MG N RAO
08 October 2011 at 13:00
my wife has been denied child care leave by her employer even though on genuine grounds and she is the lone employee so far to be turned down it is vested interest only. now she is transferred to another place and orders has been issued by the highest authority ie. head quareters at delhi still relieving is not done and also no child care leave and he has virtually caused office arrest of a female employee what is the quick legal remedy for us
Member (Account Deleted)
07 October 2011 at 21:45
I made an appeal to the RTI Cell IHQ of MoD(Army), Sena Bhavan , New Delhi on 04 Aug 2011 as follows:-
a) Information of all the specific Rules which allows canteen facilities to be extended to the civilians.
b) Specific dates since which the facilities are extended.
c) Copy of the relevant circulars , name and rank of authority who issued the circular.
d) In addition if there is any vigilance mechanism where complaint may be given to them.
I have just recd the reply as follows vide their letter No A/810027/RTI/7642 dated 29 Sep 2011 recd today by ordinary post. It says :
a) Info on query No (a) - An extract copy of AO 2/2006/QMG is encl herewith . The photostat page of the extract of the Army Order is almost inlegible but let me try to decipher.
Para 12 . Defence Civilians ;- Following categories of civilians paid from Defence Services Estimates and also those employed in the under mentioned ministries / departments are permitted to make purchases from service canteens subject to payment of sales tax and other levies as per directions of the respective state where they are entitled to such facilities:-
- min of defence.
- defence audit deptt.
- executive officer cantonment board.
-hindustan aeronautics ltd
-indian defence accounts services who are serving on deputation to posts other than those in the min of defence9fin).
-secretarat border security roads development board and hq director gen border roads.
- civilian employees of unit/formation run canteens.
serving and retired employees of canteen stores departments who are getting pension from CSD funds.
2. Info on query No (b)- The canten facilities are extended to the civilians wef 27 Jun 1966.
3. Information on query No (c)- Copy of the circular mentioned in para 2(b) above is encl herewith. The circular att is a letter from Army Headquarters QMG DHO PO NEW DELHI dated 27 Jun 1966 addsd to HQ southern /western/Eastern and central command.
Subjects :- Canteen Facilities to civilian employees paid out of defence Estimates and also those employed in the min of defence , ministry of finance(defence) and their respective attached offices..
It goes on to say : - All civilians paid out of defence services estimates and also employed in the under mentioned ministries / departments will be permitted to make purchases from the services canteens on production of their authenticated photo bearing security passes ;-
It includes all the categories I have just listed which have now been included in the Army Order published in 2006.
I am in possession of a reply from the same office i.e QMG IHQ of MoD( Army) dated 04 Nov 2008 in reply to my RTI query earlier which states as follows :
Para 2 - The Army order under ref pertains to QMG bR . QMG is the nodal agency of the BOARD OF CONTROL CANTEEN SERVICES( wherein Hon'ble Rakha Mantri is the Chairman) to issue all policy instructions / directions / guidelines on behalf of the MOD. Accordingly the Army Order under ref was issued on the issue of URCs.
Para 3 - The Canteen facility less liquor and AFD items were extended to the serving civilian employees paid out of Defence Estimates as a goodwill gesture for their support to the Defence Services consequent a decision during the 53 Meeting of the BOCCS. Relevant Extracts of the same are encl.
As per the extract the meeting was held only on 18 Mar 1986.
One need not much brain to see through the game QMG is playing . I had asked for the Rules under which definition of Troops ( That is the pre condition to avail CSD facility) was diluted . Naturally that had to a cabinet/ Parliament decision as it immediately increase the clientele multifold and caused the govt crores of rupees on infrastructures as well as manpower to handle that extraordinary burdain to the exchequers .
For the military bosses and the Defence Audit Personnel and of course the IAS.COM more the merrier. GOvt of India bleeds , there are more expansion of the CSD,,More procurement more profit , more QD to the URCs and more income to that so called NON-PUBLIC funds held by the military bosses in collusion with the audit authorities as well as the IAS .com at the min of Deence as well as Offence sorry Finance.
And there is more. The Military bosses became bolder. They published Army Order kind Coutesy Gen J J Singh allowing Audit Staff/Est to run their own canteens ( the QMG letter talks about availing serfacility from services canteens). And the profit in those URCs are being paid as dividend to the civilian employees - what a wonder ful Idea Sirjiii?
Now the CSD depot are also running their own URCs( Could not covered by any of the Army Orders ) but they are there. The URC staff are just temporarily employed casual employees . The unit commanders / head of the est recruit them as per their whims and fancies ( following no govt of India policies) but they are also included to avail the CSD facility. Look at the level where the Min of Defence , the military bosses have stooped down to appease the Defence Auding officials , the casual employees of the URC so that CSD facility can be abused to its maximum potential converting consolidated funds of India to Non-public funds for the thre sewrvices , almost all departments of Defence and Offence.
I think we need that damn LOKPAL bILL URGENTLY. tHIS LOOT AND SCOOT AND PLUNDER OF NATIONAL WEALTH MUST CEASE TO EXIST.
Pl do help me making my next step.
Anonymous
06 October 2011 at 22:02
Dear Experts,
This query is related to this judgement available at http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SRB/judgement/23-05-2011/SRB20052011CW24912000.pdf
It is about the Delhi High Court nullifying the validity of July 13, 1962 notification exempting air guns, air rifles, air pistols from the requirement of license under the Arms Act 1959. I do understand that Hon'ble Delhi High Court did not apply its mind to the provision of Section 41(a) of the Arms Act 1959.
The query is: Does High Court have power to nullify a Central legislation under judicial review beyond its territorial jurisdiction or its effect has to be within its jurisdiction?
Bajrang Sharma
06 October 2011 at 11:12
this is my moot court problem. in this case a college installed cctv in order to achieve academic excellence and student discipline and also they connected cctv to internet.there was a girl in the clg who was chatting with a boy and her parents saw her chatting through cctv and when girl returned home, she was taken to task by her parents.likes of that girl who were getting monitored by their parents formed a association called students' privacy council and filed a writ petition in the high court, inter alia, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the college to remove cctv. now i am from behalf of the plaintiff...i.e i have to support that girl...NOTE- there was no security reason to install cctv.
Aishwarya Pandey
04 October 2011 at 23:16
Dear Sir,
just wanted to know that whether students have right to privacy in college/school premises? and if a university is declared as to be a deemed university, can a writ of mandamus be declared against ?
Anonymous
04 October 2011 at 20:53
MOOT PROBLEM
SADHANA, an NGO
V.
Union of India and Others
Five people were hit by a blue Volkswagen car in the state of Samata Pradesh, Union of India on February 12, 2009. The initial testimonies and a 20-minute film recorded next morning led the police to conclude that the hit-and-run was caused by three young drunk men. These three people were Siddhanth, Manik and the alleged driver Sanjeev, who is the grandson of a former General of the Indian Army, and son of a well known arms dealer.
This case came into lime light and caused public uproar on the evening of 25th July, 2009, when two senior advocates – Mr. Khanna, who was the Special Public Prosecutor in the case and Mr. Arun the advocate defending the main accused Sanjeev, son of the former Navy Chief, were shown by PKTV channel allegedly influencing the eyewitness Sunil. The video recording showed the defence lawyer and Sunil getting into a car where they talk of money and of changing testimony. The videos also show a common meeting between the prosecution and the defence lawyer and Sunil where they were trying to persuade him to change his statement and were offering him Rs. 5 crores for the same.
‘SADHANA’, an NGO filed a PIL in the Supreme Court questioning the sting operation and the ‘trail by media’, contending that responsibility of the media is to maintain professional standards by evolving a self-regulatory mechanism, and the sting operation is inconsistent with the freedom of the press.
In the PIL the petitioner complained of the impropriety of intruding into the privacy of the people, especially in the absence of stringent laws protecting the privacy in the country.
Main contentions of the Petitioner are:
1. Sting operations amount to contempt of court as they deal with matters sub judice and attempt to influence the minds of judges.
2. Sting operations intrude upon the privacy of a person and hence they are not covered by the freedom of speech which covers freedom of press under the Constitution of the country. They are also violative of Art. 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
3. Sting operations temp, if not force, someone to commit a crime and encourage law breaking which is unacceptable.
It is suggested by the Petitioner that in the event of such sting operations being found constitutional, still they should be allowed only against public servants that too when they are on duty, and further that the media should take prior permission for conducting such operations on the grounds that it would amount to pre-censorship.
The matter is posted for final hearing.
Counsels are expected to prepare memorandums for Petitioner and Respondent.
Anonymous
04 October 2011 at 14:55
shall not the assets of the RESPONSIBLE organisation be seized, liquidated and proceeds distributed among the victims family.this would have been the natural action in developed nation.
IS NOT THIS A FIT CASE FOR P.I.L, suo-motu proceedings, WHERE GOVERNMENT IS USING TAX PAYERS HARD EARNED MONEY TO PAY FOR MISTAKES OF PROFIT MOTIVATED ORGANISATION.
PLEASE GIVE YOUR VALUED ADVICE AS TO HOW THE MATTER SHALL BE PURSUED TO ACHIEVE A JUST CONCLUSION. or
RECOMMEND GOOD NGO WHO STAND FOR THIS CAUSE.
SSng Aulakh
03 October 2011 at 23:38
1. If Notice of motions in a Suit taken out by the Plaintiff for urgent reliefs remain pending for years together.
2. If the the matter on board is not reaching for months together.
3. Can any one inform that what Constitutional remedy the Plaintiff have got ?
4. Who should be held responsible for the sufferings of the Plaintiff and his family gone through due to the above ?
Please give an honest and unbiased reply.
sajugeorgep
02 October 2011 at 15:04
IS OUR JUDICIARY REALLY CORRUPT ?
Here are some shocking news items that appeared in news papers recently, regarding our “ independent and impartial judiciary “ as enunciated by our constitution !
Lakhs paid for a favourable verdict: Rauf
Express News Service , The New Indian Express
0
inShare
Share on Tumblr
KOCHI: In yet another controversy in the ice cream parlour case, it has come to light that K A Rauf, co-brother of Industry Minister P K Kunhalikutty, deposed that Justice K Thankappan and Justice K Narayana Kurup were
together paid an amount of `30 lakh for issuing orders favouring Kunhalikutty in the case.
According to the deposition, the then Advocate General M K Damodaran was paid `32.5 lakh for filing an affidavit in favour of the accused. Rauf had stated that Justice Thankappan and Judge Sathyan read out verdicts prepared by those connected with the accused.
Justice Thankappan was paid `25 lakh for getting four orders in favour of the accused, Advocate General M K Damodaran was given `32.5 lakh and Justice Narayana Kurup was given `5 lakh through his son-in-law, Rauf said in his deposition. He had also stated
that Kunhalikutty had scuttled the Kothamangalam sex case.
“Justice Kurup, who had dismissed a plea for CBI probe into the ice cream case, was given `5 lakh for a favourable judgment,” Rauf said adding that the money was given through Sunny, son-in-law of Justice Kurup. Sunny was contacted through former ADGP K C Peter. �
�In his deposition, Rauf said that Kunhalikutty was willing to give anything for blocking a CBI inquiry.
�When the case came up in the Supreme Court,the State as well as the police were asked to file affidavits. At that time, the then Advocate General M K Damodaran was contacted, Rauf said adding that he along with Kunhalikkutty had met Damodaran at least 10 to 30 times.
Though Damodaran wanted Kunhalikutty to close a loan liability of `69 lakhs for Malabar Aqua Farm Ltd in which his wife had a share, a settlement was reached by giving him `32.5 lakh. �
�Later, when the case was filed in the JFCM court, K V Joseph was appointed prosecutor and the order to incorporate his name in the panel was obtained from the department. The case came up before Judge Sudheer, who had mentioned the name of Kunhalikkutty at seven places, Rauf deposed.
�Additional Advocate General Beeran was contacted to shift the case from Judge Sudheer. When the appeals for shifting the case came up before Justice Thankappan, the draft order for Thankappan was prepared by Advocate Anil Thomas, Special Government Pleader to Advocate General. Later, the case was shifted to Sathyan, Principal Sub-judge. Judge Satyan was also paid `20 lakh for the judgment in their favour, he deposed.
Prosecutor Anoop Kishan was given a questionnaire to be asked to the witnesses. “All the witnesses were taught on the basis of the questionnaire in the house of Majeed at Chalappuram,” Rauf said. When the girls were scared of deposing, Kunhalikkutty accompanied him to meet the girls and
assured that everything had been arranged through the judge, Rauf’s deposition said.
Of the total, `36 lakh given to five girls, `11 lakh was given to Rejina, who had mentioned Kunhalikutty’s name in the affidavit. Immediately after the trial at
Kozhikode court, she was admitted to Vivek Mental Hospital. Rejula, who had also named Kunhalikutty, was given `3,15,000.
Rauf deposed that he along with Kunhalikutty went to Potta to meet� Fr Panakkal regarding the Kothamangalam case. After a closed door meeting with
Fr Panakkal, Kunhalikkutty asked him to pay `1 lakh and that everything had been settled.� Rauf alleged that even members of NHRC were bribed.
1. Former Law Minister and Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan , appearing before a Special Bench comprising of Justices Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and Dattu alleged that 8 of the former 16 Chief Justices of India were “definitely corrupt”. Shanti Bhushan accused 8 former Chief Justices of India of "corruption", and dared the Court to send him to jail for committing "contempt of court".
2. The Ex-chief Justice of India (CJI), KN Singh, must be applauded for his candid admission that Indian judiciary is not free from corruption.
3. The recent saga of Karnataka’s Chief Justice, PB Dinakaran’s selection to the Supreme Court has brought ignominy to the Indian judicial system whether or not he eventually gets a seat in the highest court of the land. Serious charges were raised against Justice Dinakaran that he has amassed excessive assets during his tenure as a judge in the lower courts. Obviously, these allegations insinuate that Justice Dinakaran has abused his position as a judge to accumulate disproportionate amount of wealth. It is important to remember that the clamor against selection of justice Dinakaran to the Apex Court was raised not only by the bar association in Bangalore but also by eminent jurists like Ram Jethmalani and Shanti Bhushan.
4. 77 % believe judiciary is corrupt: survey
A Transparency International report released on Thursday says that 77 per cent of respondents in a survey in India believe the judiciary is corrupt. According to the Global Corruption Report 2007, the perception of corruption is higher in India and Pakistan than in Hong Kong, Malaysia,
Singapore and Thailand. In Pakistan, 55 per cent of the respondents said the judiciary was corrupt.
“The degree of delays and corruption has led to cynicism about the justice system. People seek short cuts through bri-bery and favours, leading to further unlawful behaviour. A prime example is the unauthorized buildings in Indian cities. Construction and safety laws are flouted in connivance with persons in authority,” the report says.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/newdelhi/77-believe-judiciary-is-corrupt-survey/Article1-225145.aspx
5. Is corrupt judiciary the new reality of modern India?
Corruption has seeped deep into the Indian Judiciary. To say that judiciary is not corrupt is to negate the very truth. Judges come from the same society and are prone to greed, threats, fear and favour like any other human being. There are glaring instances of the judicial officers being involved in corruption cases. Recently a large amount of cash was wrongly delivered at the doorstep of a sitting judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh though meant to be delivered to a different judge. A CBI inquiry was instituted and the CBI found incriminating evidence to link a certain judge to have been involved in the case. However, the CBI sought to withdraw the case on the ground that the CBI was not given the mandatory permission by the Government of India and the CJI, required to prosecute a sitting High Court judge. Another glaring example of the corruption in the judiciary is the provident fund scandal in Ghaziabad court. In this case 21 judicial officers ranging from the ADJ to sitting judges of the High Court and a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India is involved. In this case too, the CBI was made to kneel and crawl before the Supreme Court seeking permission to interrogate the accused judges. The CBI was asked to submit the list of questions likely/proposed to be asked from the honorable judges.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
About resarvation categori in goverment jobs.
sir,,, meri query yah hai ki agar koi goverment job me selection rules me general category ke liye candidates ki age under 25 year honi chahiye and obc candidates ke liye age me 28 year and sc, st ke liye under 30 year age honi chahiye .and after competitive exam .general category ki cut of merit 65% and obc category ki cut of merit 63% declare hoti hai .and mene obc category me apply kiya ho and mere mark 68% ho but age 26 year ho to sir me general catgory ki seat par selecte hota hu ya obc ki seat par ..please rplyyy me sirrrrr