Monday, September 2, 2013

ADVICE OF DOPT ON NR PARMAR CASE

Again a SET BACK to the DRs and a BREAK THROUGH for PRs for the time being.The matter of Supreme court order implementation or other wise is still kept in abeyance and they are discussing with DOLA ( Dept of Legal Affairs). It seems they are in the process of cooking the administrative procedure to walk out of the SC order by making necessary amendments or fresh MO with retrospective effect or otherwise.Actually every thing is in favour of DRs. They were forced to suffer for the faults not of them. Why this issue is being prolonged ?. It leads only to animosity among the employees. One decision should be taken in favour of either side and should end the uncertianity and bring the tranquility among the ITD family members.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE DOPT LETTER TO ALL CsCIT(CCA)

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

well said. pl give updates regularly.

Anonymous said...

Claiming seniority for the present appointment from the college days (some might have been studying in colleges when vacancy arised, ie, before attaining the minimum qualification required in terms of education or age) or for the days employed in private sector(may be in foreign Cos. like IBM or Accenture) or for the period employed in a state or central govt. in the same or lower grade pay (where as per conduct rules engaging in other employment not allowed) has been termed as a right .The world, we live, also been claimed as flat until proved otherwise.

Anonymous said...

I absolutely agree with you.
Here u raised two points. one is the required qulification by that date and another is the employement in other services during that period. Here is my explanation...
The supreme court never told to give away seniority as u said above. In the MO it is stated like that. The MO is framed in those circumstances of 80s where no prolonged process of appointment. That is why,even it is said in the MO,the SC in its judgement at the conclusion said it would to be appropriate to give seniority from the date of notification i.e by which date the candidate is eligib le for the post.

For the second part, my dear, even if he worked in the previous organisation, in the new organisations he is given only seniority and nominal increments, but no double payment for that period. He will be paid only one payment for the period he worked in one organisation at a time. Instead of wasting his time and for his livelyhood, he should be allowed to work else where til he joins in the new organisation, which is a principle of natural justice. right?
I think now u r answered.

Anonymous said...

I agree that one who works in any organisation is paid salary for the duty performed from the date of assuming charge or date of appointment in such a capacity, not from the date of application invited for filling up. It would be more appropriate to apply the same yardstick in determining the seiority as well. Like equal pay - equal work, equal srvice can alone suffice doctrine of natural justice.

Our school of thought is not against DR quota at any level which is a social security measure available to unemployed youth of this nation. This is apparent from the fact that we didn't demand or favour for filling all inspector posts arising out of cadre restructuring 2013 by repeting 2001 model and to be more specific, we are open to idea of opening DR in Executive Assistant level. Our only suggestion is date of assuming charge or date of appointment be made a date for determining seniority.

It is agreed fact that time taken by SSC in recruitment process varies year to year. In some years it took nearly three years for declaration of selected candidatesfrom the date of notification.
Asterity measures adopted by government placing ban on recruitment clubbed with
delay in recruitment preocess results in DR of much later years becoming senior to promotees with long years of service. It is quite obvious that the persons standing in a long queue gets a feeling of frustration when someone is lawfully inducted inbetween the queue. The persons standing in the queue no say than stand as witness. The person inducted can't be said to have broken the queue because he is fitted in the slot reserved for him as per rule, though joined the queue very late. It is nothing but advance reservation, backed by OMs.

At this junction, it is noteworthy to mention that notification for recruitment contains provision making eligible to apply those candidates still in college and appearing for their final examination in near future.We are not opposing this provision too. Only thing we say whoever comes should join the queue and take their place as per date of joining. If this principle is applied at all levels, the most benecial persons in our organisation would be persons joined as DR inspectors because over ninety percent among promotee IRS officers belong to this category. Having limited promotion opportunities and having known their place where they stand in an organsisation PR are not against promotion opportunities of DR.

OMs of earlier years are meant in favour of elite group and prevents promotees to move along with them. Those OMs built from the foundation of westminister policy needs alterations by revisiting its provisions to keep in pace with changing times and removing litigations. Hope the DRs don't feel as they belong to elite group. Do they?

CHANGE IS THE LAW OF NATURE.




Anonymous said...

“THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS A FAIR FIGHT. ALL VULNERABILITIES MUST BE EXPLOITED”

Equality.... natural justice.. my dear friend, what are the limitations for the so called natural justice. Look at any field, where is the limit. Or take our own dept.
1. A person joining in the DR will have less number of appearing opportunities and early qualifying the Departmental examinations comparing to the PRs.
2. The way of conducting Departmental examinations is a mere mockery. They can be easily manageable by the senior PRs with their lobbyings and acquintances and associations. There are so many examples of poor and lazy candidates who unable to qualify the exam on their are able to manage pass the examination. Do they really competent enough for the post. Are they not grabbing the opportunity of the actually eligible candidate.
3. For DR UDCs it is miserable. Their junior promotee UDC will have bright chances of getting Inspector promotion sooner. By the time the DR UDC joins the dept, the promotee who is already cleared his Ministerial exam writes ITI exams quickly in the year he promoted to UDC year itself since there is no waiting period specified for them. This will lead to nearly 3 to 5 years of advance promotion to junior UDC compared to the DR UDC. The DR UDC who even has enough efficiency falls behind of his juniors.
4. For a candidate who joins as LDC in the Dept with 10th Standard qualification, will have opportunity of becoming UDC in three years in so many occations in so many states even for a Un-reserved. For DR UDC their qualification should be Graduation,i.e he need to study five more academic years ( Inter and Degree) and further he losses his prospects of becoming ITI along with PR UDC as said above. This enables the 10th Standard person who joins in the department as LDC can become a boss to the graduate DR UDC, who joins in the dept even on the same date of promotion of PR UDC.
5. In any examination the candidate would possess the required eligibility by the date which is fixed by the recruiting agencies, certainly the date after the tentative completion of their academics. So, my dear comrade, there is no question of standing in queue even before attaining the eligibility. When a candidate in the form PR standing in the queue comfortably, as soon as he completes his
Is it not mindless framing the rules and dam insult of our education system ?
6. These rules endorse the campaign of don’t go for academic education which takes years together instead enter into the organisation with low educational qualifications though in lower cadres. Five years of study at colleges and after burning mid night candles and there by attaining the knowledge or exposure or comprehensive study and broadminded ness etc. are not yet all required for any key posts in the government organisations.
Are all these do you think not hamper the propects of the DRs of any cadre. In all these situations, the earstwhile LDCs who are majority in the group C or else were in influencing positions in the associations the DRs of all the remaining cadres above LDC are being cornered by these sections in addition to the IRS community.
7. The westminster policies have to be changed in so many provisions. They concentrated only on how to different them from all others. But they ignored the basic principle and natural justice and education systems.

Anonymous said...

If N R Parmar decision is applied then DRs in income tax department for R.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 will have to be treated as surplus. Read para 33 of Hon'ble Supreme Court carefully.

Anonymous said...

As per Staff Selection correspondence 817 post of DR ITIs were intimated by CBDT on 20.07.2007 much after the notification date. So where the question of giving seniority to the DRs arises. Infact giving seniority of R.Y. 2005-06 to DRs would infact mean contempt of N.R.Parmar decision. Hon'ble Supreme Court had already stated that recruitment in excess of sanctioned post is illegal.

Anonymous said...

Wonder why nobody is commenting on the above

Anonymous said...

It appears the initial euphoria of direct recruits has fizzled out and they know the stark reality of how complicated things are n further how complicated things will become when the actual seniority if at all takes place. This is govt. Service not microsoft or google or infosys.


Anonymous said...

This is a pain order. The judgement has been passed by the honble judges after taking all issues into consideration and have highest regard and respect to the judiciary. Friends,I withdraw my earlier comments which was made out of frustration or unsound mine or otherwise which was unintentional and sincerely apologize for the same. Kindly forgive me. I also request the editor/administrator of this blog to kindly delete the comments of 15th october,2013 for which I shall be thankful and grateful. Deep regrets and apologizes once again.

Anonymous said...

Dear Editor/
Administrator
Kindly delete the above two posts.
Regards & thanks

j c charles 2020 said...

You people have failed to notice the last instruction in the Memo that is clause I. In this clause it is very clear that "the seniority already "settled"with reference to applicable interpretation of the term availability, may not be reopened. Here the dopt is referring to settled. That means in respect of Inspectors the seniority is not yet settled as they have filed cases in various courts which were bunched and disposed by the Supreme Court now. That means the decision is applicable from 27-11-2012 for all the central government employees. However, in case of Inspectors as the seniority is not yet settled, the seniority has to be fixed as per SC from 1-07-1986 and for other cadres as they have not gone to the court, their cases is treated as settled and as per dopt the same may not be reopend. so promotees, do not rejoice.