Member (Account Deleted)
09 October 2011 at 15:06
Dear Sir
This is direct from http://www.csdindia.gov.in/Customer/Objective.aspx. The noble objectives of the Canteen Stores Department of India a holy Cow for being milched for welfare of armed forces personnel is as follows:-
OBJECTIVES---
To Provide consumer goods of high quality to the troops wherever they are, at a price cheaper than the prevailing market rates, as far as possible.
To Ensure that the level of consumer demand satisfaction is maintained at the maximum.
To Generate reasonable profitability to sustain the organisation, permit growth and provide additional facilities for troops and their families.
To Formulate and execute development programmes to improve and maintain organizational effectiveness.
To Periodically analyse and assess the diverse long term needs and aspirations of defence service forces and undertake timely measures to meet them.
Aren't NOBLE?
But somewhere down the line the meaning of troops has been given a TWIST to expand its clientele. Take a look who are our troops in respect to Canteen Stores Departments to boost sales and earn profits and transfer most of the profits earned by a solely owned central govt enterprise to wholly disowned NON-PUBLIC funds held hostaged by again wholly mortgaged armed forces personnel, Defence ministry personnel and almost any body who is otherwise nobody. I paste the page 8 para 12 of recently public Army order, an order which is considered a non-entity by the audit officials in the govt of India.
Page 8 Para 12 Army Order 02/2006--
Para12-Following categories of civilian employees paid out of 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 taxes as per directions of the state where they are entitled to such facilities:
Ministry of Defence incl those working in their respective attached offices and those working in lower military formations.
Defence Audit Department.
Executive officer Cantonment Board.
Hindustan Aero nautics Ltd.
Indian Defence Accounts Services.
Secretariat Border Roads Development Board and HQ Director General Border Roads.
Civilian employees of Unit/Formation Run Canteens.
Serving AND RETIRED EMPLOYEES of Canteen Stores Department those are getting pension from CSD Funds .
And then another Army order is published to take this LOOT AND PLUNDER to another high level. Look at the content of Army Order 19/2006 which says :-
PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING SANCTION TO OPERATE A UNIT CANTEEN-
Para 1 - As per policy URC is given an independent registration number which facilitate it to draw the stores from the dependent depot directly. An extension counter can not be given a registration number and therefore can not draw stores from the depot but has to draw from dependent URCs.
Para 2.- As Direction COAS( Pl note this very carefully), it is proposed to est a chain of URCs and extention counters all over India ( could not extend it to other foreign countries , bad luck) to provide CSD facilities to ex-servicemen( pl note these words very carefully).There are certain remote areas where ex-servicemen concentration is large but no defence establishment exist to run a URC/EXTENTION counter.Extention counters for ex=servicemen opened in such areas were not found economically viable. Mobile canteens do not solve the problem as only grocery stores can be sold through them ( what a lie????). Par-force a need has been established to open a URC for exservicemen in such remote areas to make them economically viable.
Para 3-- In view of the avove it is felt( It was proposed in the earlier para)that a new Army Order may be issued to permit the opening of URCs where no active unit is located but have a large concentration of ex-service men present within close proximity.
AIM---
1. THE AIM of this Army Order is to lay down procedure for obtaining sanction ( by allotting new registration number) to operate a UNIT run Canteen .
LAY OUT----
1. Sanction to operate a unit canteen is accorded by the BDE/SUB AREA OR HIGHER FORMATION COMMANDER.XXXXX
2. sANCTION to run canteen will be subject to the following conditions:-
Unit( pl note the word UNIT) has on its posted strength the number of personnel not below hundred ( including attached personnel)9 These attached personel are floating mass and can be added elsewhere as well to justify the number 100) or where dependency of exservicemen( including their families) How is that)))are not below 5000.
xxxxxxx etc etc
3. After according necessary sanction the sub area/ Bde etc etc will forward the application to CSD with a copy to the unit certifying that the strength indicated comprises those eligible for CSD facilities .xxxxxxxxxxx( The govt of India is now on the loop giving the URCs a legality).
4. xxxxxxx
5. Units requiring financial assistance to run their own canteen or for expansion of their existing canteens can apply for grant of a loan to CSD( Look at this who is deciding that govt money be given on loan to NON-PUBLIC entities)as procedure laid down in AO 161/73( There is also an Army Order for that at the cost of govt exchequers for the privately funded URCs and hence not under RTI Act 2005.
6. (This is the para I WISH YOU TO GIVE A VERY SERIOUS LOOK) Other than from regular units of Army, Navy and Air Force the following are ( not units any more)eligible for running of their own canteens under the existing policy:-( Look at those words under the present policy????!!!!) By Army order 02/2006 it enabled the civilians from almost all categories to avail CSD facility from the SERVICES CANTEENS after paying sales tax etc etc. And then in the same year with the help of another Army order in the garb of establishing URCs for the ex-servicemen where there are large concentration of ex-servicemen in remote areas as per desires of COAS ( CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF- Must note this for future references)para 6 was clandestinely inserted as if authorising non-military units ( beyond the domain and control of COAS)to run their own URCs. Look at the names of the establishments as given below:
Para -Military force under operational / administrative control( If that be so where is the question of allowing them run their own canteens witha separate registration number?)
GREF Units.
NCC Units at Group Hq level
Army Staff and entiltled personnel
TA Units .
CDA's Staff/ Est ( Look who are being appeased and why)
Sainik Schools.
Ordnance Factories.
Embarkation Hq.
Est under the control of DGI , Min of Defeence .
Rastriya Indian Military College.
7.xxxxx8.xxxxx
96001/Q/DDGCS
sIGNED by Lt Gen A Natarajan
Adjutant General.
And what was the auth to extend CSD facilities to defence civilians ?
Take a look at the reply recd by me against my RTI query on 04 Nov 2008 from QMG Br IHQ of Min of Defence( Dy Dir GEN cANTEEN sERVICE )-
1.XXXXX
2.XXXXX
3. The canteen facility( less liquor and AFD items ) were extended to to serving Defence civilians employees paid out of Defence Estimates as a good will gesture for their support to the Defence Services consequest to a decision during 53rd Metting of the BOCCS( BOARD OF CONTROL CANTEEN SERVICES wherein the Defence Minister is the Chairman). Relevant extracts of the same is enclosed.
There are approximately 38 URCs being run by the CGDA /CDA ( List encl).
What the extract of the 53rd ( later changed to 56th Meeting held on 18 Mar 1986 states :
""" Para 22. xxxxxxxx. After a discusion it was brought out that all civilians employees paid from Defence Service Estimates and those employed in the undermentioned Ministries/Departments are permitted to make purchases from service Canteens-
Min of Defebce Min of Finance.
Defence Audit Deaprtments.
Indian Defence Acounts services.
GREF
Civilian employees of unit / formation canteens .
Civilian Gazetted officers etc etc
No there is mentioned of the reason(s) for their inclusion as had been highlighted by Dy Dir gEN of Canteen Services at the service HQ.
And no there was no sanction by any competent auth for COAS to desire est of URCs at remote locations for the ex-servicemen and authorising non-military govt deprtments to run their own canteens.
My question is where do I get the original govt notification the union of India mandating Canteen Stores Department to provide canteen facility to the troops.
And what was the order when Armed forces took over the CSD Retail outlets from the Private Contractors , who gave that order/ issued such notification. How do I get that notification?
Who should be the auth to include or exclude any central govt( CDA Staff/Est, CSD Staff/Est, Home Ministry officals ( Para-Military personnel / Est, Sainik Schools, Even Army Schools are availing the facilities)? Is it the cabinet decision , the parliament mandate or both?)
Pl advice .
Anonymous
07 October 2011 at 19:53
CAN ANY RETIRED EMPLOYEE AVAIL ESI BENEFIT AFTER RETIREMENT?IF SO WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE?
Anonymous
07 October 2011 at 19:39
Dear Sir,
I have worked in one of the Pvt. Ltd., company for 1 1/2 years. I got relieved relieved after given a 25 days prior notice to the company. I got relieved on 4th of Aug'11. The same day my salary has been credited through ECS for the month of Jul'11.
I have asked for full and final settlement to the MD. But he is not given any answer. Company has given "fare Well Party" to me on 05-Aug-11, all the department heads are attended to that meeting. At none of the above times they have not informed me regarding "No Due Certificate"
But they have not settled my Bonus, EPF, Salary for 4days, Incentive for the month of Jul'11 and Leave encashment. I given a first mail on 05-Sep-11 and after i sent 5 reminder mail, They are responded for 5th mail and they said that they need "No Due Certificate" from all the dept. and branch heads.
If I ask "No Due Certificate" now, the company people may manipulate the a/cs and DMS too. Kindly suggest me how can i get the above amounts.
Thanks & Regards
Anonymous
06 October 2011 at 20:15
what is difference between succession Act 1925 and 1956?
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.
Dr.Firdos Ahmed
04 October 2011 at 20:23
Gime me openion regarding power of High Court over rulling of Wakf Tribunal.
Anonymous
03 October 2011 at 19:58
sir,
please advise me in this reg.
Due to lack of faculty in govt polytechnics, andhra pradesh. Department of technical education, AP. Has appointed lecturers on contractual basis in all the polytechnics with a consolidated amount of salary Rs.10,000/- per month in general polytechnic and Rs.11,000/- per month in (GMR) govt model residential polytechnic (6 polytechnics in total state). For the academic year 2009-2010.
I was appointed in GMRP madanapalle, for the salary of Rs.11,000/- in the middle of the academic year due to budget problem (not allocation of budget to our college) we (13 contract members from our college) were transfered to various(3) general polytechnics and deputed to same polytechnic, by the commissionerate of technical education AP. Only to give salaries on proper time to us. But they forgot that the salary deviation is there. In this regard we have lost Rs.1,000/- per month. This we have informed to our higher afficial's but they are not responding up to level.
One among the three polytechnics principal gave salaries by Rs.11,000/- per month. Where as other two polytechnics principals are told that "as you have transfered to our polytechnic we will give salary as per our college norms only"
what shell i do?
Anonymous
30 September 2011 at 13:15
B is 100% wholly-owned subsidiary Co. of A. now A has decided to divest from its subsidiary Co.
Mr. X, holds 1 share in Company B for benefit of co A to full fill the minimum requirement of members in private Co.
earlier Mr. X has given declaration u/s 187C and Co has intimated same to the ROC.
Now as Co A is divest from Co B and also there will be no beneficial owner of any share, what form and formalities has to be complied?
Regards,
Bhupesh Pradhan
30 September 2011 at 11:29
Is it essential to pay 100% of VAT as CG VAT, for the first and second month of every quarter is 10th of subsequent month if the liable to pay tax ordinarily of rupees twenty five lacs per quarter or above or rupees one crore per annum or above
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Submission of fresh/additional evidence/consumer court
a consumer case is at the stage of cross exam of op.
it is expected that the op would not be telling truth on certain matters .
how can we as a complainant counter the lies with documents obtained through rti replies?
1) can we counter the wrong statements with this documents during cross exam?
2) should we seek the permission of the forum to admit this as additional evidence?
3) how do we mark this new evidence if required?can we give a copy of this to the OP and forum then?
4) exhibits A1 to A5 were submitted by us and examined by the op earlier.so during the cross exam,can we ask the forum to mark these additional evidence(if needed as it would depend upon the answers of the op during cross exam) for countering the op's replies as exhibit A6 and A7
eventhough,consumer forums are not bound to follow any strict technicalities,experts opinion on the above would be highly appreciated.