Central govt. employee problem- please help

Qualitative comments.Yet People from administrative side become answerable to the families.In otherwords, the punishment awarded need to be within withstandable proportion.Law amy take some lenient view on case to case basis....

Here is a case.Most outstanding person has been terminated on the grounds that the concerned person is not familiar with local language,with over required qualification.Family is under where abouts not known status.The law in the end has given value to the surving children.A case brief with reasonably well compiled facts...

Generally Administration feels sad only when formal intimation is not made available by the aggrieved.That is how the operation of CCS Rules travel with more accommodative sense in the best possible mind set about families...

the discussion is now turning vague.

Instead of the querist getting his due solution the query is stretching into an unneccesary debate,

In fact the practical difficulties are when service records are closed/misplaced.In both cases the procedure is to seek for reopening the records by means of Affidavit which is required to be serviced to the organisation concerned for obtaining the central/State Government sanction for reconstructing the service records with availble records.When the followup action is in process, the same needs to be intimated to the aggrieved directly or through the Government pleader for information,The relief required needs authorisation from family when the benefits are required to be extended to the families for releasal action.What the implementing authorities prefer wil be reasonable time when there is a transitional delay.Hope with this submission,many families will be found happy at distant dates.Regards slakshmanrao3@gmail.com

Surely,the Central Administrative Tribunal Guidelines will be of some use in the matters relating to exhausting the available channels before resorting to legal route(s).

Originally posted by : slakshmanrao
	Here is a case.Most outstanding person has been terminated on the grounds that the concerned person is not familiar with local language,with over required qualification.Family is under where abouts not known status.The law in the end has given value to the surving children.A case brief with reasonably well compiled facts...

The querist has not disclosed any facts as to

1. who is suspended
2. whether at at someone is suspnded
3. whether such person was at all boutstanding
4. whether such person was also mostboutstanding

My reply to Mr. Sudhir Kumar:

My contention is that the Government Servants Conduct Rules do not have the force of a “law of the land”.  If an Act of a Legislature or a Section or Sections of an Act of a Legislature is in conflict with another Act of the Legislature or a Section or Sections of another Act of the Legislature, only a High Court or the Supreme Court can decide whether the former or the latter shall prevail. On the other hand if a Rule or a set of Rules made outside of the Legislature is in conflict with an Act of the Legislature such Rule or the set of Rules shall have no validity at all. That is the meaning of  “force of the law of the land”.

Now Article 309 in exercise of powers under which the Government Servants Conduct Rules are made reads thus:

Under the first para of the above article only the Parliament or State Legislatures have the powers to make the Rules. But actually the Rules are made under the provisions of the second para of the same article. The second para only states that the Government need not wait until necessary laws are enacted by the concerned Legislatures to put in place a set of Rules. Further it states that such Rules will be subject to Acts that may be eventually made under the first para of the same article. The Legislatures have not passed any Acts under this article so far. I may be corrected if I am wrong. The Rules were made and are amended from time to time with no Act of the concerned Legislature being passed for the past 65 years. In fact every amendment has to be passed by the Legislature. Just because no time limit has been specified in para 2 of the Article it cannot be presumed that the situation can continue indefinitely. That is why I say that the Government Servants’ Conduct Rules do not have the force of an Act of Parliament/State Legislature.

Those who frame rules and amend them are fooling people by saying “In exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution.” This cannot be allowed to continue. Such continuation is continuation of a pretender.

Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]
	My reply to Mr. Sudhir Kumar: My contention is that the Government Servants Conduct Rules do not have the force of a “law of the land”.  If an Act of a Legislature or a Section or Sections of an Act of a Legislature is in conflict with another Act of the Legislature or a Section or Sections of another Act of the Legislature, only a High Court or the Supreme Court can decide whether the former or the latter shall prevail. On the other hand if a Rule or a set of Rules made outside of the Legislature is in conflict with an Act of the Legislature such Rule or the set of Rules shall have no validity at all. That is the meaning of  “force of the law of the land”. Now Article 309 in exercise of powers under which the Government Servants Conduct Rules are made reads thus: 309. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed , to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State:   Provided that it shall be competent for the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed , to such services and posts until provision in this regard is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article, any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act.     Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State.     Under the first para of the above article only the Parliament or State Legislatures have the powers to make the Rules. But actually the Rules are made under the provisions of the second para of the same article. The second para only states that the Government need not wait until necessary laws are enacted by the concerned Legislatures to put in place a set of Rules. Further it states that such Rules will be subject to Acts that may be eventually made under the first para of the same article. The Legislatures have not passed any Acts under this article so far. I may be corrected if I am wrong. The Rules were made and are amended from time to time with no Act of the concerned Legislature being passed for the past 65 years. In fact every amendment has to be passed by the Legislature. Just because no time limit has been specified in para 2 of the Article it cannot be presumed that the situation can continue indefinitely. That is why I say that the Government Servants’ Conduct Rules do not have the force of an Act of Parliament/State Legislature. Those who frame rules and amend them are fooling people by saying “In exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution.” This cannot be allowed to continue. Such continuation is continuation of a pretender.

Alas.  If I could hve necesary intellect and knowledge like you, the  I could have certainly understood what you mean to say