Totally Fake News Spread more faster than real news.
Read More ->>
Sunday, 31 March 2024
Thursday, 28 March 2024
Date of next increment under Rule 10 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2016: Points of doubt and clarification by CGDA
Date of next increment under Rule 10 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2016: Points of doubt and clarification by CGDA
CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS
ULAN BATAR ROAD, PALAM, DELHI CANTT 110010
No. ATIIW/Civ/Misc/Comp/Vol-Ill/2023/E-49444
Dated 07.03.2024
To,
All PCsDA/CsDA
Subject: Request for clarification of Date of next increment under Rule 10 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2016.
This HQrs is in receipt of references from some Controller Offices seeking clarification to certain points of doubt(s) in pursuance of MoF OM dated 28.11.2019 and 04.07.2023.
2. The matter has been examined in the light of extant provisions and clarification to the points referred have been summarised as appended below :
| Sr. No. | Points of doubt | Clarification |
| 1 | Whether the cases of promotion of MACP on or after 01 01.2016 onwards and beyond 28.11 2019 would be eligible for exercise/ re-exercise of under DoE O.M. dated 04.07.2023 | The opportunity to exercise/re-exercise option has been extended by MoF vide its OM dated 04.07.2023 to cover all employees promoted on or after 2016 upto 03.10.2023. |
| 2 | In cases where the personnel have already availed the opportunities for exercise/re-exercise of option as provided in the window by the DoE OM dated 15.04.2021, would also again be eligible to re-exercise the option under DoE dated 04.07.2023 ? | |
| 3 | Mof Order is silent about death case where the individual died before issue of this OM for exercise/re- exercise of option. Whether the benefit of pay fixation should be given in favour of the deceased employee or not. | As the MoF OMs do not allow any special dispensation for deceased employees, hence Grant of most beneficial option in respect of deceased employees may not be appropriate. |
This has the approval of CGDA.
(Roselin Tigga)
SAO (AT
Read More ->>
Awareness of income tax on pension-FY 2023-2024
Awareness of income tax on pension-FY 2023-2024
 |
Read More ->>
Wednesday, 27 March 2024
Revision of financial powers of Heads of Postal Divisions-reg.
Revision of financial powers of Heads of Postal Divisions-reg. |
File No. Y-28/4/2024-PE-II
Government of India
Ministry of Communications
Department of Posts
Establishment Division
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110001. Dated:27 March, 2024
To,
All Chief Postmasters General
Subject: Revision of financial powers of Heads of Postal Divisions-reg.
Sir/Madam,
This is regarding revision of financial powers of Heads of Postal Divisions.
2.The financial powers of Heads of Postal Divisions are detailed in schedule III of Directorate OM dated 06.02.2009. The proposal to revise these financial powers is under consideration at Establishment Division of the Directorate.
3.In this regard, it is requested to submit your comments in the prescribed format attached below. The report should be sent to sope2posts@gmail.com at the earliest.
Encl: As above.
Yours faithfully,
(R.N Bharti) Director (Estt)
Read More ->>
Guidelines for transfer to regulate transfers of Group 'C' officials, and Group 'B' (non-gazetted) officials and Assistant Superintendent of Posts (Group 'B' Gazetted)
Guidelines for transfer to regulate transfers of Group 'C' officials, and Group 'B' (non-gazetted) officials and Assistant Superintendent of Posts (Group 'B' Gazetted).
Read More ->>
Implementation of Hon'ble CAT Hyderabad Bench Order dated 02.12.2021 in OA No. 506/2021 - reg.
Implementation of Hon'ble CAT Hyderabad Bench Order dated 02.12.2021 in OA No. 506/2021 - reg.
Read More ->>
Tuesday, 26 March 2024
High Court of Haryana/Punjab imposed Rs 5 lac cost on State body for withholding-retired benefits of the man-died in 2017
High Court of Haryana/Punjab imposed Rs 5 lac cost on State body for withholding-retired benefits of the man-died in 2017
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakh on the Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-Operative (CONFED) for not releasing the retiral benefit of an accountant who retired in 2015 upon finding that the actions against him were "atrocious" and violative of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the constitution.
It was stated that three chargesheets were issued by the CONFED against the employee on allegations of shortfall due to less moisture gain in the stocks.
It was ordered that his retirement dues would be released after the finalization of the pending proceeding, and he passed away in 2017. Thereafter, it is stated that the State body directed the widow to pay over Rs. 1.11 crore to recover the losses allegedly caused by her husband.
The Court however found that neither any enquiry officer was appointed nor was there any ascertainment of liability or loss based upon any evidence or any finding by any authority.
While imposing a cost of Rs.5 lakh Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, that the action "had not only infracted the Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the Constitutional Rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, besides the Statutory Rules but the action of the respondent-CONFED was also atrocious. A poor widow having two children got treated her husband for his renal failure and as per her representation, she spent Rs.20-25 lacs and thereafter, the husband of the petitioner died in the year 2017 but no retiral benefits of her husband were paid to the petitioner by failing to discharge their duties in accordance with law. In this way, this Court deems it fit and proper to impose exemplary costs upon the respondent-CONFED."
The Court noted that an amount of over Rs. 1.11 crore was put on a dead man to be recovered from his widow without any notice, enquiry or any order of ascertainment of liability when the husband of the petitioner was alive.
"The respondents crossed all the boundaries of illegality, perversity and arbitrariness when the aforesaid amount was directed to be recovered from the retiral benefits and for balance amount, civil suit against legal heirs was directed to be filed," it added.
It said that if the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the Constitutional Right of life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation, opined the judge.
These observations came in response to the plea of a widow who had been awaiting the retiral benefit of her husband since 2017.
According to CONFED, the husband of the petitioner, an accountant in the Federation, while he was in service was accountable for the loss due to less moisture gain in the stock stored and since the loss has been caused to the State Exchequer, the liability was to be fastened for the purpose of compensating the State Exchequer.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that both the aforesaid charge sheets were pertaining to the time when the husband of the petitioner was in service but admittedly neither any Enquiry Officer was appointed nor the same was further continued nor any order was passed at all at any point of time.
With respect to the third charge sheet which was submitted in 2016, the Court noted that the same was issued to the husband of the petitioner after his retirement i.e. on 21.03.2016 for an event which pertains to the year 2011-2012 and for this also neither any Enquiry Officer was appointed nor it further continued nor any order was passed nor there was any establishment of any fact or ascertainment of any liability by any authority at all.
It was held that in this way, all the aforesaid three charge sheets did not progress at all and no order at all was passed in any of the three charge sheets nor any Enquiry Officer was appointed nor was there any ascertainment of any liability or loss based upon any evidence or any finding by any authority whatsoever.
"In the absence of any enquiry or any finding or any order to that effect, no recovery could have been effected from the retiral benefits of the husband of the petitioner", the Court opined.
The judge also pointed out that the third charge sheet was issued after the retirement of the husband of the petitioner and it pertains to an event which was more than four years preceding the issuance of the charge sheet dated March 21, 2016.
"There is an express bar created under Rule 60 as reproduced above. As per the aforesaid Rule, no departmental proceedings could have been initiated in respect of an event which took place more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. Therefore, there was a clear cut violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Statutory Rules and there was an express bar for even instituting any disciplinary proceeding /charge-sheet against the petitioner after his retirement," the Court said.
The Court added that after retirement, the master and servant relationship ceases to exist and action can be taken only when there is a specific power under the Rules. Therefore, the issuance of charge-sheet against the husband of the petitioner was unsustainable and violative of the aforesaid Statutory Rules.
Justice Puri said that apart from the above, the allegations in all the aforesaid charge- sheets were pertaining to loss caused due to less moisture gain. This issue as to whether when the foodgrains are stored in a godown and whether an employee can be burdened with the aforesaid loss due to less moisture gain in the absence of any norms to that effect has been so well settled by the High Court Court.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the impugned order was based on the advice of the Legal Remembrancer but the advice was never reproduced in the show-cause notice probably to mislead.
Adding that the action of the Managing Director (MD) was "arbitary", the Court said that there was no evidence on the record to prove the allegations and the impugned order was passed against a widow for recovery of an amount from the retiral dues of a dead person.
It was stated that even otherwise the advice of the Legal Remembrancer was merely recommendary in nature and it was the duty of the Managing Director to have applied his own mind as well which was never done in the present case.
"It is very strange to see and read the impugned order which actually shocks the conscience of this Court. It is so directed by the Managing Director that the representation of the petitioner dated 06.07.2019 is decided keeping in view all the pros & cons of the case and advice of the LR, Haryana and that is the only direction issued without being backed by any reason at all," the Court said.
The Court noted that an amount of Rs. 1,11,85,976 was put on a dead man to be recovered from his widow without any notice, enquiry or any order of ascertainment of liability when the husband of the petitioner was alive and that the respondents crossed all the boundaries of illegality, perversity and arbitrariness when the aforesaid amount was directed to be recovered from the retiral benefits and for balance amount, a civil suit against legal heirs was directed to be filed.
The judge highlighted that it is ex facie clear that the respondent- CONFED while passing the impugned order has not only violated the statutory provisions but also directly violated Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India since the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to livelihood.
Consequently the Court set aside the chargesheet and the impugned order and directed CONFED to pay the petitioner all the retiral benefits accrued to her husband from the date of retirement of her husband along with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of two months.
While noting the "plight of a poor widow," the Court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 5 lakhs upon CONFED, that would be in nature of compensation.
Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Hitesh Pandit, Advocate, for the respondent.
Citation: 2024 Live Law (PH) 93
Title: Anjana v. Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.
Read More ->>
46 years after hubby’s death, Odisha woman, 91, to get pension
46 years after hubby’s death, Odisha woman, 91, to get pension
CUTTACK: The Orissa high court has directed the Kendrapada district collector to pay family pension to a 91-year-old widow whose husband, a school teacher, died 46 years ago.
A single judge bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy issued the direction Wednesday in the case of Hara Sahoo, the wife of Benudhar Sahoo, who was an assistant teacher at Ratnakar Middle English School in Kasoti, when he died on August 26, 1977.
A single judge bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy issued the direction Wednesday in the case of Hara Sahoo, the wife of Benudhar Sahoo, who was an assistant teacher at Ratnakar Middle English School in Kasoti, when he died on August 26, 1977.
The widow had filed several representations for family pension before the school as well as mass education authorities in the district since 1991, but in vain.
Hara moved to HC on October 19, after the Kendrapada collector rejected her representation for family pension, gratuity and other service benefits on August 21
Cuttack, Nov 18 2023: It may corroborate the judicial adage 'justice delayed is justice denied' but a 91-year-old woman will have a smile on her face as she would get a family pension after 46 years of her husband's death, thanks to the breakthrough judgment of the High Court.
The elderly woman will get the entire arrear amount due to her after the death of her husband. The High Court has directed concerned authorities in this regard.
According to the information, Hara Sahoo, now 91, of Palei Kandarpur under Derabish block in Kendrapara district had lost her husband on August 26, 1976.
Following this, Hara ran from the pillar to the post to get a family pension as her husband served in the State government. She approached the District Education Officer, the District Collector, and other higher officers, but all her efforts were unsuccessful.
Finally, she filed a petition in the High Court.
The High Court has directed the authorities to disburse arrears and start giving pension to her within two months' time.
Read More ->>
Merger of PA (FPO) with PA (PO) - DOP Circular dtd 26/03/2024
Merger of PA (FPO) with PA (PO) - DOP Circular dtd 26/03/2024
Read More ->>
Monday, 25 March 2024
Issuance of Identity/Authorization Cards for CS(MA) Beneficiaries: BPMS writes to DoHFW
Issuance of Identity/Authorization Cards for CS(MA) Beneficiaries: BPMS writes to DoHFW
Bhartiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh
(AN ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF DEFENCE WORKERS)
(AN INDUSTRIAL UNIT OF B.M.S.)
(RECOGNIZED BY MINISTRY OF DEFNECE, GOVT. OF INDIA)
REF: BPMS/ MoHFW / I Cards / 156 (8/1/L)
Dated: 17.03.2024
To,
The Secretary,
Deptt of Health & Family Welfare,
Min of H &FW, Govt of India,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001
{secyhfw[at]nic.in}
Subject: Issuance of Identity/Authorization Cards for CS(MA) Beneficiaries.
Sir,
I am writing to bring to your attention a crucial matter concerning the lack of Identity/Authorization Cards for employees and their eligible dependents governed by the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944. This issue has been causing significant inconvenience and hardship to CS(MA) beneficiaries, particularly when seeking medical facilities in empaneled private hospitals/healthcare organizations.
Your attention is invited on the emphasizing the applicability of Rule 2(d) of the CS (MA) Rules, 1944, which defines “Government Hospital” to include Military Hospitals, local authority-maintained hospitals, and any other hospital with which arrangements have been made by the Government for the treatment of government servants.
It is pertinent to note that a clarification was issued vide M.H., O.M. F. No. S.14025/7/2000-MS, dated 28.03.2000, stating that Central Government employees and their family members are permitted to avail medical facilities in any Central Government, State Government hospitals, hospitals recognized by the State Government/CGHS Rules/CS (MA) Rules, 1944, and hospitals fully funded by the Central or State Government. The reimbursement is to be made at the rates fixed by the Government under CGHS Rules/CS (MA) Rules, 1944, or the actual expenditure incurred, whichever is less. The private hospitals recognized under CGHS have been explicitly equated with Government hospitals, eliminating any distinction between the Authorized Medical Attendants of private and government hospitals.
We are aware that while beneficiaries under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) are provided with Identity/Authorization Cards, enabling them to avail medical facilities across India, CS(MA) beneficiaries do not have access to such cards. This disparity places CS(MA) beneficiaries and their family members in a disadvantaged position, especially in situations where prior permission cannot be obtained from their respective controlling authorities.
The absence of Identity/Authorization Cards for CS(MA) beneficiaries leads to difficulties in accessing medical facilities from empaneled private hospitals/healthcare organizations. These institutions often require such cards as proof of authorization before providing medical services, resulting in undue hardship for beneficiaries, particularly during emergencies or when seeking treatment away from their designated areas.
In light of the above, I urge the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare to consider issuing Identity/Authorization Cards to employees and their eligible dependents governed by the CS(MA) Rules. These cards would serve as tangible proof of authorization, similar to those provided to CGHS beneficiaries, thereby enabling CS(MA) beneficiaries to avail medical facilities without unnecessary hindrances.
The issuance of Identity/Authorization Cards for CS(MA) beneficiaries would not only alleviate their difficulties in accessing medical services but also ensure equitable treatment in comparison to CGHS beneficiaries. It would streamline the process and provide much-needed relief to employees and their families, especially during times of medical emergencies.
I trust that the Ministry will give due consideration to this request and take necessary steps to address the issue promptly. Your attention to this matter is highly appreciated, and I look forward to a positive resolution that will benefit CS(MA) beneficiaries across the country.
Thank you for your time and understanding.
Sincerely yours
Sd/-
(MUKESH SINGH)
General Secretary/BPMS &
Member, National Council (JCM)
Read More ->>
Sunday, 24 March 2024
Uniformity in levels of processing of vigilance cases: CVC Circular No. 04/02/24 dated 19.02.20
Uniformity in levels of processing of vigilance cases: CVC Circular No. 04/02/24 dated 19.02.2024
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION
Satarkta Bhawan, G.P.0.Complex,
Block A, INA, New Delhi-10023
No. 023/VGL/121/19534
Dated 19.02.2024
Circular No. 04/02/24
Subject: Uniformity in levels of processing of vigilance cases — reg.
Ref:- (i) Commission’s Circular No. 000/VGL/18 dated 23.05.2000
(ii) Commission’s Circular No. 02/01/16 dated 18.01.2016
(i111) Commission Circular No. 18/12/20 dated 14.12.2020
(iv) Commission Circular No. 21/12/21 dated 03.12.2021
Central Vigilance Commission has issued guidelines from time to time, prescribing the time limit for completion of different stages of actions in vigilance related matters.
2. It has been observed that there are occasions when action in vigilance matters has been unduly delayed. One of the reasons for such delay has been found to be that the levels of examination / processing of vigilance matters are more than the required levels. The levels of processing of vigilance matters in different organizations also lacks uniformity.
3. It may be noted that D/o Administration Reforms & Public Grievances (DARPG) vide their OM No. 30011/12/2015-O&M-Pt.I (6452) dated 12.03.2021 have issued guidelines prescribing that “each ministry/ department shall review the instructions on levels of disposal and channels of submission keeping in view that the number of levels shall not exceed four by delegating powers to lower formation’’.
4. The Commission has desired that in order to avoid delay in vigilance matters, the organizations concerned should review the levels of processing of such matters and should bring down the levels to a maximum of four. The limit of four levels would be applicable to each administrative unit separately, in the hierarchy of the organisation concerned. In this regard, each organisation may take the following steps:
(i) Delayering.
(ii) Adoption of Desk Officer System in Vigilance Wing.
(iil) Delegation of powers, wherever possible (with due approval), to ensure limiting the steps / layers for decision making to four, including merger of levels.
5. The above guidelines may be noted for compliance with immediate effect. The CVOs of respective organizations may bring these guidelines to the notice of the Chief Executive Officer of their organization.
(Rajiv Verma)
Director
To
(i) The Secretaries of all Ministries/Departments of Gol
(ii) All Chief Executives of CPSUs/Public Sector Banks/Public Sector Insurance Companies/Autonomous Bodies etc.
(iii) All CVOs of Ministries/Departments of GoI/CPSUs/Public Sector Banks/Public Sector Insurance Companies/Autonomous Bodies etc.
(iv) Website of CVC
Read More ->>
Considering petition of bias by Charged Officers – CVC Circular No. 03/02/24 vide No. 000/VGL/018/19009 dated 19/02/2024
Considering petition of bias by Charged Officers – CVC Circular No. 03/02/24 vide No. 000/VGL/018/19009 dated 19/02/2024
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION
Satarkta Bhawan, G.P.O. Complex,
Block A, INA, New Delhi-10023
No. 000/VGL/018/19009
Dated, 19/02/2024
Circular No. 03/02/24
Subject: Considering petition of bias by Charged Officers —reg.
Central Vigilance Commission, as part of superintendence over vigilance administration of organizations covered under its jurisdiction, monitors the progress of pending disciplinary proceedings. It is seen that in many cases, there 1s considerable delay, beyond the prescribed time limit, in bringing the disciplinary proceedings to logical conclusion. One of the reasons noticed for such delay is that, the Charged Officers during the course of departmental inquiry, raise issues of bias against the Inquiry Officer and the inquiry proceedings are stayed till the disposal of bias petition by the Competent Authority.
2. It may be noted that D/o Personnel & Training vide their OM No. 39/40/70-Ests-A dated 09.11.1972 has issued instructions on departmental proceedings, which also deals with the procedure for handling bias petitions filed by Charged Officer. Para 4 of DoPT’s OM dated 09.11.1972 provides that ‘whenever an application is moved by a Government servant against whom disciplinary proceedings are initiated under the CCS (CCA) Rules against the inquiry officer on grounds of bias, the proceedings should be stayed and the application referred, along with the relevant material, to the appropriate reviewing authority for considering the application and passing appropriate orders thereon’.
3. Further, it may also be noted that as per Rule 22 (iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Rule 15 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 ‘no appeal shall lie against any order passed by an inquiring authority in the course of inquiry.’
4. The Commission has desired that while considering the bias petition, as per the provisions contained in DoPT’s OM dated 09.11.1972, the provisions of Rule 22 (ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Rule 15 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 may also be kept in mind. In order to ensure that there 1s no undue delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings due to bias petition, the Competent Authority may dispose of the bias petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of 30 days, while observing the principles of natural justice.
5. It is also seen that Railway Board, vide their letter No. E (D&A) 2022 RG6-12 dated 27.12.2022, have issued guidelines / clarifications regarding handling of bias petition, which has been found to be quite effective by Railway Board in prompt disposal of bias petition and timely completion of inquiry proceedings. A copy of the same is enclosed along with these guidelines. Respective organizations may consider the above cited guidelines of Railway Board for adoption by them, with suitable modifications / changes as may be deemed appropriate.
6, The above guidelines may be noted for compliance. The CVOs of respective organizations may bring these guidelines to the notice of the Chief Executive Officer of their organizations, for further necessary action in this regard.
(Rajiv Verma)
Director
Encl:- As Above.
To
(1) The Secretaries of all Ministries/Departments of Gol
(ii) All Chief Executives of CPSUs/Public Sector Banks/Public Sector Insurance Companies/Autonomous Bodies etc.
(iii) All CVOs of Ministries/Departments of Gol/CPSUs/Public Sector Banks/Public Sector Insurance Companies/Autonomous Bodies etc.
(iv) Website of CVC
Read More ->>
Temporary Up-gradation /Down-gradation of Posts in DOP
Temporary Up-gradation /Down-gradation of Posts in DOP
Read More ->>
→
