Monday 31 January 2022

PREVENTIVE MEASURES TO CONTAIN THE SPREAD OF NOVEL CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ATTENDANCE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS REGARDING

 PREVENTIVE MEASURES TO CONTAIN THE SPREAD OF NOVEL CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ATTENDANCE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS REGARDING



Read More ->>

Additional charge of CPMG & Exercise statuary powers of CPMG - Directorate order

 Additional charge of CPMG & Exercise statuary powers of CPMG - Directorate order

P
Read More ->>

DOP Working in Circle Rotational Transfer Guidelines 2022

DOP Working in Circle Rotational Transfer Guidelines 2022

Guidelines for rotational transfers of Group ‘C’, Group ‘B’ (Gazetted and Non-Gazetted and Group ‘A’ (JTS and STS) officials / officers working in a Circle for the year 2022-23


No. X- 12/1/2019-SPN-II-Part(1)
Government of India
Ministry of Communications
Department of Posts

Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg
New Delhi – 110 001
Dated: 28th January, 2022

To

(a) All Chief Postmasters General,
(b) Chief General Manager, BD / Parcel / PLI Directorate
(c) CGM CEPT / Director RAKNPA / Director, All Postal Training Centres

Subject: Guidelines for rotational transfers of Group ‘C’, Group ‘B’ (Gazetted and Non-Gazetted and Group ‘A’ (JTS and STS) officials / officers working in a Circle for the year 2022-23 – reg.

Sir/Madam,

Keeping in view the current surge in COVID-19 pandemic in the country and considering the well-being of Postal employees, following rotational transfer guidelines have been approved by the Competent authority in respect of rotational transfer of all Group ‘C’, Group ‘B’ (Gazetted and Non-Gazetted) and Group ‘A’ (JTS and STS) officials / officers working in a Circle.

(i) No out of station transfer on account of station tenure.

(ii) Extension of one year shall be allowed to aII those who have completed their post tenure on non’sensitive posts.

(iii) Extension of one year shall be allowed to all those who have completed their post tenure in sensitive posts and who cannot be rotated at the same station, provided their past record is up to the mark and clean.

(iv) However, SPMs of single handed post offices and those double handed offices that are functioning as single handed offices shall not be given an extension except in cases at para (vii) below.

(v) The officials / officers working on sensitive posts and granted extension during last year may not be granted further extension this year.

(vi) CPMG is authorized to grant extension of one more year, in addition to as mentioned in para (ii) above on a non-sensitive post in cases of extreme COVID related distress on extreme compassionate grounds only.

(vii) CPMG is authorized to grant up to six months extension to SPMs of single handed Post Offices and those double handed Offices that are functioning as single handed offices in cases of extreme COVID related to extreme distress on compassionate grounds and where they could not be rotated at the same station, provided their past record is up to the mark and clean.

(viii) Transfers at own request and cost will be allowed.

(ix) Transfers in the interest of service will be allowed with the approval of next higher authority. In case, where the CPMG is the competent authority for such transfer, he/she would not require approval of next higher authority.

3. These guidelines shall be in continuance to instructions dated 19.05.2021 issued on the subject and shall remain in force till 31.03.2023 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

Yours faithfully,
(Muthuraman C)
Assistant Director General (SPN)

Copy to:
(a) PS to MoC / MoSC
(b) Staff Officer / Sr. PPS to Secretary (Posts) / Director General Postal Services
(c) Members of Postal Services Board
(d) Sr. DDG (Vigilance) & CVO / All Dy. Directors General
(e) Director (Staff), Dak Bhawan
(f) All recognized service union /association
(g) Portal Upload, CEPT – for uploading this document on India Post website
(h) Office copy / Guard file

Read More ->>

Attendance of Central Government officials: DoPT OM dated 31-01-2022 for 50% duty till 15th Feb, 2022

 Attendance of Central Government officials: DoPT OM dated 31-01-2022 for 50% duty till 15th Feb, 2022

F.No.11013/9/2014-Estt.A-III
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training

North Block, New Delhi
Dated the 31st January, 2022

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Preventive measures to contain the spread of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) —Attendance of Central Government officials regarding. 

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OM of even number dated the 3.1.2022 (copy enclosed) on the above-mentioned subject and to state that the instructions issued vide the said OM will remain in force upto 15th February, 2022 or till further orders, whichever is earlier.

(Umesh Kumar Bhatia)
Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India

To
1. All the Ministries/Departments, Government of India.
2. PMO/Cabinet Secretariat.
3. PS to Hon’ble MoS (PP).
4. PSO to Secretary (Personnel).
S. Sr. Tech, Director, NIC, DoP&T — for uploading.

Read More ->>

MENTALLY RETARDED CHILD ENTITLED TO FAMILY PENSION: DR JITENDRA SINGH

 PRESS NEWS

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions

MENTALLY RETARDED CHILD ENTITLED TO

FAMILY PENSION: DR JITENDRA SINGH

Posted On: 30 JAN 2022 7:57PM by PIB Delhi

Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) Science & Technology; Minister of State (Independent Charge) Earth Sciences; MoS PMO, Personnel, Public Grievances, Pensions, Atomic Energy and Space, Dr Jitendra Singh today said that mentally retarded child of a deceased Government employee/Pensioner is entitled to Family Pension and the spirit of this provision needs to be understood and respected.

Giving details, the Minister said, this reiteration in public was necessitated by the fact that it has come to the notice of the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare that in some cases the Banks are not allowing Family Pension in respect of a mentally retarded child through the person nominated by the Pensioner or his/her spouse and they insist for a Guardianship Certificate issued by a Court of Law.

Dr Jitendra Singh emphasised that under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Government follows the Mantra of Good Governance for bringing “Ease of Living” to the common man. In that spirit, the provision for nomination for Family Pension is intended to avoid any hassle to the child suffering from a mental disability in obtaining Guardianship Certificate from the Court or in claiming Family Pension after the death of his/her parents. Therefore, he said, insisting for a Guardianship Certificate by a Bank in such cases defeats the very purpose of such nomination and also amounts to violation of the statutory provisions of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2021.

The Department has, therefore, reiterated the provisions of the above rules. CMDs of all Pension Disbursing Banks have been advised to issue suitable instructions to their CPPCs/Pension Paying Branches for payment of Family Pension in respect of a mentally retarded child through the person nominated by the Government servant/Pensioner/ Family Pensioner in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Rules and not to insist for a Guardianship Certificate issued by Court of Law in such cases.

Pertinent to mention that in recent months, the Department of Pensions has introduced a number of path breaking reforms including relaxation in the provision of Family Pension for divorced daughters, introduction of Face Recognition Technology through mobile app for ease in submitting Life Certificate by elderly pensioners, Electronic Pension Pay Order, assistance from Postal Department to facilitate pension process etc. SNC / RR (Release ID: 1793706) 

Read More ->>

December 2021 AICPIN is the last point to finalise the DA rate from January 2022

December 2021 AICPIN is the last point to finalise the DA rate from January 2022


The AICPIN for the month of December, 2021 is released on Monday, 31st January, 2022. But this is the last AICPIN which is expected by all to finalise the DA rate from January 2022.

As per the Press release issued by Labour Bureau today, the AICPIN for December, 2021 decreased by 0.3 points and stood at 125.4 

Let’s look at the monthly wise increase in AICPIN over the last 12 months. The minimum was (-0.3) and the maximum was 1.6. Even using the maximum and minimum increases in AICPIN for the month of December 2021, the DA rate will be fixed at 34%. 

DA Table for January 2022 with 12 Months AICPIN

The AICPIN and DA table provided below will make the above assumption clear.

S.NoMonth & YearAICPIN PointsDifference In AICPINDA  Increase @ Monthly
1January 2021118.228.50
2February 2021119.0(+0.8)28.97
3March 2021119.6(+0.6)29.56
4April 2021120.1(+0.5)30.10
5May 2021120.6(+0.5)30.65
6June 2021121.7(+1.1)31.24
7July 2021122.8(+1.1)31.80
8August 2021123.0(+0.2)32.32
9September 2021123.3(+0.3))32.80
10October 2021124.9(+1.6)33.30
11November 2021125.7(+0.8)33.85
12December 2021125.4(-0.3)34.46

Finally the increase in the additional instalment of Dearness Allowance to Central Government employees and Dearness Relief to Pensions, due from 01.01.2022 will be 3% over the existing rate 31%.

Read More ->>

Consumer Price Index (AICPIN-IW) for December 2021

 Consumer Price Index (AICPIN-IW) for December 2021


As per the Press release issued by Labour Bureau today, the All-India CPI-IW for December, 2021 decreased by 0.3 points and stood at 125.4 (one hundred twenty five and point four).

The next AICPIN for the month of January 2022 will be issued on 28.2.2022

The Press Release of Labour Bureau on AICPIN for the month of December 2022 is reproduced below

Press Release

Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers (2016=100) – December,202l

The Labour Bureau, an attached office of the M/o Labour & Employment, has been compiling Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers every month on the basis of retail prices collected from 317 markets spread over 88 industrially important centres in the country. The index is compiled for 88 centres and All-lndia and is released on the last working day of succeeding month. The index for the month of December,202l is being released in this press release.

The All-India CPI-IW for December, 2021 decreased by 0.3 points and stood at 125.4 (one hundred twenty five and point four). On 1-month percentage change, it decreased by 0.24 per cent with respect to previous month compared to decrease of 0.92 per cent recorded between corresponding months a year ago

The maximum downward pressure in current index came from Food & Beverages group contributing 0.39 percentage points to the total change. At item level, Fish fresh, Poultry chicken, Sunflower oil, Banana, Cauliflower, Onion, Peas, Potato, Tomato, ESI contribution, Petrol etc. are responsible for the fall in index. However, this decrease was largely checked by Buffalo-Milk, Grapes, Pomegranate, Lady Finger, Fire wood, Medicine Allopathic, Auto rickshaw fare, Telephone Charges etc. putting upward pressure on the index.

At centre level, Udham Singh Nagar recorded a maximum decrease of 4.2 points. Among others, 5 centres observed a decrease between 3 to 3.9 points, 6 centres between 2 to 2.9 points, 19 centres between 1 to 1.9 points and27 centres between 0.1 to 0.9 points. On the contrary, Virudhu Nagar recorded a maximum increase of 3.6 points. Among others, 5 centres observed an increase between 2 to 2.9 points, 9 centres between 1 to 1.9 points and 12 centres between 0.1 to 0.9 points. Rest of 3 centres’ indices remained stationary.

Year-on-year inflation for the month stood at 5.56 per cent compared to 4.84 per cent for the previous month and 3.67 per cent during the corresponding month a year before. Similarly, Food inflation stood at 5.93 per cent against 3.40 per cent of the previous month and 2.89 per cent during the corresponding month a year ago.

The next issue of CPI-IW for the month of January, 2022 will be released on Monday, 28th February, 2022. The same will also be available on the office website

Read More ->>

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 102 : (Compiled By Com Kayveeyes)

 Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 102 : (Compiled By Com Kayveeyes)

CASE LAW ON PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

17.“Petitioner a Bank employee was charged with withdrawal of money from account of a customer who had expired by forging the signature of the deceased – Relevant documents including the report of hand writing expert not supplied to petitioner – Enquiry held vitiated- Order of dismissal from service quashed- Reinstatement ordered”. Gurmit Singh Vilkhu v Panjab and Sind Bank & Ors. 2005(3) A.T.J. HC (M.P.) 302.

18.“Natural Justice – Charge of non-delivery of two insured letters – The said letters were delivered and Left Thump Impression (LTI) of the addressee followed by signature of identifying person obtained – LTI is more reliable proof of delivery as compared to the signature which may likely to vary- Enquiry held at a place which was not known to applicant – Held violation of principles of natural justice – Order of dismissal from service quashed- Reinstatement with all consequential benefits ordered”. Dayanand v Union of India & Ors. 2005(3) A.T.J. CAT (Allahabad) 278.

19.Charges – Burden of proof shifts to the delinquent officer only on satisfactory evidence and not otherwise. Hence, in the absence of such evidence, mere admission of the delinquent official cannot be used against him. ATC 1986 (2) 846 – K.Sundaramma v  Union of India & others – T.A. No. 53/1986 – arising out of O.J.C. No. 933/1979 – CAT, Cuttack Bench – 14.08.86.

CASE LAW ON NON APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

20.The Supreme Court in the case of Karaipac and others Vs Union of India (AIR 197 SC 150) held that the rules of natural justice can operate only in area not covered by law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant Law but supplement it.

21.In Bhasidr Ganesh Ra Bhauttakak Vs Municipal Council and others ( 1986 (II) LLJ 108) the Bombay high court held as under – “the statutory bias is a well-recognized exemption to the doctrine of bias on which the actions are struck down as illegal and void

22.In P.R. Suresh Chandra Varma and others Vs Chancellor Nagpur University ( 1991 (I) LLJ 574) the Supreme Court held – “ when the services of the  appellants were terminated in view of the change in position of law and not on account of the demerits or misdemeanour  of individual it is not necessary to hear them before their services are terminated. The principles of natural justice do not apply in such cases”

23. In J. Mohapatra & Co Vs State of Orissa and another (1986 (I) SC 322) held – “so far as the AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM Rule is concerned both in England and in India it is well established that when a right to prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before an order as passed would obstruct the taking of prompt action, such a right can be excluded. If the rule be invoked it importing it would have the effect of paralyzing the administrative process or where the need for promptitude or the urgency of taking action so demands” 

24. In Ajay Kumar Minl Vs State of Bihar the High Court of Patna (1984 (I) LLJ 1) held – “non observation of principles of natural justice does not render the order of termination void and unenforceable. It has been held that where certain benefits are derived pursuant to forgeries, the rule of natural justice are not attracted and the concerned candidates cannot claim for being provided with any opportunity of hearing in such matter. No person can claim to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything”

25. According to Kerala High Court ( 1994 (II) LLJ 100 ) – “ if a person conceals certain material facts which if were disclosed would have disentitle  any person from getting the post, the termination of his service without enquiry was valid since the employment itself was void”

Read More ->>

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 103 : (Compiled By Com Kayveeyes)

 Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 103 : (Compiled By Com Kayveeyes) 

CASE LAW ON PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

26. In the case of State of UP Vs State Law Officers Association (1994 (I) CLR 668) the Supreme Court held – “in the absence of guidelines, the appointments may be made purely on personal or political consideration and be arbitrary. This being so those who come to be appointed by such arbitrary procedure can hardly complain if the termination of their services is equally arbitrary. There need be no legal anxiety to save them.

27. Natural Justice in Disciplinary Proceedings:

The aim of Natural Justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law but supplement it.

[Supreme Court - (1969) 2 SCC 262; AIR 1970 SC 150 - A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India]

28. There must be ever present to the mind of men the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on the principle of Natural Justice which require that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings which affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in such proceedings.

[Ramseth vs. Collector of Dharbang, AIR 155 PAT 345]

29. The expression 'Natural Justice' conveys the notion that the result of the process should be just. There are two concepts underlying this doctrine, namely, the authority deciding the dispute should be impartial and the party to be affected should be given full and fair opportunity of being heard.

[C. Pitchiah vs. Andhra University - 1961 ALT. 317, AIR 1961 AP 465]

30. The term 'misconduct' means an act done willfully with a wrong intention and as applied to professional people; it includes unprofessional acts, even though such acts are not inherently wrongful. It also means a dereliction of or deviation from duty.

[Nahood Ali Khan, Inre, AIR 1958 AP 116]

31. Provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution in Disciplinary Cases:

The implications of the provisions of Article 311 have been the subject of a close examination by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has given exhaustive interpretation of the various aspects involved and they provide the administrative authorities authoritative guidelines in dealing with disciplinary cases.

[Purushotham Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36; Khem Chand vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300; and Union of India and another vs. Tlusiram Patel, 1985(2) SLR SC 576]

 32. Articles 310 and 311 apply to Government servants, whether permanent, temporary, officiating or on probation.

[Purushotham Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36]

33. Administration action is subject to judicial review on four grounds:

(i)      Illegality

(ii)     Irrationality

(iii)   Procedural impropriety and,

(iv)   Doctrine of proportionality of penalty or duty to act justly

Union of India Vs. Paramananda (AIR 1989 SC 1185) Shankar Das Vs. Union of India AIR 1985 SC 772)

Read More ->>

Retirement of IPoS Officers on 31/01/2022

 Retirement of IPoS Officers on 31/01/2022

Retirement on Superannuation for the following IPoS Officers on 31/01/2022

1. Shri Harish Chand Agrawal (IPoS-1988), Member (PLI), Postal Services Board and Chairman, PLI Investment Board, 

2. Ms. Sharada Sambath (IPoS-1988), CPMG karnataka Circle, 

3. Ms. Ranju Prasad (IPoS-1988), CPMG, Haryana Circle,

4. Shri. Jaleswar Kanhar (IPoS-1990), CPMG, Bihar Circle.

 

Heartiest wishes for a happy healthy and peaceful retired life to our beloved Officers




Read More ->>

Saturday 29 January 2022

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 102 : (Compiled By Com Kayveeyes)

  Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 102 : (Compiled By Com Kayveeyes)

CASE LAW ON PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

17.“Petitioner a Bank employee was charged with withdrawal of money from account of a customer who had expired by forging the signature of the deceased – Relevant documents including the report of hand writing expert not supplied to petitioner – Enquiry held vitiated- Order of dismissal from service quashed- Reinstatement ordered”. Gurmit Singh Vilkhu v Panjab and Sind Bank & Ors. 2005(3) A.T.J. HC (M.P.) 302.

18.“Natural Justice – Charge of non-delivery of two insured letters – The said letters were delivered and Left Thump Impression (LTI) of the addressee followed by signature of identifying person obtained – LTI is more reliable proof of delivery as compared to the signature which may likely to vary- Enquiry held at a place which was not known to applicant – Held violation of principles of natural justice – Order of dismissal from service quashed- Reinstatement with all consequential benefits ordered”. Dayanand v Union of India & Ors. 2005(3) A.T.J. CAT (Allahabad) 278.

19.Charges – Burden of proof shifts to the delinquent officer only on satisfactory evidence and not otherwise. Hence, in the absence of such evidence, mere admission of the delinquent official cannot be used against him. ATC 1986 (2) 846 – K.Sundaramma v  Union of India & others – T.A. No. 53/1986 – arising out of O.J.C. No. 933/1979 – CAT, Cuttack Bench – 14.08.86.

CASE LAW ON NON APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

20.The Supreme Court in the case of Karaipac and others Vs Union of India (AIR 197 SC 150) held that the rules of natural justice can operate only in area not covered by law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant Law but supplement it.

21.In Bhasidr Ganesh Ra Bhauttakak Vs Municipal Council and others ( 1986 (II) LLJ 108) the Bombay high court held as under – “the statutory bias is a well-recognized exemption to the doctrine of bias on which the actions are struck down as illegal and void

22.In P.R. Suresh Chandra Varma and others Vs Chancellor Nagpur University ( 1991 (I) LLJ 574) the Supreme Court held – “ when the services of the  appellants were terminated in view of the change in position of law and not on account of the demerits or misdemeanour  of individual it is not necessary to hear them before their services are terminated. The principles of natural justice do not apply in such cases”

23. In J. Mohapatra & Co Vs State of Orissa and another (1986 (I) SC 322) held – “so far as the AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM Rule is concerned both in England and in India it is well established that when a right to prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before an order as passed would obstruct the taking of prompt action, such a right can be excluded. If the rule be invoked it importing it would have the effect of paralyzing the administrative process or where the need for promptitude or the urgency of taking action so demands” 

24. In Ajay Kumar Minl Vs State of Bihar the High Court of Patna (1984 (I) LLJ 1) held – “non observation of principles of natural justice does not render the order of termination void and unenforceable. It has been held that where certain benefits are derived pursuant to forgeries, the rule of natural justice are not attracted and the concerned candidates cannot claim for being provided with any opportunity of hearing in such matter. No person can claim to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything”

25. According to Kerala High Court ( 1994 (II) LLJ 100 ) – “ if a person conceals certain material facts which if were disclosed would have disentitle  any person from getting the post, the termination of his service without enquiry was valid since the employment itself was void”

Read More ->>

Grant of Annual Increment in 2006 – NCJCM letter to Secy DOPT & DoE

 Grant of Annual Increment in 2006 – NCJCM letter to Secy DOPT & DoE

Extension of Annual increment to the Central Government Employees on January and July from 01-01-2006 as a special case for settling an outstanding 6th CPC anomaly.

Shiva Gopal Mishra
Secretary

National Council (Staff Side)

No.NC-JCM-2022/DOPT (Inc)

January 25 , 2022

The Secretary (P)
Government Of India
Department of Personnel and Training
North Block.
New Delhi,

The Secretary,
Government of India
Department of Expenditure
North Block,
New Delhi.

Sub : Extension of Annual increment to the Central Government Employees on January and July from 01-01-2006 as a special case for settling an outstanding 6th CPC anomaly.

Ref:- 1) DN1 under rule 10 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016
2) Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008
3) MoF/DOE O.M. No:4-21/2017-IC/E.IIIA Dtd:28/11/2019

Dear Sir,

This Office is receiving representations from individual employees as well as from the employees organisation of various Ministries / Departments with regard to an unsettled anomaly in the date of increment which has cropped up after the implementation of 6th CPC recommendations. Details of the case with illustration is given below for your favorable consideration as a onetime measure.

During the year 2006 prior to publication of 6th CPC recommendations several promotions MACP / appointment took place in the month of January-2006. Accordingly individuals who have been promoted/MACP granted in Jan-2006 were supposed to get next increment in Jan’2007. But due to fixation of uniform annual increment fixed as 1st July of the every year by 6th CPC, The individuals got next increment in July-2007instead of Jan-2007 i.e. after 17 months ( more than 12 months) Instead of 12 months.

In order to address the such 6th CPC anomalies, vide ref(3) DoE has given an option of annual increment twice in a year 1.e. Jan & July vide CC5(RP) rules,2016 and FR&SR part-I w.e.f. 01/01/2016. But for the cases of MRCP/Promotion/Appointment between 2-jan to 3O June 2006 to 2015 whoever was granted the benefit of Entry Pay are not addressed. This batch got its first Increment after completion of 13 to 17 months service Instead of 12 months. But in same years i.e, between 2006¬2015 the individuals got MACP/Promotion/ Appointment between 2nd July to 31 December got the benefit July increment within the year. This situation is resulting the financial loss, incremental seniority loss and terminal benefits loss to the retiring employees.

In view of the above position we propose the following two option for the favorable consideration of the DOP&T and Department of Expenditure for issuing of necessary government orders.

Option 1:

The above illustration is self-explanatory that the individual if given increment in Jan/July-2007 will get next increment in reasonable period. Therefore, such individuals may be given an increment on next Jan/idly to rectify the anomaly risen w.e.f. 1/1/2006 onwards, The issue may be considered by amending the effect date of ref(3) OM retrospectively from 01/01/2006 in place of existing 01/01/2016

Or

Option 2:

Option may be given to those whose date of increment fallen beyond one year i.e. on 2-jan to 30 th June 2006 to 2015 entry pay due to 6th CPC uniform increment (July of every year) to switch over from 6th CPC to 7thCPC on 01/01/2016, so that their DNI can be January as per the guidelines of ref (3) M0F/DoE memorandum.

Sir, in case any further discussion is required then a meeting may be convened with the Staff Side for clarifying the doubts if any. Awaiting for your favorable response please,

Thanking you sir

Yours Sincerely
(SHIVA GOPAL MISHRA)
Secretary

Read More ->>

SC, ST quota in promotions: Supreme Court refuses to lay down yardstick, says states obligated to collect data

SC, ST quota in promotions: Supreme Court refuses to lay down yardstick, says states obligated to collect data

 


The Supreme Court on Friday, January 28, 2022,  refused to lay down the “yardstick” for determining the inadequacy of representation for granting reservation in promotions for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates in government jobs. It held ‘cadre’ and not class, group or the entire service as the unit for purpose of collection of quantifiable data for giving promotion quotas.

The court stuck firm by its Constitution Benches decisions in Jarnail Singh and M. Nagaraj cases that the question of adequate representation of an SC/ST communities ought to be left to the respective States to determine.

“In the light of Jarnail Singh and Nagaraj, we cannot lay down any yardstick for determining the inadequacy of representation,” a Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao noted.

In respect of the unit of collection of quantifiable data, the court held that the State was “obligated to collect quantifiable data on the inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.”

The court, however, noted that the “collection of information on inadequacy of representation of SC/ST communities cannot be with reference to the entire service or class/group, but should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which the promotion is sought.”

The court held that “cadre” should be the unit for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data in relation to promotional posts. It said otherwise the entire exercise of reservation in promotions would be rendered meaningless if data pertaining to the representation of SCs and STs was done with reference to the entire service”.

Order set aside

With the recognition of ‘cadre’ as the unit for collection of quantifiable data, the court set aside its earlier judgment in the B.K. Pavithra case.

“As far as B.K. Pavithra case is concerned, we have held that the conclusion of this court approving the collection of data on the basis of groups and not cadres is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh judgments,” Justice Rao pronounced.

The court further left it to the State to assess the inadequacy of the representation of SCs and STs for promotional posts by taking into account the relevant factors.

A review had to be conducted regarding the data for the purpose of determining the inadequacy of representation in promotions, the court ordered.

The court left it to the Union government to fix a “reasonable” time for the States to conduct the review.

Nagaraj judgment

The court held that the Nagaraj judgment would have “prospective effect.” In 2006, the court, in the order, upheld reservation in promotions.

The Nagaraj verdict had laid down three conditions for promotion of SCs and STs in public employment. The court held that the government cannot introduce quota in promotion for its SC/ST employees unless it proves that the particular community was backward, inadequately represented and providing reservation in promotion would not affect the overall efficiency of public administration. The opinion of the government should be based on quantifiable data.

Later in 2018, answering a reference on the correctness of the Nagaraj judgment, the Constitution Bench led by then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra had upheld the 2006 verdict upholding reservation in promotions and the application of ‘creamy layer’ concept to SC/STs. However Jarnail Singh modified the Nagaraj judgment to the extent that State need not produce quantifiable data to prove the “backwardness” of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community in order to provide quota in promotion in public employment.

The five-judge Bench judgment in the Jarnail Singh case in 2018 had given a huge fillip to the government’s efforts to provide “accelerated promotion with consequential seniority” for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) members in government services.

The court’s judgment on Friday came in a batch of petitions from across the country seeking further clarity on the modalities for granting reservation in promotion. They had argued that many appointments were stalled due to the ambiguities in the law. Attorney General K.K. Venugopal had argued in favour of reservation in promotion, saying that even 75 years of Independence has not been able to bring members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on par with the forward classes of society. Mr. Venugopal had said that it was still tough for a member of the SC/ST to reach the ‘Group A’ category jobs.

On Friday, Justice Rao said the court has not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the individual cases before it, and had answered the “common issues” formulated in the issue.

It listed the individual petitions for hearing on February 24. The court said it would start with the petitions filed by the Centre.

Read More ->>