| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Friday, 25 March 2016
Monday, 14 March 2016
Saturday, 12 March 2016
State is not bound to make SC/ST reservation in matters of Promotion; SC refuses to direct the Govt. to collect data for enabling reservation .
March 11, 2016 It has been postulated that the State is not bound to make reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotions. Therefore, there is no duty. In such a situation, to issue a mandamus to collect the data would tantamount to asking the authorities whether there is ample data to frame a rule or regulation, the Bench said. Supreme Court, observing that there is no constitutional duty for the state to make reservation for SC/ST in matters of promotion, has refused to direct the Government to collect and gather the necessary data for the purpose of taking a decision as regards the promotion and consequential fixation of seniority. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant in Suresh Chand Gautam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh observed that if such a direction is granted, it would tantamount to a step towards framing of a rule or a regulation for the purpose of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotions, which is not permissible. State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotion Referring to M. Nagaraj & others v. Union of India & others, the Bench said that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotion. However, if the State wishes to exercise the discretion and make such provision, it has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335. The expression of the opinion clearly demonstrates that the regard being had to the enabling provisions of Articles 16(4-A) and (4-B), the State is not bound to make reservation, the Bench added. State cannot be commanded to exercise discretion The petitioners had prayed for issuance of a direction to the State of Uttar Pradesh to collect the data as enshrined in the Constitution Bench decision in M. Nagaraj case so that benefit of reservation in promotion can be given. The Bench observed “If we keenly scrutinize the relief sought, the prayer is to issue a mandamus to the State and its functionaries to carry out an exercise for the purpose of exercising a discretion. To elucidate, the discretion is to take a decision to have the reservation, and to have reservation there is a necessity for collection of data in accordance with the principles stated in M. Nagaraj (supra) as the same is the condition precedent. A writ of mandamus is sought to collect material or data which is in the realm of condition precedent for exercising a discretion which flows from the enabling constitutional provision. Direction of this nature, in our considered opinion, would not come within the principle of exercise of power coupled with duty.” No constitutional obligation to make reservation in promotion. The Court also observed that the language employed in M. Nagaraj case indicates that the State is not bound to make reservation in promotion and there is no constitutional obligation. The Court added that though in certain decisions, directions have been issued for framing of guidelines or the court has itself framed guidelines for sustaining certain rights of women, children or prisoners or under-trial prisoners, but those category of cases falls in a different compartment and are in different sphere than what is envisaged in Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) whose constitutional validity have been upheld by the Constitution Bench with certain qualifiers. The Bench further said “They have been regarded as enabling constitutional provisions. Additionally it has been postulated that the State is not bound to make reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotions. Therefore, there is no duty. In such a situation, to issue a mandamus to collect the data would tantamount to asking the authorities whether there is ample data to frame a rule or regulation. This will be in a way, entering into the domain of legislation, for it is a step towards commanding to frame legislation or a delegated legislation for reservation”
Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/no-constitutional-duty-provide-scst-reservation-matters-promotion-sc-refuses-direct-govt-collect-data-enabling-reservation/
March 11, 2016 It has been postulated that the State is not bound to make reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotions. Therefore, there is no duty. In such a situation, to issue a mandamus to collect the data would tantamount to asking the authorities whether there is ample data to frame a rule or regulation, the Bench said. Supreme Court, observing that there is no constitutional duty for the state to make reservation for SC/ST in matters of promotion, has refused to direct the Government to collect and gather the necessary data for the purpose of taking a decision as regards the promotion and consequential fixation of seniority. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant in Suresh Chand Gautam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh observed that if such a direction is granted, it would tantamount to a step towards framing of a rule or a regulation for the purpose of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotions, which is not permissible. State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotion Referring to M. Nagaraj & others v. Union of India & others, the Bench said that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotion. However, if the State wishes to exercise the discretion and make such provision, it has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335. The expression of the opinion clearly demonstrates that the regard being had to the enabling provisions of Articles 16(4-A) and (4-B), the State is not bound to make reservation, the Bench added. State cannot be commanded to exercise discretion The petitioners had prayed for issuance of a direction to the State of Uttar Pradesh to collect the data as enshrined in the Constitution Bench decision in M. Nagaraj case so that benefit of reservation in promotion can be given. The Bench observed “If we keenly scrutinize the relief sought, the prayer is to issue a mandamus to the State and its functionaries to carry out an exercise for the purpose of exercising a discretion. To elucidate, the discretion is to take a decision to have the reservation, and to have reservation there is a necessity for collection of data in accordance with the principles stated in M. Nagaraj (supra) as the same is the condition precedent. A writ of mandamus is sought to collect material or data which is in the realm of condition precedent for exercising a discretion which flows from the enabling constitutional provision. Direction of this nature, in our considered opinion, would not come within the principle of exercise of power coupled with duty.” No constitutional obligation to make reservation in promotion. The Court also observed that the language employed in M. Nagaraj case indicates that the State is not bound to make reservation in promotion and there is no constitutional obligation. The Court added that though in certain decisions, directions have been issued for framing of guidelines or the court has itself framed guidelines for sustaining certain rights of women, children or prisoners or under-trial prisoners, but those category of cases falls in a different compartment and are in different sphere than what is envisaged in Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) whose constitutional validity have been upheld by the Constitution Bench with certain qualifiers. The Bench further said “They have been regarded as enabling constitutional provisions. Additionally it has been postulated that the State is not bound to make reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotions. Therefore, there is no duty. In such a situation, to issue a mandamus to collect the data would tantamount to asking the authorities whether there is ample data to frame a rule or regulation. This will be in a way, entering into the domain of legislation, for it is a step towards commanding to frame legislation or a delegated legislation for reservation”
Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/no-constitutional-duty-provide-scst-reservation-matters-promotion-sc-refuses-direct-govt-collect-data-enabling-reservation/
Friday, 11 March 2016
CGHS beneficiaries including senior citizens can avail of specialist consultation from any government institution of the Central Government, State Government or local bodies. However, to avail of a procedure/investigation from a private empanelled hospital, a referral from the concerned CGHS Wellness Centre is necessary.
Following efforts have been made to provide better services to the senior citizens/pensioners:
1. There is a separate queue for senior citizens/ pensioners at registration counter and pharmacy counter in the CGHS Wellness Centres.
2. Senior citizens / pensioners can consult CMO i/c without standing in queue.
3. In case of emergency, CGHS beneficiaries including Senior citizens / pensioners can visit any hospital, empanelled or non-empanelled and avail medical treatment without any referral.
The Health Minister, Shri J P Nadda stated this in a written reply in the Lok Sabha here today.
Following efforts have been made to provide better services to the senior citizens/pensioners:
1. There is a separate queue for senior citizens/ pensioners at registration counter and pharmacy counter in the CGHS Wellness Centres.
2. Senior citizens / pensioners can consult CMO i/c without standing in queue.
3. In case of emergency, CGHS beneficiaries including Senior citizens / pensioners can visit any hospital, empanelled or non-empanelled and avail medical treatment without any referral.
The Health Minister, Shri J P Nadda stated this in a written reply in the Lok Sabha here today.
Thursday, 10 March 2016
Don’t Take Action On Anonymous Graft Complaints: CVC To Depts
New Delhi: There is no need to take action on anonymous or pseudonymous complaints of corruption against government employees, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has said.
Central Vigilance Commissioner K V Chowdary
In its Circular No.03/03/16 was issued to all ministries and public sector undertakings on Monday, the Commission said that such complaints only needed to be filed.
The directive to all ministries and public sector undertakings comes after CVC received references from departments and organisations seeking clarification on the action to be taken on anonymous or pseudonymous complaints, which were acted upon.
“No action should be taken on anonymous or pseudonymous complaints in line with Commission’s present instructions dated November 25, 2014 and such complaints should be filed,” it said.
The anti-corruption watchdog has been clarifying on the issue since 1999. In its guidelines issued yesterday, the CVC said the action pursued on anonymous or pseudonymous complaints prior to the issue of 1999 circular can be “pursued further to its logical end”.
Material or evidence gathered during the investigation or verification of anonymous complaints when the action was prohibited on such complaints, or when such enquiry was initiated without the approval of the CVC, can be utilised for further initiation of disciplinary proceedings on misconducts noticed in such verification or enquiry, it said.
The Commission usually gets a number of complaints against a government employee when he or she is being considered for a senior level post or for some important assignment, a senior CVC official said.
“The intention behind filing such a complaint is intended to delay the process of granting vigilance clearance to an employee. People have been asked to give verifiable details of corruption charges along with their details so that prompt action can be taken against guilty and to ensure that honest officers are not harassed,” he said.
The CVC gives vigilance clearance to senior government officials being considered for foreign postings, central deputation or other appointments.
All Chief Vigilance Officers–who act as distant arm of the CVC–have been asked to follow these latest guidelines while processing anonymous and pseudonymous corruption complaints, the official said.
Sunday, 6 March 2016
Officer can’t withdraw resignation once it is accepted, says tribunal
A revenue service officer who wanted her job back nearly three years after she resigned has been told she cannot withdraw her resignation as it had already been accepted by the government and surpassed the 90 days’ relaxation period.
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the plea of an Indian Revenue Service Officer of the 2002 batch seeking to withdraw her resignation from service in 2008 as she is now in a pathetic condition.
This is not the first instance of government officers putting in their papers and later struggling to get back the job.
In 1969, IAS officer Raj Kumar faced a similar fate when his appeal to the Supreme Court to withdraw his resignation after its acceptance by the government was dismissed by the top court. His contention — that the acceptance of the resignation was not communicated to him — was also dismissed by the apex court that said the resignation becomes effective once accepted. The case has now become a reference point for government counsel defending similar cases.
However, in an uncommon case, an IAS officer was able to get back the job even after over six years of resignation as it was later discovered that the resignation could not have been accepted due to a technicality issue. Later, the officer was in the running for the post of cabinet secretary.
In the current case, the lady officer, while working in Shimla, had resigned from service citing “sheer despair and depression” due to her continuous ill health and estranged relationship with her husband.
While the resignation was accepted on January 16, 2008, after a gap of three years, she sought to get her job back on “humanitarian grounds”. She contended that after her resignation, she is now unable to meet the expenses for her treatment and could not look after her little child as she had parted with her husband.
“Hence, in the interest of justice and on humanitarian grounds, her application for withdrawing her resignation is required to be accepted,” the plea said. The principal bench of CAT in Delhi, however, relied on the department of personnel and training’s office memorandum, which provides for relaxation of the time limit of 90 days between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty.
“Since the applicant, admittedly, applied for withdrawal of her resignation beyond the said permissible period, she cannot seek any relaxation of rules,” the tribunal held.
It also noted the government’s argument that once her resignation was accepted and published in the official gazette — a public document — non service of the same on her does not take away its effect.
On issuing the same, the relationship of an employer and an employee came to an end.
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the plea of an Indian Revenue Service Officer of the 2002 batch seeking to withdraw her resignation from service in 2008 as she is now in a pathetic condition.
This is not the first instance of government officers putting in their papers and later struggling to get back the job.
In 1969, IAS officer Raj Kumar faced a similar fate when his appeal to the Supreme Court to withdraw his resignation after its acceptance by the government was dismissed by the top court. His contention — that the acceptance of the resignation was not communicated to him — was also dismissed by the apex court that said the resignation becomes effective once accepted. The case has now become a reference point for government counsel defending similar cases.
However, in an uncommon case, an IAS officer was able to get back the job even after over six years of resignation as it was later discovered that the resignation could not have been accepted due to a technicality issue. Later, the officer was in the running for the post of cabinet secretary.
In the current case, the lady officer, while working in Shimla, had resigned from service citing “sheer despair and depression” due to her continuous ill health and estranged relationship with her husband.
While the resignation was accepted on January 16, 2008, after a gap of three years, she sought to get her job back on “humanitarian grounds”. She contended that after her resignation, she is now unable to meet the expenses for her treatment and could not look after her little child as she had parted with her husband.
“Hence, in the interest of justice and on humanitarian grounds, her application for withdrawing her resignation is required to be accepted,” the plea said. The principal bench of CAT in Delhi, however, relied on the department of personnel and training’s office memorandum, which provides for relaxation of the time limit of 90 days between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty.
“Since the applicant, admittedly, applied for withdrawal of her resignation beyond the said permissible period, she cannot seek any relaxation of rules,” the tribunal held.
It also noted the government’s argument that once her resignation was accepted and published in the official gazette — a public document — non service of the same on her does not take away its effect.
On issuing the same, the relationship of an employer and an employee came to an end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)