kanwal
10 April 2013 at 22:27
Sir,
My query is that I was a State Government servent. I went to deputation with the State Government Undertaking initially for one year during 1994 on hither post in higher scale of pay having higher duties and responsibilities. On joinging with the borrowing deparement, I opted their scale and pay was fixed accordingly. My deputation got extended on year to year basis on the same term and conditions as was settled by the lending department. And i contintued to draw salary from the deputation post and regular increments were granted on deputation post.
However, during 2012 the Department of Personnel issued instructions for change of nomenclature of deputation to secondment and it was also mentioned that the persons who are already in deputation will be governed with the existing guidlines. Fresh guidlines will be applicable to fresh cases.
However, in my case i was treated by the borrowing authority on secondment basis after the issue of these instructions and I continued to work for three years. The borowing authority by applying these guidilnes suo moto started giving salary on the basis of my parent post which I held during 1994 in my parent post, however, the nature of duties and responsibility remained the same.
Thus situation has created like that yesterday i was getting salary to present post and next morning pay on previous post. I protested the Departments but with no response.
So Kindly advice in the matter about next course of action. Is there any ruling from the Ld. Courts or any law on this issue.
Mudassirkhan Pathan
09 April 2013 at 19:37
Recently Karnataka faced ULB polls around 209 Local bodies were formed......
Elections underwent at a Rapid pace battle between Election Commissioner & Govt of Karnataka.....
The issues were 1) The election were carried accordingly to 2007 Reservations/categories.
Govt cried that it would be harsh to Women's who were demanding 50% & few minority ,backward communities would be injustice but the period of the ULB bodies were due hence Election Commissioner pleaded to Court of law & court(SC) upheld the plea of EC& directed to hold the Polls
My straight away question is few Peoples belonging to backward community were included in Scheduled Tribe during the Gazette of 2011 were they eligible to contest the election as they were not considered as ST during 2007......
Dhiraj Prabhakarrao Dongre
09 April 2013 at 18:38
Respected Sir,
10 days ago I received a dismissal letter from my authority in Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation that,I have been dismissed from the services and I was directed to come personally to Mumbai and sign the copies of the document and to submit my Identity card .
The departmental enquiry was conducted and completed ex parte as I could not attend the meetings of DE committee for hearing and cross examination of the witnesses as my subsistence allowance was not released and on account of it I was facing severe financial difficulties .
I am willing to do the services and also my age now is 36 years and I can get permanent service at this age.
Sir, what remedy I can avail of in this situation?
Dhiraj
Raja Shree
07 April 2013 at 22:21
Good Evening Sir,
Iam Hindu , from Hyderabad ,Andhra Pradesh.My name is Raja shree, and iam 28yrs old..married intercaste ..basically I belong to scheduled tribe and my husband is from OBC.would like to know whether I can opt ST certificate for my children, pls guide me..Thank u
lissing perme
06 April 2013 at 14:06
What is the meaning of Court quote "Let Rule issue" during proceeding.
darwy
03 April 2013 at 13:40
sir please inform me whether action taken report of PAC can be challenged in any court in india
Mukul
29 March 2013 at 13:32
I am confused as to where the following petition should be filed. Please guide me. Whether the appropriate forum is the AFT or some high court??? The synopsis goes like this..
The petitioner herein was recommended by the 11 Services Selection Board at Selection Centre East, Allahabad for 120 NDA course (Batch No. ANDA 61838-A, Chest No. 06) being All India Ranked 35 for AirForce and 88 for Army/Navy in the year 2008. After being recommended by the Service Selection Board, Allahabad he was sent to AFCME ( Air Force Central Medical Establishment ), New Delhi for medical examination where he was declared unfit showing the deformity ‘Hallux Valgus’ meaning the inward deviation of the big toe. Being aggrieved at declaring him unfit, he submitted an appeal before the Appeal Medical Board for re-examination of his medical fitness where also without taking an X-ray of his toe, he was declared unfit. The X-ray is essential to determine the degree of deformity. The petitioner again approached theReview Medical Board where although an X-ray was taken but here he was declared unfit without providing him the reports. Having made up his mind for himself for appearing other defence services examinations like University Entry Scheme and Technical Graduate Courses, he started pursuing B.Tech degree and alsounderwent NCC training. Right before applying for these examinations, he decided to gethimself examined regarding his deformity and accordingly he was examined by an orthopedicspecialist who deducted from physical examination of the petitioner’s feet that he was totally fit and the percentage ofdeformity of his Hallux Valgus was very minor and advised him to get the exact percentageof deformity from the Air Force medical authorities. After having known that he was medically fit and the purported action of the Medical Boards, the petitioner submitted applications under RTI Act seeking information about the findings of the Medical Boards and the acceptable standards in case of his deformity before therespondent authorities on various occasions. Though they provided him with the Medical standards, they never supplied the exact required information regarding his rejection to the petitioner. Later, the petitioner got his feet examined by a Reg Medical practitioner and obtained a certificate stating that the degree of deformity of his feet is Right=10 o and Left=10 o . The economic condition of the petitioner turning against him, he joined the Indian Air Force as an Airman on29-09-2010 and underwent training for almost a year and a half. The petitioner, managing time from the busy training schedule, submitted a representation on 20-04-2011 before the respondent authorities for restoration of hiscandidature for 2008 batch of 120 NDA but the respondent authorities in a most illegal and arbitrary manner without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, intimated the petitioner vide a letter dated 03-06-2011 referring to a speaking order dated 20-08-2010 that the instant speaking order addresses all the grievances of the petitioner. Subsequent RTI applications fetched no satisfactory responses. The petitioner even submitted an application in Aug 2012, through proper channel, to the Commanding Officer of 43 Squadron, his parent unit, for forwarding to appropriate authorities. The application got ‘trapped’ in the channel itself for months and even before it could be presented to the commanding officer, the petitioner was asked either to modify the content or to withdraw the application. The application is still held with the unit orderly room. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition WP(C) 595/2013 on 31-01-2013 in the Hon’ble Gauhati high court seeking justice but the Hon’ble court found it to be outside their territorial jurisdiction. The said petition was disposed of on withdrawal with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the appropriate forum vide order dated 21-02-2013.
Anand Mohan Pathak
27 March 2013 at 09:40
In this case UP Govt. by issuing an order rejected the recognition of all Anglo-Indian school though they were running since Independence of nation . For issuing this G.O. neither legislative assembly nor Cabinet passing procedure was adopted .Pl. tell me the exact procedure for issuing such type of G.O. .
Seshagiri Viswanatha Rao
24 March 2013 at 08:47
The Central Act mandates every government department/organisations/public and private sector for complying procedural norms including banking sectors in india. None of the branches in any branch have displayed the name of public authorities in any bank branch. Like-wise, railways have also not displayed it in the railway stations and a statutory requirement. Presume that these two important organisations have to fulfill the mandatory provisions of RTI Act,
Kindly confirm above presumption
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
97th constitution amendment act
Kindly clarify whether 97th Constitution Amendment Act supersede All State/ Multi State Cooperative Societies Act (Article 243ZT)