Sunday, May 18, 2014
DOPT's CLARIFICATION ON PARMAR CASE IMPLEMENTATION
The DOPT in its reply to the CBDT, which has sought clarificaiton on interpretation of the provisions of DOPT OM dated 4-3-2014, It is stated that,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Respected Sirs...this is DOPT clarification on OM dated 04.03.2014...Pls go through para.2 of the clarification & check if any further clarification is required from DOPT...??? What about applicability from 27.11.2012...?? If we Dont use our precious brain...such things will happen....still we are rigid for none implementation...God Bless...?? Two yrs is going to be completed...who is responsible for all these mess..???
As already stated earlier suchpurchased opinions and views of the DOPT KEEP COMING. PLEASE READ PARA 3 OF THE CLARIFICATION WHEREIN IT STATED THAT LELEGAL OPINION OF DOLA WILL HV TO BE TAKEN ON QUESTION OF LAW WHEN MATTER IS IN COURT. THIS MEANS THAT EVEN DOPT IS FED UP WITH THE DR ITIS NUISANCE AND BURDEN ON CENTRAL EXCHEQUER. THIS MATTER WILL DRAG ON FOR MORE TIME AS PETITION ARE SUBJUDICED BEFORE COURT AND DOPT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW. SO HV PATIENCE. DOPT HAD CLEVERLY WASHED ITS HANDS OFF THIS ISSUE. NOW DR ITIS SHD KNOCK THE DOORS OF DOLA. PL READ PARMAR RAJEEV MOHAN AND RENU KUMARI JUDGEMENTS CAREFULLY BEFORE KNOCKING. DONT WASTE ILLGOTTEN MONEY. SAVE IT FOR FUTURE. EVEN ICT DR ITIS ARE GOING TO THE COURT SHORTLY. JUST HAVE PATIENCE AND WATCH THE FUN. THERE ARE MANY BIRBALS IN THIS COUNTRY.
The order uploaded is unsigned Is it possible to get a signed copy.
Poor dr iti. DOPT HAS SHREWEDLY PASSED ON THE JOB TO DOLA AND WASHED ITS HANDS OFF THIS ISSUE. NOW OVER TO DOLA. DOL DOL DOLA RE.
Respected sir please go through para 3 of DOPT note dt 1.5.2014 and immediately contact DOLA and next the various courts where cases are pending.
There are lots of Birbals ( advocates ) who hv lot of brains. v need not use our brains n waste time.
Sanjeet Bro, Pl. wait for another clarification from Dopt on the supreme court judgement in the case of Rajiv Mohan. The judgement is just contra to NR Parmar case. So till then you use your precious brain for some constructive thing... instead of giving such irritating comments.....
Abhi DR.ITI DOLA ke pass jakar DHOL bajoo. Yeh dola re dola re dola re dhol bajaooo.
simpleincometax copied news from insideincomtax. views also copied. but views may not be correct.
For your kind information decision in Rajeev mohan case has been given by High Court Allahabad in ICT case. fact of the case is different. dont spread rumour without proper knoweledge.
Respect Honour DR Bro rajeev mohan order has been confirmed by S.C. who in turn has agreed on N R PARMAR order of Gujarat H.C. Facts and ratio of NRP judgement of 27.11.2012 r different nto that of illegal recruits of 2005-06 except 5. So if rajeev mohan is not applicable as per yr Einstein knowledge then how NRP is applicable to unconstitutional recruits of 2005-06. Please justify.
Mr.Anonymous, pl. update yourself regarding Rajeev Mohan case, Allhabad High Court decision regarding date of Joining for Direct Recruits and ICT has been upheld by the Supreme court(SLP) which is contra to NR PARMAR case.
DOLA
DOLA
DOLA
HERE V COME
DR ITIs
There is valid point.High court allahabad order in Rajeev Mohan case has also been confirmed by supreme court and it is in contradiction with direction of supreme court in N R Parmar.
Dt. Of joining if ICT drs will be counted for semiority so now ICT want the same for regular Drs. So coming months ICT drs itis and direct itis will f ight over this issue. Just watch the f un that is for sure.
DOLA already clarified that in ITI cadre in IT department NRP has to be implemented. For other cadres u please do it with consultation of DOPT. Thus if a UDC recruitee wants his seniority as per NRP , he may shuttle between DOLA and DOPT..not otherwise. Many who post here are likely to become ITOs anyway. Think about an executive authority like DOPT restricting Supreme court judgement? Is it permissible? come on ... fight a fair one. Also know the difference between a ratio laid in an order and mere confirmation of High court order given in a fact situation. Thats the difference between NRP and rajeev Mohan's case.
Delhi DR ITI now what next ? 88 ITIs promoted as ITO in AP charge !!! So DOLA Re DOLA Re.......Dola ab kiska Kismat Dola. By not letting your seniors taking promotions and just to come in front of a few you all are behind some 300+.
Dimagwale bhai sahab for promotion frm ITI to ITO wherever court case is pending, opinion and clarification frm DOLA is to be taken. Where it is mentioned that only for UDC seniority opinion frm DOLA is to be obtained. How foolish on your part. How will u work as " PROMOTEE " AC OR PROMOTEE DC ? HV SOME COMMON SENSE.
Mr ex offocio chief justice does NRP permit giving seniority to direct recruit who are recruited beyo nd the advertised vacancy. What will happen to RENU KUMARI then ? Will she go on a pilgrimage ? Since you benefit frm NRP u eat n shit NRP but what abt RAJEEV MOHAN N RENU KUMARI ? WHY DO U OBJECT IF SOMEBODY TAKES THE HELP OF RAJEEV MOHAN AND RENU KUMARI ETC. u shd first read para 33 of NRP and then talk abt ratio n parameters.
Mr. Justice sir NRP talks abt vacancies arised, intimated,advertised n exam held during the
same f.y. does 2005-06 recruits become similar to 93 94 NRP case ? Pl pass judgement accordingly now.
If NR permar principle is to be implemented then the principle instructions ie DoPT instns 7.2.86 and 3.7.86 have to be implemented in all cadres. If the department wants to implement in the Inspector cadre, then it is totally on wrong track. because, the judgement pertains to the petitioners of Gujarat who approached upto Supreme court and if any wish to urge for implementation, they have to approach upto Supreme court level. The principle of law laid down is applicable to all cadres since DoPT instns 7.2.86 and 3.7.86 for all DR cadres. If one cadre is reviewed and other cadre is not reviewed then it leads to favoritism and biased. However, upto 2005 SSC recruitment, there will be no problem if all cadres are reviewed in terms of NR permar because, 2005 SSC recruitment/appointment is subject to validity of appointment as they were recruited in excess of the advertised vacancies and the matter is subjudice.
YES CORRECT CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION VERY CLEAR RENU KUMARI AND ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
if the Drs of 2005 are illegal then how promotees Inspectors of 2001 - 2005 across india are not illegal because there must be 2:1 ratio for each year . Or we should assume There was NO promotion at all for those years.
33. Having interpreted the effect of the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and
3.7.1986 (in paragraphs 20 and 21 hereinabove), we are satisfied, that not
only the requisition but also the advertisement for direct recruitment was
issued by the SSC in the recruitment year in which direct recruit vacancies
had arisen. The said factual position, as confirmed by the rival parties,
is common in all matters being collectively disposed of. In all these
cases the advertised vacancies were filled up in the original/first
examination/selection conducted for the same. None of the direct recruit
Income Tax Inspectors herein can be stated to be occupying carried forward
vacancies, or vacancies which came to be filled up by a "later"
examination/selection process. The facts only reveal, that the examination
and the selection process of direct recruits could not be completed within
the recruitment year itself. For this, the modification/amendment in the
manner of determining the inter-se seniority between the direct recruits
and promotees, carried out through the OM dated 7.2.1986, and the
compilation of the instructions pertaining to seniority in the OM dated
3.7.1986, leave no room for any doubt, that the "rotation of quotas"
principle, would be fully applicable to the direct recruits in the present
controversy. The direct recruits herein will therefore have to be
interspaced with promotees of the same recruitment year.
34. In view of the above, the Civil Appeals, the Transferred Case, as
well as, the Transfer Case (filed by the direct recruits and the Union of
India) are hereby allowed. The claim of the promotees, that the direct
recruit Income Tax Inspectors, in the instant case should be assigned
seniority with reference to the date of their actual appointment in the
Income Tax Department is declined.
Kisi nai bhi imandhari sai DoPT instns 7.2.86 and 3.7.86 padha hai, sath hi N R Parmar judgment padha hai. Nahi iiiiiiiiiiiii Read all once again iiiiiiiii
kya intercharge transfer me jo service ka relaxation diya gaya hai jinki spouse nationalise bank me job karti hai unhe nahi relaxation diya jayega?
THE CONTROVERSIAL PERSON I.E. N.R. PARMAR RETIRED AS AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD OFFICE FROM 30.11.2014. THANKS TO ALL THOSE WHO REFERRED TO MY NAME WHILE DISCUSSING THE ISSUE OF INTER-SE SENIORITY OF INCOME-TAX INSPECTORS. I WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PROVIDING ANY SPECIFIC CLARIFICATION ON THE ISSUE/JUDEMENT OF SUPREME COURT. MY MOBILE NUMBER IS 9586057493. MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS nrp2711@gmail.com
What is the result of Supreme Court judgement in Rajeev Mohan and Renu Devi Case and please can any body say how it is different from NR Barmer judgement.
As per the factual position of NR permar case the advertisement for direct recruit was given in the vacancy year itself only and as such, the direct recruitees have to be inter spaced between promotees. The Honorable Supreme court has clearly said that in the instant facts only. ie But on perusal of the CBDT data circulated, it is observed that the year of requisition to SSC and the year of advertised has never matched and more over, the available DRs from SSC are joined from the previous advertisement selection process but not from the actual year of requisition sent to SSC. As such, the SSC is selecting DRs every year without advertising the actual vacancies and not mentioning the year of vacancy and it is just selecting as HR recruits and are nothing but stand in the waiting list and when ever the CBDT sent requisition, SSC used to give selected list. Because of this reason, in all the CCIT (CCA) have followed the date of seniority to DRs from the date of receipt of selected list from SSC. Except in the NR Permar case, the said factual position has never matched. While the issue stood thus, how the CBDT / CCAs could revise the seniority of DRs from the vacancy year ( DoPT's 1959) and how could give seniority from date of requisition when Honorable Supreme court ruled that NOT ONLY THE REQUISITION BUT ALSO THE ADVERTISEMENT AND THE ADVERTISED VACANCIES ARE FILLED UP.
2. wHEN sUPREME COURT has pointed out that the DoPT's 1959 is against the principles laid down in the constitution of India and no retrospective seniority could be given unless born in that cadre, the PMO office has changed and issued fresh instruction on February 1986 and July 1986 but unfortunately the ratio laid down by the Honorable Supreme court ruling was not observed rather complicated it . Only in the absence of specific mention in the recruitment rules passed under Article 309, the PMO office used to give instructions in service matters. Thus any ruling given by the Honorable Supreme court on the said instructions, the PMO office used to give fresh instructions on that ruling and direct how to implement. So, the CCAs are not permitted to implement the so ratio laid down without getting permission from the DoPT.
3. In the Incometax Department, the CCAs are revising the entire cadres from 1986 even though the DoPT has not permitted to do so. The Honorable Supreme court has delivered a land mark judgement that settled seniority could not be disturbed after a period of gap of 25 years. This NR permar judgement issued after a gap of 26 years. A special audit of C&AG of 25 years of service has been audited and now how it could be revised. Since, it is not permitted, the DoPT vide its 4.3.2014 and May 2014 has instructed to revise after this date of Judgement ie 27-11-2012 but not before.
Then who is the highest authority in service matters. If it is a ratio to be observed then it applicable to all central government servcices who are bound by the DoPT instructions. When other central government organizations are not doing any rectification then how these CCAs are felt that this ratio is applicable to only Incometax department. My request is do not mess it and do not demoralise or do not try to panic on this issue.
When the So called SSC has not bothered about the land mark rulings given by the Honorable Supreme court that excess appointed beyond advertised vacancies are to be held as illegal appointees. ie the SSC has to advertise the number of vacancies to be recruitted first, then it may say that it may increase or decrease. But without advertising the number of posts / vacancies, SSC is not permitted to do so. But only for Incometax department, the SSC is not following this principle. Because, every time it is selecting on HR basis and keeping them as waiting list. How waiting list is to be maintained also mentioned in the said Supreme court rulings.
While the issue stood thus, why the Incometax department is so keen to observe only NR permar and not other rulings which are also to be strictly to be followed.
N.R.Paramar case me to DOPT ka instruction tha ki ye prospective me haoga aur ye kewal direct aur promotee keliye lagu hoga. Lekin orissa mein to ye sc-st keliye bhi lagu kar diya. Isme to hum (general) wala ko bahut faida bhi hua. ITEF leaders keliye hum ku bahut faida hua. Thanks to the leaders of Orissa ITEF to revert the sc-st officers. Thanks.
On the basis of Gujarat High court in the case of NR permar the DR seniority recons from the date of joining, the Allahabad High court in the case of Rajivmohan an inter chargee transferee from Goa to Kanpur against a direct recruitee Arvind kumar trivedhi of Kanpur held that Rajiv mohan is senior to Arvind kumar trivedi because the inter chargee joined much earlier to a DR in Kanpur.
Normally, after supreme court ruling in the case of NR permar, Arvind kumar Trivedi should be senior of Rajivmohan on the ground that Arvind may falls against the requisition year and there was no question of date of joining concept. Accordingly, Arvind kumar trivedi went on appeal before Supreme court against the Allahabad High court order, but the Honorable Supreme court clearly held that the Allahabad High court has rightly held Rajiv mohan is senior to arvind and for ruling this, the case of NR permar was considered.
At this juncture, since both the judgements are delivered by two bench and both are contradictary to each other and more over, in Rajivmohan, the Supreme court has clearly held after due conswideration of NR permar judgement of this court, upheld the Allahabad High court and this decission came after NR permar, the CBDT and HRD either to follow this or stop the implimentation of NR permar and refer both the rulings to DoPT or refer to SC for full bench. So one case is favor to DR and other case is JUSTICE rightly done whether it may favor to PR or other. Since, No one can claim retrospective seniority from the vacancy it arises, rather eligible from they born in the vacancy. So this should be bring to the right forum and the respo0nsibility is with ITEF. When CHQ leader accepted NR permar implimentation why this case is not also bringing to the CBDT level. God knows. Because every one in the department always wish to have undue advantage but not the actuals.
It's wonderful that you are getting ideas from this post as well as from our argument made here.
Post a Comment