Update on 05.03.2014
Video Conference on 10.03.2014 : A video conference is scheduled between CBDT and CCIT/DGITs. The agenda includes status of updation of ACR/APARs and revenue collection. It may be assumed that CBDT is keen to implement the CR at the earliest.
View the O.M. on video conference
Seniority between DR and PRs :With reference to much discussed N.R. Parmar case regarding fixation of seniority between direct recruit and promotees, DOPT finally came out with new set of instructions.
Going through the instruction it seems that new formula of fixing seniority will only be effective from 27.11.2012 and therefore it is ample clear that direct recruits before that date are not going to be benefited at any way.
Para (h) of the instruction states that "The above principles for determination of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees would be effective from 27.11.2012, the date of Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar Vs. U01 & Ors"
Para (i) of the instruction clearly states that " The cases of seniority already settled with reference to the applicable interpretation of the term availability, as contained in DoPT O.M. dated 7.2.86/3.7.86 may not be reopened."
Viewers may go through the detailed instruction and interpret accordingly.
Click here to view DOPT Instruction dated 04.04.2014
Video Conference on 10.03.2014 : A video conference is scheduled between CBDT and CCIT/DGITs. The agenda includes status of updation of ACR/APARs and revenue collection. It may be assumed that CBDT is keen to implement the CR at the earliest.
View the O.M. on video conference
Seniority between DR and PRs :With reference to much discussed N.R. Parmar case regarding fixation of seniority between direct recruit and promotees, DOPT finally came out with new set of instructions.
Going through the instruction it seems that new formula of fixing seniority will only be effective from 27.11.2012 and therefore it is ample clear that direct recruits before that date are not going to be benefited at any way.
Para (h) of the instruction states that "The above principles for determination of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees would be effective from 27.11.2012, the date of Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar Vs. U01 & Ors"
Para (i) of the instruction clearly states that " The cases of seniority already settled with reference to the applicable interpretation of the term availability, as contained in DoPT O.M. dated 7.2.86/3.7.86 may not be reopened."
Viewers may go through the detailed instruction and interpret accordingly.
Click here to view DOPT Instruction dated 04.04.2014
116 comments:
Lets hope it will be uniformly implemented in every region and grievance will be resolved amicably.
Very good instructions by the DOPT. What about the illegal recruitment of the 2008 batch of DR ITIs. It should be scraped forthwith as it was not done properly.
Instruction of DOPT for inter se seniority for DR and promottee in view of the NR Parmar's case is welcome.It appears no retrospective effect has been suggested.
AKS
This OM says where there was no dispute will be applicale from 27.
12.12. But CBDT in earlier letter to CCAs has cleared that seniority of ITIs is disputed and subject to S.C. decision.
Great....this is what was required......
Now what dear DR friends?
Whether the DoPT instructions is binding legislation on the courts is doubt.
1. in para 33 of the supreme court order it was ruled that not only the date of requisition but also the advertisement should fall in the same year in which the vacancy was identified.
Q in the present instructions given by DoPT is contradictory to the said law as seniority recons from the date of requisition sent to recruiting agency ie The DoPT has opined that there is no need of advertisement or recruting agency can itself take its own time in recruting the candidates even it takes for selection 5 years, the notional seniority would automatically worked out as the dealy is attributable to the department but not either with the recruting agency or candidate. Rather rectifying, the DoPT has gone into back days ie OM dated 1959.
2. in Para h, DoPT instructed that it will give retrospectively from 2012. But this instructions could be easily challenged before the Supremecourt by the said DRs in the case of NR permar since the issue of facts related to the 1993 and if DoPT say that it is being effective from 2012.
3. whether future vacancies could be filled up with previous recruitment process without having the number of vacancies and the validity as per Supreme court order in Assam Public service commission and in civil appeal no.969 of 2014 in the matter of public appointments. While issuing instructions, this point was not taken care of
Please don't mis-interpret the DOPT OM and if it is misinterpreted also ...it does not matter any more...Firstly, OM of DOPT dated 03.03.2008 has been withdrawn ab-initio...hence seniority of DR ITI joined after 03.03.2008 is to be fixed as per OM dated 1986.Secondly, seniority issue of Inspector cader was never a settled issue as CBDT has already issued a letter on 22.02.2005 to all CCA stating that "All promotions in ITI cader" is subject to order of Supreme Court in the case of NRP, hence seniority of ITI cader being unsettled is clearly applicable to be governed by this OM....but not to other caders. Thirdly,GOI (CBDT) has gone to SC against N R Parmar (PR) and won the case..so again the seniority of ITI cader was never settled till date of judgement..Now the learned officials may go through the OM again and decide...
Khaya nahi Piya Nahi glass thoda bhara Ana
DR ITI ka ITO ban ne ka sapna sapna hi rah gaya
So sad news for the DR ITIs who day dream about their becomming of ITO by citing Parmaar case even though it will not applicable to them. Lot of such persons didnot apply for the interstate transfer hoping to get accelerated seniority and becomming ACIT out of turn. They also lost their non hard earned money which they got without doing any fruitful office work. Atleast now onwards they should work for the department for which they are getting the salary.
at last justice has been done
The present DoPT is now again done a mistake by not mentioning that whether this instructions is amended or clarified. Since the present instruction dated 4.3.2014 is classificatory in nature rather amendment and not only that before passing instructions, the other Supreme court verdicts with regard to notional seniority should also be taken careof. The supreme court in several cases has ruled the law that without born in the department seniority could not be claimed even notional also as the promotions is linked with Confidential reports and how CRs will be drawn on an employee who not even in born in that cadre.
If the recruitment process was abnormally delayed for any reason ie 5 to 6 years, according to the present DoPT instructions 4-3-2014, the candidates who have been selected for appointment will automatically get seniority from the date of requisition to the recruitment agency.
Date of requisition sent is not a public document and how an appointee will get seniority is a question to be answered.
The present instructions is just like a Telanagana bill and it is purely temporary and any instructions passed should be within the frame work of constitution of India and it will not leads to infringement of fundamental rights under article 14 and 16(1) constitution of India.
excellent decision
The new O.M. is on the expected lines, because this was the only best option available to settle the DR/DP issue in view of the SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT in the case of Shri N.R.Parmar. There will be many DRs, who will not agree with me, but looking into the complexity and complete mess created by different divergent views of various officers in different charges of CCIT under the CBDT, the complex problem was without any clearcut solution. Whatever the interpretation would be, one party was to be aggrieved and approach the court for the second innings of long legal battle, with no fruitful results. YES some vested interest( ADVOCATES ) would surely take milage out of the situation and try to say they would challenge the O.M. and get this reversed, ofcourse for a very nominal fees (but surely it will be in lakhs). The DR v/s DP issue was one of the most fruitful issue as far as the advocates were concerned. Now, the Board after tossing the issue to various cells/directorates and ministries ultimately prevailed upon the DOPT to get its own O.M. interpreted. THE RESULT, they were unable to give justice and ultimately came out with the option of prospective effect. i.e. w.e.f from the date of order of Supreme Court and not to reopen earlier settled cases. JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. SINCE more than a year many CCIT's didn't issue any promotion orders awaiting for a clarification on the implementation of the judgement. ALTLEAST such CCITs can now breath a sigh of relief and issue the pending promotion orders.
- B>A>B>U>G.
But what about unconstitutionally recruited DRs of 2005-06 and 2006-07. When they will be going home.?
How can seniority be given to those posts where no advertisement was given n back door recruitment has taken place cheating lots of young aspirants ?
Have the seniority of ITI in income tax dept are settled in any way prior to SC judgement. Due to what the SC judgement arrived. Hence it is ample clear that it will be implemented clearly in the cadre where it is not settled. Please see circular issued by CBDT in 2005 in this regard.
But future DR ITIs(especially from Cadre restructure vacancies)will get their seniority from 2013(i.e., cabinet approved new posts and notified by CBDT), even though they may not join in the Department before 2015..
Nice solution given by the Blogger.
Really sorry for the PR's. They can't even interpret the OM correctly. The seniority of ITI's has never been to settled case. Hence in case of zIT department the OM would be retrospective. But in case of other departments it would be prospective. This is because all seniority lists, promotion orders and recruitment requisitions were subject to outcome of NRP. So it was never a settled issue. Now you honorably concede to the truth. Satyamev Jayate.
Dear DRs....you are going to loose what you have till now if you now further complicate the matter.... you are also our friends...but it want to get something out of way.... take it from me that you will loose what you have.......so be agreed with DOPT.....
rubbhish one
PR bhai log...we have taken a challenge(of implementing SC order for 2005 & other DR ITI) and doing it further it will be completely done shortly...Shortly you will get your ITOs from this batches...Just take a small challenge (openly offered to you)...Send at least 1 of this 2005 batch to home...forget about all..... (as all of them are illegally joined as per you)...
NB:- Not interested to hurt...but you people are compelling...
Rofl, I wonder how these people are able to interpret the income tax act, when they can't understand this simple OM which says to revise all the seniority lists which have not been fixed in accordance to OM of 1986!Now I know why income tax department functions so poorly!
Fight.....fight .....fight.....with each other and finish yourself......this also shows that this deptt has no work except time pass....
DoPT while continuing the operation of Om 7.2.86 and 3.7.86, was not taken care of the other Supreme court verdicts in 100 number of cases has ruled the law that without born in the department even notional seniority could not be given.
The present DoPT instructions was only binding on the government departments but not on the Recruiting agencies and on the courts as they are administrative instructions
Without rectifying the recruitment rules for each cadre in different central government departments , how these DoPT instruction 4.3.2014 is applicable. in the Incometax inspectors recruitment rules 1969, there was no mention about the service seniority and also why the doPT is not thinking about appointees from interchange transfers as even they put service more than 10 years in previous charge but after coming to other state, they are loossing seniority for service and whereas, the DRs without born in government are getting seniority than the existing employees in that cadres. Why the DoPT is not addressing this problem. The mean to say the doPT and CBDT never take care of the service put up and rather they are showing favourtism about DRs. How it could be prooved: SSC never advertising the vacancies in public domain and Appointing from back door and now DoPT instructed that those illegally recruited candidates also get s seniority from the date of requisition sent to SSC ie even not from the date of advertisement. Thus CBDT and DoPT tried to save the SSC from the lates Supreme court decissions on illegal recruitment and back door appointments. Gross injustice is being done on service seniority. In every pay commission, seniority always loosing the benefit and juniors are getting benefited high. But constitution of India was well drafted and it recognises the experience and service but whereas the government is not taking care of the constitution of India. Example: DoPT instruction 4.3.2014. is it clarificatory or ammendment or temporary instructions . May be GOD only knows. We pray GOD to give legal knowledge to our Directors in DoPT
Mr Anonymous Rofl..why r u so angry...it happens..No problem..we will solve this issue..it may take some more time Guru...
The team of DOP&T do some excellent job by the present OM which says that ORDER issued 1986 is applicable from 2012. The team deserved to be awarded. What a department...
Dear DRs seniority has already been fixed when you join in a cadre as per establishment list released from time to time by the CCIT CCAs. If any judicial decision rendered specifically against the seniority list drawn, then only it will be modified accordingly. Have some establishment knowledge and convey your opinion in the blog. ITEF has done a great blunder in fought for filling up of vacancies by regular appointments instead of outsourcing carried out by the department and successfully got around 7000 posts in 2007 after prolonged agitation under the banner of JCA and ITEF alone. But these unloyal new DRs don't know this history and started criticizing ITEF for each and every thing now. Dear DRs as mentioned by the bloggers on so many times, kindly do the office work, learn some thing out of it for your future posts and do justice for the salary you are drawing instead of always talking and msgs during office hours.
bhai logo, aap log to political party ki tarah jhagra kar rahe ho. please cool down........... this is our family.
I am a PR ITI and am a person who believes that the decision of SC is not correct. But, the OM of Dopt, as well, is patently wrong as it is against the spirit of SC decision. The SC had held the clarification to 1986 OM infirm and therefore the provisions of 1986 OM alone should be applied for fixing inter-se seniority. The issue under litigation was the fixation of seniorty in the 1990's. It is utter foolishness and contempt on the part of DoPT to instruct that the SC order has only prospective effect. This OM will definitely be challenged, paving way to another round of litigation and further delay in CR. However, the Dopt OM didn't come as any surprise as that Department is famous for bungling on any task entrusted to them.
OM 86 is ok
Judgement is ok
and final OM 14 is ok
the wrong thing is that its understanding in true spirit..All are in favour of DRs, leave your personal interest aside and read it properly again and again until you get it..
U speak like HITLER. but u must know what fate HITLER met. People who stay in glass houses shd not throw stones at others. Please improve yr english to understand n interpret ACT OMs Circular which wd help u to be more mature in govt. Service.
Request made to dopt to issue om in passing criteria also for iti mAy not be abolished for who passed upto 2013
Everybody knows. The so called DRs how much efficient they are in working of the deppt. Why are you wasting ur time in such a meaningless discussion . Go and study it may be useful for u otherwise you will take advice of PR
Very useful blog. Sincere gratitude.....Please keep on updating. Thanks.
PR friends if u r thinking that the DR r not capable of understanding the law than dear its an open challenge, go for a fair exam for promotion to ITO and bet who ever passes will get promotion. and this is big i have a serious doubt many of so called intellectuals PR will be filtered at the ITI exam only. so no personal comments regarding efficiency of DR. WE ALL KNOW HOW MOST OF THE PR PASSES THE DEPARTMENTAL EXAM.
this is just a reply to ur comment on the efficiency of DR.
I am a tax assistant..recently promoted to Sr.TA...I have faced civil services interview twice...m a PR..I don't consider myself anyway inferior in knowledge or anything to DR...I agree to the point that DR inspectors have in them a sense of arrogance n proud...
First u see the advt frm which u hv bn selected.
such a proud, arrogance, misbehaviour and disrespect to sr. are few qualities of direct ITIs.
DRs r having garam khoon. Confidence is good. Over confidence is bad.
Hon'ble DOPT/CBDT kindly issue the order of regularization of Daily wages workers, because nobody wants to see the difficulties of those Daily Wages Workers.
so please may be considered as regular employee of Income Tax Department.
Plz update about CR...has the FM signed the CR post allocation file??
You don't know whether to use proud or proudness or pride... I don't know how u have cleared your prelims
Dear Kasim u are DR and not PR only misguiding the innocent people. Your intention is really malafide
Hon'ble DRs only demand the things which u actually deserve. Leave the habit of snatching the bread from other mouths. Please have some self respect. Be less selfish.
Vinash kale viprit buddhi.
Either all DR should be sent back to home or all PR should be resigned from department.
All dispute resolved
Dear Respected DR, passing of departmental exam alone should not be taken as a criteria for judging one's intelligent and commitment to the department. There are so many non passed candidates are expert in assessment work and there are so many 'top mark' departmental exam candidates who don't know any thing practical knowledge about assessment or Act. So don't under estimate the unqualified Seniors.
Yes please and that too fast. God bless you all.
They r reincarnation of EINSTEIN but failures as direct IRS and these direct IRS will treat these DRs as cookies.
As per the subject of discussion here, the content of the blog is to discuss the implications of the DoPT OM dated 04-03-2014. So may I request that the inefficiency and interpersonal behavior of the DRs and competency of the PRs may be reserved to some other thread of discussion?????!!!!
Intellectual DR mahoday, ur arogancy & proudness show ur real efficiency. And do not forget u also r going to be PR as ITO. One more thing, every ITI bcame an ITO after passing dept. Exam whether he may DR or PR. Both proves his efficiency. So pl. Dont share such type of ludicrous comment. Pahle IRS & non IRS ka issue tha...ab ek naya issue DR & PR ka ho gaya. Jhelte raho....
Khaab dekna jurm nahi hai DR bhai. Naukari karo pagaar lo jaldi ITO banke kya pahad okhadlonge kya jaldi birla tata banne ka kya. Itna ghamand hai tho direct IRS IAS kyu nahi bsnte. Aap promotee IRS hi bannewale direct IRS nahi. Bada taras aata hai tumhari halat dekte. Bhagwan aapki atma ko shanti de aur aakl bhi.
As clearly stated Para (h) of the instruction states that "The above principles for determination of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees would be effective from 27.11.2012, the date of Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar Vs. U01 & Ors"
Para (i) of the instruction clearly states that " The cases of seniority already settled with reference to the applicable interpretation of the term availability, as contained in DoPT O.M. dated 7.2.86/3.7.86 may not be reopened."
This is because this OM will be prospective for other Departments. Point h is because this OM is general in nature and if all department recast seniority from 86 then it will be a very big exercise. But point i says that cases not settled will be settled as per SC decision and this OM. Hence for other departments it will be prospective and for IT department it will be retrospective. Please understand this. Read the OM carefully. This is what it means. OM dated March 2008 is withdrawn. So if seniority of DR'S is fixed from dates of joining then it will be as per OM of March 08. Which is wrong. Don't interpret without understanding correctly.
Dear DR ITIs one day you will feel the arrogance of the DR IRS when you become promotee AC or JCIT. Even if you became CIT these DR IRS will treat like his subordinate only. So try to give respect to seniors.
Dear DRs we know you are intelligent even much more than IAS. Should we warship you or we should touch yr feet everyday and treat u like god. Itna ghamand achcha nahi. Ghamand to rawan ka bhi nahi raha to tum to mamuli inspector ho.
I think our colleague has interreperated the OM in hurry. Be cool, The OM clearly says that this will be implemented from 27.11.2012 . It means any DPC after this date will be considered keeping in view of the Hon,ble SC judgment. There is no where written that the new official who joined after 27.11.2012 will get benefitted...... A DR Inspector
This judgment will be implemented w.e.f 27.11.2012 clearly shows that Any DPC or post will be filled in consideration of this judgment
Why the FM hasn't signed the file yet plz update about this....I hv heard that the revenue secretary is on leave n the FM has asked for representation from the member (p n v)...is this the reason?
डी आर पी आर के शोर में सी आर कहाँ चला गया ....................
If CR doesn't come, what the DR will do? Once upon a time promotion from ITI to ITO took nearly 12 years by which time an ITI was able to learn mixed type of work such as Investigation, Assessment, Technical, Judicial, Recovery, TDS and administrative functions of the department during this time which was very useful to them for their future career. Now a DR ITI posted to investigation wing where he serves 4 to 5 years and getting promotion as ITO doesn't know any other work of the department except threatening the assessees.
Ultimately,many pr's will retire because of the conflict.they will go without benefit and we should understand that even if they are promoted and then retire ultimately dr has no real loss.look at the human side too.after serving the department for almost the entire life this is what they get?
People who are not understanding the DOPT instruction are telling like that it is against DR Inspectors. They should first read NR Parmar decision and then interpret the contents of the DOPT instruction. IT is highly in favour of DRs. So I request all to comment only after going through the NR Parmar decision. The point is also to be noted that the Board has already taken a decision to implement NR Parmar in all cadres retrospectively.
DOPT के 04.03.2014 के OM मे हमारे विरुद्ध कुछ भी नहीं है और ना ही कुछ CONFUSING AND CONTRADICTORY है. PARA 5(A) के अनुसार 03.03.2008 का OM NON-EST/WITHDRAWN AB INITIO है इसका मतलब जो SENIORITY 03.03.2008 के अनुसार फिक्स की गई थी वो ख़तम. अब DEPARTMENT को नई SENIORITY फिक्स करनी पड़ेगी. अब चूंकि 27.11.2012 की डेट निकल चुकी है और SENIORITY अब आने वाले समय मे ही फिक्स होगी तो PARA 5(H) हम लोगों के ऊपर पूरी तरह लागो होता है जो कहता है की अगर SENIORITY 27.11.2012 के बाद फिक्स होगी तो PARA 5(A) से PARA 5(G) के अनुसार ही होगी.दोस्तों हम सभी की SENIORITY 27.11.2012 के बाद ही फिक्स होगी. अगर ऐसा नहीं हुआ तो दो बहुत बड़ी समस्याएं आएँगी:-
१. जो गुजरात के SAATHI (direct ratna) इस केस को लेकर सुप्रीम कोर्ट तक गए उन्हें भी इसका फायदा नहीं मिलेगा. तो फिर उनके केस लड़ने का क्या फायदा.
२. २०१० बैच २०११ बैच से जूनियर हो जाएगा क्योंकी २०११ बैच को SENIORITY, date of initiation से मिलेगी जबकि २०१० बैच को actual joining से.
Mr. K.N.Purushottam ने कोई ज्ञान नहीं दिया...........कहाँ चले गए श्रीमान........ कुछ बोलिए डीआर पीआर पर आप भी........
this O.M. is very much correct and totally in favour of DRs. No. review of seniority of others cadres as their seniority has been settled. The only benefit of this O.M. will go to DRITI, congrats to all DRITIs...
What an Office:
Administrative Officers reach office at 12 noon and count the days remaining for retirement then go back home
For Office Superintendents office starts at 11.30 A.M. Till 4.P.M. they loiter around Union Office and searches for wherever free food is available. By $P.M. they leave office.
Lady Inspectors (PRs)reach office at 1.30 P.M. to have lunch and wash lunch Box till 3 PM. One more hour goes into discussing problems of children and problems created by in-laws. The half hour allotted for work is spent in getting the register out from the almirah and putting it back.
The Inspectors (DRs) are whole day busy in computing and recomputing seniority list.
And when these people, start interpreting Apex Court Verdict and DoPT order, the result is simply a chaotic scene only witnessed in a Relief Camp.
Hope OM dt 4/3/14 will be interpreted by educated people (IRS Officers) and not by promotee PRs ( TAs\ Sr.TAs\ OS\ Admn Offs
Let Lawyers decide regarding the DOPT circular dated 4-3-2014. Either PR or DR are not so competent to interpret the circular.
Surprised to see the fights put up by PRs.
Merit has a place.
That is why IRS cadres are placed above the other people.
Why in IITs and IIMs, admission is linked to merit.
Likewise, Drs stand ahead of the PRs.
Through compassionate appointments and the influnce of INCLUB ZENDABAD BRIGADE, the working culture of the IT Dept has a level, the less it is discussed is better. Our problem is that we do not know where to draw the line and understand that beyond a certain point, space is not for us and should be left for the better people. An ordinary person can aspire to be PM. But that field is politics. Office is a different place altogether. Merit can be ignored by all means, but we should be prepared for the consequences.
Now BAMS are considered as doctors.
Days are not far off when quacks would also have their Federation fighting for grant of licence for practicing medicine.
Inclusive growth is a fancy word and sounds good when delivered by politicians.
The reservation is killing the merit and time has come to do away with it.
Or else ours will also ve the land of Talibans.
Its manifestation can be seen in many forms. For example, A person gets compassionate appointment ( obviously at the cost of a more deserving and qualifying candidate) then gets inter-charge through contact and shamelessly demand seniority.
O.M dated 4.03.2014 not dispose off the both the O.M 1986. The last para (i) clearly stated where the O.M 1986 not follow, it should be follow and where the seniority formed or settled on the basis of 1986 rules they need not re-open. But ultimately 1986 rules have to followed in all DR posts and PR, accordingly to their vacancy year. Then matter will be settled.
It seems you are also a politician...do you think all are compassionate...? It is very very less...the problem is that one group think itself smarter than other.......
The person who has said that he is superhuman as a direct Insp. he should note that bihar up regiment pass the exam with all scrupulous methods and abandoned by their own uncivilised state. The idiot does not understand this.
In the DOPT OM dtd. 07.02.1986, 03.07.1986 & 03.03.2008 also said the cases of seniority already decided need not be reopened
Absolutely correct. Ur remarks clear all the above misinterpretations of PRs.������
The present result of the so may years of litigation - Result Nil
I thinks DR treat themselves God only clearing one SSC exam. They don't have sympathy for compassionate employee but they hurt their sentiments. They are not deserved to be called as human being. They are more greedy than animal. They have no knowledge that even compassionate employees are also qualified/well educated much more than you. shame on DR for being called as human being.
DRs friends dont use promotee as beggar. u will also be promotee in each and every promotion. then u will understand how painful comments u made for PRs.
I did not go through the instructions or the court verdicts on this issue. As a member of staff, let me also comment on a common parlance. Being government departments, there will be so much of delays in various ways at different levels. As a result, in the lengthy process, some times, the vacancy intimated would have been arisen 2 or 3 years back before it was intimated to SSC. If a direct recruit is given seniority from vacancy year, before his joining the Department, it may constitute conferring seniority to a student or non-qualified, at that point of time. There should have been a uniform order of reckoning seniority from the date of joining the Department – the only parley. There is no logic in conferring seniority for a lay-man period - quite an outsider. Anyway, for Income Tax Department, there is no uniformity for in implementing its own circulars/instructions and even not bound by DoPT instructions ! But we have uniform discrimination and egos at every rungs – enough ?
Additional Inspectors posts were created in December 2006 and out of this 59 posts were requisitioned to SSC on 29th December 2006 and out of additional posts created in 2007 749 posts were requisitioned to SSC to give notification and recruit. The SSC role literally starts from receipt of requisition from Board.Without doing so, SSC has recruited 813 inspectors from the advertisement/notification issued on June 2005(prilims) and 23 March 2006 ( main examination). It is very clear that Vacancies to be filled up by subsequent notification by advertising those vacancies and who were appointed through that exam are never falls within the ambit of DoPT instructions 7.2.86 and 3.7.86 and also the facts in this case are not on par with the NR permar case. hence DRs who joined in the department in 2008 from the 2005 notification except 5 since it belongs to 2005 vacancies in any case will never get seniority from 2005 rather their recruitment is illegal in terms of violation of article 14 and 16(1) constituion of India
CORRECT BUT THEN ALSO HOW CAN SENIORITY BE GIVEN TO BACK DOOR DIRECT RECRUITS ?
IF PRs are beggars then DRs are rightly called IDIOTS (failure to qualify as direct IAS IFS IPS IRS..........)
ILLEGALLY N UNCONSTITUTIONALLY RECRUITED DRs if 2005-06 n 2006-07 ARE A LARGER PART OF RECRUITMENT SCAM
GOING ON SINCE 2005-
06 TILL DATE.
CANDIDATES FROM
SOUTHERN STATES, GUJ
N MAH, etc, R BEING
CLEVERLY IGNORED N
85%CANDIDATES FRM TWO PARTICULAR STATES ONLY R BEING SELECTED. THIS IS MOTHER OF ALL SCAMS MORE GIGANTIC THAN 2G, KOILA, ETC.
IRS are also mostly coming from bihar and up.Are they also pass the exam with all scrupulous method? Please do not release your frustration on bihar and up. Your statement show thatwho come from uncivilised state
To err is human. To err in perpetuity is DoPT. DoPT’s 2008 O.M is a blunder. The present OM is a wonder. DoPT attempted to offer a remedy. But this remedy is worse than the disease itself.
Kudos to my friends in ITEF for getting 7000 posts. Without their efforts, India would not have been what it is now. The entire nation should be loyal to you people.
When the Parmar case came out, you people criticized SC, DoPT and DRs out of frustration. When the DoPT issued the present O.M., you people again are using the filthiest language out of excitement. Keep your emotions under check. Cool baby… …. Cool. This present O.M. is not an end in itself. Further it opened the Pandora’s Box.
Well said,KNP .....mukesh kumar delhi
I think the biggest need of today is to arrange classes for DRs to teach them manners and all out efforts should be made to make their proud and ego less.
DOPT framed a principle accordinlgy to 1986 O.Ms and O.M dated 3.3.2008 withdrawn, it means where the O.M not followed, must to be followed for all DR posts since 1986 on date of notification. You all pl. read it carefully and then decide
do u want to implement NRP or 1986 first make that clear ?
Respected Staff / Officials of IT Department.... I hereby complain against the responsibilities of this blog owner...Many officials are following this blog...& what ever may be the difference among PR & DR ITI, neither DR nor PR has any right to use WRONG language against each other...However it is the responsibility of "Blog Owner" to approve / Block such derogatory comments...I dont appreciate this attitude...You are the owner , hence it is your responsibility... I am a DR Inspector and most of the PR Inspector are fatherly / Brotherly figure...Yes, we have differences but we should not go to that much low of character assassination .....Request the Bolg Owner to take little pain in analyzing the derogatory comments and approve accordingly...(I don't mind, if my comment is not approved)...Thank You...
Thanks for your concern. It is once again reminded that nobody should use any disrespectful language against any one or group. It is requested in the blog too. The administrator do scrutinizes the comments before publishing and a large number of such comments are regularly disapproved. Though there may be occasions where something offensive has taken place as comment. The administrator sincerely apologize the mistake and promises to take care in future. Let us hope that the administrator would not find anything wrong/abusive language in the future so that it may hurt anybody. Thank You. -- Admin
Then how 150 inspectors r promoted in 2005 in Mumbai. As per RR it should be only 10 in India.
KNP ji, vacany year &qualification criteria are different things. u think on this. Suppose 3000 posts of IIT created in this CT on 23.5.2013. 2000 for PR 1000 for Dr. PR got the promotion in 2014 and Dr joine the dept. In 2015, but he is against 1000 posts created in 2013 only. That why they got seniority from 2013. Otherwise no DR in 13 & 14, then PR Treated AS ADHOCH ONLY
Dear DRs we all (PR/DR) are like brothers. Please dont draw lime between us. We all need support/guidance from each other throughout our service. It no matter whatsoever the exam we passed or not. Passing of DR exams should not be only criteria to judge a person
Mind your own business new comer. Tereko duniya dekne ki hai.
Since 2005-06 onwards there is a big recruitment scam going on in SSC totally unnoticed. Infact it the mother of all scams since independence. Only 15 percent Candidates of southern and western states of the country are selected and rest 85 percent from only two northern states. See any final results of SSC n u will noticed. The entire recruitment process is rigged to favour and select candidates of only two states. THEREFORE ASPIRING CANDIDATES OF GUJ, MAH, KER, KAR, KER, AP, BGL, RJN, PLEASE AWAKE NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
Let the promotions start and seniority issue can be fight after promotion.
DoPT has issued OM on 04.03.2014, in pursuance of order of SC on 27.11.2012.
DoPT should have issued this OM on 27.11.2012. Due to administrative delay, it has been issued on 04.03.2014.
if effective date would have not been mentioned in this OM, it would be effective from 04.03.2014.
therefore, DoPT has conveyed that
this all clarification issued vide this OM, may be treated as issued on 27.11.2012.
Therefore, the term 'effective'has been written rather than 'applicable'.
OM of 2008 has been withdrawn 'ab initio' means by origin---means as it was not issued ever--means as never issued.
seniority list drawn according to OM 2008 is itself null and void.
27.11.2012, effective date means seniority list drawn on or after 04.03.2014 following the manner laid down in this OM will be effective from 27.11.2012 not from date of recasting of seniority list.
simply, a revised list, according to manner laid down in this OM, has to be recast, this list has to be made effective from 27.11.2012.
what is doubt, why is doubt
in any case, seniority list drawn on the basis of Om, 2008 has to be withdrawn, since OM,2008 itself has withdrawn.
When it will be done. on 04.03.2014 or after that?
no it will, though, practically done after 04.03.2014 but this exercise was to be done on 27.11.2012, date of order of SC. Which is admitted by DoPT on 04.03.2014 conveying that this manner would (not will be) effective (not applicable) from 27.11.2012.
Are u speaking as a respected PR or slumish DR ?
Sir, if 03.02.08 is withdrawn then how the seniority of those DR will be fixed(whose seniority was fixed as per OM dated.03.03.08).…????? It is to be as per OM dated 07.02.1986, is not it...?? Hence seniority needs to be revised…furher in OM dated 04.03.14 it has been settled seniority may not be opened..that means some unsettled seniority needs to be re-opened...if 100% it was to be implemented from 27.11.12..then no needs of putting this clause...
Aare bhai comments aane ka kyu bandh huwe masala aane do majha aata hai DR PR ki kahani kitnee niralee
What is the status of contempt of court pending with Supreme Court. Is there any information ? Please tell me.
Why the DoPT is not looking into the other supreme court judgements wherein also the land law was declared that without born in the service/department giving notional seniority is wrong as it will leads to again DoPT Om 1959. Another Supreme court judgement was also there by refering the doPT OM 3.7.86 that logical conclusion is "CONTINOUS LENGTH OF SERVICE IN THE SAID CADRE" is the best way to come out from the interse seniority. What is SERVICE:
When notional seniority could not be counted for PAY & ALLOWANCES, PENSION, GRATUITY, even for quarter allotment also and nothing for any benefit . Then why for promotion aspect, the notional seniority is giving benefit except to deprive the existing seving employees and it is nothing but Gross injustice is being done to serving employees. Is it called equality of opportunity is being done. Definitely Not.
The latest doPT OM 4.3.2014 might have been prepared some clerk and signed by the Director without applying actual brain. Before issuing such a OM they might have consulted the Solicitor General of India as it impacts on 180 central government employees. Next, when this is not applicable to Defence , then why the differenciate to others.
Eight weeks adjournment given to file rejoinder. Nothing is going to happen relax
And you are busy in keeping records that what are doing PRs (seniors). Good job dear.
Dear DR friends, read the instruction carefully. It is decided by the DOPT that the Principles for fixing seniority among DR & PR as contained in the same OM would be effective from 27.11.12. It is amply clear that the said principles are not applicable prior to that date. If any law/ rule is not effective on a particular date, then how does the question of applying it on that date arise.We can apply only those rules which are effective on the relevant date. Suppose a rule is made to the effect that Rs.1 lakh of fine will be imposed for smoking cigarette in public place and such rule would be effective from 01.03.2014. Can any fine be imposed on any one for committing the offense on 28.02.14?
It is true that the DOPT OM is not in consonance With the spirit of the SC judgement in Parmar case. But you have to fight the legal battle again to get this OM quashed by the Court.
I am bihari and passed from Mumbai zone. Please comment.
Almost 10 cats are saying that implement NR permar case. But no CAT has given order that whether applicant filed OA is eligible to get seniority on par with NR permar case or even No CAT has said that the applicant is eligible to get seniority from the date of notification. That means, these CATs are not ruling the exact position of the seniority of the applicant to place on whom was not mentioning but simply saying that implement NR permar case and untill then No DPCs should hold. This is very ridiculous. CAT is not required to Say call Tajmahal as Tajmahal. Every one know that is Tajmahal, there is no requirement to call Tajmahal one CAT order is required. TheSupreme court has said that IN THE INSTANT CASE ie if all the four conditions are fulfilled then only the term availability runs from the date of notification and also when no one from surplus cell or from intercharge employee, deputatiob basis should not occupy the respective slot of the year or filled up by those type of candidate. If any thing was happened like that then the terma vailability will automatically changed and seniority should be counted on the basis of CONTINUOUS LENGTH OF SERVICE IN THE RESPECTIVE CADRE. Refer Delhi High court Judgment Vinod Goel referring 3.7.86 DoPT OM.
Hon'ble CBDT members please look into the matter of DATA ENTRY OPERATORS who is working since 5 to 10 years or above in the Income Tax Department...But nobody bother about the poor DATA ENTRY OPERATORS that how they will manage their domestic problems in very low scale salary i.e. 5 to 7 thousand. So Hon'ble CBDT members Please issue any order to regularization to these DATA ENTRY OPERATORS. Thanking You..
what is the implication of this om mumbai and major places promotions are given to DR who joined 2008 and so on on basis of nr parmar, from june 2014 onwards and these people r now ito's where is the effect and implimentation of tghe said om dopt officials please clarify
the rule of completing 3 years in a cadre for applying intercharge transfer should be removed in case of officials who have completed almost 20 to 25 years in the department. A need for an intercharge transfer can arise at any time in an officials life as man is a social being. The official is any way losing his/her seniority and accepting to be the lowest in the cadre when intercharge transfer is accepted .Then why this rule of completing three years . The clause of dependent parents should never be removed whether they are financially sound or not because a old parent requires physical help to run the day to day activities.
The issue raised in DoP&T's O.M dated 04.03.2014 in compliance of the order in case of N.R. Pramar case and the said O.M is contrary to each para observed by the Hon'ble Tribunal , bangalore Bench in hearing the case between promotees and direct recruitees the final order is not pronounced. The question is that the how to prepare inter-seniority between the direct recruitees and promotees after Parmar's case. The objective is not clear.
Izzhar Ahmed
Advocate
when an intercharge transferee who completed below the eligibility service in which cadre he was transfered in the new charge and in the new charge where there is no eligible to get promotion to the next higher cadre, the previous service rendered by the said interchargee transferee is counted and promotion could be granted to him and this ratio was upheld by the Delhi High court in recent decission rendered in 2015,
why the same ration could not be applied for to grant permission for request transfer to another charge and that to of a promotee who has rendered more than 10 years in the parent charge.
The intention of the passing of dopt OM 1990 is totally meant for dire3ct recruitees but since it is absent to address on promotees and because of this absence in such clarification, the promotees of the existing charge are being denied on request to transferee to another charge on the same ground that he has not completed 3 years in the said cadre.
my view is to analyse the logic and request to dopt for further amendment in the said dopt instructions of 1990,2009,2015 also on this context.
In 2009 dopt OM, some relation was given to the extent that whose parents were at a different charge and the employee of another state can be considered, if the parents are sick and to be attended to by the employee.
On this ground, the employee can be filed OA before CAT in the respective charge if such promotee was not considered by the CCIT for request to transfer to another chaqrge on the ground of not completed 3 years service.
I was recruited as a UDC in 2012, against vacancies of 2011-2012. The advertisement for these vacancies was released in December 2011. This was the first batch of direct recruitment of UDC. Before this, UDC was only a promotion post and not direct recruitment. Only LDC was a direct recruitment post.
The same year, in my office,all LDCs recruited before 01.11.2011 were automatically upgraded to UDC post wef 01.12.2011, irrespective of educational qualification. Now, my office has prepared a seniority of the same batch of upgraded UDC with year 2011-12, and the quota of promotion is listed as 15%, which is promoted quota for the post. And in my seniority, the year has been specified as 2012-13 with 75% quota.
Also, most of the members of the upgraded batch have been promoted to assistant .
As per this om, we are also of same batch 2011-12. And since, they have promoted quota and we have direct quota, the rotation of vacancies should be 1:3, (1-their and 3-our).
Am I right in understanding this?
Post a Comment