Saturday, February 29, 2020
Friday, February 28, 2020
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
CONSOLIDATED INSTRUCTION ON LIFE CERTIFICATE AND COMMENCEMENT OF FAMILY PENSION IF PENSIONER / FAMILY PENSIONER IS LIVING ABROAD
Data Entry Skill Test (DEST) to be held on 08.03.2020 for the Combined Limited Departmental Competitive Examination/Competitive Examination for promotion to the post of Postman/Mail Guard from eligible MTS and GDS
Grant Increment on 01st July who Retired on 30th June with interest of 6% per annum – High Court Madhya Pradesh.
Pay the annual increment i.e. pay scale of 20440-5400 and arrears due from 01/07/2015 with interest of 6% per annum
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-18030-2019
WP-18030-2019
RAJENDRA PRASAD TIWARI
Vs
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Jabalpur, Dated : 03-12-2019
Shri Prashant Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents-State.
Heard.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:
(i)
To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents
to pay the annual increment fell due on 01.07.2015 to the petitioner.
(ii)
To direct the respondents to pay the annual increment i.e. pay scale of
20440-5400 and arrears due from 01/07/2015 with interest of 6% per
annum.
(iii) To
grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the
litigation in favour of the petitioner.
On
30.09.2019, learned counsel for the respondents was granted time to
seek instructions as to how the petitioner can be refused the benefit of
grant of annual increment which is to be added on 1st of July of every
year, but, no response has been filed.
The
petitioner was retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2015. The increment,
which was to be granted on 1st of July, 2015 was denied to him on the
ground that he retired on 30.06.2016 and was not in service on 1st of
July, 2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and others-WP No.15732/2017
decided on 15.09.2017, which was later on affirmed by the Supreme
Court. Considering the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Madras
High Court it is clear that the petitioner cannot be denied the
increment which was due on 01.07.2015 merely because he got retired on
30.06.2015, since he has completed full years of service and was
eligible to get the said increment. Since the case on which the
petitioner is placing reliance is squarely covered with the case of the
petitioner, nothing is required to be adjudicated in this petition.
Accordingly,
the petition is allowed directing respondents to extend the benefit of
annual increment to the petitioner which was due on 01.07.2015 and
accordingly the retiral dues of the petitioner be revised and he be also
paid arrears within a period of three months from submitting certified
copy of this order.
Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
Source: Click here to view/download the PDFRAGHVENDRA
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
NON-PAYMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE TO AN EMPLOYEE DURING SUSPENSION WILL BE ANTIHETICAL TO ARTICLE-21:: MADRAS HIGH COURT :: WA NO.1352 OF 2019
Monday, February 24, 2020
provide old pension to employees who joined after 1.1.2004 against vacancy for the year from 2001 to 2003,
DoPT has granted one time relaxation for LTC Air ticket booking in private airlines for the central Government employees who availed LTC had availed LTC by air to visit J&K and NER during the period of January 2010 – June 2014
And also issued direction to Ministries to ensure wide circulation of this Department’s instructions issued vide O.M. No. 31011/2/2018-Estt.A-IV dated 10.12.2018, [ Read this Order ]among their employees. Henceforth, the cases seeking relaxation on the plea of lack of awareness of rules and on grounds of exigencies of work shall not be considered by this Department.
No. 43020/2/2016-Estt (A.IV)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training
Establishment A-IV Desk
North Block, New Delhi-110 001
Dated: February 19, 20
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject:- Clarification regarding relaxation of purchase of air tickets from authorized Travel Agents for the purpose of LTC.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s O.M. No. 31011/4/2014- Estt.A-IV dated 19.06.2014 and subsequent O.M. regarding the procedure for booking of air-tickets on LTC and to say that as per the extant instructions, whenever a Government servant claims LTC by air, he/she is required to book the air tickets directly from the airlines (Booking counters, website of airlines) or by utilizing the services of the authorized travel agents viz. ‘M/s Balmer Lawrie & Company’, ‘M/s Ashok Travels & Tours’ and ‘IRCTC’ (to the extent IRCTC is authorized as per DoPT O.M. No. 31011/6/2002-Est(A) dated 02.12.2009) while undertaking LTC journey(s).
In this regard, many cases pertaining to the period of 2010-13 have been reported in this Department where Government employees had travelled on LTC by air to visit Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) and North-East Region (NER) under the special dispensation scheme after booking the tickets through private travel agents due to lack of awareness of rules at that time. It has been observed that claims of these Government servants were initially settled by the administrative authorities. However, after few years when the audit authorities noticed the lapses, objections were raised on these claims and recoveries were ordered in such cases along with charging of penal interest. In view of the financial hardships caused to these individuals, huge demands are being received from Ministries/Departments and JCM for grant of one time relaxation in these cases.
The matter has been considered in this Department in consultation with Joint Consultative Machinery – Staff Side and Department of Expenditure. it has been decided to grant one time relaxation to such Government employees who had availed LTC by air to visit J&K and NER during the period of January, 2010 – June, 2014 and booked the tickets through travel agents other than ‘M/s Balmer Lawrie & Company’, ‘M/s Ashok Travels & Tours’ and ‘ IRCTC’, due to lack of awareness of rules. Such relaxation shall be granted with the concurrence of Financial Advisor of the concerned Ministry/Department. Fulfillment of fare limit of LTC-80 and other LTC conditions prevalent at the time of performance of journey by the Government servants may be ascertained before granting such relaxations. The Administrative Ministries/Departments shall also ensure that only those cases are considered for relaxation where it is established that bonafide mistake has occurred and no undue benefit has accrued to/obtained by the Government servant.
Further, in this regard, it is reiterated that the extant instructions regarding booking of air tickets on LTC journey through authorised modes should be strictly complied with. It is seen that despite reiterating the above provisions from time to time, this Department is still in receipt of cases seeking relaxation for booking of tickets from private travel agents on the grounds of lack of awareness of rules and work-exigencies. Therefore, Ministries/Departments are again advised to ensure wide circulation of this Department’s instructions issued vide C.M. No. 31011/2/2018-Estt.A-IV dated 10.12.2018, among their employees. Henceforth, the cases seeking relaxation on the plea of lack of awareness of rules and on grounds of exigencies of work shall not be considered by this Department. Only those cases, where the Administrative Ministry/Department will certify the fact that bonafide mistake has occurred and undue hardship is being caused to the Government servant, shall be considered by this Department.
Withdrawal of MACP in modification of date of appointment in case of Casual Laborer Temporary Service – CAT Bangalore Order dated 31-01-2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH: BANGALORE
BANGALORE BENCH: BANGALORE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/01707/2018
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
HON’BLE DR.K.B.SURESH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE SHRI C.V.SANKAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
M.LingarajuHON’BLE DR.K.B.SURESH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE SHRI C.V.SANKAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
S/o H.Manchaiah Aged about: 59 years
Working as MTS Basavanagudi HO Bangalore-560004.
Residing at: No.117, II Main
III Cross, Kastribadavane Kamalanagar
Bangalore-560079. ………………………………………………………………Applicant
(By Advocate Sri P.Kamalesan)
Vs.
1. Union of IndiaReptd by Director General of Posts
Department of Post
Dak Bhavan
New Delhi-110001.
2. Post Master General
Bangalore Region
Bangalore-560001.
Bangalore Region
Bangalore-560001.
3. Chief Post Master
General Karnataka
Circle Bangalore-560001.
General Karnataka
Circle Bangalore-560001.
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Bangalore South Division
Bangalore-560001.
Bangalore South Division
Bangalore-560001.
5. Senior Post Master
Basavanagudi HO
Bangalore-560004. …………………………………………………Respondents
Basavanagudi HO
Bangalore-560004. …………………………………………………Respondents
(By Advocate Sri M.Vasudeva Rao, Sr.PC for CG )
O R D E R
(PER HON’BLE SHRI C.V.SANKAR, MEMBER (ADMN)
The case of the applicant is that he was engaged as a casual labour during the year 1984 and conferred temporary status from 1.12.1989. After completion of 3 years as Temporary status casual labour, he was treated on par with Group-D status from 1.12.1995 and he was posted as LR Group-D at Basavanagudi HO from 23.1.2009 and placed under new pension scheme.
Aggrieved by placing him under new pension scheme, the applicant has filed OA.No.1436/2014 which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dtd.16.6.2015 holding that the applicant was eligible to be placed under CCS Pension Rules 1972(Annexure-A1). The respondents challenged the said order before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.No.54224/2015 which was dismissed by the High Court vide order dtd.1.2.2016(Annexure-A3). Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued orders dtd.1/4.7.2016 to comply with the orders of this Tribunal(Annexure-A4). The 4 th respondent issued order dtd.22.7.2016 to modify the date of appointment of the applicant from 23.1.2009 to 1.12.1995(Annexure-A5). The applicant was granted 1st financial upgradation under MACP w.e.f. 1.9.2008 vide Memo dtd.16.8.2016 of the 4th respondent(Annexure-A6). Vide Memo dtd.16.8.2016, the applicant was granted 2nd MACP w.e.f. 17.12.2015. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued orders dtd.12.2.2018(Annexure-A8) for modifying the date of appointment of the applicant from 1.12.1995 to 10.1.2012 and order dtd.3.7.2018 (Annexure-A9) for withdrawing the 1st and 2nd MACPs. Then the applicant submitted a petition to the Secretary, Dept. of Posts, New Delhi on 4.7.2018 against the orders of the 4th respondent (Annexure-A10). Thereafter, the 5th respondent issued an order dtd.10.7.2018 (Annexure-A11) to the applicant directing to credit the overpaid pay and allowances working out to Rs.2,06,491/- from 1.9.2008 to 30.6.2018 due to withdrawal of 1st & 2nd MACPs. The applicant submitted representation dtd.16.7.2018(Annexure-A12) requesting not to resort to any recovery. But the 5 th respondent resorted to effecting recovery at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month from the salary of June, 2018 (Annexure-A13). The applicant submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeals No.1855-1857/1971 held that promotion/upgradation made on permanent basis and so reversion of the promoted/upgraded incumbents is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India(Annexure- A14). In Civil Appeal No.11527/2014(State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih), the Hon’ble Apex Court has declared that any recovery from Group C and D is impermissible in law(Annexure-A15). The applicant submits that the financial upgradations were withdrawn unilaterally without providing any opportunity of hearing which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of modifying the date of appointment, withdrawing the financial upgradations under MACP and the order of recovery are arbitrary and unsustainable under law. Accordingly, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following relief:
I. (a) Quash the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bangalore South Division, Bangalore-560041, vide No.B2/MACP/Dlgs/17-18 dated 12.2.2018 vide Annexure-A8
(b) Senior superintendent of post office, Bangalore South division, Bangalore-560041, Memo No.B2/MACP I & II/MTS/Dlgs/18-19 dated 3.7.2018 vide Annexure-A9
:: :: :::: :: ::
[view pdf for another part]
Held
5. We agree with the contention of the applicant and inasmuch as the two MACPs have been given without any juncture from the applicant, the respondents have erred in withdrawing the same without giving any opportunity to the applicant and therefore the recovery orders issued against the applicant are quashed. Any amount recovered from the salary of the applicant has to be repaid to the applicant within a period of two(2) months from the date of issue of this order.
6. The OA is allowed to this extent. No costs.
(C.V.SANKAR)
MEMBER (A)
MEMBER (A)
(DR.K.B.SURESH)
MEMBER (J)
MEMBER (J)
Source: Click here to view/download the PDF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
