NRP implementation in Gujarat region
A detailed note on revised seniority list of Gujarat after NRP implementation has been prepared by the entrusted committee of ITGOA. In this report committee observed wrong and improper implementation of NRP judgement in Gujarat region.As per the report, "excess promotion at least to the extent of 47 (192‐145) have been wrongly done in the review DPC for the vacancy year 2000‐2001." in Gujarat region.
Click here for the report
Rajiv Mohan Committee
"The 43rd BGM, Guwahati, had decided to form a separate Committee to study the effect of ‘Rajiv Mohan case’ in the seniority of the officers in the cadre of Inspectors of Income Tax. The house also unanimously decided to nominate Com. Amitava Dey, Vice President, CHQ, as the Chairman of the said Committee. The job was primarily allotted to the Committee formed to supervise the speedy and uniform implementation of NRP Judgement across all 18 regions, headed by Com. V.M. Jayadevan. Adhering to the decision of the BGM, a new Committee is formed under the Chairmanship of Com. Amitava Dey, Vice President, CHQ, to study the effect of ‘Rajiv Mohan case’ in the seniority of the officers in the cadre of Inspectors of Income Tax and submit a report to the CHQ. The other members of the committee will be decided by the Chairman of the Committee in consultation with the Units. "
Click here for details
A detailed note on revised seniority list of Gujarat after NRP implementation has been prepared by the entrusted committee of ITGOA. In this report committee observed wrong and improper implementation of NRP judgement in Gujarat region.As per the report, "excess promotion at least to the extent of 47 (192‐145) have been wrongly done in the review DPC for the vacancy year 2000‐2001." in Gujarat region.
Click here for the report
Rajiv Mohan Committee
"The 43rd BGM, Guwahati, had decided to form a separate Committee to study the effect of ‘Rajiv Mohan case’ in the seniority of the officers in the cadre of Inspectors of Income Tax. The house also unanimously decided to nominate Com. Amitava Dey, Vice President, CHQ, as the Chairman of the said Committee. The job was primarily allotted to the Committee formed to supervise the speedy and uniform implementation of NRP Judgement across all 18 regions, headed by Com. V.M. Jayadevan. Adhering to the decision of the BGM, a new Committee is formed under the Chairmanship of Com. Amitava Dey, Vice President, CHQ, to study the effect of ‘Rajiv Mohan case’ in the seniority of the officers in the cadre of Inspectors of Income Tax and submit a report to the CHQ. The other members of the committee will be decided by the Chairman of the Committee in consultation with the Units. "
Click here for details
31 comments:
Chori aur seenajori by Gujarat peoples Besharmi ki had hai, CBDT should initiate Enquiry against the CCIT Gujarat and all the persons involved in preparing Fradualant seniority list.
This is a welcome step by ITGOA the Rajeev Mohan case is also Supreme Court judgement given after NRP and how can the NRP can be implemented without advisory by the Board for implementation of RM case some effected person ICT or promotee should go to CAT and ask for stay on advisory for implementation of NRP on this basis this is a golden chance for promoters to stall the NRP implementation
RM>NRP
Again NRP and RM. Why not Rohtas Bhankar.
RM-NRP-Rohtas
वाह रे यूनियन के नेताओं, एक तरफ अपने काम के लिए के कोर्ट के आदेश को लागू कराने मे रात दिन एक किये हुए हो और दूसरी ओर दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारियों को नियमित करने के कोर्ट के आदेश को ताक पर रख्ा दिया है,
क्या उनके लिए भी इतनी ही तन्मयता से कार्य नही किया जा सकता ा
देश का इतिहास ही रहा है कि केवल कमजोरो को दबाना है नही ता पलट कर जवाब मिल गया तो ????
ITGOA committee has found out solid point. Now ITOs waiting for promotion for V.Y. 2014-15 would retire without promotion. Good timing.
Jai Ho
whoever says RM>NRP is dirty mind. Rajiv Mohan was a direct inspector and N R Parmar was a promotee inspector. Everybody is equal in this department.
Now cbdt will verify all the list of seniority after giving parmar to parmar after gujrat episode. This will take another one year. One should learn from jca the modalities of delay tactics. It will keep on delaying dpc for2014-15 upto that time when 2015-16 dpc is not ready.
Hail jca
Jca murdabad
Gujarat episode reveals sign of disunity among itgoa members, lack of leadership of our so-called leaders and apathy of cbdt in our carrers. How many case need to be files before CAT/Court before DPC is being conducted? Only God knows..
अगर ITGOA इस फ़ितूर में है की वो 2015-16 की DPC जल्दी करवा लेगी तो जल्दी ही उसे पता चल जाएगा की जो दूसरों के लिए काँटे बोते है उनको केला नहीं मिलता
Start quitting from ITGOA WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DELAY IN PROMOTION OF ACIT .THERE ARE SO MANY ....WHO DO NO LIKE TO SEE THAT SO MANY SC/ST BE PROMOTED
Dopt directions in couple cases are not followed in staff orders, where one of female member is working in state govt
. Where are transfer policy. What is procedure to file application in Cat if clear discrpancies are noted in transfer orders
Board should verify all the cadre promotions across the country after NRP case.
Do you know that Rajeev Mohan appeared in the Income Tax Inspector Examination, 1987 conducted by SSC as a candidate from Maharashtra Zone. The result of the aforesaid examination was declared on 25/6/1988 and he joined as Income Tax Inspector on 13/10/1988 in Goa ie karnataka region instead of maharashtra region.
By an order dated 10/12/1991 by CCIT Kanpur, Rajeev mohan was transferred from Karnataka charge to Kanpur chargeand he joined at Kanpur on 10/1/1992.
His plea for seniority from the date of his joining at goa on 13/10/1998 was rejected by Allahabad High Court was rejected by citing that his plea was barred by limitation.
Such being the case how can board revise the seniority of all employees whcich was settled long back and never disputed by anybody.At the most nrp implementation my be restricted to gujarat region.All promotees should not be mislead by rajiv ratan's whatsup message.He miserably failed in his attempt to defend dr inspectors. i request him to go through the advisiory given by standing counsel given to kanpur ccit.
Which is Rajeev Mohan case? What does it say? Can anyone please give the case number of the case
do you know that department itself argued before allahabad high courtr that the claim of rajeev mohan for seniority from 10/12/1991 was barred by time, since the cause of action which arose to rajeev mohan by his transfer arose in the year 10/12/1991 when the transfer order was passed and rajeev mohanr filed the O.A. in the year 2003 which was clearly barred by time.
Such being the case how can board direct forrevision of seniority of inspectors right from 1986 onwards.is it not barred by time. promotees wakeup.
mr Rajiv ratan first you clarify whether whether nrp judgement is a fair one .then you talk of legality. by the way you send messages you have some respect among members. pl dont mislead the members.in nrp judgement it is clearly mentioned that the court has no objection if the cbdt brings a modification instead of clarification dt 3/3/08. pl go through the relevent para .if board brings a modification the entire problem will be solved in one stroke. we too have an occasion to go through the clarification given by ap ccit while implementing parmar case. it is not clear how promotees are equateed with icts. een ccit never stated that rajiv mohan case is wrong.he only stateed that implementing rajiv mohan case is against nr parmar case. if AP ccit has such a genuine doubt the matter should have been referred to board.
Rohtas Bhankar's issue should take up in all over india. It should be intimated to the SC/ST commission as well as in the cabinet.
First of all, all you people should be aware that the judgement given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N.R. Parmar is not a decision on the validity of OMs dt. 07/02/1986 and 03/07/1986 but only a clarification on the implementation of rota-quota system and also the meaning of term availability as per the said OMs. But the decision in the case of Sri Rajeev Mohan is based on the merits of the case, which was subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So please note that the judgement in the case of N.R. Parmar did not discuss about the validity of OMs cited above but in the judgement the interpretation made by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was upheld. So why not implement the decision in the case of Sri Rajeev Mohan all over India as it is not a judgement related to only one single person.
Why blame Gujrat only. The same practice is being followed in Mumbai also.
In Mumbai, people join on transfer and retain seniority based on their date of joining in the erstwhile charge. How this happens.
India m kuchh bhi impossible nhi hai. Union ke members ko benifit ho rha hoga.
Bhai shab, i.e. brotheren, bhaiya, comrade, chettan, bhaow, whatever may be the salutation, the meaning of the words are same in different. Similarly the implementation of NRP judgement should have to be same/uniform throughout INDIA, Then and Then Only there can be no further litigation and the seniority list could be finalized.
The report of the sub-committee of ITGOA regarding the NRP implementation in GUJARAT Region, is fully correct. I am sure any one who understands NRP and the way it was interpreted in AHMEDABAD, by the vested interests in the committee formed to implement the decision and revise the seniority list, did not follow the advisory of CBDT. On the contrary, various official tours were made from Ahmedabad to Delhi to guide the officials working in NORTH Block at New Delhi to issue letters/clarifications and reminders to ensure that the committee members are pressured to finish the work in haste and do the things in a way it was beneficial to ONE particular section of inspectors. During the course of meeting many members had raised the issue that the revision should be done bottoms-up and not top to bottom, i.e. LDC-UDC...to INsp and Not first INSP and then LDCto UDCto>>>. Only to ensure some particular persons get promotion in the first list as they were close to the officers in ADMIN the sub-committee report was finalised. Even the ITEF nominated MEMBERS and Promotee ITO in the committee silently stood witness to this acts and which they were well rewarded in the next AGT. The inspector(ITEF nominee) and ITGOA MEMBER(also office bearer) got choice postings. THIS IS THE BITTER TRUTH. I suggest that the minutes of the sub-committee(at AHMEDABAD) should be also uploaded, so the whole of taxindia can read it and understant what & how the NRP was implemented and why deliberate wrong meanings were made out of nothing, saying to read inbetween the lines.
I am able to say these things, because one of my friend and colleague was part of the sub-committee who was working and used to share his feelings to me and at times even said that the administration will do only what they have pre-decided, all this work is futile yet he was doing it and even fought all alone in the sub-committee even against his friends in the committee when they were keeping the mouth shut.
AT LAST the report by the third party has proved that the list in gujarat was wrongly prepared to favour the Direct Recruit Inspectors. I am not against giving the rightful thing to the right person. The DRs should get what they should get nothing more or less. And the Promotees should not suffer, nor snatch anything which is not their's as well.
Last but not least I want the ITGOA committee to go to AHmedabad and meet all the members of the sub-committee which worked for the NRP and get their comments and views on the report and how the things happened. Surely the present set of ITGOA office-bearers of Gujarat may not like it or try to misguide the Chairman of committee because, some of them were also the members of that sub-committee at Ahmedabad.
Well Said, in india everything is possible, but in Income tax even impossible things are possible.
Defence promotions are under CBI scanner. Only it is a matter of time that promotions in Gujarat and Mumbai would also come under the review of CBI. Where will the staff working in personnel department hide? They will also be caught in disproportionate assets case
a fair and unbiassed implementation of judiciary's decisions shall be in d interest of all. we must trust our courts for their impartiality.
Dear Gujju Friend,
This is to counter the comments of Dear Gujju Friend who is also a good friend of mine and also one of the members of sub committee framed in Gujarat Region, failed to point out that the alleged ITEF nominee and ITGOA member had put their dissent note in the minutes of the meetings and the same was concluded on the basis of decision of majority consisting of DR Inspectors, ITO (DR Insp) and IRS officers.
Inspector referred as ITEF nominee, the ITO (office bearer) & another promotee Insp member in the committee have put their disagreement note which is also recorded in the minutes against the proposal of the administration. The decision was taken by the majority consisting of DR Inspectors and IRS officers.
Further, The Inspector referred to as ITEF nominee was deputed back within two months from his new place of posting and has put his full efforts in implementing nrp in all relevant cadres. The said official is at present posted in administration. Thus, allegation of personal gain is totally false and underlines the sick mentality of Gujju Friend.
So, please don't try to misguide the members of other charges because in Gujrat except you everyone has appreciated the task carried out by them.
Be careful in future and check details before posting comments online.
At this juncture, chal n itgoa are spineless n not able to get done regular dpc,cbdt is heartless with no concern for promoters n upsc is heedless..so adhoc promotion is D only option to get promotion to Acit.
with due respects to all my friends who have commented above, I would just like to say only one thing. The directions/observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Ors Vs N.R. Parmar & Ors, that the direct recruitees get the seniority from the date on which the requisition for recruitment was sent to SSC. This would go right if the promotions to the proportionate number of posts were also filled in by way of conducting the DPCs in the same year when requisition was sent. The direct recruitees are more bent upon their getting seniority over the people basing on some meaning less OMs of DOPT of 1986. Further let me say one thing, had there been a post of DR ITO also in the Department, what would be the situation of these DR Inspectors. I would like to pose only one question to the associations either it is ITGOA or it is ITEF, that "why the Department was not pressurised to conduct the review DPCs in case of the Promotees also, whereever the DPCs were not conducted at the time when the requisition for DR was sent to SSC, as they are at loss because of the indifferent attitude of the Department. The Department is turning a blind ear to any kind of representation may it be from Compassionate appointees, ICTs, Other Promotees etc. and just blindly following the last few lines of the Parmar Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I request you people to first read the decisions of both Parmar and Rajiv Mohan and think twice and take a decision. How far it is correct that an amendment brought in by the DOPT to curb unintended supremacy/seniority of DRs over PRs who were serving for a long period in the Department has been utilized this way.
Post a Comment