Swaminathan Mohan
06 June 2012 at 12:11
Sir,
I am Mohan from Chennai. I got appointed as Branch Manager based at Chennai for a leading distributor from B'lore 3 month before. 1st month salary I recd and after completion of 2nd month, they told me your services are not required without citing any reason.But even otherwise I have completed all the handing over procedures. But after that also,with so many reminders they are not settling my accounts. Kindly advise me how proceed further.
Rwgards,
S.Mohan
RAKESH KUMAR
06 June 2012 at 11:45
Sir,
my brother joined a Government of Indian Undertaking company in Feb-2011 as operator on the basis of his engineering diploma.
In offer of Appointment important points were.
-Training period will be of 3 to 6 months may be extended/curtailed on discretion of management.
-Stipend 10,000/- p.m.
-Bond period 3 years after successful completion of training.
-Management can terminate employment any time, without assigning any reasons.
-The candidate needs to handover Original certificates to company, till bond period over.
-They ask us to execute the bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) and hand over the Original certificate
The bond amount was very hues and some of the points were not clear hence we spoken to HR deptt. of company. The HRD replied that these conditions are common and not to worry. We urgently required people for operation and hence within three month training will be completed. After that the candidate will get good salary and perks.
Then we executed a bond for Rs 2,00,000/- (Two lakh) to complete 6 month training and 3 year service thereafter and handed over all original certificated to company. Similarly 5 more trainees joined in that batch.
After that real trouble start:
-The company doesnave any training programme for these operators.
-After that till today 1 year 4 months completed the training period is not yet completed. (Appointment order only 3 to 6 months training and bond executed for only 6 month training).
-Even 4 trainees has completed 2 years training instead of 3 to 6 month there training also not completed.
-The company not giving back the Original certificate also.
Problem:
We donnow when training will complete. All the trainees are mentally harassed. then no question of completion of bond.please inform
-How long 3 to 6 month training can be extended as per Indian government law.
-Whether this bond become VOID on extension of training.
-How to get original certificate back.
Please inform how to escape from this big trouble.
Regard,
Rakesh Kuamr
narender
05 June 2012 at 23:06
I request the expert to kindly guide me and provide me information on the above subject. The brief facts of my case are as follows-
My wife applied for the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) in Health & Family Welfare Deptt, GNCT of Delhi under UR category. The opening date for the submission of application was 16/06/2008 & the closing date for same was 10/07/2008. As per the advertisement there were total 44 vacancies out of which 21 were unreserved and 23 were reserved (SC-05, ST-05 & OBC-13). The recruitment was conducted by DSSSB.
As per result notice dated 08/03/2010 my wife secured 112/200 marks in the selection exam. and was placed at 30th position/rank in the merit list. DSSSB provisionally selected 16 candidates in UR category and forwarded their dossiers to the user deptt. The result of 05 candidates was kept in abeyance as their dossiers were found deficient with the direction to the candidates to report to the office of DSSSB for the rectification of deficiencies. This was done up to the merit position 24 as 03 candidates up to the merit position 24 were ineligible. The candidates at merit position 25 & 28 were also ineligible for the post. The candidates at merit position 26 & 27 being belonging to OBC were selected against the seats reserved for OBC and both of them after completion of other requirements had joined their duties & currently working on them. The candidate at merit position 29 belongs to UR category.
In the meantime, out of 05 pending cases in UR category, the candidature of 02 candidates was rejected by DSSSB in Feb.11 because they were found ineligible for the post & out of 16 provisionally selected candidates in UR category; the candidature of 02 candidates was cancelled by user deptt. as the certificate related to essential qualification was found bogus in 01 case & candidate had not reported to the user deptt for the completion of other essential requirements in another case.
On dated 10/02/2011 the user deptt. wrote to the DSSSB to forward the dossiers of 02 more candidates from the UR category from the waiting list / merit list on account of cancellation of candidature of 02 candidates by user deptt. but no response was given by DSSSB in this regard.
My wife gave representation to the DSSSB to consider her candidature for the post but no action was taken by DSSSB.
Aggrieved by the inaction of DSSSB we approached the CAT, Principal Bench, N. Delhi to consider the claim of my wife for the post against one of the 04 unfilled vacancies in UR category. Hon’ble CAT disposed the O.A. on 20/10/2011 by directing the DSSSB to forward the dossiers of 02 UR category candidates according to the merit and as per rules. Copy of Hon’ble CAT order is hereby enclosed.
Consequently DSSSB approached Delhi High Court with writ petition and managed to get stayed the implementation of CAT order. In the writ petition DSSSB claimed that since as per the directions of Delhi Govt. no waiting list was maintained by DSSSB it is not possible for them to consider the claim of my wife as per CAT order against unfilled vacancies in UR category and further at any case this will be done than at that stage the entire result required to be reprocessed and the candidates who were at serial no. 26 & 27 in the merit list and who were earlier selected against seats reserved for OBC category and because they were earlier not selected against UR seats due to the non-availability of seats in UR category shall be migrated / adjusted against 02 UR seats as per CAT order and in these circumstances my wife will not get any relief. Now writ petition is pending before Hon’ble High Court.
My queries are as follows-
1. That after joined and currently working against OBC category seats can OBC category candidates be adjusted / migrated to UR seats on the basis of their merit in selection exam. which became available on the later stages of recruitment process due to the reason that some of the provisionally selected candidates in unreserved category found ineligible for the post.
2. Where and how the question of not maintaining the waiting list arises when some of the provisionally selected candidates were found ineligible for the post and on what basis DSSSB can adjust ineligible candidates against vacancies.
3. Can DSSSB disturb or modify the arrangement which was working for more than one year and where both the OBC category candidates have not make any objection for their selection against OBC seats and not against UR seats.
4. Whether or not DSSSB have any legal right to reprocess the result & change the selected category of candidates who had already joined against a particular category.
5. Since the Hon’ble CAT give relief against only 02 unfilled vacancies as per the demand of user deptt. and not against 04 unfilled vacancies, can my wife put her claim for the post against 04 unfilled seats in the Hon’ble High Court?
I request the experts to provide me information regarding service rules and Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon’ble High Courts in support of my case.
Thanks.
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-738/2011
New Delhi this the 20th day of October, 2011.
Hon ble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Hon ble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Mrs. Rajni,
W/o sh. Narender Kumar,
R/o H. No. 176, Pocket-7,
Block-8, Sector-4,
Rohini, Delhi-85. .. Applicant
(through Sh. M.S. Reen, Advocate)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others : through
1. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Players Building,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Chairman,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board (DSSSB),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-92.
3. The Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board (DSSSB), Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-92.
4. The Director,
Directorate of ISM and Homeopathy,
A & U, Tibia College,
Karol Bagh,
Delhi-5. . Respondents
(through Ms. Alka Sharma, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No. 3 to sponsor the applicant s name for appointment on the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) she has filed the present O.A. seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) That this Hon ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this Original Application and direct the respondents no. 2 & 3 to consider her case for appointment for the post of Pharmacist (Homoeopathy), post code 001/08 without any discrimination.
(ii) That this Hon ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this application and direct the respondent no. 2 to take a decision to fill up 04 un-reserved vacant vacancies as per merit list dated 8.3.2010 declared by the respondents no. 2 & 3 from the UR category without any discrimination.
(iii) That any other or further relief which which this Hon ble Tribunal may be deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant.
2. In response to the advertisement of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) for recruitment to the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) under Post Code No. 001/08, the applicant applied for appointment under unreserved quota. The advertisement Notice of 001/08 mentioned about availability of 44 vacancies out of which 21 were unreserved, 13 were reserved for OBC, 05 for SCs and 05 for ST candidates. It is the case of the applicant that she had qualified in the test held by DSSSB and her position was at Serial No.30 (page-35 of the scrutiny report in respect of applications received). It does not indicate that there was any deficiency in respect of her application. The DSSSB declared the results of the test in their Notice dated 08.03.2010. It also brought out the comparative merits of the candidates which indicate that the applicant, a general category candidate, had secured 112 marks and was placed at serial No. 30 as per her merit.
3. However, detailed scrutiny of the applications made subsequently revealed that a number of candidates placed higher in the merit list either were not eligible or had not submitted the requisite certificates. Further, the department itself had also rejected a number of candidates. Besides, many OBC candidates having scored higher marks were being considered under general category. For these reasons the last person recommended and appointed was one Prashant Singh at Serial No.24. The candidates at Serial Nos. 25 to 28 belong to OBC category. There was only one candidate at Serial No. 29 Yudhvir Singh belonging to general category who remained ahead of the applicant. Since all the vacancies could not be filled up, the user department, namely, the Directorate of ISM & Homeopathy wrote to the DSSSB in their letter dated 08.02.2011 to recommend names of three candidates (two UR and 1 SC for appointment for the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy). These facts are narrated in the preliminary submission of the counter-reply itself.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the DSSSB should have recommended two names of general candidates on the basis of their position in the merit list to the user department as per their requisition. Since the applicant is at No.2 position in the waiting list her name is bound to be recommended for consideration of the appointing authority, but, unfortunately no action has been taken by the Board.
5. We do not find any averment of the respondent, which contradicts the facts submitted by the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents was strenuously trying to argue that the applicant did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, but no such averment is forth-coming in the counter-reply. On the other hand, the scrutiny paper at page-34 does not reveal any deficiency in respect of her application. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that if the subsequent requisition of the user department is to be considered, then two OBC candidates Ms. Suman Verma and Ms. Amit Kumar at Serial No. 26 and 27 respectively of the merit list will have to be selected in UR category instead of under OBC category. Their appointment under UR category was not allowed earlier in view of the availability of limited vacancy in UR category.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant, in reply, submits that both the candidates Ms. Verma and Ms. Kumar had taken advantage of relaxation available to OBC candidate. Therefore, they could not be considered under UR category.
7. We find that there is a requisition for recommending names of two UR category candidates and one SC candidate, which is yet to be acted upon by the Board. It is not the case of the respondents that a fresh selection process has been initiated so as to invalidate the panel which was prepared in respect of Post Code No.01/08. In these circumstances, the decision of the Board not to take any action to sponsor names from the waiting list of the panel prepared by them is not appreciated.
8. In the circumstances, the respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to sponsor names of 2 UR category candidates and 1 SC candidate out of select list of eligible candidates available with them on the basis of their respective merits in accordance with Rules within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. The OA is disposed of in terms of aforesaid directions. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/vinita/
narender
05 June 2012 at 22:56
I request the expert to kindly guide me and provide me information on the above subject. The brief facts of my case are as follows-
My wife applied for the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) in Health & Family Welfare Deptt, GNCT of Delhi under UR category. The opening date for the submission of application was 16/06/2008 & the closing date for same was 10/07/2008. As per the advertisement there were total 44 vacancies out of which 21 were unreserved and 23 were reserved (SC-05, ST-05 & OBC-13). The recruitment was conducted by DSSSB.
As per result notice dated 08/03/2010 my wife secured 112/200 marks in the selection exam. and was placed at 30th position/rank in the merit list. DSSSB provisionally selected 16 candidates in UR category and forwarded their dossiers to the user deptt. The result of 05 candidates was kept in abeyance as their dossiers were found deficient with the direction to the candidates to report to the office of DSSSB for the rectification of deficiencies. This was done up to the merit position 24 as 03 candidates up to the merit position 24 were ineligible. The candidates at merit position 25 & 28 were also ineligible for the post. The candidates at merit position 26 & 27 being belonging to OBC were selected against the seats reserved for OBC and both of them after completion of other requirements had joined their duties & currently working on them. The candidate at merit position 29 belongs to UR category.
In the meantime, out of 05 pending cases in UR category, the candidature of 02 candidates was rejected by DSSSB in Feb.11 because they were found ineligible for the post & out of 16 provisionally selected candidates in UR category; the candidature of 02 candidates was cancelled by user deptt. as the certificate related to essential qualification was found bogus in 01 case & candidate had not reported to the user deptt for the completion of other essential requirements in another case.
On dated 10/02/2011 the user deptt. wrote to the DSSSB to forward the dossiers of 02 more candidates from the UR category from the waiting list / merit list on account of cancellation of candidature of 02 candidates by user deptt. but no response was given by DSSSB in this regard.
My wife gave representation to the DSSSB to consider her candidature for the post but no action was taken by DSSSB.
Aggrieved by the inaction of DSSSB we approached the CAT, Principal Bench, N. Delhi to consider the claim of my wife for the post against one of the 04 unfilled vacancies in UR category. Hon’ble CAT disposed the O.A. on 20/10/2011 by directing the DSSSB to forward the dossiers of 02 UR category candidates according to the merit and as per rules. Copy of Hon’ble CAT order is hereby enclosed.
Consequently DSSSB approached Delhi High Court with writ petition and managed to get stayed the implementation of CAT order. In the writ petition DSSSB claimed that since as per the directions of Delhi Govt. no waiting list was maintained by DSSSB it is not possible for them to consider the claim of my wife as per CAT order against unfilled vacancies in UR category and further at any case this will be done than at that stage the entire result required to be reprocessed and the candidates who were at serial no. 26 & 27 in the merit list and who were earlier selected against seats reserved for OBC category and because they were earlier not selected against UR seats due to the non-availability of seats in UR category shall be migrated / adjusted against 02 UR seats as per CAT order and in these circumstances my wife will not get any relief. Now writ petition is pending before Hon’ble High Court.
My queries are as follows-
1. That after joined and currently working against OBC category seats can OBC category candidates be adjusted / migrated to UR seats on the basis of their merit in selection exam. which became available on the later stages of recruitment process due to the reason that some of the provisionally selected candidates in unreserved category found ineligible for the post.
2. Where and how the question of not maintaining the waiting list arises when some of the provisionally selected candidates were found ineligible for the post and on what basis DSSSB can adjust ineligible candidates against vacancies.
3. Can DSSSB disturb or modify the arrangement which was working for more than one year and where both the OBC category candidates have not make any objection for their selection against OBC seats and not against UR seats.
4. Whether or not DSSSB have any legal right to reprocess the result & change the selected category of candidates who had already joined against a particular category.
5. Since the Hon’ble CAT give relief against only 02 unfilled vacancies as per the demand of user deptt. and not against 04 unfilled vacancies, can my wife put her claim for the post against 04 unfilled seats in the Hon’ble High Court?
I request the experts to provide me information regarding service rules and Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon’ble High Courts in support of my case.
Thanks.
narender
05 June 2012 at 22:52
I request the expert to kindly guide me and provide me information on the above subject. The brief facts of my case are as follows-
My wife applied for the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) in Health & Family Welfare Deptt, GNCT of Delhi under UR category. The opening date for the submission of application was 16/06/2008 & the closing date for same was 10/07/2008. As per the advertisement there were total 44 vacancies out of which 21 were unreserved and 23 were reserved (SC-05, ST-05 & OBC-13). The recruitment was conducted by DSSSB.
As per result notice dated 08/03/2010 my wife secured 112/200 marks in the selection exam. and was placed at 30th position/rank in the merit list. DSSSB provisionally selected 16 candidates in UR category and forwarded their dossiers to the user deptt. The result of 05 candidates was kept in abeyance as their dossiers were found deficient with the direction to the candidates to report to the office of DSSSB for the rectification of deficiencies. This was done up to the merit position 24 as 03 candidates up to the merit position 24 were ineligible. The candidates at merit position 25 & 28 were also ineligible for the post. The candidates at merit position 26 & 27 being belonging to OBC were selected against the seats reserved for OBC and both of them after completion of other requirements had joined their duties & currently working on them. The candidate at merit position 29 belongs to UR category.
In the meantime, out of 05 pending cases in UR category, the candidature of 02 candidates was rejected by DSSSB in Feb.11 because they were found ineligible for the post & out of 16 provisionally selected candidates in UR category; the candidature of 02 candidates was cancelled by user deptt. as the certificate related to essential qualification was found bogus in 01 case & candidate had not reported to the user deptt for the completion of other essential requirements in another case.
On dated 10/02/2011 the user deptt. wrote to the DSSSB to forward the dossiers of 02 more candidates from the UR category from the waiting list / merit list on account of cancellation of candidature of 02 candidates by user deptt. but no response was given by DSSSB in this regard.
My wife gave representation to the DSSSB to consider her candidature for the post but no action was taken by DSSSB.
Aggrieved by the inaction of DSSSB we approached the CAT, Principal Bench, N. Delhi to consider the claim of my wife for the post against one of the 04 unfilled vacancies in UR category. Hon’ble CAT disposed the O.A. on 20/10/2011 by directing the DSSSB to forward the dossiers of 02 UR category candidates according to the merit and as per rules. Copy of Hon’ble CAT order is hereby enclosed.
Consequently DSSSB approached Delhi High Court with writ petition and managed to get stayed the implementation of CAT order. In the writ petition DSSSB claimed that since as per the directions of Delhi Govt. no waiting list was maintained by DSSSB it is not possible for them to consider the claim of my wife as per CAT order against unfilled vacancies in UR category and further at any case this will be done than at that stage the entire result required to be reprocessed and the candidates who were at serial no. 26 & 27 in the merit list and who were earlier selected against seats reserved for OBC category and because they were earlier not selected against UR seats due to the non-availability of seats in UR category shall be migrated / adjusted against 02 UR seats as per CAT order and in these circumstances my wife will not get any relief. Now writ petition is pending before Hon’ble High Court.
My queries are as follows-
1. That after joined and currently working against OBC category seats can OBC category candidates be adjusted / migrated to UR seats on the basis of their merit in selection exam. which became available on the later stages of recruitment process due to the reason that some of the provisionally selected candidates in unreserved category found ineligible for the post.
2. Where and how the question of not maintaining the waiting list arises when some of the provisionally selected candidates were found ineligible for the post and on what basis DSSSB can adjust ineligible candidates against vacancies.
3. Can DSSSB disturb or modify the arrangement which was working for more than one year and where both the OBC category candidates have not make any objection for their selection against OBC seats and not against UR seats.
4. Whether or not DSSSB have any legal right to reprocess the result & change the selected category of candidates who had already joined against a particular category.
5. Since the Hon’ble CAT give relief against only 02 unfilled vacancies as per the demand of user deptt. and not against 04 unfilled vacancies, can my wife put her claim for the post against 04 unfilled seats in the Hon’ble High Court?
I request the experts to provide me THEIR OPINION on the above matter and give me information regarding service rules and Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon’ble High Courts in support of my case.
Thanks.
COPY OF CAT ORDER
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-738/2011
New Delhi this the 20th day of October, 2011.
Hon ble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Hon ble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Mrs. Rajni,
W/o sh. Narender Kumar,
R/o H. No. 176, Pocket-7,
Block-8, Sector-4,
Rohini, Delhi-85. .. Applicant
(through Sh. M.S. Reen, Advocate)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others : through
1. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Players Building,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Chairman,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board (DSSSB),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-92.
3. The Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board (DSSSB), Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-92.
4. The Director,
Directorate of ISM and Homeopathy,
A & U, Tibia College,
Karol Bagh,
Delhi-5. . Respondents
(through Ms. Alka Sharma, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No. 3 to sponsor the applicant s name for appointment on the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) she has filed the present O.A. seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) That this Hon ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this Original Application and direct the respondents no. 2 & 3 to consider her case for appointment for the post of Pharmacist (Homoeopathy), post code 001/08 without any discrimination.
(ii) That this Hon ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this application and direct the respondent no. 2 to take a decision to fill up 04 un-reserved vacant vacancies as per merit list dated 8.3.2010 declared by the respondents no. 2 & 3 from the UR category without any discrimination.
(iii) That any other or further relief which which this Hon ble Tribunal may be deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant.
2. In response to the advertisement of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) for recruitment to the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) under Post Code No. 001/08, the applicant applied for appointment under unreserved quota. The advertisement Notice of 001/08 mentioned about availability of 44 vacancies out of which 21 were unreserved, 13 were reserved for OBC, 05 for SCs and 05 for ST candidates. It is the case of the applicant that she had qualified in the test held by DSSSB and her position was at Serial No.30 (page-35 of the scrutiny report in respect of applications received). It does not indicate that there was any deficiency in respect of her application. The DSSSB declared the results of the test in their Notice dated 08.03.2010. It also brought out the comparative merits of the candidates which indicate that the applicant, a general category candidate, had secured 112 marks and was placed at serial No. 30 as per her merit.
3. However, detailed scrutiny of the applications made subsequently revealed that a number of candidates placed higher in the merit list either were not eligible or had not submitted the requisite certificates. Further, the department itself had also rejected a number of candidates. Besides, many OBC candidates having scored higher marks were being considered under general category. For these reasons the last person recommended and appointed was one Prashant Singh at Serial No.24. The candidates at Serial Nos. 25 to 28 belong to OBC category. There was only one candidate at Serial No. 29 Yudhvir Singh belonging to general category who remained ahead of the applicant. Since all the vacancies could not be filled up, the user department, namely, the Directorate of ISM & Homeopathy wrote to the DSSSB in their letter dated 08.02.2011 to recommend names of three candidates (two UR and 1 SC for appointment for the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy). These facts are narrated in the preliminary submission of the counter-reply itself.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the DSSSB should have recommended two names of general candidates on the basis of their position in the merit list to the user department as per their requisition. Since the applicant is at No.2 position in the waiting list her name is bound to be recommended for consideration of the appointing authority, but, unfortunately no action has been taken by the Board.
5. We do not find any averment of the respondent, which contradicts the facts submitted by the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents was strenuously trying to argue that the applicant did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, but no such averment is forth-coming in the counter-reply. On the other hand, the scrutiny paper at page-34 does not reveal any deficiency in respect of her application. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that if the subsequent requisition of the user department is to be considered, then two OBC candidates Ms. Suman Verma and Ms. Amit Kumar at Serial No. 26 and 27 respectively of the merit list will have to be selected in UR category instead of under OBC category. Their appointment under UR category was not allowed earlier in view of the availability of limited vacancy in UR category.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant, in reply, submits that both the candidates Ms. Verma and Ms. Kumar had taken advantage of relaxation available to OBC candidate. Therefore, they could not be considered under UR category.
7. We find that there is a requisition for recommending names of two UR category candidates and one SC candidate, which is yet to be acted upon by the Board. It is not the case of the respondents that a fresh selection process has been initiated so as to invalidate the panel which was prepared in respect of Post Code No.01/08. In these circumstances, the decision of the Board not to take any action to sponsor names from the waiting list of the panel prepared by them is not appreciated.
8. In the circumstances, the respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to sponsor names of 2 UR category candidates and 1 SC candidate out of select list of eligible candidates available with them on the basis of their respective merits in accordance with Rules within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. The OA is disposed of in terms of aforesaid directions. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/vinita/
T. K. Jacob
05 June 2012 at 15:52
Sir,
Kindly enlighten me on the following case:
Our Institute is under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR- autonomous body)under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.
One of our permanent employees (Technical Officer) was suspended from service as a case was registered against him under Wild life act for poaching and killing a deer. He was granted bail by the Judicial First Class Migistrate. The Institute (Indian Institute of Spices Research, Kozhikode, Kerala ) charge-sheeted him and proceedings are initiated. He has directly filed a case in the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for stopping the disciplinary proceedings and to reinstate him in service.
He is under suspension for more than 6 months.
Whether he can approach the High Court with out prior permission of the employer? and without approaching the CAT?
Whether we can call for an explanation from him for directly filing the case in the High Court?
Kindly advise me.
Thanking you in advance,
T.K. Jacob, Principal Scientist, Indian Instittue of Spices Research, Kozhikode- 673 012, Kerala. Mob. 09447539967
VAIBHAV JAIN
05 June 2012 at 15:04
Respected Sir,
We are working in UPCL,Urja Bhawan, Dehradun as Assistant Accountant.
Our Scale of Pay as per 6th Pay Commission is 5200-20200 and Grade Pay is Rs 3000.
Recently in our Organisation the Data Entry Operators were demanding a cadre as they don't have one as yet. They initiated many correspondences with the Human Resource Department of UPCL and sought information through many mediums including RTI's.
There claims are under consideration in the Secretrait also and due to this their demands were placed in the 56th Board Meeting of UPCL in which their grade pay was enhanced from current Rs 2600 to Rs 3000, which is equivalent to the Grade pay of an Assistant Accountant in our department, whereas the responsibilities and the skills involved in the work of both are very contrasting and the post of Asst Accountant entails more skill and calls for higher accountability from all sections of the department.
The old scale of data entry operators was Rs 4200-100-6400 whereas the revised payscale is Rs 5200-20200.(Grade Pay 2600)revised Grade pay Rs 3000.
The old scale of Asst Accountants was Rs 4500-125-7500 whereas the revised payscale is Rs 5200-20200.(Grade Pay 3000)
In reference to the details cited above. we would kindly request your goodself to guide us in this regard as to whether we should also claim an enhanced grade pay which is Rs 4200 and what are the ways we can adopt to get our deserved grade pay.
Thanking you
Yours Sincerely
All Asst Accountants
UPCL, Dehradun.
chitra gupta
05 June 2012 at 12:11
The ill fated employee is a victim of conspiracy made by high level officials and been put under suspension since 2003 during sanctioned EL period at home town(.)The employer did not revoke the EL and the employee had applied to the appealate authority to consider the suspension order( without serving any show cause notice) and requested the authority to give him permission to stay at his home town during EL period to avoid double establishments(and also on security point of view)....it was never answered and the victim knocked the door of the hon" ble high court (WP was filed and now a sub- judice matter).The hon"ble court has now directed the employer to pay un-paid subsistance allowance(for more than 45months) to the pettn./employee within 3weeks without putting any condition(.) The employer/respondent has failed to disburse the un-paid sub.allowance within the schedule framed by the hon"ble high court and now asking the victim to visit its office and put signatures on some papers and to collect cheque(.)Earlier cheques were sent to the victim"s home town by regd. post(.)Now,question is.....can any respondent put pressure on the pettn.before releasing any sub.allowance payment cheque(as per hon"ble court order)and put condition which was never asked for...? we know that non- payment of sub.allowance is violation of ART.21 of the constitution where the victim/pettn is submitting non employment certificate on regular basis by post/fax/e-mail(.)plz. advise......future course of action....thanks in anticipation to all(>)
Subrahmanyam
04 June 2012 at 18:40
Is PT pay both as a director and also as an employee if the director is also a salaried employee of the company
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Reservation rules in govt. jobs
I request the expert to kindly guide me and provide me information on the above subject. The brief facts of my case are as follows-
My wife applied for the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) in Health & Family Welfare Deptt, GNCT of Delhi under UR category. The opening date for the submission of application was 16/06/2008 & the closing date for same was 10/07/2008. As per the advertisement there were total 44 vacancies out of which 21 were unreserved and 23 were reserved (SC-05, ST-05 & OBC-13). The recruitment was conducted by DSSSB.
As per result notice dated 08/03/2010 my wife secured 112/200 marks in the selection exam. and was placed at 30th position/rank in the merit list. DSSSB provisionally selected 16 candidates in UR category and forwarded their dossiers to the user deptt. The result of 05 candidates was kept in abeyance as their dossiers were found deficient with the direction to the candidates to report to the office of DSSSB for the rectification of deficiencies. This was done up to the merit position 24 as 03 candidates up to the merit position 24 were ineligible. The candidates at merit position 25 & 28 were also ineligible for the post. The candidates at merit position 26 & 27 being belonging to OBC were selected against the seats reserved for OBC and both of them after completion of other requirements had joined their duties & currently working on them. The candidate at merit position 29 belongs to UR category.
In the meantime, out of 05 pending cases in UR category, the candidature of 02 candidates was rejected by DSSSB in Feb.11 because they were found ineligible for the post & out of 16 provisionally selected candidates in UR category; the candidature of 02 candidates was cancelled by user deptt. as the certificate related to essential qualification was found bogus in 01 case & candidate had not reported to the user deptt for the completion of other essential requirements in another case.
On dated 10/02/2011 the user deptt. wrote to the DSSSB to forward the dossiers of 02 more candidates from the UR category from the waiting list / merit list on account of cancellation of candidature of 02 candidates by user deptt. but no response was given by DSSSB in this regard.
My wife gave representation to the DSSSB to consider her candidature for the post but no action was taken by DSSSB.
Aggrieved by the inaction of DSSSB we approached the CAT, Principal Bench, N. Delhi to consider the claim of my wife for the post against one of the 04 unfilled vacancies in UR category. Hon’ble CAT disposed the O.A. on 20/10/2011 by directing the DSSSB to forward the dossiers of 02 UR category candidates according to the merit and as per rules. Copy of Hon’ble CAT order is hereby enclosed.
Consequently DSSSB approached Delhi High Court with writ petition and managed to get stayed the implementation of CAT order. In the writ petition DSSSB claimed that since as per the directions of Delhi Govt. no waiting list was maintained by DSSSB it is not possible for them to consider the claim of my wife as per CAT order against unfilled vacancies in UR category and further at any case this will be done than at that stage the entire result required to be reprocessed and the candidates who were at serial no. 26 & 27 in the merit list and who were earlier selected against seats reserved for OBC category and because they were earlier not selected against UR seats due to the non-availability of seats in UR category shall be migrated / adjusted against 02 UR seats as per CAT order and in these circumstances my wife will not get any relief. Now writ petition is pending before Hon’ble High Court.
My queries are as follows-
1. That after joined and currently working against OBC category seats can OBC category candidates be adjusted / migrated to UR seats on the basis of their merit in selection exam. which became available on the later stages of recruitment process due to the reason that some of the provisionally selected candidates in unreserved category found ineligible for the post.
2. Where and how the question of not maintaining the waiting list arises when some of the provisionally selected candidates were found ineligible for the post and on what basis DSSSB can adjust ineligible candidates against vacancies.
3. Can DSSSB disturb or modify the arrangement which was working for more than one year and where both the OBC category candidates have not make any objection for their selection against OBC seats and not against UR seats.
4. Whether or not DSSSB have any legal right to reprocess the result & change the selected category of candidates who had already joined against a particular category.
5. Since the Hon’ble CAT give relief against only 02 unfilled vacancies as per the demand of user deptt. and not against 04 unfilled vacancies, can my wife put her claim for the post against 04 unfilled seats in the Hon’ble High Court?
I request the experts to provide me information regarding service rules and Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon’ble High Courts in support of my case.
Thanks.