Member (Account Deleted)
09 December 2011 at 10:33
URCs are Private Ventures.CSD is a solely owned govt enterprise but govt of India though bleeds to provide this extraordinary facilities to the private ventures a meagre 50 % only passed onto CFI. Look at the post below:-
:Turnover of Defence Canteens
Turnover, Profit and Profit distributed to beneficiaries after depositing 50% in Consolidated Fund of India (CFI) of Canteen Stores Department (CSD) during the last three years, year-wise, is as under:-
(Rupees in Crore)
Profit distributed to beneficiaries
2007-08 84.44
2008-09 6955.11, 203.69 101.84
2009-10 8689.80, 226.53,113.26
2010-11 9534.29
Annual accounts for this period are under finalization.
"As per laid down policy, 50% of the total profits earned by CSD is being deposited into Consolidated Fund of India (CFI). The remaining 50% is distributed to various beneficiaries as determined by the Competent Authority. As per policy in vogue, after deduction of regular and adhoc allocations of 4.91 % of this amount, the balance is allocated to Army, Air Force and Navy in the ratio of 85:10:5.
This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in written reply to Shri Ram Krjpal Yadav and Shri Shadi Lal Batra in Rajya Sabha today."
Would somebody except those who thinks they are for the poor and needy people only please help me to get a copy of the " As per laid down policy 50 % of the total profits-----" as quoted by the Def Min of India. I have tried through RTI route but denied invoking JAG Army letter which has inferred that URCs are private ventures , not instrumentality of States and hence not covered by RTI Act 2005. That huge sums of money ( ours and yours money) for the past fifty years is going into pockets of some private individuals who are not accountable to either OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE/CAG , Defence Audit . It is a serious matter. And I need help.
amit
09 December 2011 at 07:10
Please guide me
"How to Write FIrst Appeal in RTI, under what section"
ARUN SHUKLA ADV
07 December 2011 at 15:33
Good morning Sir,
ghousia
05 December 2011 at 22:11
Dear Experts,
Kindly advice me, my passport is not being delivered, henquired we are told that as per ssc and present documents my name and my father's name differ.
My name as per ssc is ghousia
My father's name as per ssc is syed hazrath.
Due to some rules in our religion , i have added my surname to my name which is syeda and my father added ali and now all his documents have syed hazrath ali as the name.
Kindly advice me what can be done to get my passport legally.
In anticipation,
Ghousia
Anonymous
05 December 2011 at 12:52
Under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) rules, 1965, the office (a central govt statutory body) have issued memo to Mr X & Mr Y in Oct 2011 on ground of imputation of misconduct. A minor penalty had been declared for which explanation had been sought. The misconduct (favouring a firm in official work) had been indicated as committed in Jan 2006. In between this period, no charge sheet was ever given to Mr X. As many official were involved, an enquiry was presumably going on for Mr Z, who took final decision on the case. Mr X was never called as witness or otherwise or asked during inquiry process running for Mr Z. The recommendations or report of Inquiry are not known to Mr X. Now in above penalty order, Mr Z, who took final decision has been left with mere warning(after retirement) while Mr X & others are being panelized with Minor penalty.
Is this process correct and with in rules, when –
1. The charge sheet issued (presumably) was for Mr Z or not known against whom. Who was IO, PO or CO in above case was not known to Mr X or others
2. Mr X have never been issued any formal charge sheet, never called for enquiry running for Mr Z , transparency has not been adhered for Mr X or others (refer Principles of natural justice )
3. Decision to penalize was taken in March 2011 and being communicated in Oct 2011. Is it not time barred for communication as per CVC manual
4. why entire case can not be considered as time barred, as it is being communicated now after 5 years. Had it started in 2006, the case with penalty or not would had been over long time back, Starting now would effect future career prospects of Mr X or even retirement plans
Kindly comment/advise
Anonymous
03 December 2011 at 20:26
Difference betweeen public servant & Government servant ?
Can we say that Public Prosecutor , Additional Public Prosecutor & Assisstant Public Prosecutor is a public servant or Government servant.
pls suppor the answer with the Supreme Court Judgment as it very much urgent in need.
Pls do help me out.
i have aso heard that SC has given the judgment that list the category who are called as public sevant & who are called as govermnet servant.
thanks to all.
Anonymous
03 December 2011 at 16:27
Whether section 36 is discriminatory among woman having regard to the object to the act and is thereby violative of article 14 of the constitution of India?
Anonymous
03 December 2011 at 16:25
Whether section 36 of Domestic violence act is against the objective of the said act and other sections of the said act, If so can it be held ultra vires of the constitution?
Anonymous
03 December 2011 at 15:48
Whether section 36 of Domestic violence act is ultra vires to Article 15 (3) of the constitution of India.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Amendment in section 3 of punjab munciapl act 1911
Pls intimate me what does Section 3 of Punjab Muncipal Act 1911 says and also intimate me latest amendment if any