D Nanda Kumar
15 May 2015 at 19:39
JGD
CHAPTER 1
1. Due to the filing of the case by CBI my result in the promotion process in 1993 was kept in sealed cover. Since such CBI cases are long drawn, a provision for giving adhoc promotion was introduced in 1993 as amendment to Promotion policy. As per the same, review committee is to be formed by the Chairman & Managing Director every six months to review cases more than 2 years old to consider giving adhoc promotion.
The action of the Bank in this regard and the inaction of the Chairman & Managing Director are as under:
Action Result Inaction (by CMD)
Note put up on 28.07.1995
& first committee formed Due to sudden demise of one of the committee members review was not done. NO INVOLVEMENT
Second committee was formed on 06.09.1995 and review was done on 30.11.1995 Note recommending adhoc promotion was submitted to CMD. Marked to “ED” and on “ED’s” transfer to another Bank the note is consigned to the records.
Third committee was formed on 15.06.1999. Step 1
The committee asked for details of the case from the Vigilance dept. & personnel dept. (Ref. Notes dated 13.06.2000, 29.07.2000) and reported to CMD vide note dated 24.08.2000.
CMD raised 3 queries viz. The present status, reason for Bank not taking action against me & how terminal benefits given to other Officer mentioned in the case etc. And made a remark as under:
ED may examine these points as well as other aspects of the long pending issue and put up with his comments at the earliest.
Step 2
On getting satisfactory report from Vigilance & Personnel departments the committee met on 13.09.2000 and a note dated 21.09.2000 recommending adhoc promotion was submitted to CMD.
Please discuss.
Step 3
Note explaining the process with due recommendation of the Chief Vigilance Officer put up on 20.10.2000.
Remark by CMD:
Did we make any specific reference to CBI in respect of Mr. Nandakumar (& Mr. Pushkar Raj) seeking No objection of the CBI for promotions to these Officers.
Step 4
Note dated 07.11.2000 was put up with reply to the query duly signed by GM (per.) & GM(Vig.) (that at the discretion of the Bank the Officers can be given adhoc promotion & that the CBI is not concerned with the internal decision of the Bank)
Remark by GM(Vig.):
As directed by Chairman to discuss the matter, I discussed the same with him on 23.11.2000. Based on the position obtaining up to date, it is considered that this could be re-examined at the time of the next Review of Sealed Covers Procedure or next promotion process.
Papers returned for the needful at Personnel Deptt. Pl.
(Needless to add that the CMD was to retire very soon & no review committee was formed in his tenure)
Fourth committee was formed and put up a note dated 18.06.2001 Recommended adhoc promotion from the date of signing of the note by CMD. There is no remark whatsoever on the note by the CMD based on the copy provided to me under RTI Act, 2005.
Fifth committee was formed by CMD on 20.12.2007.
(This is the last committee formed for review not only for my case but in general also although statutorily a review of all cases need to be done every six months) Step 1
The committee called for the personal information by letter dated 18.01.2008 regarding
1. Assignments and duties performed
2. Achievement of allocated targets,
3. Exemplary achievements outside the Bank, &
4. Overall performance.
On getting a very satisfactory report these for two decades of my service, the committee finalized the findings on 07.03.2008 recommending once again adhoc promotion.
The Chairman & Managing Director signed the report on 08.03.2008 with comments for discussion with Committee & General Manager (HR) (as per reply to my RTI query).
Note:
I was personally informed by the then GM (legal) who attended the said meeting that Chiarman & Managing Director voiced his concern as to how the person (myself) is tolerating the injustice for so long and not yet gone to court. The GM(Legal) &/or GM(Per) present was asked to personally convey his feelings to me (to go to court). It is once again needless to mention that the CMD was due for retirement in December, 2008 by which time no court decision is likely to come.
1. Based on the documents already obtained by me under RTI act 2005 I filed writ petition in the High Court of Bombay and obtained a judgement by the bench on 01.10.2008 directing the CMD to take a decision within 8 weeks. (Writ petition no. 1614 of 2008 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1247211) . The same CMD had to act for a change.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director had also the privilege of reading the following remark in the said judgement which I feel is a personal remark calling for introspection:
“Even otherwise a duty is cast on the Respondents to act fairly. The petitioners’ case has not been reviewed in terms of the Regulations. Where a power is conferred on an authority, the authority conferred with the power has a corresponding duty to act and that too fairly.”
From the above it is clear that there is a dereliction of duty and gross denial of justice. The Bank released the adhoc promotion as per the judgement but not from the date of judgement as recommended in the note but from the date 24.11.2008 there by robbing me of any monetary benefits.
3. After getting the relief & after putting in a satisfactory service of 38 & odd years, I attained superannuation on 31.03.2010 and retired with full terminal benefits including pension.
CHAPTER 2
The case no. 6 of 1992 stands disposed off now and as per judgement dated 26.03.2014 I stand acquitted on merits. I have made claims on the Bank by letter addressed to the Chairman & Managing Director submitted on 16.07.2014 and thereafter sent reminders on 1.10.2014, 18.10.2014, 12.11.2014, 24.12.2014, 30.12.2014, 23.01.2015, 02.02.2015, 28.03.2015, 14.04.2015 and 28.04.2015 staking my claims for the following:
a. Release/regularization of adhoc promotion with notional date from the date of promotion
b. For considering my claim for future promotions denied to me by the Bank’s action/non action ,
c. Adequate monetary compensation from the Bank to mitigate the injustice, ignominy and mental agony as well as trauma I was put through by action & non action of the Bank
Representation dated 11.07.2014 and several reminders have been blatantly ignored despite my age (65 years) and health condition (Cancer Survivor).
Further, it is also mentioned in the said High Court judgement (mentioned in the first chapter) that “Needless to say that subsequently, if the Petitioner is exonerated or discharged or acquitted from the charges, the Petitioner’s promotion would be considered in terms of the rules in force pertaining to sealed cover procedure.
THE NON ACTION CONTINUES DESPITE THE ABOVE DIRECTION (WHICH ACCORDING TO ME TANTAMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDER).
Harish Wani
15 May 2015 at 17:33
If in Maharashtra (Navi Mumbai) factory owner appoint contractor and under that contractor 50 Mathadi workers are working for loading and unloading then which act is applicable for factory owner.
Thanks in Advance
Advocate M J
15 May 2015 at 16:53
Good Afternoon
Is a mortgage deed with registration is important to be entered between the borrower and the financial institution according to RBI and according to law
thank You
Laxmisaran
15 May 2015 at 16:22
Attached is the family chart. The owner of the property have 3 children's(2 daughters+1 son). Gave the property in writing for 2 kids and unwritten for one son. Following are my questions.
1)Whether the legal heirs of the son are allowed to construct in the unwritten property or land?
Note: Unwritten means, the property is in the name of owner(ie. the son's father).
2)Whether they are allowed to let out the constructed place?
3)What is the procedure for the legal heirs of the son to construct the property?
4) Note: The legal heirs of the son are staying in this property for more than 50 years.
Thank you.
Pankhuri
15 May 2015 at 16:05
Hi, this happened at Pune at my aunt's place, there is a mango tree in her garden and her servant comes regularly and climbs the tree and pluck mangoes but the other day while doing this, he fell down and was unconscious. Immediately he was taken to hospital, he was declared dead, ECG reading was negligible no hospital agreed to admit him and finally the third hospital where he was taken admitted him, could you please tell me what legal implications would arrive in this situation?
srinivasan
15 May 2015 at 14:45
1.sir in a portion suit filed by the daughters against brothers, both the parties come to settlement , with a compromise degree , the three daughter collectively take 30% and the rest 70% by the two brothers in the joint family partnership business now the daughter are requesting the brothers to make fresh agreement as per the compromise degree, they are denying to do so.
2. the business is ancillary unit BHEL the daughters do not want to appoint commissioner for selling the property/ business since it is family business.
3.the daughters have also issued a notice to the banker not to operate the current account with the old partnership agreement and enclosed the compromise degree, and also notice to BHEL requesting them to insist for fresh agreement as per the compromise degree bought of them has not taken any steps in this regard .
4.sir I request you to kindly guide us in what way we can put pressure on them ,to stall the business and the bank account. so that the agreement is done without selling the property can we approach the court to direct hem to form a fresh agreement, sir please give us all the possible ways to make fresh agreement
Dinesh
15 May 2015 at 13:48
Dear Experts,
Am in negotiations with a builder for purchasing a house.
Its around 8 years old property.
They were granted full occupational certificate 5 years back in 2010, which says certain conditions should be met like 1). Society should be formed and registered 2). Conveyance should be given to the members.
Now the fact is that neither the society has been formed nor has the conveyance been given since the last 5 years since the Occupation certificate was granted though many members have bought flats in the building and are staying there.
I want to know that, is it safe to purchase property in such a society where the society has not been formed and the conveyance is also not given by the builder yet.
The builder says he's waiting for 70% of the property to be sold as only then a society can be formed and that will take another one year.
Thanks for spending time for reading my query and your expert advice.
Ratan Kumar Banka
15 May 2015 at 13:38
Sir
Please provide me any Case law or judgement regarding that bank is not allowing any Advocate in personal hearing of the Borrower to declare Wilfill defaulter
Mysore Kapaniah
15 May 2015 at 12:34
Dear Sir, SC had passed a judgement in January 2015 upholding Madras HC judgement on providing reservations up to grade VI in officers' cadre in PSBs and FIs.The case centred around a DoPT circular regarding such reservations in PSBs/FIs. It is understood that a review petition has been filed on this SC judgement. It is understood that many of the PSBs have not followed the SC judgement while carrying out promotional procedures during this year stating that they are waiting for instructions from the Ministry of Finance to implement the SC order, while some have come out with revised policies providing for reservations up to grade VI. As review petition is not a stay on SC order on a case which revolved around the original DoPT circular issued to all the banks and FIs kindly advise if the PSBs are right in their stand for not implementing the SC order of January 2015 'till further orders/instructions' from the ministry of Finance.Under what circumstances the PSBs may withhold implementation of SC order and go ahead with the process of promotions in defiance of SC order.Grateful your well appreciated advice. With best regards.
Raghav saggar
15 May 2015 at 12:29
What are the dispostional alternatives under probation of offenders
Sealed cover procedure-denial of benifits
JGD
CHAPTER 1
1. Due to the filing of the case by CBI my result in the promotion process in 1993 was kept in sealed cover. Since such CBI cases are long drawn, a provision for giving adhoc promotion was introduced in 1993 as amendment to Promotion policy. As per the same, review committee is to be formed by the Chairman & Managing Director every six months to review cases more than 2 years old to consider giving adhoc promotion.
The action of the Bank in this regard and the inaction of the Chairman & Managing Director are as under:
Action Result Inaction (by CMD)
Note put up on 28.07.1995
& first committee formed Due to sudden demise of one of the committee members review was not done. NO INVOLVEMENT
Second committee was formed on 06.09.1995 and review was done on 30.11.1995 Note recommending adhoc promotion was submitted to CMD. Marked to “ED” and on “ED’s” transfer to another Bank the note is consigned to the records.
Third committee was formed on 15.06.1999. Step 1
The committee asked for details of the case from the Vigilance dept. & personnel dept. (Ref. Notes dated 13.06.2000, 29.07.2000) and reported to CMD vide note dated 24.08.2000.
CMD raised 3 queries viz. The present status, reason for Bank not taking action against me & how terminal benefits given to other Officer mentioned in the case etc. And made a remark as under:
ED may examine these points as well as other aspects of the long pending issue and put up with his comments at the earliest.
Step 2
On getting satisfactory report from Vigilance & Personnel departments the committee met on 13.09.2000 and a note dated 21.09.2000 recommending adhoc promotion was submitted to CMD.
Please discuss.
Step 3
Note explaining the process with due recommendation of the Chief Vigilance Officer put up on 20.10.2000.
Remark by CMD:
Did we make any specific reference to CBI in respect of Mr. Nandakumar (& Mr. Pushkar Raj) seeking No objection of the CBI for promotions to these Officers.
Step 4
Note dated 07.11.2000 was put up with reply to the query duly signed by GM (per.) & GM(Vig.) (that at the discretion of the Bank the Officers can be given adhoc promotion & that the CBI is not concerned with the internal decision of the Bank)
Remark by GM(Vig.):
As directed by Chairman to discuss the matter, I discussed the same with him on 23.11.2000. Based on the position obtaining up to date, it is considered that this could be re-examined at the time of the next Review of Sealed Covers Procedure or next promotion process.
Papers returned for the needful at Personnel Deptt. Pl.
(Needless to add that the CMD was to retire very soon & no review committee was formed in his tenure)
Fourth committee was formed and put up a note dated 18.06.2001 Recommended adhoc promotion from the date of signing of the note by CMD. There is no remark whatsoever on the note by the CMD based on the copy provided to me under RTI Act, 2005.
Fifth committee was formed by CMD on 20.12.2007.
(This is the last committee formed for review not only for my case but in general also although statutorily a review of all cases need to be done every six months) Step 1
The committee called for the personal information by letter dated 18.01.2008 regarding
1. Assignments and duties performed
2. Achievement of allocated targets,
3. Exemplary achievements outside the Bank, &
4. Overall performance.
On getting a very satisfactory report these for two decades of my service, the committee finalized the findings on 07.03.2008 recommending once again adhoc promotion.
The Chairman & Managing Director signed the report on 08.03.2008 with comments for discussion with Committee & General Manager (HR) (as per reply to my RTI query).
Note:
I was personally informed by the then GM (legal) who attended the said meeting that Chiarman & Managing Director voiced his concern as to how the person (myself) is tolerating the injustice for so long and not yet gone to court. The GM(Legal) &/or GM(Per) present was asked to personally convey his feelings to me (to go to court). It is once again needless to mention that the CMD was due for retirement in December, 2008 by which time no court decision is likely to come.
1. Based on the documents already obtained by me under RTI act 2005 I filed writ petition in the High Court of Bombay and obtained a judgement by the bench on 01.10.2008 directing the CMD to take a decision within 8 weeks. (Writ petition no. 1614 of 2008 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1247211) . The same CMD had to act for a change.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director had also the privilege of reading the following remark in the said judgement which I feel is a personal remark calling for introspection:
“Even otherwise a duty is cast on the Respondents to act fairly. The petitioners’ case has not been reviewed in terms of the Regulations. Where a power is conferred on an authority, the authority conferred with the power has a corresponding duty to act and that too fairly.”
From the above it is clear that there is a dereliction of duty and gross denial of justice. The Bank released the adhoc promotion as per the judgement but not from the date of judgement as recommended in the note but from the date 24.11.2008 there by robbing me of any monetary benefits.
3. After getting the relief & after putting in a satisfactory service of 38 & odd years, I attained superannuation on 31.03.2010 and retired with full terminal benefits including pension.
CHAPTER 2
The case no. 6 of 1992 stands disposed off now and as per judgement dated 26.03.2014 I stand acquitted on merits. I have made claims on the Bank by letter addressed to the Chairman & Managing Director submitted on 16.07.2014 and thereafter sent reminders on 1.10.2014, 18.10.2014, 12.11.2014, 24.12.2014, 30.12.2014, 23.01.2015, 02.02.2015, 28.03.2015, 14.04.2015 and 28.04.2015 staking my claims for the following:
a. Release/regularization of adhoc promotion with notional date from the date of promotion
b. For considering my claim for future promotions denied to me by the Bank’s action/non action ,
c. Adequate monetary compensation from the Bank to mitigate the injustice, ignominy and mental agony as well as trauma I was put through by action & non action of the Bank
Representation dated 11.07.2014 and several reminders have been blatantly ignored despite my age (65 years) and health condition (Cancer Survivor).
Further, it is also mentioned in the said High Court judgement (mentioned in the first chapter) that “Needless to say that subsequently, if the Petitioner is exonerated or discharged or acquitted from the charges, the Petitioner’s promotion would be considered in terms of the rules in force pertaining to sealed cover procedure.
THE NON ACTION CONTINUES DESPITE THE ABOVE DIRECTION (WHICH ACCORDING TO ME TANTAMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDER).