Monday, September 29, 2014

AGAIN DIFFERENT STAND BY CBDT ON PARMAR ISSUE

In a letter dated 29-9-2014, the Board has issued a letter contrary to the letter issued earlier dtd 6-6-2014. This letter is with subject " Implementation of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NR Parmar (CA No. 7514-7515 and others) - Issue of Advisory — Regarding".
In its previous letter of June 2014, it is stated that " ... it is unambiguousely confirmed that the entire issue of seniority of the officers of the Income tax Department would have to be revisited in compliance of the Supreme Court Judgement.". Accordingly all CCA are under the laborious task of refixation of seniority, Most of the Task forces/committees are on their half way.
But suddenly, the Board issued today's letter in contravention to the above.

-----------The high lights of todays letter are ...
  • The letter was issued in the wake of various querries raised by CCA while they are implementing the Parmar case. 
  • Earlier, letters were issued by the Member (P&V), CBDT seeking inputs from the all Pr. CCsIT (CCA) in the matter. Based on the inputs received, extensive consultations have been carried out by Pr. DGIT(HRD) on behalf of CBDT, with representatives of Pr. CCsIT(CCAs) and the ITGOA and ITEF.
  • Minutes of the meetings held on 3'rd December, 2013 and 11th December, 2013 in the course of consultation process have been circulated to all the participants. No dissent note has been received from the participants against the Minutes of meetings. 
  •  After consultations, the following Advisory based on the common queries of the Pr. CCsIT(CCA) and other Issues that surfaced during the consultation process, are being issued in a FAQ format for uniform implementation of the revision of seniority lists in all Regions in the country, as follows : 
Gist of the FAQ is...1. Dt of seniority of DRs... In case of requistion is made in advance to the year of vacancy, then year of vacancy is to be taken for seniority. If requisiton is made after year of vacancy, then year of requisition made is to be taken.2. Effective dt of implementation ... The effective date is from 7-2-1986 and in accordance with NR Parmar judgment, But from 27-11-2014, OM dtd 4-3-2014 would be applicable.3.Is the NR Parmar decision applicable only to the post of Inspectors? ......DoPT has advised that the NR Parmar judgement Is applicable to the post of Inspectors. 4. Data regarding Requistion date vis-a-vis Vacancy year was given in the Annexure. The data only of ITIs is given for Years 1992-93 (Examination year 1991). For earlier years, it advised to obtain the dates available in the Dossiers correspondences.5. Review DPCs are required to be hold from 1986 for ITIs.

The Pr. CCsIT(CCAs) are advised to form a Task Force in their respective Regions for early implementation of the Fion'ble Supreme Court decision as per the Advisory and to complete the exercise of conducting review DPCs latest by 10.10.2014. 

-------------

The data and suggessions given by the Board are appear to be adequate and clear for implementation in the ITI cadres.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mysterious, fraudulent.

Anonymous said...

How it can be implemented to ITI alone? Whether it is the only DR cadre ? In all DR cadres Parmar judgement should be implemented.

Anonymous said...

The CBDT has become a seet of bankrupt mind and the mandarins are interested in creating lot of bad bllod and confusuin amongst the working force.

Bustards beware such psychophancy gives birth to revolutions.

Anonymous said...

The CBDT has become a seat of bankrupt minded and the mandarins are interested in creating lot of bad blood and confusion among the work force in Income Tax Department.

Bastards beware such sycophancy gives birth to revolutions.

Anonymous said...

IDIOTS NOTHING ELSE

Anonymous said...

C B D T

CLOWNS BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

GOD SAVE THIS DEPARTMENT

Anonymous said...

CBDT is god!!! What ever decisions taken by DOPT and CBDT is very correct. NR parmar should be implemented in only ITI cadre. In All other DR cadre, the implementations has no meaning! There should be a gap of at least 20 years between a TA and an ITI or a TA should retire in ITI cadre.

Anonymous said...

Correct brother! All the important works is carried out by ITIs and rest below ITIs, are doing nothing and all the post should be abolished. A wastage of money of the government!

Anonymous said...

What is ITEF doing. 90% of its members will be effected if this is restricted to ITIs alone. ITGOA also will be effected because there are large number of promoters who came from cadres of UDC, Steno etc. But since ITGOA is a waste anyhow, no use talking about it.

Anonymous said...

What ITGOA achieved its desire becoz it thinks it is of DR for DR and by DR. Only ITEF is useless failed to safegaurd interest of its members. Stll time is there wake up ITEF, stop talking old history -make history.

Anonymous said...

It is ITEF which allowed DR with all possible aid from ITGOA to climbup on the shoulders of PR. Now, ITEF must take responsibility and act swiftly to stop bleeding in the ears of PR.

Anonymous said...

Jai ho itgoa!!! Thanks for ur great influence to dopt and cbdt by using the strength of itef. ITIs ka interse seniority will be fixed as per vacancies year or requisitions year to SSC and the interse seniority of UDC, LDC , stenos and TAs are fixed as per their date of joining!!!! Again discriminations!! Contradictory decisions by both dopt and cbdt. A nations wide strike should be held!!!,

Anonymous said...

Om of 1986 and 1987 of dopt is only meant for ITIs cadre of cbdt only. Shame to PR DGIT and DOPT for their childish interpretations!!!! Koi bhi layman padke ke hasega aur bolega ki ye sab ko lollypop khila rehe hai. Mere income tax basion jago jago!!! Apne rights ki liye fight karo!!! Non co operation start karna padega regarding nr parmar! Aur ek parmar jaisa judgement chahiye cbdt ko for UDC, stenos, LDC and TAs.

Anonymous said...

Here is another classical idiot. Appears to be DR ITI.

Anonymous said...

FAQ3 is : whether NRP judgement is applicable only for the inspectors.
Answer given is : it is applicable to Inspectors.

Why the word only has gone missing in the answer???

Anonymous said...

I have gone through all the communications. I have not seen any communication from DOPT\CBDT confirming that NRP judgement is applicable to other than Inspectors.
It was all our presumptions because it suited us. Now we cannot blame CBDT even though we all know it is illogical to say thet OM 3.3.2008 is bad for Inspectors but good for others.
Only recourse is Supreme Court for a clarification

Anonymous said...

A lot of irregularities can be pointed out in department's functioning. I am giving a classic example:
This letter of CBDT dt 29.09.2014 mentions in point 5 of FAQ about:- How to deal with cases of inter-charge transfers and with those who have worked earlier in other Departments/ PSUs? The answer given is :- This issue is not related to the revision of seniority lists on basis of the NR Parmar decision. This is governed by separate CBDT instructions on the Matter.
HRD/CM/102/10/2014-15/1510 dt 27.05.2014 reproduces the rule inter-alia that for the purpose of reckoning prescribed period of service for the purpose of consideration of promotion, the services rendered by an inter-region transferee in the old region shall not be counted in the region which he has joined on transfer.
Now let us take cases from Mumbai region ITI promotion order dt 19.06.2014
Serial no 375 joined Mumbai Office on 5.07.2010 as T.A.on transfer from Kolkata Got promotion to the cadre of Sr.T.A. in Aug 2012 and ITI on 19.6.2014. Was she eligible for these promotions. Eligibility list is manipulated to show her date of joining as 07.04.2008.Why should her service period prior to 5.07.2010 be considered for promotion.
Same is the case of Serial no 377. He joined Mumbai Office on 10.01.2011 as T.A.on transfer from Bangalore. Got promotion to the cadre of Sr.T.A. in Aug 2012 and ITI on 19.6.2014. Was he eligible for these promotions. Eligibility list is manipulated to show his date of joining as 16.01.2008.Why should his service period prior to 10.01.2011 be considered for promotion.
Why and How the rules re flouted?
While people are made to run to CAT for a slice of the pie, these people make merry at other people's cost.

Anonymous said...

It is good that ITEF and ITGOA reacted immediately and sent a protest letter to Chairman. This is not enough. We should understand the grand plan. Board is trying to divide and rule. We should be united and fight back. On a massive scale. Like Gandhi burnt all the papers in public, JCA should organise burning of 29.9.2014 order in public, all over India.

Anonymous said...

ITEF should intervene in this issue immediately and take necessary steps to implement NRP in all DR cadres at the same time. If not will lose many of its members.

Anonymous said...

yeh jaroor karna chahiye. aisa instructions ko jalakar rakh kar dena padega. rajgopalan aur bhaskar bhattarji suno, 3.12.2013 and 11.12.2013 ke meetings ke bare me kisiko kyon nahi bathaya gaya? HRD bol raha ki ham sab kuch ITEF and ITGOA ke saath discuss karke aisa advisory banaya hai. us samay rajesh menon aur sita rama rao the ITGOA mei. Rajgopalan, sitaramarao and rajesh bus aap teen log kuch mamla underestanding me aakar finalise kar diya to kaafi hai kya? openly kyon nahi lagaya us samay ki kya discussion hua aur aap log kya ha se ha kiye? yeh sub aap logon ka secret agenda nahi chalega. anser dena padega.

Anonymous said...

CORRECT SAID. THIS SECRET AGENDA SHOULD COME OUT. NETHER ITEF NOR ITGOA OPENLY CIRCULATED 3.12.2013 AGENDA DETAILS OR 11.12.2013 AGENDA DETAILS. I SEARCHED IN BOTH OF THERI WEBSITES. NOTHING IS THERE ON THAT. RAJGOPAL AND SEETA RAMA RAO DISCUSS SOMETHING SECRETLY WITH HRD ON BEHALF OF ENTIRE OFFICERS AND STAFF OF INDIA AND NO BODY KNOWS ABOUT THAT. SHAME SHAME !!!!!!

Anonymous said...

THEY SHOULD HAVE PUT THE MEETING DETAILS / MINUTES ON RESPECTIVE WEBSITES AND SHOULD HAVE SOUGHT FOR OPINIONS. THEY SHOULD HAVE COMMUNICATED OPINIONS TO BOARD. IF THEY THEMSELVES FEEL LIKE KINGS AND FINALISE WHAT THEY WANT, KEEPING WHOLE OF INDIA IN DARK, THEN THAT IS NOT BACK STABBING THE ENTIRE WORK FORCE.

Anonymous said...

A great idiot and needs a slap on his face and career. Sale ito hokar tum retire katoge jaisa cbdt ka atyitude hai acit ke liye.

Anonymous said...

ITGOA N ITEF

STUPID IDIOTS

JAI HO.....

Anonymous said...

I heard that during the meeting with cbdt the ITEF representative argued that the parmar judgemnt applied only for post of ITI. Also heard that they influenced dopt to give opinion that parmar judgement applies to ITI. is it true?

Anonymous said...

itgoa has interest in doing so. most of itgoans are dr iti's. they dont want udcs to get parmar benefit and cover up their loss. so lets understand it straight. itgoa is the culprit. 3-12-2013 and 11.12.2013. you know who were in itgoa then. sita rama rao and rajesh menon. any more questions ?

Anonymous said...

ITEF is not consist of direct UDC or Direct ITI only, It includes LDCs, Peons, Daftari, Cook, Drivers, Data Entry Operators, etc
All are equal for ITEF.

Anonymous said...

For 8.55 PM, then, why ITEF is not still insist to publish RR and other items?

Anonymous said...

What t u doing admin. Why gallian and derogatory comments are permitted. You r also part of these. Pls avoid to publish vulgar comments

Anonymous said...

Three idiots rm, srr, and rgpl

Anonymous said...

Maal liya rahenga. "MAAL"

Anonymous said...

Is NRP applicable to HAVALDARS and CONSTABLES ?

will anybody answer please

Anonymous said...

Is advisory ko dekh kar to aisa lagta hai ki ab har vibhag me har cadre (DR) ke liye alag alag dates me senroity ke rule banage. Kaisa majaak kiya hai

Anonymous said...

Saab golmaal hai bhai saab gol maal hai.

MAAL do aur seniority lo

Anonymous said...

CBDT HRD AND THEIR ALLIANCE DOLA / DOPT MUST BE NEUTRAL IN ISSUING INSTRUCTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF NR PARMAR DECISION. THEY SHOULD NOT FAVOUR A PARTICULAR CLASS OF DIRECT RECRUITS BECAUSE THEN THIS COUNTRY WILL GET DIVIDED LIKE USSR (RUSSIA). IMMEDIATE DIRECTIVES OR OMs SHOULD BE ISSUED TO IMPLEMENT RAJEEV MOHAN PATANJALI SHARMA, SUDHAKAR RAO AND RENU KUMARI DECISIONS TO ENSURE IMPARTIALITY.

JAI HIND.

Anonymous said...

What happened no comments on the above ?

Anonymous said...

It is applicable to FARASH and their elder brothers DR ITIs

Anonymous said...

AAJ KA BHAIYYA RAAJ

Anonymous said...

Everybody quite