per standard mailing list).<br />
2. All State Government and Union Territories.<br />
3. Governors of all States/Lt. Governors of all Union Territories.<br />
4. Secretary, National Council of JCM (Staff Side), 13-C, Feroz Shah Road,<br />
New Delhi.<br />
5. All Members of Staff Side of the National Council of JCM/Departmental<br />
Council.<br />
6. All Officers/Sections of DOP&T/Department of Administrative Reforms<br />
and Public Grievances/ Department of Pensions and Pensioners'<br />
Welfare/PESB.<br />
7. Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure.<br />
8. Railway Board, New Delhi.<br />
10.50 Spare copies.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-77247500882417763652011-07-25T20:34:00.003+05:302011-07-25T20:38:26.035+05:30Ms. Hilda Abraham,Hon CPMG,Odisha Circle transferred<strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Ms. Hilda Abraham (IPoS-1979),CPMG, Orissa Circle transferred as CPMG, of Karnataka<br />Circle Vice Ms Yesodhara Menon promoted in the grade of Member, Postal Services Board.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">Ms Devika Kumar (IPoS-1981) DDG (Philately), Postal Directorate transferred as CPMG, Orissa Circle (on downgraded post of SAG) Vice Ms Hilda Abraham transferred as CPMG, Karnataka Circle.</span></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-61684238207714012702011-05-25T12:12:00.001+05:302011-05-25T12:15:42.818+05:30Benefit of BCR Scheme is to be extended from the date the employee completes 26 years of service,<span style="color:#ff0000;">Benefit of BCR Scheme is to be extended from the date the employee completes 26 years of service,</span><br /><span style="color:#000099;">CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM BENCH</span><br /><br />O.A. NO.792/2010<br /><br />Dated this the 16th day of May, 2011<br /><br />C O R A M<br /><br />HON'BLE Mrs.K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER<br /><br />T.P.Sukumara Pilla, S/o late Parameswara Panicker Parvathy Bhavan, Kadayanikkad P.O,<br />Kangazha-686541, Kottayam. Applicants<br />By Advocate Mr P.K.Madhusoodhanan<br />Vs<br /><br />1 Superintendent of Post Offices, Changanassery<br />Division, Changanassery - 686101.<br /><br />2 The Assistant Director (Staff), Department<br />of Posts, O/o the Post Master General,<br />Central Region, Kochi - 682018.<br /><br />3 Chief Post Master General, Department<br />of Posts, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum-695033.<br /><br />4 Union of India, represented by its Secretary<br />Govt of India, Mini.of Communications, Deptt.<br />Of Posts, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, NewDelhi-1..<br />Respondents<br />By Advocate Mr.M.K.Aboobacker, ACGSC.<br /><br />The Application having been heard on 1.3.2011 the Tribunal delivered the following:<br />O R D E R<br /><br />HON'BLE Mrs.K.NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER<br /><br /><br />In this O.A the applicant is aggrieved by the denial of benefits of Biennial Cadre Review (BCR for short) Scheme though he had completed 26 years of service and has sought a direction to the spondents to grant him the benefits of BCR on completion of 26 years of regular service.<br />2 Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicants are that the applicant entered the service as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent on 19.1.1967. On passing the departmental examination he was promoted as Postman on 13.3.74. Thereafter he was promoted as Clerk on 24.11.1981. He was given Time Bound Onetime Promotion on completion of 16 years of service w.e.f 29.11.1997. While he was working as Sub-postmaster, Kangazha , on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.12.2007. Having completed 26 years service on 29.11.2007 the applicant became eligible for grant of higher pay scale as a benefit under the BCR Scheme, but he was not granted the same. Hence theO.A.<br />3 The respondents contested the O.A. It is submitted that the Biennial Cadre Review was introduced in the Department w.e.f 1.10.1991. It was intended to provide a second financial up- gradation to those officials who have completed 26 years of satisfactory qualifying service, linked to posts identified for such up gradation on the crucial dates. This scheme is implemented by earmarking two crucial dates viz. 1st January and 1st July every year, by taking into account the list of officials who have completed 26 or more years of service as on these dates, subject to their otherwise being found fit. It is submitted that the conditions for BCR placement prescribe completion of 26 years of qualifying service which in the case of the applicant is on 18.12.2007 after deducting the non-qualifying service. On the crucial date of review on 1.7.2007 the applicant had not completed 26 years of service. On the next date of review on 1.1.08 he had superannuated from service. The Screening Committee for placement under BCR was held on 4.6.08 and his name was not included as he was not on duty on the cut-off date of 1.1.2008. Therefore the applicant was not granted the BCR placement. There was no willful negligence or omission on the part of the respondents in granting the said benefit to the applicant.<br /><br />4 Rejoinder to the reply was filed by the applicant disputing the date he has completed 26 years qualifying service on 18.12.2007. He submitted that the non-qualifying service of 24 days in the cadre of Postal Assistant on the occasion of general strikes of postal employees has been decided (Annx.A4) to treat it as Earned Leave. Accordingly the applicant has applied for Earned Leave for 14 days vide Annx.A6.<br />5 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.<br /><br />6 The issue whether the benefits under the BCR Scheme dated 11.9.1991 are to be granted from the date of completion of 26 years of satisfactory service or from the crucial dates of 1st January or 1st July, as the case may be, has been decided by the CAT Lucknow Bench in A.L.Pal Vs. UOI 2002(1)ATJ 298 and by the CAT Mumbai Bench in K.G.Patil Vs. UOI, 2003(3) ATJ 594. It was held that the benefit of BCR Scheme is to be extended from the date the employee completes 26 years of service.<br /><br />6 The issue involved in this OA was already under consideration before this Tribunal in OA 430/09, K.Sasidharan Nair Vs. Sr.Superintendent, RMS 'TV' Division, Trivandrum & Ors and by order dated 5.1.2010 this Tribunal held as under:<br />" Accordingly the O.A is allowed. Annx.A7 order is set aside to the extent it denies the benefits of the BCR scheme to the applicant. The respondents are directed to include the name of the applicant in Annx.A5 list for grant of the BCR benefits w.e.f. 10.9.2007 and grant him all consequential benefits within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs."<br /><br /><br />8 In view of the above position, I follow the order of this Tribunal in OA 430/2009. Accordingly the O.A is allowed. Annx.A3 order is set aside to the extent it denies the benefits of the BCR scheme to the applicant. The respondents are directed to grant the BCR benefits w.e.f. 4.12.2007, in view of Annx.A4 order and the fact that he applied for EL for 14 days (Annx.A6) and grant him all consequential benefits within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.<br /><br />(K.NOORJEHAN)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-16090050090220651062011-04-20T08:23:00.002+05:302011-04-20T08:26:40.759+05:30Stitching Charges for Uniform Staff revised with effect from 01-04-2011<p align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Stitching Charges for Uniform Staff revised with effect from 01-04-2011<br /></strong></span><span style="color:#3333ff;">F.No. 141 1/2010-JCA2 Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel 86 Training)<br />North Block, New Delhi Dated the 18" April, 2011<br /></span><span style="color:#ff0000;">OFFICE MEMORANDUM</span></p><br /><p align="center"><span style="color:#3333ff;">Subject: Revision of Stitching Charges</span>.</p><br /><p align="justify">The undersigned is directed to say that based on a demand raised by the Staff Side, in National Council (JCM), the question of revising the Stitching Charges of Uniforms, supplied to Common Categories of employees (Multi-Tasking Staff - erstwhile Group 'D' posts of Peon, Daftry, Jamadar, Junior Gestetner Operator, Frash, Chowkidar, Safaiwala, Mali etc. and Staff Car Drivers, Dispatch Riders etc.) in the Central Secretariat and its Attached and Subordinate Offices, has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance. Consequently, it has been decided to enhance the rates of stitching charges, with effect from 1 st April, 20 1 1 thereby modifying the earlier instructions issued vide this Ministry's O.M. No. 14/3/2006-JCA dated 28" September, 2006.<br />2. The revised rates of stitching charges, with effect from 1st April, 2011, will be as under:-<br />Winter<br />(1) Buttoned-up-coat and pant - Rs.750/- </p><br /><p align="justify">(2) Over Coat for Staff Car Drivers - Rs.600/- </p><br /><p align="justify">(3) Ladies half-coat - Rs.600/-<br /><br />Summer<br />(4) Pant (Terricot) - Rs.135/- </p><br /><p align="justify">(5) Bush Shirt (Polyvastra) - ' Rs. 60/- </p><br /><p align="justify">(6) Blouse - Rs. 45/ -</p><br /><p align="justify">(7) Petticoat - Rs. 30/- </p><br /><p align="justify">(8) Salwar Kameez - Rs. 90/-<br /><br />Protective clothing [for Mails / Bhisties]<br />(9) Wjama Rs.24/-</p><br /><p align="justify">(10) Short (Half-Pant) Rs.60/-</p><br /><p align="justify">(11) Shirt (Cotton) Rs.45/-</p><br /><p align="justify"><br />3. It may please be noted that the reimbursement of Stitching charges at the prescribed format should be done only after the stitched uniforms are produced and are duly stamped, with indelible ink, at an appropriate place on the wrong side of the stitched dress, for identification. A proper record and procedure should be evolved to ensure that the employees produce the stitched uniforms within a reasonable period (say one month) after the cloth is supplied to them.<br /><br />4. This issues with the concurrence of Department of Expenditure vide ID No. 5(1)/E.I1(A)/2009 dated 08.04.201 1.<br />Hindi version will follow.<br />Director (JCA)<br />To<br />All Ministries<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-66171171717763508982011-04-05T20:59:00.000+05:302011-04-05T21:01:20.176+05:30No recovery for Coop-society dues from DCRG<strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH </span></strong>Original Application No. 457 of 2009 Tuesday, this the 05th day of April, 2011 CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member M. Nagammal, aged 65 years, W/o. Maran, Door No. 579, Jeevanadham Road, Kallukkadai Medu, Pudumai Colony, Erode-638 001. ..... Applicant (By Advocate - Mr. T.C.G. Swamy) V e r s u s 1. Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town, Chennai-3. 2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat. ..... Respondents (By Advocate - Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose) This application having been heard on 16.03.2011, the Tribunal on 05.04.11 delivered the following: O R D E R Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member The applicant is a widow, the only person eligible to receive all the death benefits of her son, late Jaganathan, who died on 05.11.2005 in an accident while working in the Railway service. She was issued with a pension calculation sheet dated 18.04.2006 as at Annexure A-5 showing the amount of DCRG as Rs. 1,15,479/-. But she was paid only about Rs. 50,000/-. Aggrieved, she has filed this O.A for the following reliefs : (a) Direct the respondents to pay the death Gratuity as sanctioned in Annexure A-5 and all other death benefits liable to be paid to the applicant consequent upon the demise of her son late Jaganathan with interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.06.2006 till the date of full and final settlement of the same; (b) Award costs and incidental to this application; (c) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The applicant contended that the respondents are bound to pay the entire DCRG amount as indicated in A-5 and other death benefits. Non- feasance on the part of the respondents to pay the same is arbitrary and contrary to law. 3. The respondents contested the O.A. In their reply, they submitted that late Jaganathan was a habitual absentee who was removed from service twice in his career for unauthorised absence, but later reinstated in service treating the intervening period as Extra Ordinary leave. On innumerable occasions, he was on unauthorised absence. Even though his span of service extended from 1983 to 2005, his actual qualifying service after deducting the Extra Ordinary Leave for unauthorised absence which are counted as non-qualifying service, comes to 16 years only, based on which the DCRG amount is Rs. 65988/- only. From the above amount, a sum of Rs. 13255/- is to be recovered towards Railway dues which consists of funeral advance, electrical energy, rent and overpayment of pay and further an amount of Rs. 25758/- is to be recovered towards dues to Southern Railway Employees Co-Operative Credit Society, Trichy. Thus, the total amount to be recovered comes to Rs. 39013/-. Afterdeducting the same, the net amount payable towards DCRG comes to Rs.26975/- and the same was paid alongwith other settlement dues amounting to Rs. 26356/-. Based on a wrong notion that the late employee had got qualifying service of 21 years, his DCRG was assessed as Rs. 1,15,479/-. On verification, the qualifying service was found to be only 16 years. Accordingly, his DCRG was estimated as Rs. 65988/-. By an oversight the earlier proposed amount of Rs. 1,15,479/- towards DCRG was left out to be deleted in Annexure A-5. The applicant has no right to claim any additional amount other than what is legally due to her. The O.A is liable to be dismissed. 3. In the rejoinder filed by the applicant, it was submitted that the applicant is not responsible for the mistake alleged to have been committed by the respondents. The period of service not specifically shown as non qualifying in the service records with the acknowledgement of the railway servant concerned cannot be treated as non-qualifying service. The respondents have not shown how they can make the recovery in respect of electrical energy, rent, overpayment of pay and dues towards the Southern Railway Employees Co-Operative Credit Society in the absence of statutory empowerment of respondents to do so. 4. In the reply to the rejoinder, the respondents submitted that the inadvertent omission on the part of the respondents in making necessary corrections in Annexure A-5 will not give the applicant any added advantage for claiming additional benefits other than what is legally due to her. Rule 15 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, authorizes recovery of dues from DCRG. 5. In the additional rejoinder filed by the applicant, it was submitted that arbitrarily reducing the qualifying service as ascertained in Annexure A-5 without giving due notice is unsustainable. In Para 1234 of the Indian Railway Administration and Finance, it is stipulated that the signature of the employees governed by Pension Rules is to be obtained in the service book in token of their having inspected the service books. The recovery as stated by the respondents is impermissible in the absence of any statutory provision. 6. I have heard Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, the learned SCGSC, appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 7. Late Jaganathan was an employee governed by the Pension Rules. As per Para 1234 of the Indian Railway Administration and Finance, it is the duty of every Head of Office to initiate action to show the service book to the railway servants governed by pension rules under his administrative control every year and to obtain their signatures therein in token of their having inspected the service books. As per the say of the respondents, late Jaganathan was a habitual absentee. He was removed from service twice in his career for unauthorised absence. Afterwards, considering his appeal he was reinstated in service duly treating the intervening period as Extra Ordinary Leave. Other than Extra Ordinary Leave granted on medical certificates, the appointing authority at the time of granting Extra Ordinary Leave may allow the period of that leave to count as qualifying service if such leave is granted to a Railway servant due to his inability to join or rejoin duty on account of civil commotion or for prosecuting higher scientific or technical studies as per Rule 36 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Therefore, in the case of late Jaganathan, the respondents are justified in not counting his Extra Ordinary Leave for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It is true that his service book does not contain the signature of late Jaganathan in token of his having inspected it. This is a technical infirmity. The respondents have been magnanimous in reinstating a habitual absentee in service on two occasions. If the service book was not inspected by the employee, the blame should be shared by the employee also. The technical infirmity of not having employee's signature in the service book cannot legitimize counting of unauthorised absence as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The respondents have every right to correct an inadvertent error in calculating the qualifying service of late Jaganathan. The initial error on the part of the respondents will not confer an enforceable right on the applicant to claim additional benefits other than what is legally due to her. 8. The relevant part of Rules 15(2) and 15(4)(ii) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, read as follows : "15(2) : The railway or Government dues as ascertained and assessed, which remain outstanding till the date of retirement or death of the railway servant, shall be adjusted against the amount of the retirement gratuity or death gratuity or terminal gratuity and recovery of the dues against the retiring railway servant shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (4)." "15(4) (ii) : .......It is permissible to make recovery of Government dues from the retirement, death, terminal or service gratuity even without obtaining his consent, or without obtaining the consent of the members of his family in the case of a deceased railway servant." 9. As per the above rules, any advance, overpayment of pay and allowance, house rent, dues pertaining to Railway accommodation etc. can be recovered from the DCRG of the employee concerned without obtaining his consent. Therefore, the respondents are justified in making recovery of Rs. 13255/- from the DCRG amount of Rs. 65988/-. However, as per 15(3)(c) of the Pension Rules, the amounts payable by a railway servant to Consumer Co-Operative Societies, Consumer Credit Societies and the autonomous organisation may be recovered from the retirement gratuity which has become payable to the retiring railway servant provided he gives his consent for doing so in writing to the administration. In the instant case, the respondents have no case that late Jaganathan had given his consent for recovering the amount payable by him to Southern Railway Employees Co-Operative Credit Society, Trichy. There is no justification or legal basis for recovering the amount of Rs. 25758/- from the DCRG amount of late Jaganathan. The amount unauthorisedly recovered by the respondents towards dues to Southern Railway Employees Co-Operative Credit Society, Trichy, is to be refunded to the applicant. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed to the extent indicated below. 10. The respondents are directed to pay the applicant an amount of Rs. 25758/- which was recovered unauthorisedly towards dues to Southern Railway Employees Co-Operative Credit Society, Trichy, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. No order as to costs. (Dated, the 05th April, 2011) (K. GEORGE JOSEPH) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBERUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-7627679654004041822011-04-04T22:54:00.001+05:302011-04-04T22:57:33.220+05:30Option be exercised for retrospective revision of Pay<p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH</span> </strong>O.A. NO. 180/2010 Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 C O R A M HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER HON'BLE Dr. K.B. SURESH, JUDICIAL MEMBER C. Radhakrishanan S/o. (late) R. Chami Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector Grade II/Sleeper Southern Railway / Coimbatore Residing at : "Krishna Priya" Swathy Nagar, Kallekulangara (P.O.) Palghat - 9. ..... Applicant (By Advocate Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy) Vs 1. Union of India represented by. The General Manager. Southern Railway, Headquarters Office Park Town (P.O), Chennai. 2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway, Palghat Division Palghat. .... Respondents (By Advocate Mr. P. Haridas) The Application having been heard on 18.02.2011, the Tribunal on 29.3.2011 delivered the following: O R D E R HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant, a Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector in the Palghat Division of Southern Railway, is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to accept his option for fixation of pay consequent upon re-fixation of pay with retrospective effect, while implementing the orders of the Tribunal in O.A. 63/2007. 2. The applicant is presently working as a Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34900 with grade pay of Rs. 4200/- in the Palghat Division of Southern Railway. He had earlier approached theTribunal through O.A. 63/2007 for a declaration that he is entitled to have the pay of Rs. 350/- in the scale of Rs. 330-560 w.e.f. 16.12.1984 on par with his junior Shri K.R. Hariharan and to fix his pay at Rs. 350 in the scale of Rs. 260-400 with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal allowed the O.A and ordered the respondents to refix the pay notionally without arrears of pay (A-1). However, as regards denial of arrears, the applicant had filed WP(C) No. 11178 of 2009 before the High Court, which is pending. The applicant has also filed CPC No. 32 of 2009 before the Tribunal against non-fixation of pay as directed in O.A. 63/2007. The respondents filed a statement enclosing copy of order issued by the 2nd respondent (A-2) on the basis of which the Contempt Petition was closed. However, the applicant noticed he was denied an option for fixation of his pay on different dates of promotion. Therefore, he submitted a representation </p><br /><p align="justify">(A-3). As there was no action he has filed this O.A for a direction to the respondents to act upon the options exercised by him in terms of A-3 and grant consequential benefit with all arrears. The main ground urged by the applicant is that as he has been granted revision of pay with retrospective effect, he is entitled to exercise option /re-option every time when the pay is fixed under FR 22 (I)(a)(1). 3. At the outset the respondents contended that the O.A is barred by limitation as the pay fixation sought to be revised relates to year 1984. They opposed the contention of the applicant that he is entitled to be given an option whenever pay is revised and fixed under Rule FR 22(1)(a)(1). They stated that the Tribunal in O.A. 63/2007 directed the respondents to refix the pay of the applicant in pay scale of Rs. 260-400 as on 14/16.12.1984 w.r.t his presumptive substantive pay in the previous scale and extend consequential benefits without arrears of pay. They contended that the order cannot be treated as a fresh promotion order enabling pay fixation as per the applicant's option. They also relied on the letter No. E(P&A)II-81/PP-4 dated 13.11.1981 under which the employee has an option. They stated that the applicant has however not exercised his option in the prescribed format. There is no record to show that he had exercised his option. Revision of pay on par with his junior is not a promotion order and hence he is not entitled to exercise an option as in the case of promotion. 4. We have heard the parties and perused the documents produced before us. 5. The issue of revision of pay of the applicant started with the direction of the Tribunal in O.A. 63/2007. The operative portion of the order is extracted below: "8 For the reasons stated as above, the OA is allowed as follows. The impugned order dated 7.7.2006 is quashed in so far as it relates to the rejection of the applicants request for refixation of his pay. The respondents are directed to refix the pay of the applicant in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 as on 14/16.12.1984 with reference to his presumptive substantive pay in the previous scale and extend notional consequential benefits without arrears of pay to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs." 6. The pay of the applicant is directed to be refixed w.r.t his presumptive substantive pay in the previous scale extending notional consequential benefits. The respondents have not gone on appeal against the order. The Writ Petition filed by the applicant is only against the denial of arrears. Therefore, the order directing pay fixation portion has become final and is binding on the respondents. The Tribunal has directed to refix the pay in the scale of Rs. 260-400 as on 14/16.12.1984. Therefore, while implementing the order of the Tribunal, the respondents are bound to give an opportunity to the applicant to exercise the option available to him and ask him to submit his option in the prescribed proforma. The contention of the respondents that the applicant has not exercised option in the correct format is not tenable. It is the duty of the respondents to inform him about the fixation of his pay and seek option of the applicant. The respondents have not done so. The applicant did represent indicating his option for fixation of pay. The respondents have not accepted it. 7. In this view of the matter, the applicant is permitted to submit his option in the prescribed format and the respondents are directed to accept it and act upon it and refix the pay of the applicant following the direction of the Tribunal in O.A.63/2007. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs. Dated 29th March, 2011 DR. K.B. SURESH K. NOORJEHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-24812539651969185802011-03-30T21:15:00.002+05:302011-03-30T21:19:02.234+05:30HRA admissible for de-quarterized Post Quarters<div align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;">CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK </span><span style="color:#ff0000;">O.A No. 245 of 2010 Cuttack, this the 3rd January, 2011 </span><span style="color:#3333ff;">Niranjan Nayak . Applicant -v- UOI and others . Respondents </span>C O R A M THE HON BLE MR. C.R. MOHAPATRA, MEMBER (A) </div><br /><div align="justify">Prayer of the Applicant in this OA is for direction to the Respondents to release his House Rent Allowance(in short HRA) and Conveyance Allowance ( in short CA) during his incumbency as Sub Postmaster, Debidol SO from 12.09.2006 to 19-06-2009 after quashing the order rejecting his claim under Annxure-A/11 dated 19.04.2010. 2. The contention of the Applicant is that Respondent No.4 vide Memo No.B/G-75 dated 31.8.2007 intimated the Respondent No.2 that the standard of accommodation required for C class SO comes to 1115 Sq.Ft against plinth area of 652 Sq.ft including post quarter. The rooms of the post quarter in question are very small and in one room of post quarter the post office Almirah and records are kept and used as Store Room. The electricity connection was disconnected since there is pending bill amounting to Rs.61,193/- and the post quarter is also in a dilapidated condition and is not habitable and also the Respondent No.4 recommended for de-quarterization. He has also placed reliance on the correspondence made in this regard so also the periodical inspection report stating that the quarter in question was not habitable for the stay of the Applicant. 3. According to the Respondents, in their counter filed in this case, the Applicant is not entitled to HRA & CA for the reason that prior to his promotion to Postal Assistant cadre, the Applicant (Niranjan Nayak) was working as Gramin Dak Sevak in Balikuda SO. After his promotion to postman cadre he worked as Postman and officiated as O/S Mails at Balikuda SO from 17.10.1977 to 13.07.1981 as a result he had rendered his entire period of service at Balikuda and Borikina SO which are within 8 KM radius of his native place. After that he was transferred to Devidol. His permanent residence is only 1 KM away from Balikuda. Borikina is 7 KM away from Balikuda. So he has spent more than 30 years in two offices namely Balikuda and Borikina. When he was posted at Devidol he became suffocated because he was in habit of residing at home getting HRA. It has further been stated that he being a senior official used to work as PA rather than working as SPM in single handed/double handed offices. The Devidol post office is functioning in the existing building since 1.3.1975. Previously nobody has ever complained about the unsuitability of the building. On his posting as SPM, Devidol the applicant did not occupy the quarters taking lot of pleas. The applicant is not residing in the said quarter and commuting between Devidol and Nagpur (Balikuda) daily. The post office in question is having the Post attached quarter in which the predecessor of the applicant was residing. The quarter was vacant from the day of the joining of the applicant. As per the Rules 37 of Postal V, Manual Vol.VI, Part I (Annexure-R/1) applicant was supposed to reside in the said quarter. When the applicant joined as SPM Debidol the quarter was habitable. Since the applicant did not intentionally and deliberately on some plea or the other occupied the quarters he is not entitled to the relief claimed in this OA and this OA is liable to be dismissed. 4. A rejoinder has been filed by the Applicant more or less stating the same thing as has been stated in the OA. 5. It reveals from the record that with this prayer applicant earlier approached first in OA No. 276 of 2008. Considering the rival submission of the parties made with reference to the pleadings and materials placed on record, in order dated 21st October, 2009 this Tribunal disposed of the matter. Relevant portion of the order is quoted herein below: ( 3). In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter, this Original Application is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to make a detailed representation incorporating the document relied on in his rejoinder to the Respondent No. 2 within a period of seven days hence. On receipt of such representation, the Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to consider and dispose of the same with a reasoned and speaking order and communicate the result thereof to the Applicant within a period of 60 days. No costs. 6. RA No. 16 of 2009 filed by the Applicant seeking review of the aforesaid order was dismissed by this Tribunal on 07.12.2009. Thereafter, in compliance of the order of this Tribunal, by making representation dated 21.12.2009 by placing materials he tried to justify his claim for payment of the House Rent & Conveyance Allowances for the period from 12.09.2006 to 19.06.2009. He has also taken support of the decision of this Tribunal dated 21.10.2009 rendered in OA No. 463 of 2008. The Respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the applicant and communicated the decision to the applicant in letter dated 11th February, 2010. The said order of rejection was challenged by the Applicant in OA No. 111 of 2010. This Tribunal, in order dated 16th March, 2010 disposed of the matter relevant portion of the order reads as under: ( 4). Having heard the rival submissions of the parties perused the materials placed on record including the earlier orders of this Tribunal vis-`-vis the order under challenge. I find substantial force in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant as it is seen that all the points taken in the representation of the applicant have not been taken into consideration by the Respondent No.2 while giving consideration and rejecting the representation of the Applicant. As such, for the ends of justice and to avoid waste of time, it is deemed fit and proper to dispose of this Original Application at this admission stage by quashing the order under Annexure-A/9 with direction to Respondent No.2 to give a fresh consideration to the grievance of the Applicant and pass a reasoned order under initiation to the Applicant within a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order. Ordered accordingly. 7. The prayer of the Applicant has again been rejected in Annexure-A/11 dated 19th April, 2010 against which the Applicant has approached this Tribunal in the present OA with the aforesaid prayer. 8. By reiterating the stand taken in the respective pleadings, Learned Counsel appearing for both sides have prayed for the relief in support of their claim and having heard them at length perused the materials placed on record. 9. Order of rejection under Annexure-A/11 for grant of HRA & CA for the period from 12.09.2006 to 10.06.2009 speaks as under: This is regarding compliance of the direction of Hon ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 16.03.2010 in OA No. 111/10 filed by Shri Niranjan Nayak, Ex-SPM, Debidol SO and presently working as SPM, Borikina SO. The Hon ble Tribunal in its order, dated 16.03.2010 directed the Respondent No.2 that is Chief Postmaster General, Orissa Circle to consider the representation dated 21-12-2009 to give a fresh consideration to the grievance of the applicant and pass a reasoned order and speaking order within a period of 30 days. The Judgment as above was received on 29-03-2010. The said Sri Nayak in his representation has requested for payment of HRA in lieu of rent free accommodation for the period from 12.09.2006 to 10.06.2009 as SPM, Debidol on the plea of unsuitable and insufficient accommodation of the SPM. Shri Nayak joined as SPM Debidol SO on 12.9.2006. After joining he represented to the SPOs, Cuttack South Division, Cuttack as well as to this office for dequarterization of the pot quarters on the plea that the post quarters of Debidol SO is not suitable for residence o the SPM. The post quarters has not been dequarterized by the competent authority. The present SPM staying in the post quarters at Debidol SO has not represented for HRA in lieu of post quarters nor has he been given HRA in lieu of post quarters. In fact he has accepted the post quarters which is ready for occupation. The representation of the applicant and report dated 07.04.2010 of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack South Division and other records have been considered as per the rulings of the Directorate regarding post quarters meant for Postmasters/Sub Post Masters. The claim of the applicant for payment of HRA for the period 12.9.2006 to 10.6.2009 as SPM Debidol SO has been considered in the light of above discussion and rejected as the same is not admissible as per the departmental rules and instructions on the subject and also because the same is not justified. 10. The reasons given in letter of rejection seem contrary to the record as could be evident from the contents of the letter under Annexure-A/5. Full text of the letter under Annexure-/5 is reproduced herein below: In continuation of this office letter of even no. dated 17.8.2007, the facts of the case is that Debidol C class delivery SO is functioning in the rented accommodation provided by Kanchanbala Padhi At/Po-Debidol. The SPM is provided with post quarter. The standard of accommodation required for C class delivery SO comes to 1115 sqft (copy enclosed) against available plinth area of 652 sft including Post quarter. On receipt of representation of Sri Niranjan Nayak, the ASPOs, I/C Jagatsinghpur Sub Division made spot visit and submitted his report stating that the rooms of the post quarter are very small and in one room of post quarter the SPM has kept post office Almirah and records and used as store room. This is to mention that the electricity connection to the post office has been disconnected since there is pending bill amounting to Rs.61193/- and the said bill is under enquiry. The post quarter is also in dilapidated condition. Hence the post quarters is not habitable and it is recommended for dequarterisatioin. Sri Niranjan Nayak SPM, Debidol joined as SPM Debidol on 12.09.06. He submitted one representation on 12.9.06 stating that he has not taken possession of post quarter since it is not habitable. He further requested that necessary order for drawal of house rent in lieu of rent free accommodation may be sanctioned in his favour. As per Director of Estate OM No.12035 (21)/90-POl.ll dtd 4.10.1991 (instruction under SR 316 A of FRSR Part-I, the successor should take possession of post quarter on his joining. The official joined on 12.9.06 but failed to take possession of post quarter in violating above instructions. Hence no order was issued for drawal of his HRA in lieu of rent free accommodation to the postmaster Jagatsinghpur HO. The Asst. Engineer Civil has proposed to visit the office on 4.7.07 but due to his otherwise engagement it was not feasible. Basing on the report of the ASPOs Jagatsinghpur Sub Division and IR remark of Para 46 of IR dtd 26.11.99 (ASPOs I/C Jagatsingpur) and Para 34 of IR dtd.2.11.01 of SPOs Cuttack South Dvn., it is proposed to dequarterised Debidol post quarter. Moreover as per CO letter No. Inv/Misc.-17/04 dtd.11.7.05 (copy enclosed) the proposal to shift the Post Office to other rented building has not been materialized due to non-availability of suitable accommodation. 11. From the contents of the letter it is clear that the post quarter was not in habitable position for the stay of the Applicant. It was also inadequate according to the yardstick of the space for the post quarter. Merely because the predecessor was and successor is residing in the quarters cannot be a ground to deny the applicant his legitimate right to get the HRA & CA in lieu of the accommodation. Applicant has been agitating the difficulty and expressing his inability to reside in the quarters. Non-availability of suitability accommodation cannot be a ground to compel the applicant to reside in the post quarters which is inadequate and having no minimum requirement for one s residing. It is not the case of the Respondents that the applicant was residing in the said quarters for the period in question. The reason of rejection shows without proper application of mind to the fact available on record. This apart, getting of HRA & CA when the post attached quarters was not adequate for residing came up for consideration before this Tribunal in OA No. 463 of 2008 filed by one Paramananda Nanda claiming HRA & CA for the period from 26.5.2004 to 25.5.2005 as he was not residing in the post attached quarters as the same was not commensurate with his status and position. The said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal on 21st October, 2009 directing payment of the HRA & CA for the aforesaid period. Relevant portion of the order is extracted herein below: (5.)As it appears, the above stand has again been reiterated in the report submitted by Respondent No.5 under Annexure-A/10 dated 08.11.2005 and Annexure-A/12 dated 20.02.2006 while meeting the queries made by Respondent No.4. From the above, it is clear that the quarters in question were not according to the entitlement of the Applicant. None can be insisted to do something beyond the rules. Similarly, none can be compelled upon to stay in a quarters which is not in accordance with his entitlement. Government is under obligation to provide quarters to its employees and in case of non-availability of quarters according to the entitlement of an employee the employee concerned is entitled to HRA. On going through the report submitted by the Respondent No. 4 in my opinion there remains nothing further to hold that in not occupying the quarters in question the applicant had violated the relevant rules. In the ircumstances, it is nothing but fair to hold that non-payment of the HRA and CA in lieu of the quarters cannot be justified. That the predecessors of the Applicant were occupying the quarters cannot be a ground to insist on the Applicant to reside in the quarters which was admittedly inadequate, in other words unsuitable for the applicant to stay. However, I refrain from quashing the order under Annexure-A/14 & A/16 in rejecting the prayer of the applicant for dequarterisation of the Post quarters; as quashing of the orders would tantamount to depriving the successor of applicant who might have been interested to take the quarters even with such deficiency. ( 6). In view of the discussions made above, as the Applicant did not occupy the quarters in question for the period he was holding the post, the Respondents are hereby directed to grant the Applicant HRA and on fulfilling the condition CA for the period from 26.05.2004 to 25.5.2005 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. 12. Similar grievance also came up for consideration in OA No. 141 of 2010 [Kabir Charan Mallick v Union of India and others]. This Tribunal allowed the prayer made in the OA by directing the Respondents to make payment of the HRA for the period from 1.10.2005 to 31.3.2009 to the Applicant therein. 13. On examination of the facts and issues involved and decided by this Tribunal in earlier two OAs (referred to above) vis-`-vis the facts and issue involved in the present case, I find no reason to differ from the view already taken in earlier cases. After going through the letter under Annexure-A/5, I also do not find any justifiable reason to uphold the decision taken in Annexuire-A/11 dated 19.04.2010 rejecting the claim of the applicant. Hence the order of rejection under Annexure-A/11 is hereby quashed. The Respondents are hereby directed to sanction and disburse the HRA/CA for the period from 12.09.2006 to 19.6.2009 within a period of 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of this order. 14. In the result, with the aforesaid observation and direction this OA stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (C.R.MOHAPATRA) Member(Admn.) </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-52716619561501342122011-03-23T17:55:00.001+05:302011-03-23T17:56:24.825+05:30Holiday on account of Birthday of Dr B R Ambedkar<div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Holiday on account of Birthday of Dr. B R Ambedkar </span></strong></div><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"><div align="justify"><br /></span></strong>The Government has decided to declare 14th April 2011 (Thursday) as a Closed Holiday on account of the birthday of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar for all central Government offices, including industrial establishments throughout India.<br />The above holiday is also being notified in exercise of powers conferred by Section 25 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (26 of 1881) </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-78082506780536517782011-03-18T17:45:00.001+05:302011-03-18T17:47:33.444+05:30Employee opting for voluntary retirement no right to withdraw<div align="center"><a title="Permanent Link to Employee opting for voluntary retirement scheme has no right to withdraw" href="http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/employee-opting-voluntary-retirement-scheme-withdraw.html"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#cc0000;">Employee opting for voluntary retirement scheme </span></strong></a></div><div align="center"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">has no right to withdraw</span></strong><br /></span><span style="color:#000099;">Court- Karnataka High Court<br />Citation-</span></div><div align="center"><span style="color:#000099;">Sri A. Balakrishnan S/O Late … vs The General Manager, Hindustan (2007) 208 CTR Kar 337, 2007 290 ITR 227 KAR<br /></span></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#006600;">Judgement<br /></span></strong>1. Petitioner was an employee in the 1st respondent – Organization M/s. HMT Ltd. Petitioner availed of a voluntary retirement scheme as on 31.3.2003 that was mooted by the employer and as a result he received an amount of Rs. 6,01,270/-. The employer at the time of paying this amount deducted a sum of Rs. 29,331/- at source under the provisions of Section 192 of the Act and an acknowledgment in Form 16-A was also issued to the petitioner evidencing the deduction of this amount from the amount paid to him and remitted the same to the credit of the Income Tax Department.<br />2. It is the version of the petitioner that in respect of the amount that he has received in terms of the provisions of Section 10(10)(c), 173(1) and 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short the Act] read with Rules 2 (A)(A), the Page 0541 petitioner was not liable for payment of any tax and the amount of Rs. 29,331/- deducted on the amount of Rs. 1,01,270/- purporting to be on the salary part of the assessee was to be refunded even in terms of the law laid down by this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore and Anr. v. Surendra Prabhu P reported in 2005 (59) KLJ 609 [HC][DB].<br />3. It appears the petitioner had filed a return in Form No. 2-D seeking refund of this amount A copy of the return is produced as Annexure-C to the writ petition. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Income Tax Authorities did not respond to the return filed by the petitioner in Form 2-D and as a consequence the petitioner pressed into service the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 by filing an application on 18.7.2006, copy at Annexure-D to the petition. It is in response to this, the 2nd respondent – Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore -5, has intimated the petitioner that return of income is not a valid return and cannot be processed as it has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 139 of the Act.<br />4. It is aggrieved by the action of the respondents and at this stage, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, inter alia, seeking for quashing of the endorsement at Annexure-E and for issue of a consequential mandamus to direct the respondent No. 2 to refund the excess deduction of Rs. 29,331/- deducted by his employer and remitted to the Income Tax Department.<br />5. Notices had been issued to the respondents and respondent No. 2 has entered appearance through its standing Counsel. Statement of objections has also been filed.<br />6. While the facts are not in dispute, what is urged in the statement of objections is that the assessee having filed the return on 18-5-2006 is beyond the permitted time in terms of Section 139(1) of the Act as according to the respondents, the return should have been filed by 31-7-2003 and the return filed on 18-5-2006 being even beyond the extended period permitted in terms of Section 139(4) of the Act, the return is invalid and is treated as non est. It is also indicated that the respondents are fortified in taking such view in terms of the Judgment of the division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal – III v. Srimati Minabati Agarwalla reported in 79 ITR 278 and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.<br />7. Petition was admitted and thereafter Sri. Sukumaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Aravind, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 have been heard.<br />8. What is pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the return filed in form-2D is not an application for refund but a return of the factual position of the receipts of the petitioner from his salary income etc., and it is not open to the income tax department to decline to process the return.<br />9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that a non filing of the return within the time stipulated under Section 139(1) of the Act or the extended time under Section 139(4) of the Act would only result in the Page 0542 consequential liability for interest etc., and possible penalty also and is not one which places an embargo on the Income Tax Department from processing the return and passing the orders on the same; that in the circumstances, while endorsement at Annexure-E should be quashed, if not a mandamus for refund, a mandamus for processing the return at least should be issued to the respondent No. 2.<br />10. Sri. Aravind, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 on the other hand submits that the 2nd respondent or the Income Tax Department is not so much averse to consider the return of the petitioner but petitioner is required to file an application in terms of Section 139(2)(b) of the Act as the return which was filed on 18-5-2006 on the face of it is a belated return; that unless the Commissioner in exercise of the power delegated by the Board under this provision condones the delay in filing such return, it may not be possible for the assessing officer to process the return and would therefore submit that if the petitioner should file an application before the Commissioner invoking the provisions of Section 139(2)(b) of the Act, it will enable the concerned assessing officer to process the return if the Commissioner should condone the delay in filing the return etc.,.<br />11. It is the submission of learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 that unless this procedure is gone through, it is not open to the assessing officer to assess the return as the return is a void return or non est in law and therefore mandamus as sought for cannot be issued nor certiorari for quashing the endorsement at Annexure-E.<br />12. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 would place reliance on the decision of the division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-III v. Srimati Minabati Agarwalla reported in 79 ITR 278 as also a single Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Auto and Metal Engineers v. Union Of India and Anr. reported in 111 ITR 161.<br />13. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Minabati’s case was a decision rendered in the context of the provisions of Section 22(2), 22(3) and 34(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, holding that as returns filed by the assessee in that case for the years 1953-54 to 1956-57 on 9-8-1961 were invalid, no fresh assessment could have been made on the basis of an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 33B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The Calcutta High Court was answering the question which reads as under:<br />Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the returns filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1953-54 to 1956-57 on 9th August, 1961, were invalid and that no fresh assessments could be made on the basis of the Commissioner’s order under Section 33B of the Indian Income-Tax Act?<br />The learned Judges on considering the case law on the point and also examining the decision of the Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative holding that such returns were invalid and the Commissioner Page 0543 by issue of directions under Section 33B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 could not have directed for passing fresh assessment orders on such returns.<br />14. The actual question that arose in that case was about the competence of the Commissioner to issue directions under Section 33B to direct the assessing officer to process a return otherwise invalid under the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.<br />15. The filing of the returns under the Income Tax Act 1961 is now governed by the provisions of Section 139 of the said Act. A perusal of the provisions of Section 139 does not indicate that the authorities are barred from processing return filed under the Act just because it is not filed within the time stipulated either under Section 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act.<br />16. While it may not be open to the income tax department to bring to tax any income beyond the period permitted in terms of Section 147 of the Act if within that time either a return is filed whether within the time stipulated under Section 139(1) or 139(4) or otherwise, it can be looked into and there is no embargo as such.<br />17. In the present case, the petitioner having filed the return though beyond the time permitted, it is not as though the return is one which is per se prohibited to be processed by the income tax authorities under the statutory provisions. It is for this reason, with great respect, I am not inclined to follow the decision rendered by the Calcutta High Court in Minabatt’s case supra.<br />18. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has also placed reliance on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Metal Engineer’s case supra.<br />19. That was a case where the assessing authority declined to process a return filed by the assessee within the permitted time under Section 139 and on the other hand had issued a notice under Section 147 of the Act calling upon the assessee to make a return and on the other hand the assessee had questioned the legality of the notice issued under Section 147 of the Act.<br />20. The court took the view that notice under Section 147 was not invalid as the assessee had not filed the return within the time permitted under Section 139(1) of the Act and it cannot be automatically taken that there was an extension of time permitted under Section 139(2) of the Act, just because the Income Tax Officer had impressed upon the assessee the need to file the return immediately in a letter addressed to the addressee.<br />21. The court again was involved with the question of validity of notice issued under Section 147 of the Act in the context of a belated return by the assessee.<br />22. I am afraid, this decision does not apply to the case of the petitioner in the present situation.<br />23. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has also brought to the notice of the court Section 119(2)(b) of the Act and submits that unless the petitioner files an application for refund before the Board and the Board directs for Page 0544 processing the return after condoning the delay, the assessing officer win not be in a position to process the return; that the Board in exercise of its power under Section 119 in turn can delegate the power on other Officers of the Income Tax Department for the purpose of condoning any delay or non-compliance for which there are time stipulations and such power having been delegated to the Commissioner, it is necessary that the petitioner should apply to the Commissioner under this provision seeking the condonation of delay in filing the return of income.<br />24. While it is no doubt open to an assessee to invoke the provisions, not one invoking the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) does not come in the way of the duly of the income tax department to process the return filed by the petitioner.<br />25. A reference to Section 119(2)(b) of the Act cannot relieve the respondents from the obligation of examining a return filed by the petitioner. It cannot be used as an excuse for inaction on the part of the respondents.<br />26. In the present case, it is obvious that the respondent No. 2 is not inclined to process the return as the petitioner may become entitled for refund if the return is processed and orders passed thereon. If it were to be a case where the petitioner was to pay some tax which he had not paid earlier, perhaps the respondents would have been more than willing to even issue a notice under Section 147 of the Act and calls upon the assessee to file a return or a revised return as the case may be and proceed to take further action under the Act The test is if a return pursuant to the notice under Section 147 of the Act could be processed, there is no reason as to why return filed otherwise cannot be processed. The defence put up by the respondents for not processing the return filed by the assessee in Form-2D (copy at Annexure-DJ is not supported by any provision of the statute and can only amount to inaction on the part of the respondents.<br />27. The time stipulation prescribed for filing return of income in terms of Section 139 of the Act is operative on a person who is compelled to file a return in terms of Section 139(1) of the Act. It is a person who has income over and above the exempted limit and whose income is taxable under the Act, who is required to file the return and while so, is bound to follow the period. The extended periods in terms of several sub-sections are also applicable to such persons.<br />28. Likewise, the notice in terms of Section 147 and the time stipulation for issue of notice etc., are also in respect of a person who has taxable income and whose taxable income has either not been offered to assessment at all or who has not declared full particulars of his income. For a person like the petitioner, if his taxable income is nil, in the sense that he has no obligation to file a return, the time stipulations also equally cannot apply. Therefore, to say that the income tax authorities are disabled from scrutinizing the return filed by the petitioner, in view of the time stipulation in terms of Section 153 for processing such return may not be correctly apply at all. On the other hand, the employer having deducted certain amount from the Page 0545 petitioner as deduction at source on the payment of salary/retiral benefits and having remitted it to the account of the income tax department and this deduction being in terms of the provisions of the Act and if the assessee is not otherwise enabled to claim refund of this amount under any other statutory provisions and if he is not actually liable to pay the kind of income tax deducted at source nor the teamed counsel for respondent having pointed out to any enabling statutory provision, the only other way the petitioner can seek for refund of the amount is by filing a return of his income and as a result of the assessment if it is found the tax liability of the petitioner is nil, the assessing officer may take note of the amount already deducted from out of the amount paid to the petitioner by his employer and remitted to the income tax department and direct refund of that amount to the assessee as part of the assessment order. For not performing this exercise, the respondents cannot bind the time stipulation indicated in Section 139 of the Act as a defence.<br />29. For the very reason, reference to provisions of Section 192(1B) of the Act and on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the respondents is also not tenable, as it is only such assessee who is seeking for an extension of the time stipulation or a condonation of delay in compliance, may invoke the provisions of Section 119(2)(a) of the Act. If no time stipulation was in the first instance applicable to the return that is filed by the petitioner, the provisions Section 119(2)(b) arc also not needed at all.<br />30. Viewed from another angle also, the respondents cannot decline to process the return as the exemption of payment as terminal benefit and exceeding a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh in terms of Section 10(10C) of the Act is also one on a claim by the assessee as an amount received which qualifies for this exemption. This again can be done only in a return filed by the assessee and not elsewhere. It may be noticed that if the assessee is not entitled for this benefit of Section 10(10C), then the income becomes taxable and it can be brought to tax by the assessing officer by invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Act At feast for determination of this position, it will be necessary for the assessing officer to process the return and finalize the same and if need be by invoking the provisions of Section 147 also. Even without looking into the return, it will not be possible for the assessing officer to conclude that as there is no taxable income, no need to process the return etc. Therefore, in either view of the matter, it will be necessary for the assessing officer to process the return and to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not to justify the inaction.<br />31. It is the duty of the functionaries under the Income Tax Act to Implement the provisions of the Act in accordance with law. A return filed is bound to be processed by the Income Tax Authorities for which purpose they are meant unless there is an embargo placed. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has not been able to point out a specific statutory provision which places an embargo and on the other hand is only pointing out to other Page 0546 possibilities of invoking relaxation etc., which by itself does not place an embargo to process the return.<br />32. It is rather unfortunate that the Income Tax Department has taken such an adamant and stubborn stand only to deny a possible refund to the petitioner. An amount which would have been otherwise due to the petitioner if is retained by the Income Tax Department without any justification, then inaction cannot be put up as a defence for retention of an amount. I say this because the amount which can be realised even by way of income tax from any assessee can only be in accordance with the statutory provisions, as is mandated under Article 265 of the Constitution of India.<br />33. In terms of the law laid down by this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore and Anr. v. Surendra Prabhu P reported in 2005 (59) KLJ 609 [HC][DB] on which reliance is placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner it does points out that in respect of any payment received by a person seeking voluntary retirement the first five lakhs rupees is exempt under Section 10(10-C) of the Act and in respect of balance of the amount, the tax deducted is not justified as the balance amount is one which entitles for exemption within the permissible limit.<br />34. It is not necessary for this Court to go into these details. If such is perhaps the factual position, retention of the amount can be obviously in violation of law and as one without proper authority.<br />35. Though a writ of mandamus could have been issued even for refunding of the amount, as this aspect of the matter has not been examined by the authorities, it is but proper to issue a mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to ensure that the return filed by the assessee is duly processed in accordance with law and appropriate orders passed on the same within three months from today.<br />36. Petitioner having been put to the ordeal of not processing his return, declining an amount which he would have earned by his toil, respondents are bound to compensate and I am of the view it calls for commensurate cost to be paid to the petitioner. Cost is also increased to make the respondents realise the effect of it, as this Court cannot appreciate an inaction on the part of a public authority being put forth as a defence for not performing the duty and that in turn resulting in harassment and hardship to an hapless citizen like the petitioner, who is compelled to approach this Court for relief.<br />37. Rule made absolute. The endorsement bearing No. F.No. 5/RTI/CIT V/2006-07 dated 18-8-2006 [copy at Annexure-E] passed by the respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari.<br />38. Writ petition allowed levying cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondents. Cost to be paid within eight weeks from today.<br />Source-I net</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-41586251312950801902011-03-01T19:44:00.001+05:302011-03-01T19:46:37.323+05:30'Certificate of Posting'. discontinued<p align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">'Certificate of Posting'. discontinued</span></strong> </p><p align="center"><span style="color:#3333ff;">vide:D.G. Posts No.2-4/2008-PO dated 23.02.2011.</span></p><p align="left"><br /> Under the provisions of Rule 195 of the Indian Post Office Rules , 1933 'Certificate of Posting' is granted to the public to afford an assurance that letters and other articles for which no receipts are granted by the Post Office and entrusted to servants or messengers for posting have actually been posted.<br /> It has since been decided that' Certificate of Posting' may be discontinued immediately.<br /> A copy of Gazette Notification No. 58(E) dated 31.1.2011 deleting rule 195 of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 regarding 'Certificate of Posting' is enclosed for information and necessary action.<br /> This may kindly be brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance.<br /> The receipt of this communication may also be acknowledged. <br />S/d<br />NIRAJKUMAR<br />Director (PO&I) </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-10946685555150093692011-02-27T10:08:00.001+05:302011-02-27T10:09:50.020+05:30Performance-based incentive for Central Govt staff<div align="center"><a name="4247004774994171880"></a><a href="http://90paisa.blogspot.com/2011/02/performance-based-incentive-for-central.html"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Performance-based incentive for Central Govt staff </span></strong></a></div><div align="justify"><br />Employees belonging to 62 of central government departments could may receive performance-based incentive, over and above their existing salaries, from as early as the next financial year. The incentive will be based on the department’s scorecard in meeting yearly targets committed by their respective secretaries and ministers as part of the results-framework documents (RFD) system. The committee of secretaries looking into performance-based incentive for government employees is said to have already zeroed in on a formula that offers a secretary-level officer an incentive up to 40% of the basic salary, provided his department has met 100% RFD targets. A scorecard of 70% and less in meeting RFD targets would however attract zero incentive. However, no penalty will be imposed on the non-performing officers. The secretaries’ panel, headed by the Cabinet secretary, has already completed three crucial meetings and is looking to finalise its recommendations in time to enable performance-linked salaries in the coming financial year. For a secretary-level officer, the incentive is proposed to be 15% of cost savings (budgeted expenditure minus actual expenditure) by the department multiplied by its composite score,less 70, divided by 30. The incentive will be higher with each passing year. In other words, secretary of a department that meets 100% RFD targets for a year would get 20% performance-based incentive in the first three years, 30% in the next three years and 40% between the sixth and ninth year. A 70% scorecard would however attract no incentive. For a joint secretary, the incentive will be sum of 30% of departmental composite score and 70% of divisional composite score. Since the incentive will be paid from cost savings of the department resulting from improved performance, there will be no extra burden on the exchequer. The government, incidentally, is not in favour of penalising the non-performing officers. The reasoning being that not getting any incentive, or absence of recognition, would be punishment enough for the under-performers. With the committee of secretaries also planning to lay down the condition that performance-linked incentive will accrue to only those departments that have submitted RFDs for two consecutive years, the key five departments of PMO , home, finance, defence, external affairs who are still not covered by the RFD system will not qualify for the incentive. </div><div align="right"><em><span style="font-size:78%;">Source: </span></em><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/performance-based-incentive-for-central-govt-staff-from-next-fy/articleshow/7536963.cms"><em><span style="font-size:78%;">Economic Times</span></em></a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-40343724086762588212011-02-26T17:37:00.000+05:302011-02-26T17:38:18.761+05:30Income Tax can be paid at AXIS bank ATMs<div align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Income Tax can be paid at AXIS bank ATMs</strong></span></div><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong><div align="justify"><br /></strong></span>Private sector Axis Bank today announced the launch of the facility to pay income tax at ATMs. This facility, initially, will be available at select ATMs in the major centres and will shortly be made available at all 5,600-plus ATMs across the country, the bank said in a press release issued.<br />Axis Bank customers holding ATM/debit cards can use this facility to pay income tax/other direct taxes using Axis Bank ATMs .<br />The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), as a part of its e-Governance initiative to provide more convenience to taxpayers, had advised authorised banks to roll-out the facility to pay tax using ATMs. Axis Bank is the first private sector bank to make this facility available for its large tax-paying customer base.<br />Axis Bank’s Executive Director-Corporate Banking, V Srinivasan, said, “there is a vast segment of retail tax- payers who do not have internet-enabled bank accounts and are thus unable to pay income tax on-line. Axis Bank with its vast ATM network will now be able to cater to these retail assesses who account for a substantial portion of all income tax payers.”<br />This provision will ensure immediate credit of taxes paid to the Government account and is expected to not only improve compliance on part of taxpayer but also substantially reduce paper handling of challans by the banks.<br />The facility will not only make income tax payment easier and simpler for the individual tax payers but also provide them the convenience of making the payment 24-hours a day–365 days a year, the release said.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-48303912121460921612011-02-23T17:57:00.003+05:302011-02-23T18:03:09.238+05:30LGO exam(10-10-2010) result declared<p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText" align="center"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="color:#000099;">Result of LGO Examination </span></strong></span></span></p><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText" align="center"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="color:#000099;">held on 10-10-2010</span> <span style="color:#000066;">declared</span></strong></span></span></p><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText" align="center"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#000066;"></span></strong></span> </p><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText" align="center"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><strong><span style="color:#000066;"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#003300;">Postalinfo congrates all the </span></span></strong></span></p><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText" align="center"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><strong><span style="color:#000066;"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#003300;">candidates for their success</span></span></strong></span></p><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText" align="center"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"> </span></p><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText" align="center"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>DEPARTMENT OF POSTS: INDIA<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></strong></span></span></p><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText" align="center"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL<o:p></o:p></strong></span></span></p><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText" align="center"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>ORISSA CERCLE, BHUBANESWAR -751001<o:p></o:p></strong></span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">Memo No. RE/30-23/09(Con) Dated at Bhubaneswar the 22.02.2011. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">The following LGO officials who appeared the departmental examination for promotion to the cadre of </span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">PA/SA/PACO held on 10.10.2010 have come out successful. The particulars of the successful officials and Division to </span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">which they are allotted are as under. The surplus qualified candidates are allotted to the neighbouring Divisions. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">This issue with the approval of the competent authority. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">Sl. No. Name of Candidate Community Roll No. of the candidates Division to which belong Division to which allotted <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">1 Birabar Sahoo UR OR/PA-03/2010 Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">2 B.N.Dalai OBC OR/PA-02/2010 Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">3 Jakir Hossen Khan UR OR/PA-07/2010 Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">4 Baidyanath Behera OBC OR/PA-05/2010 Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">5 Arabinda Padhi UR OR/PA-72/2010 Balasore Balasore <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">6 Sashikanta Sahu OBC OR/PA-75/2010 Balasore Balasore <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">7 Ashok Kumar Sahu UR OR/PA-65/2010 Bhadrak Bhadrak <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">8 Byomokesh Barik UR OR/PA-64/2010 Bhadrak Bhadrak <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">9 Banamali Jena SC OR/PA-66/2010 Bhadrak Bhadrak <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">10 Sitanshu Sekhar Tripathy UR OR/PA-67/2010 Bhadrak Bhadrak <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">11 Suvendu Kumar Swain UR OR/PA-17/2010 Cuttack City Cuttack City <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">12 Debabrata Rout OBC OR/PA-19/2010 Cuttack City Cuttack City <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">13 Laxmidhar Behera UR OR/PA-20/2010 Cuttack City Cuttack City <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">14 Shiv Prasad Behera UR OR/PA-18/2010 Cuttack City Cuttack City <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">15 Ashok Kumar Barik OBC OR/PA-24/2010 Cuttack South Cuttack South <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">16 Satya Narayan Swain UR OR/PA-29/2010 Cuttack South Cuttack South <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">17 Pabitra Mohan Swain OBC OR/PA-27(Prov.)/2010 Cuttack South Cuttack South <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">18 Santosh Kumar Biswal UR OR/PA-41/2010 Cuttack North Cuttack North <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">19 Sushanta Kumar Sahoo OBC OR/PA-39/2010 Cuttack North Cuttack North <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">20 Trilochan Sahoo OBC OR/PA-44/2010 Cuttack North Cuttack North <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">21 Amiya Kumar Sahoo OBC OR/PA-45/2010 Cuttack North Cuttack North <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">22 Kartik Ch. Dash UR OR/PA-37/2010 Cuttack North Cuttack North <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">23 Alok Kumar Routray UR OR/PA-60/2010 Puri Puri <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">24 Umesh Chandra Mansingh UR OR/PA-51/2010 Puri Puri <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">25 Suresh Chandra Jena UR OR/PA-59/2010 Puri Puri <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">26 Raj Kumar Sah ST OR/PA-58/2010 Puri Puri <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">27 Bhabani Shankar Mohanto UR OR/PA-85/2010 Mayurbhanj Mayurbhanj <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">28 Bidhu Bhusan Behera UR OR/PA-78/2010 Mayurbhanj Mayurbhanj <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">29 Nayan Ranjan Sahoo UR OR/PA-81/2010 Mayurbhanj Mayurbhanj <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">30 Hirod Ch. Barik UR OR/PA(CO)-04/2010 Printing Press Circle Office <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">31 R. K. Satpathy UR ASK/LGO-06/2010 Aska Aska <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">32 B. N. Pattnaik UR ASK/LGO-03/2010 Aska Aska <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">33 S. N. Nayak UR ASK/LGO-04/2010 Aska Aska <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">34 B. Parida UR ASK/LGO-02/2010 Aska Aska <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">35 P. K. Padhy UR ASK/LGO-07/2010 Aska Phulbani <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">36 R. C. Panda UR ASK/LGO-01/2010 Aska Phulbani <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">37 R. S. Sahu UR BF/LGO-20/2010 Berhampur Berhampur <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">38 S. P. Maharana UR BF/LGO-10/2010 Berhampur Berhampur <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">39 A. K. Pattnaik UR BF/LGO-09/2010 Berhampur Berhampur <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">40 P. C. Moharana UR BF/LGO-23/2010 Berhampur Berhampur <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">41 Arakhita Behera UR BF/LGO-08/2010 Berhampur Berhampur <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">42 Bhimsen Sahu UR BF/LGO-13/2010 Berhampur Phulbani <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">43 H. K. Padhy UR BF/LGO-22/2010 Berhampur Kalahandi <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">44 B. D. Gouda UR BF/LGO-19/2010 Berhampur Kalahandi <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">45 Subash Muduli UR BF/LGO-14/2010 Berhampur Kalahandi <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">46 L. N. Pradhan UR BF/LGO-15/2010 Berhampur Kalahandi <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">47 N. Mahananda SC KLD/LGO-24/2010 Kalahandi Kalahandi <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">48 S. K. Pattnaik UR KPT/LGO-27/2010 Koraput Koraput <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">49 A. R. Potanuru UR KPT/LGO-26/2010 Koraput Koraput <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">50 Tigilal Rana OBC PHI/LGO-28/2010 Phulbani Phulbani <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">51 Sudhir Ranjan Patel OBC SMB/PA-05/2010 Sundargarh Sundargarh <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">52 Chaitanya Ch. Behera OBC SMB/PA-07/2010 Sundargarh Sundargarh <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">53 Bailochan Padhan OBC SMB/PA-03/2010 Sundargarh Sundargarh <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">54 John Minj ST SMB/PA-06/2010 Sundargarh Sundargarh <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">55 Jeebanlal Kar UR SMB/PA-04/2010 Sundargarh Sundargarh <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">56 Rabindra Kumar Nayak UR SMB/PA-09/2010 Sundargarh Sundargarh <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">57 Ananda Kumar Barai UR SMB/PA-15/2010 Sambalpur Sambalpur <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">58 Sushil Kumar Senapati UR SMB/PA-16/2010 Sambalpur Sambalpur <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">59 Anjan Ku. Hota UR SMB/PA-20/2010 Sambalpur Sambalpur <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">60 Gajendra Ku. Andaja ST SMB/PA-17/2010 Sambalpur Sambalpur <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">61 Jagdish Podh OBC SMB/PA-21/2010 Sambalpur Sambalpur <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">62 Akhshay Kumar Sha UR SMB/PA-35/2010 Keonjhar Keonjhar <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">63 Umakanta Sahoo UR SMB/PA-33/2010 Keonjhar Keonjhar <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">64 Govinda Ch. Sahoo OBC SMB/PA-36/2010 Dhenkanal Dhenkanal <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">65 Surendra Kumar Purohit UR SMB/PA-39/2010 Balangir Balangir <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">66 Gokul Mahananda SC SMB/PA-41/2010 Balangir Balangir <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">The result of one candidate of Puri Division is kept in sealed cover in obedience to the order issued by the Hon’ble <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: right; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNoSpacing" align="right"><span style="font-family:Calibri;">Asst. Director (Rect.) </span></p><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: right; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNoSpacing" align="right"><span style="font-family:Calibri;">For Chief Postmaster General </span></p><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: right; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNoSpacing" align="right"><span style="font-family:Calibri;">Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar-751001. </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span style="font-family:Calibri;"> </span></o:p></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">Copy to : <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">1. The Postmaster General, Sambalpur/Berhampur Region. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">2. All the SSPOs/SPOs/SSRM/SRMs of Orissa Circle. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">3. The Asst. Director (Staff), Circle Office, Bhubaneswar. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">4. The Sr. PS to CPMG, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">5. The PA to DPS (HQ), Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">6. RE Section File No. 6-2/09 and 6-3/09. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">Asst. Director (Rect.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">For Chief Postmaster General<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoPlainText"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar-751001.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-45378768705196588452011-02-17T21:47:00.002+05:302011-02-17T21:56:45.056+05:30Once the process is considered to be under the 'Promotion' method, reservation for OBCs/Ex-servicemen are not to be followed<p><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">Once the process is considered to be under the 'Promotion' method, reservation for OBCs/Ex-servicemen are not to be followed</span></strong></span></p><p><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE</span> TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH<br /> Original Application No. 436 of 2010<br /> </strong></span> Monday , this the 14th day of February, 2011.<br /> CORAM:<br /> HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER<br />HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER<br /> 1 Smt. Soumya S.D W/o. Remeshkumar GDS BPM P.O.<br /> Vedarplavu (P.O.), Mavelikkara Residing at Kottarathil House<br /> Keerikad South, Kayamkulam.<br /><br />2 Smt. Sunithakumari K.S W/o. B Harikumar GDS MD, Kota (P.O)<br /> Harihara Vilasom Ullannoor (P.O) Kulanada ..... Applicants<br /> (By Advocate Mr. P.C. Sebastian)<br /> Versus<br /> 1 The Postmaster General Central Region, Kochi - 682 018<br /><br />2 The Superintendent of Post Offices Mavelikkara Division, Mavelikkara<br /><br />3 The Union of India Represented by Secretary to Government of India<br /> Ministry of Communications Department of Posts, New Delhi<br /><br />4 Najithamol Y GDS MD, Thrikkunnapuzha (P.O) PIN - 690 515<br /><br />5 P.O. Rajesh GDS MD Kodukulanji - 689 508<br /><br />6 D. Vijayan GDS MD Vedarplave (P.O), Mavelikkara<br /><br />7 V. Anilkumar GDS MD Olakettiambalam (P.O) - 690 510 ... Respondents<br /><br />(By Advocate Mr. M.K. Aboobacker, ACGSC R1-3) (By Advocate Mr. R. Sreeraj R4-7)<br /> <br /> The application having been heard on 18.1.2011, the Tribunal on 14.02.11 delivered the following:<br /> O R D E R<br /><br /> HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER<br /> <br /> The applicants in this O.A. challenge the appointment of private respondents as Postmen under OBC reservation which is not permissible in promotion.<br />2. The 11 vacancies of Postman/Mail Guard to be filled up in the year 2009 by the Postmaster General, Central Region, Kochi, were split up as under :<br /> Departmental Quota GDS Quota<br /> SC ST PH UR Total Seniority Merit Total<br /> 1 1 - 4 6 03 02 05</p><p align="justify"><br />As there was no candidate for the 50% quota earmarked for promotion from Group-D, as per the Recruitment Rules, the same was added to the 50% GDS merit quota. The respondents selected 4 top scorers from the OBC quota to fill up 4 posts of Postman. Aggrieved by the promotions of the private respondents 4 to 7, who are OBC candidates appointed to the cadre of Postman overlooking the applicants' merit, they have filed this O.A for the following reliefs:<br /> "i) To call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A-3 and to quash the selection and appointment of respondents 4 to 7 as postmen.<br /> ii) To declare that respondent 1 to 3 are not legally competent or empowered under the Recruitment Rules to fill up the unfilled vacancies in the departmental quota which are to be transferred to the GDS merit quota by way of reservation to the OBC and that the said vacancies are to be filled up by candidates on their merit in the examination.<br /> iii) To issue appropriate direction or order directing the respondents to adhere to the order of merit of the candidate based on the marks obtained by them in the postman examination held on 20.12.2009 in the GDS merit quota and to appoint the applicants as postmen with effect from the dates of their entitlement with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances.<br /> iv) To grant such other relief which may be prayed for and which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.<br /> v) To award costs in favour of the applicant."<br />2. The applicants submitted that the selection and appointment of respondents No. 4 to 7 as Postman under GDS merit quota overlooking the higher marks obtained by the applicants on the basis of the examination held on 20.12.2009 are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The party respondents have been selected solely for the reason that they belong to the OBC category and have been extended the benefit of reservation. The settled position of law is that the OBC category has the benefit of reservation in direct recruitment only and not in promotion. The method of recruitment of GDS as Postman by departmental examination is by way of promotion only as held by this Tribunal in its order at Annexure A-6 dated 18.07.2007 in O.A. No. 858/2006. There is no justification in transferring the unreserved vacancy to the OBC category.<br />3. The respondents opposed the O.A. In their reply statement, they submitted that 6 vacancies of the departmental quota were transferred to the GDS merit quota treating the recruitment from GDS to Postman as direct recruitment as held by the Full Bench of this Tribunal in its order dated 21.03.2000 in O.A. No. 807/1999 and O.A.No. 1286/1997. The normal reservation rule would apply to the GDS merit quota. As there was shortfall in the OBC quota, 4 OBC candidates were selected and included in the Annexure A-3 select list. The last selected candidates from the UR and the OBC quota obtained 146.5 and 133 marks respectively. The applicants have scored only 146 marks each and they ranked below the candidate selected from the UR quota. The party respondents 4 to 7 were included in Annexure A-3 list for selection against the OBC vacancies as they were meritorious and thus more qualified, under the OBC category. The applicants cannot claim a post reserved for the OBC category. The selection and appointments of the party respondents 4 to 7 were done strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. The Gramin Dak Sevaks are not regular departmental employees. The order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 858/2006 at Annexure A-6 has been challenged by the Department in W.P.(C) No. 36443/2007, which is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The reservation was given to the party respondents 4 to 7 on the basis of the existing rules as the unfilled vacancies in the departmental quota were transferred to the GDS quota. It is settled position of law that the OBC category has the benefit of reservation only in direct recruitment and not in promotion. The method of recruitment of GDS to Postman is by way of direct recruitment as per Annexure R-2 order.<br />4. We have heard Mr. P.C. Sebastian, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.K. Aboobacker, learned ACGSC for official respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. R. Sreeraj, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and perused the materials on record.<br />5. The point for adjudication in this O.A. is whether the method of recruitment of GDS to the cadre of Postman through departmental examination is merit based selection on promotion or not. This issue was dealt with at length by this Tribunal in its order dated 18.07.2007 in O.A. No. 858/2006. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced as under :<br /> "14 The second point of law that has been taken is relating to the Full Bench decision of this Tribunal in O.A. 807/99 and 1286/97. In this Full Bench decision the Bench has considered the following points:<br /> (i) Whether the appointment of extra Departmental Agents as Postman in the 25% seniority quota is by way of direct recruitment or promotion?<br /> (ii) Whether the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Postman is applicable to the appointment of Extra Departmental Agents on the cost of Postman in the 25% seniority quota?<br /> (iii) Whether the letter dated 17.5.95 of the Director General (Posts) prescribing a minimum educational qualification of 8th standard pass for Extra Departmental Agents for appointment as Postman in the 25% seniority quota a is valid and enforceable?<br />15 Though there was dissent by one Member, as per the majority view, the points were settled as follows:<br /> Point No. 1:- Appointment of ED Agents as Postmen in 25% seniority quota is by way of direct recruitment only<br /> Point No. 2: The qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Postman is applicable to<br /> the appointment of ED Agents on the post of Postmen in 25% seniority quota<br /> Point No. 3: the letter dated 17.5.95 of the Director General of Posts prescribing a minimum educational qualification of 8th Standard pass for ED Agents for appointment as Postmen in 25% seniority quota is valid and enforceable.<br />16 With reference to the applicability of the decision the rule position extracted below has to be seen: Col. 11:- Method of recruitment-<br /> (1) 50% by promotion failing which by ED Agents on the basis of their merit in the Departmental Examination<br /> (2) 50% of ED Agents of the recruiting Division or unit in the following manner, namely:-<br /> (i) 25% from among ED Agents on the basis of their seniority in service and subject to their passing<br /> the Departmental examination, failing which by ED Agents on the basis of merit in the Departmental<br /> examination. (ii) 25% from amongst ED Agents on the basis of their merit in the departmental examination.<br /> (3) If the vacancies remained unfilled by EDAs of the recruiting Division, such vacancies may be filled by the EDAs of the Postal Division falling in the zone of Regional Directors.<br /> (4) If the vacancies unfilled by EDAs remain unfilled by the EDAs of the recruiting units such vacancies may be filled by EDAs of the Postal Divisions located at the same station. Vacancies remaining unfilled will be thrown open to EDAs in the Region.<br /> (5) Any vacancy remaining unfilled may be filled up by direct recruitment through the nominees of the<br /> Employment Exchange. Col. 12:- In cases of promotion- (1) Promotion from Group-D officials who have put in three years of regular and satisfactory service on the closing date for receipt of applications through a Departmental Examination (2) EDAs through a departmental examination (3) Direct recruitment through a departmental examination.<br /> 7 It is evident that point No. 1 under consideration of the Full Bench related to appointment of ED Agents as Postman against 25% seniority quota. The question in this OA is regarding the remaining 25% of the GDS quota which is operated on the basis of merit in the departmental examination i.e. Col. 11(2)(ii) of the Rules and the decision of the Full Bench relates to the quota in Col. 11(2)(i). Therefore the Full Bench order cannot be said to have omnibus application to all the provisions of the Rules since it has decided only the question of filling up of the 25% seniority quota. It is a moot point that when the filling up of the seniority quota itself is held to be direct recruitment whether the filling up the balance 25% on merit can be viewed<br />as promotion. We are not going in to that aspect. For deciding the applicability of the Full Bench decision to this case, this distinction can certainly be drawn that the point now under challenge in this O.A. has not been covered by the Full Bench decision and hence is distinguishable.<br />18 The learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to the order of this Tribunal in O.A. 704/06 in which again the claim of the applicants was to the 25% seniority quota of GDS and the main question was whether the approval of the Screening Committee is required for filling up the vacancies and it was held that Screening Committee procedure was not applicable to the promotion quota. Hence, this order has also no relevance here.<br />19 Having dealt with the legal propositions advanced by the learned Senior counsel which are not directly applicable to the present case, we proceed to examine the Columns 11 and 12 of the Recruitment Rules for promotion to the Postman/Mail Guards as it stands now. The rules have been extracted above. A reading of Columns 11 and 12 put together is required to understand the proper spirit of the rule. To our mind Col. 11 which prescribes the method of recruitment sub clause (1) to (4) being the manner of filling up the vacancies by promotion and also by means of a selection on the basis of seniority and merit in a departmental examination. Sub clause (5) which provides for filling up of any vacancy remaining unfilled after going through all other processes mentioned above, would be by direct recruitment which has to be done purely by inviting applications from the Employment Exchange. Therefore in our view, it has to be construed that all selections made from within the department either from Group-D personnel or from the ED Agents who are also a class of servants under the Postal Department covered by sub clauses (1) to (4), would have to be construed as promotion and filling up of vacancies purely by outsiders through employment exchange can only be construed as direct recruitment. This view is further confirmed by the wordings in column 12 where the cases of promotion have been further categorized in three categories which include promotion from Group-D failing which from ED Agents through departmental examination by seniority as well as merit. Here the second category is relatable to sub clause 2(ii) of Col. 11 and the third category is relatable to sub clause 2(ii) of Col. 11 all of which are clubbed under the heading "promotion" only. We are also informed that the departmental examination referred to in the Col. 11 and 12 of the Rules is a common one. This is also supported by a reading of Rule 7 prescribing the age limit where again a higher age limit has been prescribed for ED Agents considering them as departmental personnel. In the light of such a reading of the Recruitment Rules keeping the entire scheme of promotion in view, we are inclined to hold that the method of recruitment of ED Agents through the departmental examination has to be construed as merit based selection on promotion only.<br />20 Having arrived at the above finding that the selection of ED Agents under merit quota is not by way of direct recruitment we come to the further interpretation of the 'Note' prescribed in Annexure A-4 viz. that the unfilled vacancies will be added to GDS merit quota and that quota will be increased to that extent and the implications thereof. The respondents had notified more than 6 vacancies under the departmental quota and 1 UR vacancy by Annexure A-5. Out of the 6 vacancies 1 was reserved for PH. When the unfilled vacancies are added to the GDS merit quota, the nature/category of the vacancies should not undergo a change if the method of recruitment remained the same. It is the contention of the respondents that when the recruitment to the post is from GDSs in the event of failure to fill up the vacancies by departmental candidates by promotion, the recruitment changes its nature and becomes direct recruitment, the decision in the Full Bench order and thereby fresh reservation points in the direct recruitment roster would become applicable for such recruitment. Therefore, they had added the 6 vacancies to the 1 vacancy already notified and the total quota of Direct Recruit vacancies were taken as 7, out of which 1 vacancy was for PH and another 1 for Ex-serviceman and the post under merit quota was filled up by unreserved candidate and out of the remaining 4, 2 were filled up by UR and 1 by OBC as there were backlog of OBC candidates in the direct recruitment quota.<br />21 If the method of recruitment is determined as not by direct recruitment there can be no reservation for OBCs as contended by the applicants. There is no reservation for Ex- servicemen also under promotion quota. We find that apart from stating that OBC candidates were appointed under the backlog quota, the respondents have not come out clearly on the issue of roster points and how they have distinguished the 7th Roster point which position should be available to them if they are maintaining separate rosters for the merit<br />quota of GDS under direct recruitment. According to their own instruction in Annexure A-5, if the vacancy reserved for PH in the Departmental quota remains unfilled, it should be transferred to GDS quota to be filled up by PH candidate only. By the same rationale the vacancies identified as unreserved when they are filled up by adding the GDS quota cannot be converted to any other category and the nature of the vacancies should remain the same as unreserved. Even if the respondents genuinely construed the filling up of the<br />unfilled vacancies as belonging to direct recruitment quota, this exercise could not have been done without notifying the revised vacancy position as per the points in the roster and Annexure A-5 should have been modified to that extent as otherwise it results in an imbalance in the rosters and all those who participated in the examination should have been made aware of the same.<br />22 Therefore considering the provisions of the Rules above position and the legal position as discussed earlier, we are of the view that the filling up of the unfilled vacancies the departmental quota cannot be termed to be direct recruitment and it should have been done against under the same categories as notified in Annexure A-5 and in accordance with the position in the rank list at Annexure A-9. Once the process is considered to be under the 'Promotion' method, reservation for OBCs/Ex-servicemen are not to be followed. Setting apart 1 vacancy for Ex-servicemen, we find is not in accordance with the rules. It is also not logical and practicable to implement the quota for the Ex-servicemen in the GDS quota unless it had been strictly implemented in the first instance at the time of recruitment as GDS. We do not find any provision in the GDS Rules prescribing any quota for Ex-servicemen at the time of recruitment except a general guideline that it if it is possible ex-servicemen may be preferred if other things are equal. When there is no reservation in the lower posts where direct recruitment take place, the probability of finding suitable of the ex-servicemen in the higher post is very unlikely. Therefore any direction as averred by the respondents that the vacancies should be reserved for ex-servicemen and further interpretation being given by the respondents that they should be kept unfilled is not in order. In fact we have already held that no reservation for ex-servicemen was provided for in promotion in the Recruitment Rules. Therefore, the respondents will have to release the 1 vacancy set apart for ex-servicemen quota also when finalising the selection. The respondents shall undertake a revised exercise on the above lines and notify the selection to the 6 unfilled vacancies carried over from the Departmental quota by modifying Annexure A-6 suitably. Unless this exercise is done we cannot come to any conclusion whether respondents 4 & 5 would come within the ambit of selection. Respondents shall complete this exercise within three weeks of date of receipt of this order. Till the selection process is completed and the modified order is issued all the appointments made in Annexure A-6 shall be continued.<br /> 23 The OA is disposed of as above. No costs." (emphasis supplied)<br /><br />6. The decision of the Full Bench in O.A. Nos. 807/1999 and 1286/1997 has also been considered by this Tribunal in O.A. No.858/2006. In our considered view, the decision of this Tribunal in O.A. No.858/2006 squarely covers the instant O.A. The decision of the Full Bench is clearly distinguishable and the method of recruitment of GDS to the cadre of Postman on the basis of merit which is the crucial point in the instant O.A has not been covered by the Full Bench decision as was held in O.A. No. 858/2006. If the Recruitment Rules for Postman/Mail Guard are read keeping the entire scheme of promotion in view then the method of recruitment of GDS to the cadre of Postman through departmental examination is to be treated as merit based selection on promotion only. Admittedly, the reservation for the OBC category does not apply to promotion. Therefore, reservation for the OBC category will not apply to the recruitment of GDS to the cadre of Postman in the instant O.A. Consequently, the nature of the unfilled unreserved vacancies in the departmental quota when added to the merit quota of GDS will remain the same as unreserved. Therefore, there is no justification for transferring the unreserved vacancies to the OBC category. That being so, the appointment of the party respondents 4 to 7 is against unreserved vacancies. This appointment is legally untenable because the claim of the applicants for appointment against unreserved vacancies, on account of their having higher merit than the party respondents cannot be ignored.<br />7. Though the order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 858/2006 is challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala that by itself is not a reason not to follow the same. As held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Roshan Jagdish Lal Duggal and Others vs. The Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and Others, 1984 (2) SLR 731, the admission of an appeal against the order of the High Court and the suspension of its operation during the pendency of the appeal does not have the effect of rendering it non est till the disposal of the appeal.<br />8. In the result, the O.A. is allowed. Annexure A-3 order dated 15.02.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent relating to selection and appointment of the party respondents 4 to 7 as Postmen is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to adhere to the order of merit of the candidates based on the marks obtained by them in the Postman examination held on 20.12.2009 in the GDS merit quota and to appoint them as Postmen with effect from the date of their entitlement with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.<br />8. No order as to costs.<br /> (K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN)<br />ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-15338703761428094842011-02-14T20:43:00.000+05:302011-02-14T20:44:27.306+05:30POST BANK AND ATM<p align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">POST BANK AND ATM</span></strong></p><p align="justify"> Department of Posts is going to introduce Banking service through Post Offices. All post offices will also work as Post Banks. ATMs will also be introduced along with Postal Banks.<br /><br /> Department of Posts is going to launch Post Bank and prepaid card scheme very shortly. All the regional heads of all circles have been directed to personally identify and expedite the manner of installation of ATMs in Head Post Offices. RBI approval and License is awaited. As part of core banking process all existing accounts are now updated in computers. The circle heads are frequently stressed to complete the signature scanning of all A/c holders as early as possible. A centralized server possibly at Ghaziabad is proposed to be constituted which will automatically extract data from all HOs & SOs as and when the counter clerk enters a transaction. The role of SBCO will be minimized. The preservation of records at all HOs will be considerably reduced.<br /><br /> Under Prepaid card scheme which is to be launched in collaboration with Banks, all expenses are to be borne by Banks. Cards will be issued to customers who have Savings Accounts only and later be expanded to other customers. With help of card one can withdraw money in POs/ Any ATM/ make purchase in any merchant outlets. A minimum charge will be levied for each operation. Minimum load is Rs 1000 and maximum reload to card is Rs50000. Maximum withdrawal is Rs.10000 per day and only four times can a card be used in a single given day. </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-49726667857210279522011-02-08T22:15:00.001+05:302011-02-08T22:18:33.515+05:30Earned Leave (E.L) and Half Pay Leave (HPL)<p align="center"><a name="1670108452337836545"></a><a href="http://90paisa.blogspot.com/2011/02/rate-of-calculating-entitlement-to.html"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3366ff;"><strong>Earned Leave (E.L) and Half Pay Leave (HPL)</strong></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3366ff;"><strong> </strong></span></p><p align="center"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3366ff;"><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">to be calculated up to the date of death of a Govt.servant</span><br /></strong></span></p><p align="justify">No.13026 /1/2010-Estt. ( Leave) Government of IndiaMinistry of Personnel, Public Grievances & PensionsDepartment of Personnel & Training***<br /><br />New Dlehi, the 7th Februay, 2011<br /><br />OFFICE MEMORANDUM<br /><br />Sub: Rate of calculating entitlement to Earned Leave (E.L) and Half Pay Leave (HPL).<br /><br /> The undersigned is directed to say that matter regarding entitlement of a Government servant, who dies while in service, to Earned Leave under Rule 27(2)(b) and Half Pay Leave Rule 29 (2) (c) of the CCS (Leave) Rules 1972 has been under consideration of this Department. 2. At present rule 27 (2) (b) says ‘when a Government servant is removed or dismissed from service or dies while in service, credit is allowed at the rate of 2 ½ days per completed calendar month up to the end of the calendar month preceding the calendar month in which he is removed or dismissed from service or dies in service.’ Similarly Rule 29 (c) says ‘When a Government servant is removed or dismissed from service or dies while in service, credit of half pay leave shall be allowed at the rate of 5/3 days per completed calendar month up to the end of the calendar month preceding the calendar month in which he is removed or dismissed from service or dies in service.’ </p><p align="justify">3. These rules adversely affect cases where the death of a serving Government Servant occurs on the last day of the month as the day of death is treated as his last working day. Clause (b) of sub rule (2) of rule 27 and clause (c) of sub-rule (2) of rule 29 of the CCS Leave Rules is modified as under :- Rule 27 (2) (b) ‘When a Government servant is removed or dismissed from service, credit is allowed at the rate of 2 ½ days per completed calendar month up to the end of the calendar month preceding the calendar month in which he is removed or dismissed from service. When a Government Servant dies, while in service, credit of Earned Leave shall be allowed at time rate of 2 ½ days per completed month of service up to the date of death of the Government Servant.’ Rule 29 (2) (c) ‘When a Government servant is removed or dismissed from service, credit of Hall Pay Leave shall be allowed at the rate of 5/3 days per completed calendar month up to the end of the calendar month preceding the calendar month in which he is removed or dismissed from service. When a Government Servant dies while in service, credit of Half Pay Leave shall be allowed at the rate of 5/3 days per completed month of service up to the date of death of the Government Servant.’</p><p align="justify"> 4. These orders take effect from the date of issue.<br />5. So far as persons serving in the Indian Audit & Accounts Departments are concerned, these orders are being issued after consultation with the C&AG of India. </p><p align="justify"><br />s/d(Zoya C. B.) Under Secretary to the Government of India<br /><br /> </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-21996612582984819892011-02-05T13:02:00.003+05:302011-02-05T13:10:26.822+05:30Collaboration between Department of Posts & Unique Identification Authority of India<div align="center"><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Press Brief<br /></strong>Collaboration between Department of Posts & Unique Identification Authority of India<br /></span></div><div align="justify"><br />Department of Posts is striving to provide complete solution for delivering the Unique Identification Number to all the residents in the country. A Statement of Intent is today being signed between Department of Posts and UIDAI in the presence of the Hon’able Minister of Communications and IT and the Hon’able Chairman of UIDAI.<br />2. The main purpose of this Statement is to forge strategic alliance to create value for both the Department of Posts and the UIDAI and for the residents of India.<br />Salient Features of Statement of Intent to being signed today, the 4th of February 2011<br /> UIDAI wishes to leverage the national network of the Department of Posts to provide Aadhaar and the accompany authentication services to all residents.<br /><br /> Department of Posts and UIDAI wish to collaborate to provide state of art bio-metric and ID authentication services to the residents.<br /><br /> Providing of enrolment and updation facility to the residents of India in identified post offices across the country subject to economic & operational viability.<br /><br /> Facilitating continuing Aadhaar enrolment and provision of up-dation centres across the network of Post Offices subject to feasibility & on mutually agreed terms<br /><br /> Transmission and delivery of UID letters to the residents of the country and providing proof of delivery of these letters through a service specially customized for UIDAI<br /><br /> Use of Aadhaar and Aadhaar based authentication services in Postal business where deemed fit by Department of Posts;<br /><br /> Sharing demographic and biometric data collected during enrolment for Aadhaar on mutually agreed terms & conditions;<br /><br /> Utilizing Media Post and Direct Mail services of Department of Posts by the UIDAI to targeted group of residents across the country to promote Aadhar on mutually agreed terms & conditions.<br /><br /> In a recognition of the fact that Aadhaar enablement may call for running Proof of Concept and Pilot projects both side agree to do so where deemed necessary and subject to mutual convenience. Such exercises as may be undertaken in pursuit of this understanding will endeavour to produce Detailed Project Reports which can be effectively used to scale up the projects on successful completion.<br />2<br />3. The mandate of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is to provide a Unique Identification Number to each and every resident of the country. This involves:-<br />a) Capture of demographic and bio-metric data of each and every resident.<br />b) Generating a Unique Identification Number for each resident of the country.<br />c) Printing a communication carrying the Unique Identification Number addressed to each resident.<br />d) Delivery of this communication to the resident.<br />e) Updation of resident’s data on a periodic basis.<br />4. Department of Posts has a vast network of post offices across the country which touches each and every resident of the country. The Department of Posts, therefore, is the only organization in the country that can provide an end to end comprehensive solution to the requirements of the UIDAI in this regard.<br />5. In view of above, Department of Posts and UIDAI came together and signed their first Memorandum of Understanding on 30th April, 2010. This MOU covers the following areas:-<br />a) Printing of communication carrying UID Number addressed to the resident at Department of Posts ‘Print to Post’ facility at Kolkata GPO.<br />b) Transmission of the UID communications printed at Department of Posts’ ‘Print to Post’ facility to the addressee by the fastest means.<br />c) Delivery of the UID communication to the addressee through the vast network of post offices across the country.<br />6. The ‘Print to Post’ facility of Department of Posts at Kolkata is expected to print and dispatch about 1 crore UID letters upto March 31, 2011. During the year 2011-12, Department of Posts is expected to print and deliver about 12 crore UID letters.<br />7. Subsequently, Department of Posts signed the second Memorandum of Understanding with UIDAI on the September 18, 2010 wherein Department of Posts agreed to act as Registrar to UIDAI. UIDAI is in the process of short listing the Enrolment Agencies that will manage the Enrolment Stations in the identified post offices. More than 3700 post offices across the country have been identified for providing enrolment stations facility. </div><div align="right"><em><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="color:#336666;">source-indiapost site</span><br /></div></span></em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-14442535158436618142011-01-28T20:53:00.000+05:302011-01-28T20:55:34.187+05:30Recruitment Rules for the Post of Postmen and MTS notified<p align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Recruitment Rules for the Post of Postmen and MTS notified<br /></strong></span><span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong>D.G. Posts No. 44-2/2011-SPB-I dated 27th January,2011.</strong></span></p><span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong><p align="justify"><br /></strong></span> I am directed to forward herewith a copy of Recruitment Rules for the post of Postman and Mail Guard dated 16th December, 2010 gazette notified on 20th December, 2010.It may be observed that the notified Recruitment Rules provide to fill up the vacancies as under(For full text please refer to the recruitment Rules)<br />Postman:<br />i.(a) 25% by promotion by Selection-cum-seniority of Multi Tasking Staff.,<br />(b) 25% on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination by promotion from amongst Multi Tasking Staff failing which by direct recruitment.<br /> (c) 25% by direct recruitment on the basis of Competitive Examination limited to Gramin Dak Sevaks failing which by direct recruitment of Gramin Dak Sevaks (without any examination on the basis of their seniority subject to their meeting the prescribed requirements).<br />(d) 25% by direct recruitment from open market.<br />Mail Guard:<br />a) 25% by promotion by Selection-cum-seniority of Multi Tasking Staff of the recruiting Division.<br />b) 25% on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination by promotion from amongst Multi Tasking Staff of the recruiting Division ,failing which by direct recruitment<br /> (c) 25% by direct recruitment on the basis of Competitive Examination limited to Gramin Dak Sevaks failing which by direct recruitment of Gramin Dak Sevaks (without any examination on the basis of their seniority subject to their meeting the prescribed requirements).<br />(d) 25% by direct recruitment from open market. with matriculation as minimum educational qualification.<br />2. It is presumed that the Circles have already filled up the vacancies of Postman and Mail Guard up to the year 2010. The Circles may intimate the number of vacancies pertaining to the year 2010 in the said cadres filled up by them. The number of vacancies of the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 cleared under ADRP and all the vacancies of the years 2009 & 2010 if any, not yet filled up by any Circle may be communicated to the Directorate along with the reasons for the same and the date by which those vacancies would be filled up. The information in this regard may be furnished latest by 7th February, 2011.<br />3. In order to initiate action to fill up the vacancies of the years 2011 the Circles may work out the firm anticipated vacancies which would fall under various modes of filling up as provided in the Recruitment Rules. Wherever applicable the vacancies may be assessed Division/Unit wise. The direct recruitment vacancies not cleared under Annual Direct Recruitment Plans of the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 should be taken into consideration while assessing the vacancies.<br /> 4. The consolidated number of vacancies so assessed by them for whole Circle may be furnished to the Directorate by 1st March ,2011 positively in the enclosed pro forma.<br />5. Once the Circles complete the process of identification of vacancies to be filled up by various modes they may proceed further to fill up the following vacancies.<br />(a) Postman:<br /> 25% by promotion by selection-cum-seniority of Multi Tasking Staff..<br />(b) Mail Guard:<br /> 25% by promotion by selection-cum-seniority of Multi Tasking Staff..<br />6. The Circles are requested to process the above said appointment in such time-frame so that the appointment orders are issued by 29th March, 2011.<br />7. As regard the vacancies to be filled up by Departmental examination and direct recruitment the Directorate is in the process of finalizing the syllabus and scheme for examination. The same will be conveyed to the Circles shortly to enable them to fill up those posts also.<br />7. Receipt of this letter may be acknowledged. </p><p align="center"><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Recruitment Rules for the post of Multi Tasking Staff.<br /></span></strong> <span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong>D.G. Posts No.45-2/2011-SPB-I dated 27th January, 2011.</strong></span></p><span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong><p align="justify"><br /></strong></span> I am directed to forward herewith a copy of Recruitment Rules for the post of Multi Tasking Staff dated 16th December, 2010 gazette notified on 20th December, 2010.It may be observed that the notified Recruitment Rules provide to fill up the vacancies as under(For full text please refer to the recruitment Rules)<br />Vacancies in Circle and Administrative Offices:<br />i.(a) 25% by appointment of Casual Labourers confirmed with temporary status on the basis of Selection-cum-seniority failing which by,<br />(b) Appointment of existing Casual Labourers engaged on or before1.9.1993 working for full hours viz.8 hours, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority; failing which by,<br />(c) Appointment of existing part-time Casual Labourers, engaged on or before 1.9.1993,on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by,<br />(d) Direct recruitment as per the scheme circulated by the Department of Posts from time to time.<br />ii. 75% by direct recruitment as per the scheme circulated by the Department of Posts from time to time.<br />Vacancies in Subordinate Offices:<br />i) 50% by direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks of the recruiting Division or Unit, on the basis of Selection-cum-seniority.<br />ii) (a) 25% by direct recruitment on the basis of Competitive Examination restricted to the Gramin Dak Sevaks of the Division or Unit falling which by,<br />(b) Appointment of Casual Labourers engaged on or before 01.09.1993, working for full hours viz. 8 hours a day, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by,<br />(c) Appointment of Casual Labourers conferred with temporary status in the neighbouring Division or unit on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by,<br />(d) Appointment of Casual Labourers engaged on or before1.9.1993,working for full hours viz 8 hours,of the neighbouring Division or unit on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by,<br />(e) Appointment of Part-time Casual Labourers engaged on or before 1.9.1993, of the recruiting Division or unit on he basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by,<br />(f) Direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks on the basis of their seniority in the Division or unit.<br />Failing (i), (ii) and (iii) above by direct recruitment from open market.<br />2. In order to initiate action to fill up the vacancies of the years 2009 and 2010 the Circles may work out the vacancies falling under various modes of filling up as provided in the Recruitment Rules. Wherever applicable the vacancies may be assessed Division/Unit wise. The direct recruitment vacancies of the erstwhile Group 'D' not cleared under Annual Direct Recruitment Plans of the years 2005,2006, 2007 and 2008 should be taken into consideration while assessing the vacancies.<br /> 3. The vacancies so assessed my please be furnished to the Directorate by 10th February, 2011 positively in the enclosed pro forma.<br />4. Once the Circles complete the process of identification of vacancies to be filled up by various modes they may proceed further to fill up the following vacancies.<br />(a) Vacancies in Circles and Administrative Offices:<br />25% of vacancies to be filled up by appointment of Casual Labourers.<br />(b) Vacancies in Subordinate Offices:<br />i) 50% of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks of the recruiting Division or Unit, on he basis of Selection-cum-seniority.<br />ii) 25% of vacancies to be filled up by appointment of Casual Labourers.<br />5. The Circles are requested to process the above said appointment in such time-frame so that the appointment orders are issued by 29th March,2011.<br />6. As regard the vacancies to be filled up by Departmental examination and direct recruitment the Directorate is in the process of finalizing the syllabus and scheme for examination. The same will be conveyed to the Circles shortly to enable them to fill up those posts also.<br />7. Receipt of this letter may be acknowledged.<br /><br />DDG(P)</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-75439454879909188822011-01-27T22:29:00.000+05:302011-01-27T22:30:41.997+05:30TDS on Interest in Bank Deposits<p align="center"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">TDS on Interest in Bank Deposits</span></strong></p><p>1.Interest earned on bank deposits is subject to tax deducted at source (TDS) if the total interest amount in a financial year exceeds Rs 10,000.<br />2. Interest earned on term deposits is subject to TDS. However, interest earned on savings account balances is not subjected to TDS.<br />3. Even if a customer has multiple deposits, the interest earned will be aggregated and subjected to TDS if the threshold level is crossed.<br />4. TDS is applicable on the entire interest income if it is more than Rs 10,000 in a financial year, and not on the extent to which the interest income exceeds Rs 10,000. </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-57810264116399734842011-01-22T18:49:00.002+05:302011-01-22T18:59:27.985+05:30Gr-D promotion and consequential benefits be given from the date of entitlement to GDS on seniority basis.<p> <strong><span style="color:#3333ff;"> Gr-D promotion and consequential benefits be given from the date of entitlement to GDS on seniority basis.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#ff6666;">CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH<br /></span></strong><br /> R.A.No.46/10 IN O.A.No.393/09 Monday this the 10th day of January 2011<br /><br />C O R A M :<br /><br />HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER<br />HON'BLE Mr.K.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER<br /><br />1. Superintendent of Post Offices,<br /> Vadakara Division, Vadakara - 673 101.<br /><br />2. Postmaster General,<br /> Northern Region, Calicut.<br /><br />3. Chief Postmaster General,<br /> Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /><br />4. Union of India represented by its Secretary,<br /> Ministry of Communication, New Delhi. ...Review Applicants<br /><br />(By Advocate Mr.Sunil Jacob Jose,SCGSC)<br /><br /> V e r s u s<br /><br />K.K.Gopalakrishnan,<br />S/o.late A.P.Sankaran Vaidyar,<br />Group D (Retired), Koyiilandi HPO.<br />Residing at Puthiyedath House,<br />Panthalayani, Koyilandi. ...Respondent<br /><br />(By Advocate Mr.O.V.Radhakrishnan,Sr. along with Ms.Rekha Vasudevan)<br /><br /> This application having been heard on 10th January 2011 this Tribunal on the same day delivered the following :-<br /> O R D E R<br /> HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER<br /> This is an application for review of the order passed in O.A.No.393/09. That O.A was filed to issue appropriate orders directing the respondents No.1-3, who are review applicants herein, to hold DPC for appointment of the applicant to Group 'D' against the vacancies of the year 1997 and 1998 and to promote him against the vacancy arose on 31.12.1997, if not as on 14.6.1998 and to grant him appointment to Group 'D' with effect from the date of his entitlement with all ential<br /> benefits immediately and issue appropriate directions to reckon the service from the date of his notional promotion to Group 'D' in implementation of Annexure A-1 order towards qualifying service for pension and to grant him retirement benefits.<br /> 2. Annexure A-1 order dated 14.6.2002 is the one passed in O.A.130/02. That O.A was filed by the applicant who was an Extra Department Agent acting as Group 'D' in the Head Post Office, Quilandi and he has sought for certain declarations that Annexure A-11, Annexure<br />A-12 and Annexure A-13 orders produced therein are unconstitutional and to direct the respondents to consider him for promotion to Group 'D' against the vacancy which arose on or after 6.3.1996 on the basis of his seniority and appoint him to Group 'D' with effect from the date of his entitlement with all consequential benefits. Finally it was disposed of by this Tribunal<br />and operative portion of the order in para 10 is as follows :-<br /> "10. In the result, in the light of the above discussion, we declare Annexure A11 order dated 20.7.2000 illegal, incompetent and inoperative and the stipulation in Annexures<br /> A12 and A13 to observe the stipulation contained in Annexure A11 is also inoperative. These three impugned orders are therefore quashed to the said extent. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to Group-D vacancies which arose in the year 1998 and 1999 on the basis of his seniority, irrespective of the fact that he has<br />crossed the age of 50 years and to give him appointment as Group-D if he is found suitable by the Departmental Promotion Committee. In that event, the applicant should be given notional seniority with effect from the date on which a person below him in the seniority list of ED Agents has been appointed against the vacancies of any of these years. The<br />applicant shall not be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances on the basis of his notional appointment. The above directions shall be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no order as to costs."<br /> 3. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in.P.No.23876/02 (Annexure A-3). The Hon'ble High Court by judgment dated 24.5.2007 dismissed the O.P and held as follows :-<br /> " We do not like to upset the appointments already effected on the basis of the direction of the Tribunal. We make it clear that the principle laid down by the Tribunal will be<br /> confined to the parties to O.A.130/02. Further, we notice that statutory rules have already been framed and further recruitments will be governed by the statutory rules."<br /> 4. The said judgment was again appealed before the Apex Court by ng S.L.P.No.14431/08 which was allowed and numbered as C.A.No.3407/09 by order dated 4.5.2009. The Hon'ble Apex Court also disposed of the matter observing that "since the respondents has already been appointed in compliance with the directions made by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court did not interfere with it, we arenot inclined to interfere with the impugned orders exercising our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution." Thus the order passed in O.A.130/02 attained finality. In pursuance the review applicants who arerespondents in the O.A passed an order dated 9.7.2008 giving notional promotion to the applicant as Group 'D' with effect from 25.10.2000 the date on which his next junior GDS was appointed in the cadre against the vacancy of 1998. It is also ordered that he will not be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances on the basis of this notional appointment. This was the subject matter of challenge in the subsequent O.A.393/09. The stand of the department as stated in para 4 of the order of this Tribunal in </p><p>O.A.393/09 is as follows :-<br /> "4. The Original Application has been admitted by this Tribunal and ordered notices to the respondents. The respondents are resisting the Original Application by filing a reply statement and also relying on Annexure R-1 order dated 9.7.2008. The stand taken in the reply statement by the Department is that though this Tribunal has directed the Department to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post which arose in the years 1997, 1998 and 1999, the DPC for consideration of promotion to Group-D only met on<br /> 30.8.2000 and as the junior of the applicant one Saranan has been promoted with effect from 2000 only, the applicant was also promoted with effect from that date i.e. 25.10.2000. The further stand taken in the reply statement is that during the period 1997, 1998 and 1999 there was no appointment given or promotion given to Group-D as the Department officials have not reported the vacancies in Vadakara Division. Further it is stated that as the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 30.8.2000 the applicant has been promoted. It is also stated in the written statement that the applicant has been given notional Group-D status with effect from the same date on which his next junior has been appointed i.e. on<br /> 25.10.2000 and hence the order dated 9.7.2008 (Annexure R- 1) is in full compliance with the orders passed by this Tribunal."<br /> 5. Further the Tribunal did not accept the stand taken by the department and after an elaborate consideration of the matter in para 6 found that the applicant had received information under the Right to information Act which shows that there were vacancies for the years 1997,<br /> 1998 and 1999 and further contended in Annexure A-12, the informationreceived from Superintendent of Post Offices, Vadakara Division, that no appointments were given during the said period and appointments were only given for the years 1996 and 2000. These contentions of the respondents that there were no vacancies in 1997, 1998 and 1999 was<br /> gone into by the Tribunal by an adjudicatory process and finally rebuttingthe contention of the department it was clearly held in para 8 in the following lines "This stand of the respondents is not justifiable and we arenot accepting such a stand taken by the Department in giving appointment to the applicant with effect from 2000 and consider his case for notional<br /> promotion, though it was a notional promotion for counting the period witheffect from 1.1.1998 for the purpose of pension." Therefore, it was held that Annexure R-1 produced in the said case required re-consideration and the applicant should be assigned seniority and appointment position with effect from 1.1.1998 and he is also entitled for the entire period of hisnotional promotion for counting his pension and the department shall pass appropriate orders on that effect within a reasonable period at any rate within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. That order has not been complied with. It is in the meantime that the present R.A has been<br /> filed.6. We have heard Shri.Sunil Jacob Jose,SCGSC, learned counselappearing on behalf of the review applicants and Senior counsel, Shri.O.V.Radhakrishnan appearing on behalf of the respondent/applicant in the O.A. The main contention of the review applicants is that the order of this Tribunal in O.A.393/09 is a mistake apparent on the face of the recordand liable to be reviewed and that an opportunity was not given to rebut the averments of the espondent/applicant in the O.A. As we find that it was<br /><br />after adverting to the stand taken by the respondents and after considering the material on record that the Tribunal passed the order in O.A.393/09. No new fact has been narrated subsequently nor any new material produced in the R.A. They are only reiterating the same stand as taken in the O.A which was not accepted by the Tribunal. Being not a re-hearing<br /> and since the contentions raised in the R.A has been gone into by the Tribunal the order eventually passed is not one suffering from any errors apparent on the face of the record. Further, we cannot re-hear the matter as points urged were considered and decided. Therefore, we find that there is no ground for review of the order passed by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we dismiss the R.A. </p><p>(Dated this the 10th day of January 2011)<br /> K.GEORGE JOSEPH JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN<br />ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER<br /> </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-71494852104428366302011-01-22T18:45:00.002+05:302011-01-22T18:48:27.525+05:30Officiating Period as Gr-D should be counted for Pensionary Benefits<p> <strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">Officiating Period as Gr-D should be counted for Pensionary Benefits</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL<br /> ERNAKULAM BENCH<br /></span></strong> Original Application No. 514 of 2010<br /> Tuesday, this the 18th day of January, 2011<br /> CORAM:<br /><br />HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER<br />HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER<br /><br /> K. Sankaran Nair<br /> S/o. R. Kesava Pillai (Rtd.)<br /> Group D Official,<br /> Kattappana Head Post Office<br /> Residing at Komattil House<br /> Senapathy (P.O), Santhanpare<br /> Pin - 685 619. ... Applicant<br /><br />(By Advocate Shri P.C. Sebastian)<br /><br /> Vs.<br /><br />1. Union of India, represented by<br /> Secretary to Government of India<br /> Ministry of Communications<br /> Department of Posts<br /> New Delhi.<br /><br />2. The Superintendent of Post Offices<br /> Idukki Division<br /> Thodupuzha - 685 584<br /><br />3. The Postmaster General<br /> Central Region<br /> Kochi - 682 018 ... Respondents<br /><br />(By Advocate Shri Pradeep Krishna, ACGSC)<br /><br /> This application having been heard on 11.01.2011, the Tribunal on 18.01.11 delivered the following. O R D E R<br /> HON'BLE MR. K GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER<br /> The applicant in this O.A. entered service as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail packer (GDSMP), Santhanpura Post office on 19.11.1969. He was given officiating appointment as Group-D at Kattapana Sub Post Office with effect from 01.06.1999 considering his seniority and eligibility. He was regularly appointed as Group-D on 24.11.2000 and retired on superannuation on 31.01.2010. A minimum 10 years service is required for eligibility for superannuation pension. The applicant is having only 9 years, 2 months and 7 days of qualifying service and hence not entitled for pension. He has filed this O.A. for reckoning of his service as Group- D on daily wages from 01.06.1999 to count as qualifying service also along with the regular service.<br />2. The applicant submitted that he was eligible and entitled to be promoted as Group-D in the year 1999 itself and there were vacancies also. The request of the applicant for counting the officiating period prior to his promotion has not been acceded to by the respondents. The inaction on the part of the respondents in granting applicant's request for counting the officiating period prior to his promotion as qualifying service by preponing his date of promotional notionally,is unjust, arbitrary and prejudicial to his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He is similarly placed as Shri V.K. Divakaran, who was promoted as Group-D along with the applicant and was granted pensionary benefits counting the period of ad hoc service prior to his regular appointment as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. In O.A. Nos. 239/1998 and 449/1998, this Tribunal had directed the respondents to take remedial steps, if any, of the E.D. Agents in Kerala Circle who had suffered any loss by lapse on the part of the respondents in filling up the vacancies. The respondents are, therefore, duty bound to remedy the loss of pension the applicant is put to suffer on account of their lapse.<br />3. The respondents contested the O.A. They took the stand that the applicant submitted his willingness to officiate in a departmental post, hence he was engaged to work in a Group - D post in Kattappana South Post Office with effect from 01.06.1999. He was temporarily engaged to work in the post based on the willingness submitted by him. He was engaged to carry out the duties of a Group - D and is remunerated with the minimum of the scale and such engagements are usually intended to GDS since they are already familiar with the Post Office work. As his total qualifying service fell short of 10 years, he was not eligible for pension.There is no rule in force to give promotion from a back date if DPC could not be held in time for departmental reasons. The engagement of the applicant in the vacant Group-D post at Kattappana South P.O. with effect from 01.06.1999 can be in no way considered as officiating appointment. His engagement as Group-D was not as per the Recruitment Rules and the applicant cannot claim pensionary benefits for the work done purely on temporary basis. The period spent by an employee on purely a stop gap arrangement cannot be reckoned as qualifying service with attendant benefits. The DPC for promotion to Group-D was delayed due to various cases pending before this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Equating the case of the applicant with that of Divakaran's case is not correct. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court in giving the benefit of ad hoc service rendered by an employee has been overruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Mobina Singh vs. K.H. Themba Singh and Others, 2008 (1) SCC (L&S) 315. In the circumstances, the O.A. is not sustainable and liable to be dismissed.<br />4. We have heard Mr. P.C. Sebastian, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pradeep Krishna, learned ACGSC for the respondents and perused the records.<br />5. The applicant has more than 40 years of service with the respondents. After 30 years of service, he was directed to join Kattappana South Post Office in the vacant Group-D post with effect from 01.06.1999 on officiating arrangement basis. He was appointed as Group-D alongwith Shri V.K. Divakaran and 7 others on the basis of the order dated 08.11.2000 at Annexure A-2. When he was made to work as Group-D on officiating arrangement in 1999, he was eligible and entitled to be appointed as Group-D as vacancies were available.<br />6. Shri V.K. Divakaran who was given appointment in Group-D post alongwith the applicant had claimed in O.A. No. 800/2002 that his appointment as Group-D with effect from 01.03.1999, the date from which continuously working as Group-D in Thodupuzha H.O., could be considered as regular service. The said O.A. was disposed of on 02.03.2005 as under :<br /> "12. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances, we set aside Annexure A-8 order and direct the respondents to grant the applicant continuity of service from 01.03.1999 and to consider him for regular appointment from that date by holding a review DPC if necessary for the purpose of pensionary benefits (alone) and pass appropriate orders within a time frame of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The O.A. is allowed. In the circumstances, no order as to costs."<br /> The aforesaid order of this Tribunal was confirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide its judgement dated 27.03.2008 in W.P.(C) No. 17044/2005(S).<br />7. This Tribunal had relied on the judgements of Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association vs. State vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (1990) 2 SCC 715 and State of West Bengal vs. Aghore Nath Dev and others, (1993) 3 SCC 371. The respondents have taken the stand that equating the case of the applicant with that of Divakaran's case is not correct. But it was not substantiated in what way the applicant's case is different from that of Divakaran's case. On going through "O.A. No. 800/2002", it is seen that the respondents had relaxed the age limit for absorbing Shri V.K. Divakaran in Group - D. But for this relaxation the applicant is similarly placed as Shri V.K. Divakaran in respect of reckoning service from the date of officiation on the Group-D post for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits.<br />8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association vs. State vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (1990) 2 SCC 715, held as under :<br /> ".. If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till regularisation of his service in accordance with rules, the period of officiating service will be counted..."<br />9. Again in R.K. Mobisana Singh vs. K.H. Temba Singh and Others, (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 315, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 34 of the judgement, referred to its decision in M.K. Shanmugham vs. Union of India, (2000) 4 SCC 476, which is extracted as under :<br /> ".....If an ad hoc selection is followed by regular selection, then the benefit of ad hoc service is not admissible if ad hoc appointment is in violation of the rules. If the ad hoc appointment has been made as a stop gap arrangement and where there was a procedural irregularity in making appointments according to rules and that irregularity was subsequently rectified, the principle to be applied in that case was stated once again....."<br />10. In the instant case, the applicant was put on duty of Group-D on officiating arrangement basis. Subsequently, he was regularised. It cannot be said that he was appointed in violation of the rules. The DPC could not meet in time for administrative reasons. That it could recommend his name subsequent to his appointment in 1999 is only a procedural irregularity which was rectified in due course of time. The stand of the respondents that the engagement of the applicant as Group- D was not as per the recruitment rules cannot be vindicated in the light of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.<br />11. The officiating arrangement of the applicant on 01.06.1999 was against existing vacancy of a Group - D post. He was eligible and qualified for a regular appointment on that date and he continued in the post uninterruptedly till regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules. In such case, the appointee is not to be blamed for the deficiency for the procedural requirements in the rules at the time of his initial appointment and the appointment not being limited to a fixed period of time is intended to be a regular appointment subject to the remaining procedural requirements of the rules being fulfilled at the earliest, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Aghore Nath Dev and others, (1993) 3 SCC 371. Therefore, in our considered view,the applicant is entitled to reckon the period from 01.06.1999 to 24.11.2000 for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits.<br />12. The O.A. is allowed. The respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to issue appropriate orders granting the applicant pensionary benefits counting his service from 01.06.1999 onwards as qualifying service, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br />13. No order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN)ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-38937115225641291342011-01-22T18:35:00.002+05:302011-01-22T18:39:19.510+05:30Qualified Surplus IP candidates can be allowed for IP Exam<p align="center"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">Qualified Surplus IP candidates are eligible for IP Exam</span></strong></p><p align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,</strong></span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong> ERNAKULAM BENCH<br /></strong></span> Original Application No. 708 of 2009<br /> Wednesday, this the 19th day of January, 2011<br />CORAM:<br />HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER<br />HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER<br /><br /><br />1. S. Biju,<br /> S/o. N.K. Sudhakaran,<br /> Working as System Administrator,<br /> Kollam Head Post Office,<br /> Residing Arunodayam house,<br /> Thekkevila P.O., Kollam : 691 016<br /><br />2. S. Bhagyaraj,<br /> S/o. Unnikrishnan Nair,<br /> Working as Postal Assistant,<br /> Pathanapuram P.O.,<br /> Residing at Saraswati Nilayam,<br /> Koodal P.O., Pathanamthitta : 689 695 ... Applicants.<br /><br />(By Advocate Mr. P.C. Sebastian)<br /><br /> v e r s u s<br /><br />1. Union of India, represented by its<br /> Secretary, Ministry of Communications,<br /> Department of Posts, New Delhi.<br /><br />2. The Director General Posts,<br /> Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan,<br /> New Delhi.<br /><br />3. The Chief Postmaster General,<br /> Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /><br />4. The Chief Postmaster General,<br /> Gujarat Circle, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.<br /><br />5. Shri Anil Kumar N, working as<br /> Inspector Posts (P.G.) Nadiad Postal Division,<br /> Nadiad, Gujarat.<br /><br />6. Shri Unnikrishnan N, working as<br /> Inspector Posts, Anand Postal Sub Division,<br /> Anand P.O., Gujarat.<br /><br />7. Smt. Asha Anand, working as<br /> Inspector Posts (P.G), Surendranagar<br /> Postal Division, Surendranagar,<br /> Gujarat. ... Respondents.<br /><br />(By Advocate Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC for respondents 1 to 4 and Ms. Jagada Bai, Counsel for respondents 5 to 7)<br /><br /> This application having been heard on 11.01.2011, the Tribunal on 19.01.11 delivered the following:<br /> O R D E R<br /><br />HON'BLE MR. K GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER<br /></p><p align="justify"><br /> The applicants are qualified surplus candidates of the Inspector of Posts Examination (IP examination), 2008. The name of the applicant No. 2 has been deleted from the party array on allowing M.A. No. 04/2011 on 04.01.2011. The applicants have filed this O.A. for a direction to the respondents to revise Annexure A-1 select list by deleting the names of respondents 5 to 7 and giving applicants their due positions in the list.<br />2. The applicants contend that the respondents No. 5 to 7 who are surplus qualified candidates of the IP Examination, 2007, and were allotted to the Gujarat Circle and working as Inspector of Posts in Gujarat at the time of 2008 IP Examination were ineligible to appear for the IP Examination, 2008 without being reverted to the lower cadre. Even after their allotment to the Gujarat Circle and after joining as Inspectors there, the partyrespondents were permitted to appear in the IP Examination, 2008 against the vacancies in Kerala Circle in the examination centres in Gujarat against the provisions of Annexure A-8 notification. The persons similarlycircumstanced as the party respondents were not permitted to appear in the said examination in centres elsewhere. The party respondents alongwith other surplus candidates unsuccessfully claimed for the 2008 vacancies in Kerala in O.A. No. 499/2008. They are getting double benefits of selection and appointment in the vacancies of 2007 and transfer to home circle which they could not have obtained but for their inclusion in the select list of 2008. The selection of party respondents, the surplus qualified candidates of 2007 IP Examination, is still in force and the consequential allotment to the Gujarat Circle appointing them as Inspectors in that Circle are also still in force and hence they are estopped from claiming the benefit of IP Examination, 2008. The aplicants have no more chance available to improve their position in the matter of promotion as Inspectors. As per the interim order of this Tribunal dated 06.11.2009, the applicants were deputed for training at PTC, Mysore, subject to the final outcome of this O.A.<br />3. The respondents contested the O.A. It was submitted on their behalf that till 2007 in a Circle only candidates equal to the number of vacancies in that Circle were selected and appointed to the post of Inspectors. By Annexure A-3 dated 13.04.2007, the Surplus Scheme was introduced whereby an All India merit list was drawn up comprising those candidates who qualify in all the papers but who do not figure in the merit list. These candidates will thereafter be allotted to those Circles which have unfilled vacancies in accordance with candidates' All India merit and choice of Circles exercised by them to the extent of availability of vacancies. The induction training for the candidates who are selected as per the merit list would commence immediately after the publication of the result at different PTCs. But the training for the surplus candidates will be formulated only after receiving the options from all the surplus candidates and their allotment to the Circles will be made as per their choice if vacancy exists. For them, a separate training package was formulated which included intensive training in the local language of the State to which they were posted. The Surplus Scheme was formulated with a view to reduce the shortage of qualified Inspectors and also to provide life line to those candidates who perform well in the All India Examination scoring higher marks but do not find a place in the select list of their home circle for want of vacancies. It was also submitted that the applicants have approached this Tribunal without making any representations to the various levels of authorities through available channels for redressing their grievances. The applicants herein are candidates in the surplus list of 2008. The party respondents are those candidates who had found a place in the merit list on account of having scored higher marks than the applicants. The examination for promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Posts was notified on 01.01.2008 much before the deputation of the private respondents for induction training at PTC, Vadodara on 22.09.2008. The party respondents applied for the said examination in their substantive capacity as Postal Assistants as they wanted to compete for the vacancies available in Kerala Circle for securing appointment in their home State. No provision in the rules prevented them from appearing for the said examination. The applicants were well aware of the inclusion of the private respondents in the list at Annexure R-5(B) containing the names of 97 candidates eligible to appear for the said examination. Having attended the said examination, the applicants are now estopped from challenging the action of the respondents permitting the party respondents to appear in the IP Examination, 2008, after publication of the results of the said examination on finding that that they have secured more marks than the applicants.<br />4. The respondents further contended that on successful completion of their training the party respondents were appointed as Inspector of Posts in the Gujarat Circle subject to their coming out successful in the language proficiency test within two years' period of probation. They hold the post of Inspectors as ad hoc appointees until they qualify in the language proficiency test. When the party respondents submitted applications for the IP Examination, 2008, they were working as Postal Assistants in Kerala and were yet to be allotted to Gujarat Circle. Having secured lower marks than the party respondents, the applicants cannot come up with an assumption that if the party respondents had not been permitted to appear in the said examination, they would have figured in the merit list. Having their lien in the substantive posts of Postal Assistants in Kerala Postal Circle, the party respondents were fully eligible to appear for the IP Examination, 2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2265/2007 held that "it is settled position of law that only when an incumbent acquires lien on another post ,his lien on the previous post stands automatically terminated." This position of law is squarely applicable in the case of the party respondents in this case. In the Civil Services Examination held throughout the country every year, the candidates are given option for selecting services and the allotment is made based on their position in the merit list. Even if a candidate qualifies once, he is given a chance to appear again for the same examination next year to improve his position in the rank list. On the same analogy, the party respondents who were surplus candidates posted to Gujarat Circle were given a chance to compete for the vacancies available in their home circle by permitting them to sit for the said examination. The party respondents were not full fledged Inspectors of Gujarat Circle at the time of the IP Examination, 2008, as they had lien on the post of Postal Assistants in Kerala Circle. They are ad hoc appointees as Inspector of Posts till they are confirmed after passing the language proficiency test. The moot point in O.A. No. 499/2009 is entirely different from that in this O.A.. The official respondents and the party respondents cannot be faulted for their inability to figure in the merit list ahead of the private respondents in the IPO Examination, 2008. In the circumstances, the O.A. should be dismissed.<br />5. We have heard Mr. P.C. Sebastian, counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC, for the respondents 1 to 4 and Ms. Jagada Bai, counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 and perused the records.<br />6. The short question to be decided is whether the party respondents in this O.A were eligible to appear in the IP Examination, 2008, or not. They were surplus candidates in accordance with the surplus scheme introduced vide Annexure A-3 dated 13.04.2007. Para 8 of the said scheme reads as under :<br /> "8. the surplus qualified candidates, who are allotted to other Circles, will be required to pass a language proficiency test in the language of the State of the concerned, within the period of probation of two years. This test shall be conducted by the Circle itself. Candidates who fail to pass the language proficiency test shall be reverted to their substantive cadre and would be free to undertake the next IP examination subject to the prescribed eligibility norms."<br />7. The surplus qualified candidates have to pass a language proficiency test in the local language within a period of two years. In case they fail to pass the same they would be reverted to their substantive cadre and would be free to undertake the next IP examination subject to the prescribed eligibility norms. Based on this condition, the applicants argued that the party respondents were not eligible to appear in the IP Examination, 2008. The surplus scheme is an extended benefit granted to the meritorious candidates who could not be accommodated in the home Circle for want of vacancies. It also reduces the shortage of qualified Inspectors in the country. There is nothing in the scheme that takes away the vested right of the surplus candidates to appear in the subsequent IP examination during the period of probation. As rightly submitted by the official respondents, the surplus candidates who were allotted to a Circle other than their home Circle are ad hoc appointees on the post of Inspectors until they qualify in the language proficiency test of that Circle. They will be confirmed on the post of Inspectors only after passing the language proficiency test. Only after confirmation, they will acquire lien in the allotted Circle entailing automatic termination of their lien in the previous posts of Postal Assistants. In the eyes of law, the substantive posts of the party respondents would be Postal Assistants till they are confirmed on the posts of inspector of Posts in Gujarat. It is very relevant that the IP Examination, 2008 was notified long before the date of deputation of the party respondents for their induction training. They were actually working as Postal Assistants in Kerala Circle and were yet to be allotted to Gujarat Circle inspite of their being included inthe surplus list. Inclusion in the surplus list in no way extinguishes the vested right of the party respondents in regard to lien in the post of Postal Assistants and thereby to appear in the IP Examination, 2008. Therefore,the party respondents were eligible to appear in the IP Examination, 2008.<br />8. Further, as submitted by the respondents, the applicants have not exhausted the available channels for redressing their grievances before approaching this Tribunal. They were also aware of the fact that the party respondents were included in the list of 97 candidates eligible to appear in the said examination published by the 3rd respondent. After having attended the said examination and on finding that they have secured less marks than the party respondents and that they missed a place in the merit list, they are now estopped from challenging the action of the respondents permitting the party respondents to appear in the IP Examination, 2008. Also, we do not find any merit in the other contentions of the applicants.<br />9. In our considered view, there is nothing unjust, arbitrary or discriminatory in permitting the party respondents to appear in the IP Examination 2008. They were fully eligible to appear in the IP Examination,2008. Devoid of any merit, the O.A. is dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> (Dated, the 19th January, 2011)<br /><br /> (K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN)<br />ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-46954006420173679582011-01-14T20:00:00.001+05:302011-01-14T20:02:09.741+05:30Retirement benefit can not be denied to employee<p align="center"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Retirement benefit can not be denied to employee</strong></span></p><p align="center"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong> even if charges against him are pending</strong></span></p><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><p align="left"><br /></span><strong> The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that Government cannot deny retirement benefits to an employee who was asked to go on conditional retirement because charges against him were pending. A Division Bench of Justice R.Banumathi and Justice S.Nagamuthu rejected the contention of the government that Sankaran, an Assistant Tahsildhar had been allowed to retire on certain conditions as charges were pending against him,and hence he could not be given retirement benefits.<br />A single judge had already revoked the order of the collector suspending payment of retirement benefits.<br />Similarly Raja,a retired Sub-Registrar of cooperatives was allowed conditional retirement on April 30, 2010. But his retirement benefits were suspended as charges were pending against him. His writ petition was dismissed by a single judge, and he had come on appeal.<br />The Judges said when the Government employees are allowed to retire on condition, disciplinary action could be taken against them or inquiry conducted afresh. But government had no power to suspend payment of retirement benefits to them, the court said.<br />In a common order passed for both of them, the bench said when they are allowed to retire they should be given their retirement benefits.<br />Only government had power to take decision on disciplinary action against them, the bench observed and directed that all retirement benefits be paid to them.<br /></strong><em><span style="font-size:78%;color:#009900;">i net</span></em></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-35358414373329226752011-01-13T21:56:00.002+05:302011-01-13T22:02:12.486+05:30AADHAAR: What is & Why ?<p align="center"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="font-size:100%;color:#006600;">Unique Identification Authority of India</span> </strong></span></p><p align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">AADHAAR: What is & Why ?<br /></p></span></strong><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>What is Aadhaar?<br /></strong></span><span style="color:#3333ff;">Aadhaar is a 12-digit unique number which will be issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to all residents of the country. It’s a step towards putting India in the club of more than 50 countries around the world that have some form of national identity cards. These include most of continental Europe (not the UK), China, Brazil, Japan, Iran, Israel and Indonesia. The number will be stored in a centralized database and linked to the basic demographics and biometric information photograph, ten fingerprints and iris of each individual. The number will be unique and would be available for online and offline verification and, hence, will rule out the possibility of duplicate and fake identities from government as well as various private databases.<br /></span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>What are the benefits of biometrics?<br /></strong></span><span style="color:#000099;">Apart from easy availability, the project will also rule out frauds by employing biometric techniques. Biometrics comprises methods for uniquely recognizing humans based upon intrinsic physiological or behavioural traits. So far, it is primarily used in computer science for access control. In some form, the method is also used for identifying individuals in groups who are under surveillance. Generally, biometric characteristics are divided into two main classes: physiological or those based on fingerprints, face, DNA, palm prints, iris recognition; and behavioural, which can include anything from gait or voice to typing rhythm. Aadhaar will use physiological traits — fingerprints and iris — to issue the unique identities. The iris recognition is included because the project is aimed at encompassing every resident, which includes children for whom fingerprints might not be a reliable identification and people working at places like fireworks factories and some plantations who have got their fingerprints rubbed off.<br /></span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>What will be the benefits of the unique identification number?<br /></strong></span><span style="color:#3333ff;">One of the key challenges faced by people in India is difficulty in establishing identity. People have multiple identity documents, each serving a different purpose. The most important characteristic of Aadhaar is its universality and it is assumed that the biometric card with the number will be gradually accepted across the country as the identification number by all service providers and government agencies. It is assumed by the UIDAI that the card will increase the trust between private and public agencies and reduce the denial of services to people who have no identification. The number will also hopefully reduce the hassle of repeatedly proving identity by various documents to avail services like opening a bank account and obtaining passport or driving licence and so on. For the people living below the poverty line and the ones who are entitled to various government-run welfare programmes, the number and the biometric data will help in identifying the beneficiaries.<br /></span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Why is the UID criticized by some people?<br /></strong></span><span style="color:#3333ff;">The main criticism of the UID is based on privacy concerns. The project is criticized because, unlike Western countries, India is not known for stringent data protection laws and the opposing group fears data theft and selling of the vital information to a third party by corrupt officials. Apart from this, they argue, it’s an individual’s right to protect his or her privacy from any unlawful interference, even by the state. Article 21 of the Constitution, the Hindu Marriage Act, the Copyright Act, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Code of Criminal Procedure all place some form of restrictions on the release of personal information.<br /></span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Is it mandatory or voluntary?<br /></strong></span><span style="color:#3333ff;">Considering privacy concerns, UIDAI has kept provision of voluntary registration at enrolment camps to obtain the number. Critics, however, argue that once the programme gets linked to welfare programmes, the PDS system and availing of various services, it will lose its true voluntary nature. Hence, it’s also important to have stringent laws to prevent denial of service in such situations.<br /></span> </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8424028791825637100.post-77053645538098826082011-01-11T21:19:00.001+05:302011-01-11T21:23:11.388+05:30Answer Papers should be evaluated properly<div align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong></strong></span> </div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;">Answer Papers should be evaluated properly</span></strong></div><div align="center"> </div><div align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH</strong></span><br /> Original Application No. 756 of 2010<br /> Wednesday, this the 05th day of January, 2011<br />CORAM:<br /> HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER<br /> HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER<br /><br />R. Binoj, aged 31 years,<br />S/o. C. Raju, Postman,<br />Karimannur P.O., Thodupuzha,<br />Residing at 'Chellakulam House',<br />Kolahalamedu, Vagamon P.O.,<br />Idukki District. ... Applicant.<br />(By Advocate Mr. Shafik M.A.)<br /> versus<br />1. Union of India, Represented by<br /> The Chief Postmaster General,<br /> Kerala Circle, Trivandrum.<br />2. The Superintendent of Post Offices,<br /> Idukki Division, Idukki.<br />3. P.K. Thomas,<br /> Postman, Idukki Colony ... Respondents.<br />(By Advocate Mr. Varghese P. Thomas for R!-2)<br /> The application having been heard on 20.12.2010, the Tribunal on 5.1.2011 delivered the following:<br /><br /> <span style="color:#3366ff;">O R D E R<br /></span> HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER<br /></div><div align="justify"> The applicant is a Postman who appeared in the examination for promotion as Postal Assistant held on 06.11.2009. He was not declared as passed as he was short of one mark in paper-I English in which he got only 39 marks. On getting a copy of the answer paper under the RTI Act, he found that certain answers were not evaluated properly. His representation to the authorities concerned did not evoke any positive result. Hence, he filed the present O.A. for the following reliefs:<br /> "(i) To call for the records relating to Annexure A-1 to A-7 to declare that the applicant is entitled to be awarded marks in question No. 8(5), 4 and 5 in A-4 answer sheet;<br /> (ii) To direct the respondent to re-evaluate the answer paper in Paper-I English and to award the correct marks to the applicant and to revise the select list, include the applicant and to make promotions on the basis of such revised lists;<br /> (iii) To declare Rule 15 of Appendix 37 of P&T Manual Volume IV as unconstitutional, ultra vires, unreasonable and void;<br /> (iv) To issue appropriate direction or order to revise the select list and to appoint the applicant also as Postal Assistant in Idukki Division immediately on the basis of the marks on revaluation; and to grant him all consequential benefits with effect from the date of his entitlement.<br /> (v) To issue such other appropriate orders or directions this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case."<br />2. As the respondents have reevaluated the answer paper in Paper-I English in terms of Annexure R-3 order dated 02.08.2010, the relief to declare Rule 15 of Appendix 37 of P&T Manual Volume IV as<br />unconstitutional does not survive. What remains to adjudicate is whether the applicant is entitled to be awarded marks for answers to question Nos. 4, 5 and 8(5) in Annexure A-4 answer paper and if so, whether he is entitled to consequential benefits. <br />3. As per interim order dated 03.09.2010, the applicant was sent for induction training at PTC, Mysore. Further, as per interim order dated 27.10.2010, he was allowed to undergo in-service training and the<br />applicant has completed the training.<br />4. The applicant contends that the refusal of the respondents to rectify the mistakes specifically pointed out in evaluating the answer paper and to declare him as passed is illegal and arbitrary. According to the applicant, the answers to question Nos. 4 and 5 merit more marks than he was awarded and correct answer to 8(5) is struck off as wrong. Awarding only 39 marks in Paper-I English and declaring him as failed even though he has scored high marks in other papers without awarding<br />marks for correct answers is highly illegal and arbitrary. He is short of only one mark in paper-I English. If one mark is added then he would become the second one in the merit list.<br />5. The respondents contested the O.A. They took the stand that the applicant failed in the examination even after revaluation. He could secure only 34 out of 100 marks on re-evaluation against 39 marks<br />awarded originally. In both ways, he failed to secure the minimum 40% marks prescribed for qualifying in the examination. They further stated that the case of the applicant would come within the ambit of issue No.1 and that they took action to appoint an independent examiner to revalue the answer scripts of the applicant, even without waiting for a direction from this Tribunal.<br />6. In the additional reply statement, the respondents submitted that the revaluation of answer scripts would mean valuing the entire answer scripts once again to reassess the value of each answer. In the instant case, the applicant got one more mark for the answer to question No. 8(5) in Paper-I English while he lost marks for answers to questions No. 1 to 3. In similar cases, like O.A. Nos. 413/2010, 459/2010 and 512/2010, on revaluation of answer scripts by an independent examiner, the applicants therein got higher marks than the initial valuation. The respondents have followed the spirit of revaluation in all the cases alike, observing the principle of equity in the revaluation of the entire answer<br />scripts of the applicant applying the uniform principle.<br />7. We have heard Mr. Shafik M.A., learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Varghese P. Thomas, ACGSC, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.<br />8. The respondents submitted that re-evaluation of paper-I English was done taking into consideration of Annexure R-3 order dated 02.08.2010. Although it is not permissible to consider requests of the<br />candidate for revaluation after declaration of the results as it will not only cause great inconvenience to the examination process and also cause hindrance to the administration in the absence of vacancies of particular category viz; OC, SC, ST etc. under departmental quota but also against the spirit of Rule 15, Appendix 37 of Postal Manual Volume-IV, the respondents decided to conduct the revaluation of answer papers in the following circumstances as narrated in Annexure R-3 letter dated 02.08.2010:<br /> "3. It may be seen that representations requesting for revaluation of answer papers are being received in this office specifically pointing out the following grievances :<br /><br /> (i) Particular answer(s) were not evaluated (ii) Excess attempted answer(s) were not<br /> evaluated (iii)For the same answer(s), the examiner awarded marks to one candidate and to another candidate no marks were assigned or the answer struck off as wrong (iv)All the answers were evaluated but justified marks were not awarded by the examiner<br /><br /> 4. The issues indicated at (I) to (iii) above are justified and need to be examined by the competent authority to find out the facts and if the claim of the candidates appears to be genuine, revaluation may be got done by an independent examiner in such cases and further necessary action may be taken. In so far as the issue indicated at (iv) above, there is no need to consider such requests and merits rejection at the initial stage itself."<br />9. According to the respondents, the case of the applicants would come within the ambit of issue No. (i) "Particular answer(s) were not evaluated" in Annexure R-1 letter dated 02.08.2010. This stand is not correct. The contention of the applicant is that the answer to question No. 8(5) and 4 are correct and that he has answered question No. 5 correctly in more than 4 fill-in-the-blanks. It is not the case of the applicant that particular answer to the question was not evaluated. In respect of answer to question No. 8(5), the case of the applicant is covered under issue No. (iii) as the answer given by the applicant was struck off as wrong.<br /><br />10. Answer to question No. 8(5) which was struck off as wrong initially was rectified in revaluation granting one more mark to the applicant. As such he would have got 40 marks and would have passed the examination and got promotion. But the independent examiner revalued the entire answer paper and reduced two marks for the answer to question No. 1 and four marks for answer to question No. 3 thereby bringing the total marks to 34 from the original marks of 39. The respondents went about the revaluation of the answer papers of the applicant in paper-I English as per their understanding of Annexure R-3 letter dated 02.08.2010. The grievance of the applicant was pertaining to grant of less marks to the answers to questions No. 4 and 5 and the correct answer to question No. 8(5) struck off as wrong. In the revaluation, it was found that the answer to question 8(5) was correct and accordingly he was given one additional mark. The applicant had no dispute about the marks awarded to answers other than answers 4, 5 and 8(5). This Tribunal had directed revaluation of the answer paper of the applicant in paper-I English in the context of the relief sought in the instant O.A. But the respondents did not understand it rightly. In fact, as per their reply statement they had taken action to revalue the answer scripts of the applicant even without waiting for a direction from this Tribunal. In the orders dated 04.11.2010 and 01.12.2010, it was made clear that the revaluation ordered by the Tribunal was confined to the answers to question Nos. 4, 5 and 8(5). The interim directions of thisTribunal on revaluation of the answer scripts in respect of 4, 5 and 8(5) were not carried out by the respondents. The revaluation done by them is independent of the directions of this Tribunal.<br />11. In M.A. Nos. 921 of 2010 and 976 of 2010 in the present O.A., the 2nd respondent without understanding the directions given by this Tribunal in the context of the facts and circumstances of the O.A., prayed for modification of interim orders of this Tribunal dated 27.10.2010 and 01.12.2010 respectively. We do not find any merit in the stand taken by the 2nd respondent. We dismiss the aforesaid M.As as misconceived.<br />12. Revaluation of answer scripts other than those pertaining to questions 4, 5 and 8(5) was never sought by the applicant. This Tribunal had directed, as was clarified vide order dated 01.12.2010, if at all there was any misunderstanding in the minds of the respondents, that revaluation is confined to the answer scripts for questions 4, 5 and 8(5) only. If the respondents have gone beyond the direction of this Tribunal in reevaluating the answer scripts for other questions then that is not relevant for deciding whether the reliefs sought in the instant O.A., should be granted or not.<br />13. Even then, we would observe that answers to questions No. 1 and 3 for which the marks were reduced on revaluation are descriptive in nature as against answer to question No. 8(5) for which one additional mark is given on revaluation is not descriptive. In evaluating descriptive answers, it is trite to say that subjectivity of the evaluator plays a big role. Subjectivity varies from person to person depending on his personality, learning and experience. It is also seen that answers to question Nos. 4<br />and 5 are also not descriptive in nature. Therefore, the revaluation of answers to question Nos. 1 and 3 is all the more irrelevant in the facts and circumstances of the case and directions of this Tribunal.<br />14. We are constrained to observe that the examination for promotion as Postal Assistants held on 06.11.2009 has led to a number of litigations on account of haphazard manner of evaluation. The Department of Posts had to issue an order for revaluation as at Annexure R3(I). Even the said order and the directions of the Tribunal in this O.A. were not implemented properly. We do hope the respondent authorities would be more careful and serious in conducting examination in future.<br /> 15. In confining the revaluation of the answer scripts of the applicant to award correct marks for the answers to only question Nos. 4, 5 and 8(5) of paper-I English in the examination for promotion as Postal Assistant conducted in the year 2009, we find that the applicant has been awarded no additional marks for answers to question Nos. 4 and 5 and that one mark more is awarded for answer to question No.8(5), thus raising his total marks from 39 to 40.<br />10. In the result, the O.A. succeeds. Accordingly, we declare that the applicant is entitled to one mark for correctly answering question No. 8(5) in Paper-I English thereby raising the marks awarded to him in the said paper to 40, which is the pass mark. The respondents are directed to revise the select list to include the applicant and to grant him all consequential benefits from the date of his entitlement within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.<br /> (Dated, the 05th January, 2011)<br /> (K. GEORGE JOSEPH) JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN)<br />ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER<br /><br /> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0