It is noticed that in most of regions the work of recasting of seniority of the Group B and C officials is going on in a lackadaisical attitude. In Gujarat, which is supposed to be the front runner in the issue is lagging behind with silly reasons. It is reported by the ITEF there is a lack of coordination between the committee the Administration. They submitted a representation on 17th June to the CCIT requesting to expedite the process. The Committe was constituted to submit itz report by 31st May 2014, but till now it has neither submitted its report nor a considerable progress has been made.
In some other regions, it is reported that the adminstrations are busy with the new jurisdiciton excercise and in some other regions with promotions and transfers.
It is the testing time for the adminstrations to take all the challneges sitmultaneously. Every one believe in the competency of the adminstrations in their multitasking ability but only the doubful thing is their commitment in completing the task with in the stipulated time. As the Department is striving to meet the quarterly targets of the CAP, it is pertinent and essential to complete these adminstrative tasks at the earlist in the current year.
The readers are requensted to give their feed back on the progress in the Parmar mplementation committees in their respective regions, to the mail id of the authers of this site i.e. hemanth2190@gmail.com.
20 comments:
From where are u getting the information that the parmar issue need to be implemented by all the regions. It is all the self interests which are being circulated. Do the administrator of this know the practical difficulties in implementation. Do the administrator has the sensitivity towards the old and retired employees who may get affected in case of implementation from 83 onwards. Which para of the SC decision says that it has to be implemented by all the regions. It may be a problem of the Regions which have gone to SC to implement. Whether the administrator has any information on when the CBDT will do the review on parmar implementation. So without any basis and knowledge of the issue, please do not post any issue. Further do u have any information on the issue of whether at all the parmar case applied to the CGL 2005 inspectors who are making such a huge noise on the basis of some body else's workout.
Cant understand why it has to be implemented in all regions. The case is specific to where the vacancies were notified and filled up in the same year, which has happened in this case. Not for carry forward vacancies as per OM of 1986.
Superb...Still some have doubts that NRP will not be implemented in all region..Good...Pitty on such talents in this Department...
then discuss legally
Delhi
Mumbai
Nagpur
Lucknow
Rajasthan
Kolkata
Kerala
Gujarat
Pune
The above 09 regions out of 18 has implemented...and others has started work...bcz implementing is now tension of ITGOA(Due to refusal of UPSC to conduct ACIT promotion without NRP)...
Still some are dreaming of non-implementation...God Bless the Superb Talented staff of IT Dept...
Let us see....if NER, NWR, Odisha, Patna, Kanpur, MP&CG, Bangalore, Hyderabad & Chennai..will be able to stop non-implementation...
which cadres to be reviewed? from which date to be reviewed? whether board is ready to review ACIT from 86 onwards? which are the dates from which the board and CCs have to review simultaneously? What happens when CC is not having data? What is the position if one CC is having the data? Whether CGLE 2005 is legally appointed? whether same SC decision is not blocking their future? only decision favourable to DR will be taken into account and not the one which is not in their favour. The circumstances explained by SC in Parmar case whether is same as that of CGLE 2005 recruitees. If not then how the parmar will apply in their case. If parmar is not applicable to any other DR cadre other than ITI, then how parmar is applicable to CGLE ITI only. Whether the any person is having any answer? Why not discuss on these legalities which ultimately crop up. Whether What kerala did is correct? Saying that it is from 86 onwards based on the available records. Who is having the proper records. Then what is the sanctity of such a implementation? To whom to please. Come on administrator? Pl. discuss.
Re: comments on July 3, 2014 at 2:49 PM.-->>
I know for Mumbai, NRP has not been implemented for ITI promotion.
The seniority of the Sr.TAs were not revised as per NRP. Seniority determined as per 03.03.2008 was maintained.
People have opinions about applicability of NRP.
Let us presume that NRP is not applicable to all the regions and to all the cadres. Period.
However, CCAs have to abide by CBDT guidelines.
When CBDT issues a guideline on 6.6.2014, incorporating the essence of NRP, where is the confusion?
People with ostrich syndrome are emboldened by the fact that CCAs(read ITEF) are defying CBDT guidelines and not implementing things the way it should have been.
The fault lies with CBDT. It seems they have no administrative control over CCAs and that is the reason, they issue guideline and donot ensure that the CCAs follow these guidelines.
In Mumbai, the seniority list of Inspectors were redrawn\revised and corrected for Inspectors before promotion. But the same was not done for Senior TAs for determining eligibility for promotion to the post of inspector.
Then there is guideline dt 27.5.2014 issued by CBDT highlighting how to determine seniority for inter-region transfer cases. here again Mumbai CCA has not obeyed the instructions of CBDT and has gone by its own methodology of favouring such employees out of turn.
A case of blatant mal-administration which would create havoc in the days to come..
NRP will not be implemented.. and the states where it is implemented it will be withdrawn soon..... just wait and watch !!!!!
CAN ANY ONE SHOW THE JUDICIARY LEGALORDER/ CHALLENGE TO NRP IMPLEMENTATION AFTER IT WAS IMPLEMENTED IN SOME REGIONS? WAKE UP SID... READ CAT JUDGEMENTS DELIVERED.. BAHUT HOGAYE ..CHUP HO... GET CORRECT SENIORITY IN YOUR UDC CADRE..OR ELSE HAVE SOUND SLEEP
in odisha region the CCIT(CCA) has set up a committee to work out implementation of NRP. The committee has members only from ministerial cadre .The damage done to the careers of Direct recruit inspectors was well planned by the ministerial cadre since 1986. Now, with CCIT's support this tradition is probably going to continue. Even an Apex Court judgement / DOPT instruction/ CBDT instrcution is not going to stop this.This is nothing but a deliberate attempt to derail the implementation of NRP.
it is really amazing to see people still having doubts about NRP. They should either read the CBDT instrcution dated 06.06.2014 or go to a legal expert
DRs. dont think you are talented or intelligent. dont even no abc of it. what logic is there to claim seniority over persons who have already served for more than 3 years in the cadre. want to have identity even before your parents were married. Shame on you and the judge who gave such a judgement
Mr. anonymous 10.30 am : good one what a comparison of DRs... I fully agree with you. Shame on them for getting everything done on prepaid basis......!!!
July 4, 10.38AM
Respected Sir..Take a BOW from me..bcz, you are seems to be more talented than Hon'ble Judges of Apex Court of India....
DRs are never talented...they only follow rules and claim accordingly...but other part uses and argue only on experience...thats why these problems are coming....
PRs are always better than Apex court judges. After all experience counts.
This tu tu mein mein between DRs and PRs is a big advantage for all the IRS officers. They must be having the last laugh
the main confusion is bcos of the 800 vacancies notified by cbdt in feb 2006, which was not announced in the cgl exam 2005 either at the time of notification or mains. Para 33 of supreme court order clearly mentions the parameters, only the advertised vacancies for that exam has to be done from date of notification. if not it has to be c/f to the year of filling the posts wherein seniority has to be done by rotation of posts as per OM 1986. so all these posts have to be given in the year of positing and not from date of notification. The CCA who have done otherwise need to go thru this para before making the orders. No difference should exist between the officials of the Dept, and for the good of the country.
Post a Comment