HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CAUSE LIST

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CAUSE LIST

COURT NO. 9
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE K. SUGUNA
TO BE HEARD ON TUESDAY THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2010 AT.10.30.A.M.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


66. WP.10442/2008 M/S.KARTHIK M/S R.SURESHKUMAR SPC R1 R2&R3
(Service) MUKUNDAN BATTA WITH PETITION DUE REG R4
NEELAKANTAN IN WP
NOT READY NOTICE REG R4

Appeal from a Whistle blower for justice

IS DOPT IN SLUMBER OR IMPOTENT ?

HOW THE COMMERCE MINISTRY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION!!!

I was a govt. employee of Export Inspection Agency-a statutory body under Commerce Ministry, covered by CCS Pension Rules of 1972.In 1994 over 700 employees opted for SVRS & govt. partly settled retirement benefits till 1997. We filed cases for not effecting full payment of attended benefits.

Simultaneously after 11years of my efforts I got an original circular of Commerce Ministry dt.21/05/1994 under RTI Act-2005 which exposed that the 1994-VRS scheme itself is not an approved one by the Nodal depts. Also the commerce ministry’s executive fiat which was circulated among employees was deliberately edited by the officials to cheat the employees. So the circular is NULL & VOID & the scheme is ILLEGAL as the Commerce Ministry has violated all the constitutional provisions.

From 2005 I have been approaching various govt. agencies for Justice. With no tangible solutions forthcoming I filed a fresh writ in Madras high court which is still pending. My efforts for a negotiated settlement also failed. My appeals to the Hon’ble PM-incharge of ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension, and the Hon’ble President-custodian of Pension Act-1871 did not receive the attention.

Pension is not a bounty and ministry officials cheated the employees by circulating an executive fiat which suppressed the facts to deprive our fundamental right to pension. When one time legislators demand pension, the govt. employees who have worked for over 20years have been fooled by the fraudulent SVRS-1994 circular & Clandestine action.

DOPT (Dept. of personnel & training) right under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension is breaking the laws of RTI Act-2005 by not taking any steps but making a MOCKERY of entire grievance handling system. For reasons best known to them even CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION IS A MUTE SPECTATOR.

What is the use of systems when babu’s are not working? As long as the responsibilities are not fixed, anybody in power can violate the rules & even constitutional provisions as done by the Commerce ministry officials in 1994.

IN THE NAME OF TRADE LIBERALIZATION THIS FRAUD WAS COMMITTED TO DEPRIEVE PENSION BENEFITS OF EMPLOYEES. SEE THE CONTINUOUS CORRUPTION/SCAMS & THEIR MASSIVE SCALE!!!!

 PLEASE HELP ME TO HIGHLIGHT THIS FRAUD IN THE MEDIA THROUGH YOUR CONTACTS.

                     With regards-VENKATESAN.M

For more details Please visit http://venkym.blogspot.com
http://citizenscharters-amockery.blogspot.com/

COURT NO. 9
                                HON'BLE  MR JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
                       TO BE HEARD FROM MONDAY THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
       TO FRIDAY THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010

64.    WP.10442/2008          M/S.KARTHIK                   M/S R.SURESHKUMAR SPC R1 R2&R3
       (Service)              MUKUNDAN
                              NEELAKANTAN

Questions public servants are afraid to answer « e – Voice For Justice

Questions public servants are afraid to answer « e – Voice For Justice

The essential feature , lifeline of democracy is information flow between

CITIZENS <– > PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATIVES <–> PUBLIC SERVANTS. The ” Right to Expression ” is a fundamental right , democratic right of every Indian citizen & also it is a basic human right. To express means to have proper access to information , assimilate it & respond. Inspite of fundamental right of expression TOGETHER WITH INFORMATION , the public servants rarely respected it. The public were forced to go to higher courts to secure their rights which took years & lot of money. The government with a good intention of giving information at affordable costs within a stipulated time frame has framed RTI ACT . IT has caused jitters among public servants , as the informations are opening-up their crimes , corruptions are coming to light. Now , they are opposing disclosing file notings.

The public servants while assuming the government office take a oath that they will carry on their duties without FEAR OR FAVOUR , WITHOUT ILL WILL , BIAS ON ANY GROUNDS & they will strictly uphold the rule of law. However the greedy , corrupt public servants are caste conscious , they base their judgements , reasonings on illegal grounds make notings favouring some , disapproving others. These file notings play a very important role in decision making in government service. As their file notings are not logically based , law abiding , but are based on bribe , favours , based on their personal feelings as human beings , the decisions arrived at based on those notings are not legal as per constitutional terms. This meats out injustices , this is what is happening in government service since independence. Now, RTI ACT wants to put an end to it , however public servants are opposing it. The public servants who oppose the disclosure of their file notings are one who are working against the spirit , letter & objective of their oath of office.

Right To Information Act was brought into force by government of india , to check corruption among public servants & to bring accountability in public service. The public servants are careless about RTI ACT , as they have cunningly diluted the penal provisions of the act & have curbed it’s jurisdiction. On top of it , the public servants have hand picked their favourites & posted them to central information commission & state information commissions. At any cost , these public servants would not let the truth to come out into open , information to become public , as it will be their death knell pointing towards their ill-gotten wealth , riches.

The worst violators of RTI ACT are staff at president of india’s secretariat & the staff at chief justice of india’s office. What a shame to our democracy ?

HRW has appealed to CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & Karnataka State Information Commission , about violation of RTI ACT by public servants , their total disregard for the earlier directions of KSIC . Till date there is no word from KSIC or what action has been taken ? this gross negligence of duty by KSIC is aiding criminals / public servants in burying their crimes. Hereby HRW once again appeals to the KSIC to order the respective public servants to provide the information sought for , my KSIC COMPLAINT NO : KSIC/61/COMPLAINT/2006.
If the constitutional body supposed protect the rights of citizens itself violates it , fate of citizens ? god , help my india. Jai hind , vande mataram.

Your’s sincerely,

Nagaraj.m.r.

THIS IS HOW MOST OF THE BABUS IN GOVT.DEPTS BEHAVE & ESPECIALLY DOPT OFFICIALS !!!!!

Smt. Amina vs State Of Raj. And 4 Ors. on 30 January, 1995

Smt. Amina vs State Of Raj. And 4 Ors. on 30 January, 1995

Smt. Amina vs State Of Raj. And 4 Ors. on 30 January, 1995

Cites 9 docs - [View All]

Smt. Gopi vs Megh Raj on 12 August, 1986

Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Article 309 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Inder Parshad vs Union Of India on 20 June, 1994

Article 148 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Citedby 1 docs

Jagat Prakash Roy Bhatnagar vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 2 February, 1995

Blog Links

powered by

Rajasthan High Court

Equivalent citations: 1995 (1) WLN 429

Bench: A Madan

Smt. Amina vs State Of Raj. And 4 Ors. on 30/1/1995

JUDGMENT

Arun Madan, J.

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of violation of Arts. 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in the matter of payment of family pension to the petitioner, a widow of a Late retired class IV employee, resident of Tehsil Jetaran, District Pali, Rajasthan, who has been subjected to most hostile treatment and denial of family pension opted by her on the death of her husband w.e.f. September, 1961.

2. This case has a chequered histry if a poor helpless widow who has not been shown any mercy by the instrumentality of the State Government (Pension Department) which has deprived her of the sanctioned family pension for the past about 30 years, in gross violation of right to life and liberty guaranteed- under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which includes the right to livelihood which cannot be deprived by instrumentality of the State as has happened in this case.

3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that Late Husband of the petitioner was a class IV employee as Camel Sawar in the office of respondent No. F, the Tehsildar, Jetaran District Pali who retired from service on 2.9.1958 and died on 18.9.1961 and was paid pension by his department till 18.9.1961, the date on which he expired.

4. Subsequent to the death of her husband, the petitioner being the widow applied for family pension which upon verification of the necessary documents as asked for by the Accountant General, Rajasthan vide his order No. 4790 of dated 29.9.1964, the petitioner was sanctioned family pension w.e.f. 19.9.1961. This family pension was sanctioned vide order Annexure 1 dated 28th October, 1964 and the family pension was payable at then prevailing rate of Rs. 13.20 per month only w.e.f. 19.9.61 to 11.9.1963 or till death or re-marriage whichever was earlier. Alongwith the said amount of pension T.I. at the rate of Rs. 8.00 per month was also sanctioned to be paid to the petitioner. The operative part of the aforesaid order reads as under:

The pension is debitable to Rajasthan Government under major head

65. Pension & other retirement benefits-Family Pension - Other Pension. Photo of Smt. Amina is sent herewith and the specimen signature and right hand thumb & finger impression may be obtained locally.

Inspite of the fact that the payment of the family pension had been sanctioned to the petitioner long back, she was never paid any such amount of pension causing her great pain, hardship and agony. Thereafter she made repeated representations to the concerned authorities followed by her personal visits with desperate requests to the respondents for making the payment of family pension as admissible to her but her efforts felt to the deaf ears of the respondents and as a result of which she was made to lead life of misery and starvation in gross negation of human rights. It is infaet a miracle that she has survived to see the light of the day inspite of de-humanising behaviour of the respondents. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner being an illiterate lady could not keep up-to-date record of the representations made by her to the authorities from time to time and her last such representation was made by her on 14.10.1988 which has been filed alongwith this writ petition as Annexure 2.

5. It has been further contended in the writ petition that due to her persistent efforts, the petitioner was ultimately issued pension payment order (for short 'PPO') on 27.10.1989 and curiously enough this PPO states that the petitioner would be entitled to receive family pension w.e.f. 1.4.1988 on wards. No mention whatsoever has been made in the said order (Annexure 3) dated 27.10.89 with regard to the earlier period for payment of family pension w.e.f. 19.9.1961 to 11.9.1968 which is specifically mentioned in the Accountant General's letter, dated 26.10.64 (Annexure 1) and the said period has altogether been ignored by the respondents. Aggrieved from the above the petitioner made series of representations to various concerned authorities including the respondents and the Accountant General, Rajasthan, Jaipur. It has been further contended in the writ petition that thereupon the Accountant General sent a communication to the Director, Pension Department (respondent No. 2) vide his letter, dated 28.11.88 (Annexure 4) drawing his attention towards the earlier sanction for payment of family pension and temporary increase, according to the petitioner, and directed the Director, Pension Department to expeditiously deal with the matter of the petitioner concerning payment of family pension.

6. Notwithstanding the above, the respondents did not bother to pay any heed to the grievances of the petitioner which were highlighted by the Accountant General himself and ultimately the petitioner was left with no other remedy except to send a notice demand for justice through her counsel which she did on 12.4.1990 (Annexure 5) copy of which is enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure 5. In the said Notice a request was made to the respondents to make payment of family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 19.9.1961 to 31.8.1988 as it was admissible to her with subsequent revision in family pension including entire amount of arrears and also interest @ 18% per annum within a period of two months. Inspite of the above, all persistent efforts made by the petitioner proved abortive.

7. It has been further contended in the writ petition that in response to the aforesaid notice sent through her counsel, the Treasury Officer, Pali vide his letter, dated 18.4.1990 intimated the petitioner's counsel that PPO for payment of family pension has since been issued to the petitioner vide order, date 27.10.1989. With regard to payment of family pension and temporary increase from 19.9.1961 on wards is concerned, it was stated that only the Director, Pension Department Rajasthan, Jaipur is competent to decide this issue. It was further stated that the Treasury Officer, Pali was responsible for making payment only as. per the sanction authorisation issued by the competent authority. Copy of the said letter, dated 18.4.1990 is Annexure 6 to this writ petition.

8. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner being deprived of her legitimate and legal rights of getting famify pension and other monthly dues as admissible to her under the law subsequent to the date of death of her husband for her subsistence, was compelled to move this court by way of the present writ petition to avail the remedy in accordance with law.

9. In reply to the show cause notice sent by this court, the respondents have filed reply wherein preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability of this writ petition. Besides, on merits the respondents have contended in the reply that vide Annexure 1 family pension was sanctioned to the petitioner for a period from 19.9.61 to 11.9.1968. It has been further contended by the respondents that a sum of Rs. 510.15 on account of family pension was paid to the petitioner for the aforesaid period on 15.1.1965 in partial acknowledgement of their liability vide Annexure Rule 1 to the reply.

10. In para 5 of reply the respondents have contented that vide order, dated 18.7.1988 New Family Pension Rules, 1964 have been extended to the widows of Government employees who retired or died before 1.8.1964 w.e.f. 1.4.1988. The respondents have further contended that the petitioner is not entitled to payment of any pension for the period 12.9.63 to 31.3.1988 as per rules.

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that the case of the petitioner for entitlement of family pension is fully covered by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 as amended. It has been further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that document Annexure 1 clearly establishes the factum of acknowledgment of the liability of the respondents for payment of famify pension to the petitioner, since the Accountant General Rajasthan, Jaipur had directed the Treasury Officer, Pali to grant family pension to the petitioner from 19.9.1961 to 11.9.1963 which was payable till death or re-marriage whichever being earlier. With regard to Annexure 3 dated 27.10.89 which is PPO prepared by the pension department sanctioning payment of family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.1988 on wards, it has been contended that it is contrary to the Accountant General's letter, dated 23.10.1984 wherein there is no direction to the Treasury Officer to pay pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.1988 onwards in as much as it is clearly mentioned there in that the family pension may be arranged to be paid to the widow of the deceased w.e.f. 19.9.1961 to 11.9.1963 or till death or re-marriage whichever is earlier. Hence it was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Pension Department of the State Government did not examine the Accountant General's letter in its true persepective, since there was no bar in the said earlier order to pay family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. earlier dates as referred to therein. It was therefore, contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was legitimately and lawfully entitled to be paid family pension for the intervening period w.e.f. 1.9.1963 to 31.3.1988 and there being no dispute with regard to the payment of family pension after March, 1988.

12. The above contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have been controverted by Shri O.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents on the ground that the case of the petitioner is covered by Rule 268A Chapter XXIII-A of the Rules which provides that all Government servants on pensionable establishment, whether temporary or permanent, who are in service on the 1st day of March, 1964 or who enter service on or after that date shall be covered by this Chapter but shall not apply to persons who retired before 1st March, 1964. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to payment of family pension for the intervening period from 1.9.1963 to 31.3.1988 not withstanding the petitioner having received family pension for the earlier period from 1961 to 1963.

13. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also examined the relevant documents on the record and have also perused the Family Pension Rules, as referred to above.

14. Rule 261 of the Rules which deals with conditions for the grant of family pension provides that a family pension, not exceeding the amount specified in Rules 262 may be granted to the family of an officer who dies, whether while still in service or after retirement after completion of not less than 20 years qualifying service, or a period of ten years. It will be relevant to mention the decision taken by the State Government vide F.D. Memo No. F.l (48) FD/(ER)/64, dated 1.4.1965 whereby the State Government of Rajasthan while considering the question of liberalising the existing provisions in regard to family pension drawn by widows/minor children of the employees under the Family Pension Rules contained in Chapter XXIII of the Service Rules as referred to above, took a decision that in respect of widows actually in receipt of family pension on 23.2.1964 under the aforesaid Rules the period of eligibility of such family pension should be extended up to: (i) the death or remarriage whichever is earlier in the case of widows; (ii) the benefit will also be extended to wives of the Government servants who retired before 1.3.1964 and on whose death subsequent to this date the widows became entitled to family pension under the aforesaid rules.

14A. It is thus clear from the above that since the petitioner was_ already drawing family pension as on 28.2.1964 under the aforesaid rules, her husband having retired from service on 12.9.1958 and having died on 13.9.1961, the family pension was duly sanctioned to her by the Accountant General's office at Jaipur vide Annexure 1, dated 28.10.1984. This fact is further fortified from the Accountant General's order, dated 28.11.1988 (Annexure 4). It Is surprising to note that notwithstanding serveral representations made thereafter by the petitioner for payment of family pension for the outstanding period together with the outstanding arrears of family pension, the petitioner has been denied the same by the authorities concerned. None of the representation of the petitioner was replied till she moved the court by way of present writ petition.

15. It is pertinent to mention that from March, 1988 onwards the petitioner has been receiveing family pension @ Rs. 300/- per month at the revised rates as per rules but the dispute pertains only for the period from 11.9.63 to 31.3.1988, as referred to above. It will be pertinent to refer to the Judgment of the Apex Court In the matter of Smt. Poonornol etc. v. Union of India etc. 1985(2) SLR 537 (SC) (paras 8 & 9) wherein a statement was made by the counsel for Union of India to the effect "Government have examined the matter. As family pension scheme was made non-contributory from 22.9.1977. Government would agree to extend the benefit of Family Pension Scheme, 1964 to all living widows. Payment to such widows may be made from 22.9.77 of the date of the death of the pensioner whichever is later till the date of the death of the widow. The benefits will also be available in cases where the death of the petitioner occus hereafter in this case it was clarified by the Apex Court on an application moved by the Common Cause Society that the Government had already agreed to grant of arrears of family pension w.e.f. 22.9.1977. Hence the case of the petitioner in the present writ petition is fully covered by the aforesaid Judgment of the Apex Court. Following the above Judgment of the Apex Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Smt. Inder Kaur v. Union of India & Others 1991(4) SLR 109, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to pay requisite amount of pension w.e.f. 22.9.77 alongwith interest @12% per annum.

16. In the matter of Vidya Wati v. State of Haryana & Others 1988 (3) SLR 243 Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with an identical case where the husband of the petitioner had retired on 4.10.1962 and subsequently died on 24.4.1967 and the payment of pension, gratuity was not settled during his life time, the wife on petition to the High Court for payment of the outstanding arrears of family pension and gratuity etc. Due to her Late husband, the High Court directed the State Government to determine the rate of pension/gratuity due to the petitioner's Late husband during his life time and family pension payable to the wife with interest @ 12% per annum on the amount due from the date of entitlement till payment. It was observed by the High Court that it was most unfortunate that the pension case was delayed for such a long time even when the person had died. Consequently the petition was allowed with costs.

17. In Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition page 1021 'Pension' is defined as 'retirement benefit paid regularly (normally, monthly), with the amount of such based generally on length of employment and amount of wages or salary of pensioner. Deferred compensation for services rendered'.

18. In Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition 31A Pass to Peoples, 'pension' is defined as under:

A pension is a bounty for past services rendered to the public. It is mainly designed to assist the pensioner is providing for his daily wants.

A pension in its true sense is a prospective award or deferred compensation for service not fully recompensed when rendered.

A pension, as provided for by a contract of employment, is compensation for services rendered, the payment of which is deferred until after completion of rendition of services to induce long-continued and faithful service.

Pension is stated allowance granted by government to individual or his representative for valuable service or for loss sustained in public service.

19. In the matter of D.S. Nokora & Others v. Union of India reported in 1983(47) FLR 42 the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court while dealing with liberalised pension scheme to those who retired on or after 31.3.1979 while denied to those retiring earlier than the said date, held:

(i) Pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution; (ii) that the pension is not an ex-gratis payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio economic justice to those who in the hey day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. This division which classified pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons otherwise equally placed, it would be discriminatory. Further the classification is wholly arbitrary because we do not find a single acceptable or persuasive reason for this division. This arbitrary action violated the guarantee of Article 14.

20. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and examining their rival claims and contentions and on perusal of the relevant documents as well as the legal propositions laid down by the Apex Court as well as various other High Courts as referred to above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

21. The writ petition is consequently allowed with cost which 1 quantify at Rs. 2500/-. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner the family pension for the period 11.9.63 to 31.3.1988 with interest @ 12% per annum till realisation of due amount. The respondents are further directed to make payment of all consequential arrears alongwith interest @ 12% per annum within a period of three months from today. It is further directed that the total amount found due to the petitioner with interest shall be paid by Bank Draft at the residential address of the petitioner as indicated in the writ petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
   
  W.P.(C) 5332/2010 AND   W.P.(C) 4740/2008
   I.P.KAPOOR AND ORS ..... Petitioners
  Through: Mr. S. P. Saxena, Adv.
   
versus
   
  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
  Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Adv.
   
  S.P.SAXENA and ORS. ..... Petitioners
  Through: Mr. H.P. Chaturvedi, Adv. with
  Mr. S.P. Saxena, Adv.
   
versus
   
  UOI and ORS. ..... Respondents
  Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Adv. with A.S. Singh, Adv. for R-1.
  Mr. L.R. Khatana, Adv. for R-2 to 4.
 
  CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
     O R D E R 09.08.2010
 
  Since both the above mentioned writ petitions have common facts,
  the same are being decided by this common order. The Writ Petition (C)
  No.5332/2010 has been filed by 37 petitioners under Article 226 of the
  Constitution of India seeking declaration of an introduced one time voluntary  retirement scheme dated 21.5.1994 as malafide and invalid being played fraud on   the fundamental rights of the employees of Export Inspection Council and Export   Inspection Agencies.
  The earlier Writ Petition (C) No.4740/2008 has been filed by 56
  petitioners challenging the same scheme dated 21.5.1994. It appears that the   challenge of the said scheme by the petitioners in both the writ petitions is   after the period of 16 years of the said scheme in W.P. (C) No.5332/2010 and 14   years of the said scheme in W.P. (C) No.4740/2008.
  It is not in dispute that the petitioners admittedly enjoyed the financial benefits during this period under the said scheme as compared to the
  normal voluntary retirement and the relevant rules. It is also the admitted
  fact that most of the petitioners had earlier filed the writ petitions before
  this Court as well as in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the years   1999 and 2001 on the same issue and the facts. The contentions of the   petitioners were not accepted by the Courts from time to time. The details of  the earlier litigations are given as below:
 
  ?CWP No.6482/1999 titled as Bhagwat Prasad and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.in Delhi High Court
 
  (a) The said writ petition was filed by 62 persons, inter alia, challenging the   selfsame SVRS dated 21.5.1994;
  (b) It was dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court vide order dated
  23.4.2001. The said order was challenged by way of LPA No.256/2001 which was   also dismissed vide order dated 17.5.2001.
  (c) It is relevant to mention that out of 62 petitioner in the said petition,
  at least 10 persons are again petitioners (either directly or indirectly) in
  W.P. (C) No.4740/2008 being petitioners No.30, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 48, 53
  and 56.
  CMWP No.43851/1999 titled as I.P. Kapoor and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. In   Allahabad High Court
    (a) The said writ petition was filed by 21 persons, inter alia, challenging the   selfsame SVRS dated 21.5.1994.
  (b) It was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court vide
  order dated 27.3.2003.
  (c) It is relevant to mention that out of 21 petitioners in CWP No.43851/1999   in the said petition, at least 11 persons are again petitioners (either directly   or indirectly) in W.P. (C) No.4740/2008 being petitioners No.14, 21, 22, 23, 26,  27, 28, 32, 37, 47 and 54.
   CWP No.658/2001 titled as Archana Saxena and Ors. Vs. Union of India in Delhi High Court.
    (a) The said writ petition was filed by 25 persons, inter alia, challenging the  selfsame SVRS dated 21.5.1994.
  (b) It was dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court vide order dated
  27.2.2001. The said order was challenged by way of LPA No.454/2001 which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2003.
  (c) It is relevant to mention that out of 25 petitioners in CWP No.658/2001 in the said petition, at least 19 persons are again petitioners (either directly or indirectly) in W.P. (C) No.4740/2008 being petitioners No.1 to 5, 7 to 13, 15,17 to 19, 35, 45 and 55.?
  The respondents have filed all the relevant copies of the orders
  passed by the Court along with the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition (C)  No.4740/2008. It is the admitted position that most of the petitioners had opted for retirement under the said scheme carrying more benefits and they enjoyed the same. Now they have challenged the same very scheme after the expiry of 15 years.
  In the case of A.K. Bindal Vs. Union of India; (2003) 5 SCC 163,
  the Apex Court has held:?that a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee ex-gratia besides the  terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and  his option is accepted. The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering  any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and foregoing all his claims or  rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in the business world it is known as ?golden handshake?. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves
  with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind  of his past rights with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with  regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period.?
    In other case reported in (2006) 3 SCC 708; HEC Voluntary Retd.
  Employees Welfare Society and Anr. Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., the  Apex Court has held:  ?that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme speaks of a package. One either takes it  or rejects it. While offering to opt for the same, presumably the employee  takes into consideration the future implication also. ? The expression ?special  scheme? used therein must be understood in the context of a general scheme of  employment governing the terms and conditions of service or which is a part of  the statutory rules governing the services of the employees.?
 
  There is no force in the contention of the petitioners that the
  petitioners came to know about the fraud committed by the respondents in the year 2007 on receipt of report of RTI. The said contention is totally
  misconceived because of the reason that the petitioners have been challenging  the same very scheme from the year 1999 itself in various Courts. There is a  clear delay on the part of the petitioners. Both the writ petitions are badly  barred by delay and latches. The petitioners are estopped from taking the same  stand over and over again. No justification has been given by the petitioners  for such a long time.  In view of the above said facts and law laid down by the Apex  Court, there is no merit in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. Both  the writ petitions are dismissed with no cost.  The pending applications also stand dismissed.
     MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
  AUGUST 09, 2010
  *************************************************************************************** 
Dear friends in none of the dismissed cases SVRS-1994 was not challenged about the constitutional violations. Nobody has highlighted the fraud in which the original circular of commerce ministry was manipulated by EIC. Estoppel rule not applicable to fraud cases.

COURT NO. 9

                                HON'BLE  MR JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
                       TO BE HEARD FROM MONDAY THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
             TO FRIDAY THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       WEEKLY LIST
       ~~~~~~~~~~~
                                       FINAL HEARING CASES

98.    WP.10442/2008          M/S.KARTHIK                   M/S R.SURESHKUMAR SPC R1 R2&R3
       (Service)              MUKUNDAN
                              NEELAKANTAN

DIFFERENT YARDSTICKS OF DOPT FOR EMPLOYEES OF SAME DEPARTMENT

PASSING THE BUCK TO THE SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENT

            ( Export inspection agency, under the Commerce Ministry )

1.  To avoid misuse of power, Allocation of Business Rules &Transaction of Business Rules Act-1961 under Art. 77/3 of the Constitution, empowered only Dept.of Personnel & Training as NODAL dept. for framing rules/regulations with regard to Govt. personnel. All other ministries have to implement the same.

     2. Commerce Ministry is a subordinate ministry which has no powers to   frame schemes for personnel, has fraudulently introduced a SVRS in 1994 without involving the DOPT (department of personnel & training) in violation of all Constitutional provisions

     3. Any VRS should have the approval of DOPT or be passed by a Parliament session. Since 1994- SVRS has no statutory backing, it is just an executive fiat liable to be set-aside by the Hon’ble high court under Article 226.

    4. Commerce Ministry’s original circular was edited deliberately to suppress vital information-a clandestine act to cheat Govt. employees who were covered by the CCS Pension Rules-1972.

This was submitted to the website of Presidents secratriate on 27/07/2009.DOPT took one long year to give the following evasive reply:

Registration Number     :      PRSEC/E/2009/01246

Name :      Shri Venkatesan.M

Date of Receipt   :      27 Jul 2009

Current Status    :      Case disposed of

Date of Action    :      06 Jul 2010

Details      :      The matter does not concern DOPT. Forwarded to Department of Commerce vide O.M.No.23011/4/2009-P.G. dated 5.10.2009 who have further forwarded the representation to EI&EP Section of Department of Commerce vide their letter No. 1/34/2009-TFS dated 21.12.2009 for disposal.

I HAVE APPROCHED DOPT FOR JUSTICE, DOPT INSTEAD OF GIVING ITS DECISION as per the DOPTcircular.F.No.27/8/2007/EO/SM.II Dt.28.12.2007 it DIRECTS THE COMMERCE MINISTRY-WHICH COMMITTED THE FRAUD TO ANSWER!!!!!!!

If DOPT is not concerned with Export inspection agency’s 1994 SVRS, HOW DOPT VRS CIRCULAR WAS ISSUED TO THE SAME DEPARTMENT IN 2002 WITH PENSION?

REMINDER-I

APPEAL & REQUEST TO THE HON’BLE MINISTER OF COMMERCE,GOI SHRI.ANAND SHARMA.

SUB: EXPEDITE CORRECTIVE ACTION ON 1994-ILLEGAL SVRS.

YOUR PREDICISORS IN 1994 HAVE COMMITTED A GRAVE MISTAKE OF FRAMING A SPECIAL VRS TO THE EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL EMPLOYEES IN FRAGRANT VIOLATION OF ALL CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS & PENSION ACT. IT WAS STEALTHLY IMPLEMENTED BY THE EIC, DEPRIVING THE PENSION BENEFITS OF OVER 800 FAMILIES.

WE REQUEST YOU TO USE YOUR GOOD OFFICES TO SET RIGHT THE MISTAKES BY MODIFYING THE COMMERCE MINISTRY’S CIRCULAR SO AS TO RESTORE THE PENSION RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEES.

PENSION IS NOT A BOUNTY & IT CANNOT BE BARTERED EVEN BY THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS PROTECTED BY THE PENSION ACT.

-BY VENKATESAN- AN EMPLOYEE CHEATED BY THE EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY/COUNCIL OF INDIA.

VENKATESAN.M
Mob:9444030900
Skype:venkym9971
C.C. Blogs/Media
Please visit http://venkym.blogspot.com
http://citizenscharters-amockery.blogspot.com/

COURT NO. 10          
                               HON'BLE  MR JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN
             TO BE HEARD ON FRIDAY THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010  AFTER MOTION LIST

57.    WP.10442/2008          M/S.KARTHIK                   M/S R.SURESHKUMAR SPC R1 R2&R3
       (Service)              MUKUNDAN
                              NEELAKANTAN

Respondents asked for more time for filing counter but Judge has given 2weeks time.

COURT NO. 10          

                               HON'BLE  MR JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN

                 TO BE HEARD ON FRIDAY THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2010  AT 10.30 A.M.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

85.    WP.10442/2008          M/S.KARTHIK                   M/S R.SURESHKUMAR SPC R1 R2&R3

       (Service)              MUKUNDAN

                              NEELAKANTAN

MY CASE LISTED FOR 16/07/2010 BUT NOT TAKENUP

Reply
Venkatesan Muthukrishnan to ss.agarwal,
show details 21 Jul
To.
Shri Shyam Agarwal

Designation : Joint Secretary,

Department of Commerce, Room No. 132Udyog Bhavan New Delhi.

Sir,
Sub:PRSEC/E/2010/10698-FORWARDED TO YOU ON 14th.JULY2010.

KINDLY EXPEDITE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE.

THANKS & REGARDS,


VENKATESAN.M

APPEAL & REQUEST TO THE HON’BLE MINISTER OF COMMERCE,GOI SHRI.ANAND SHARMA.



SUB: EXPEDITE CORRECTIVE ACTION ON 1994-ILLEGAL SVRS.



YOUR PREDICISORS IN 1994 HAVE COMMITTED A GRAVE MISTAKE OF FRAMING A SPECIAL VRS TO THE EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL EMPLOYEES IN FRAGRANT VIOLATION OF ALL CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS & PENSION ACT. IT WAS STEALTHLY IMPLEMENTED BY THE EIC, DEPRIVING THE PENSION BENEFITS OF OVER 800 FAMILIES.

WE REQUEST YOU TO USE YOUR GOOD OFFICES TO SET RIGHT THE MISTAKES BY MODIFYING THE COMMERCE MINISTRY’S CIRCULAR SO AS TO RESTORE THE PENSION RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEES.

PENSION IS NOT A BOUNTY & IT CANNOT BE BARTERED EVEN BY THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS PROTECTED BY THE PENSION ACT.



-BY VENKATESAN- AN EMPLOYEE CHEATED BY THE EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY/COUNCIL OF INDIA.

VENKATESAN.M
Mob:9444030900
Skype:venkym9971
C.C. Blogs/Media

AGAIN IT IS PROVED THAT THE CITIZENS CHARTER IS A MOCKERY OF CENTRAL GOVT WHERE IN CRORES SPENT WITH NO TANGIBLE SOLUTIONS GIVEN BY NODAL DEPARTMENT LIKE DOPT!!!!!!!

DOPT, A NODAL AGENCY WITH SUPERORDINATE POWERS WASHING OFF IT'S RESPONSIBILITIES BY DIRECTING OUR QURIES TO THE SUBORDINATE COMMERCE MINISTRY WHICH HAS NO POWERS TO FORMULATE VRS SCHEMES TO CENTRAL GOVT.EMPLOYEES. THUS DOPT ALSO IS TRYING TO COVERUP THE COMMERCE MINISTRY'S BLATANT FRAUD ON EMPLOYEES IN CHEATTING THEM THROUGH AN ILLEGAL EXECUTIVE FIAT FRAUDULANTLY.

TO GIVE THE FOLLOWING EVASIVE REPLY THROUGH THE PRESIDENTS SECRATRIAT DOPT HAS TAKEN ONE LONG YEAR. INSTEAD OF TAKING CORRECTIVE MEASURES DOPT TRIES TO COVERUP THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAUD COMMITTED ON EMPLOYEES WHO WERE COVERED BY CCS PENSION RULES OF 1972. I HAVE APPROCHED DOPT FOR JUSTICE, DOPT INSTEAD OF GIVING ITS DECISION DIRECTS THE COMMERCE MINISTRY-WHICH COMMITTED THE FRAUD TO ANSWER!!!!!!!ACCUSED GIVES THE VERDICT.

Registration Number     :      PRSEC/E/2009/01246

Name :      Shri Venkatesan.M

Date of Receipt   :      27 Jul 2009

Current Status    :      Case disposed of

Date of Action    :      06 Jul 2010

Details      :      The matter does not concern DOPT. Forwarded to Department of Commerce vide O.M.No.23011/4/2009-P.G. dated 5.10.2009 who have further forwarded the representation to EI&EP Section of Department of Commerce vide their letter No. 1/34/2009-TFS dated 21.12.2009 for disposal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

04.03.2010

Present:- Mr. P. Narasimhan for the petitioner.
Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj for the respondents.

W.P.(C.) No. 1295/2010

The petitioner has retired from the post of Joint Director from Export
Inspection Council (respondents No. 2 and 3 herein) on 30.10.2009. He has filed
this writ petition for directions to the respondents to place him in pension
scheme in terms of circular No. EIC/D(O/C)/56/87/343 dated 02.07.1987. The
petitioner has stated that after his retirement, he has made representation to
the respondents for placing him in pension scheme in terms of the aforementioned
circular but no decision has been taken by the respondents till date.
Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj is present on behalf of the respondents on advance
notice and he accepts formal notice of this petition.
With the consent of counsel for the parties, this writ petition has been
taken up for final disposal at admission stage itself because counsel for both
the parties have agreed for passing of a consent order in the matter.
Mr. P. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
says that his client will be satisfied, in case, directions are given to the
respondents to decide the representation of the
W.P.(C.) No. 1295/2010
page 1 of 2
petitioner pending with them to place him in pension scheme in terms of office
circular of the respondents mentioned hereinabove.
Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, says that his clients will decide the said representation of the
petitioner within such reasonable time as may be fixed by the Court.
In view of the above submissions made by the counsel for the parties,
this writ petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to decide
the representation of the petitioner pending with them to place him in pension
scheme in terms of office order dated 02.07.1987 within a period of eight weeks
from today. The respondents are directed to pass a speaking order and intimate


the same to the petitioner so that, in case, if he is aggrieved by the said
decision, he may take appropriate legal remedy as available to him in law.
Order dasti to both the parties under the signatures of the Court Master.

MARCH 04, 2010 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'

CASE POSTED FOR 21/06/2010 GOD ONLY KNOWS ABOUT THE ACTUAL PROCEEDINGS!!!!!

54.    WP.10442/2008          M/S.KARTHIK                   M/S R.SURESHKUMAR SPC R1 R2&R3
       (Service)              MUKUNDAN
                              NEELAKANTAN

FINAL HEARING POSTED FOR TODAY-18TH. BUT MAY BE TAKEN ONLY ON MONDAY-21.06.10 DUE TO LAWYERS STRIKE

I feel vindicated, says Kargil war hero : India Today - Latest Breaking News from India, World, Business, Cricket, Sports, Bollywood.

I feel vindicated, says Kargil war hero : India Today -

TRUTH ULTIMATELY TRIUMPHS !!! HOPE SOON COMMERCE MINISTRY'S FRAUD ALSO WILL COME TO LIGHT THROUGH THE INDIAN JUDICIARY.

The army faced a huge embarrassment with the Armed Forces Tribunal raising serious questions over the Kargil war history. A verdict in the favour of Kargil war hero Brigadier Devinder Singh came as a slap on the face of the army's Kargil war commanders.

The tribunal has questioned the veracity of entire history of the Kargil war. Brigadier Singh, who commanded the 70 Infantry Brigade during the war, personally led what most military experts agree was the hardest campaign of the Kargil war.

But his top commanders fabricated war records to deny the recognition due to Brigadier Singh and his brigade. After a bitter decade-long fight, the army has been forced to set the record straight about his performance in the war.

After years of endless petitioning and court appearances, the retired brigadier finally got justice on Wednesday when the tribunal upheld his petition against his top commanders. The tribunal lashed out at former 15 Corps commander Lt Gen Kishan Pal for being prejudiced and biased.

The judgement came as a great relief for Brigadier Singh who, despite a great deal of battle valour, received a relatively low-order peace-time decoration and was passed over for a promotion by the army.

"There is a sense of relief for me and my brigade after the tribunal's verdict. I am getting congratulatory calls from my team," Brigadier Singh told Headlines Today.

"Our stand has been vindicated. We had felt hurt when someone else got the credit," he said. "The tribunal has said that he (Lt Gen Kishan Pal) was biased and that none of his reports about me is tenable."

"This was a battle for honour and the facts are out now," Brigadier Singh said.

Brigadier Singh's feat
Brigadier Singh had commanded the 70 Infantry Brigade in the Batalik sector during the Kargil war. He led the critical battle for Point 5203, which had been quickly overrun by Pakistani troops in the early days of the war. He also led the assaults on the Jubbar complex, one of the most difficult campaigns during the war.

A month before the operations broke out during a corps-level war game, Brigadier Singh had also predicted the pattern of intrusions by Pakistan Army regulars but Lt Gen Kishan Pal, the then 15 Corps Commander, doctored his battle performance report to underplay his role.

Brigadier Singh became a victim of prejudice and that cost him a war medal. He was recommended for a Mahavir Chakra, the second highest award for gallantry but was awarded a Vishisht Seva Medal, a peacetime decoration.

ACCUSED GIVES JUDGMENT!!!

From.

Venkatesan.M                                                                  Ref: 2010/0426

16, Raja Apartments,15 (5A) B.K.N street,

Westmambalam, Chennai-33

To.

          Shri.Anurag Saxena.,

The Director, Trade Finance Section,

Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Udyog bhavan,NewDelhi-110107.

Email: anurag.saxena@nic.in

Sir,          Sub: Unsolicited letter No.1/34/2009-TFS dt.20^th.April 2010.

          Ref: Ref: PRSEC/E/2009/01246 dt.27/7/2009 forwarded to Department of Personnel and Training on 30^th.July2009.

Being a subordinate department to The Department of Personnel and Training, you are not competent to reply my grievance petition which was transferred to DOPT and not to EIC or Commerce Ministry. Don’t waste my time by forwarding EIC’s letters. As such my grievance petition sent to DOPT cannot be closed by an official of Commerce Ministry which is not competent to do so.

 This is for your kind information.

 Sincerely Yours,

VENKATESAN.M
C.C to 1. President's Secretariat 2. Shri Rajeev Kapoor,Joint Secretary (AT & A),DOPT.

 http://venkym.blogspot.com
http://citizenscharters-amockery.blogspot.com/

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CAUSE LIST

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CAUSE LIST

9th.April2010

My case listed today but may come up on Monday

70.    WP.10442/2008          M/S.KARTHIK                   M/S R.SURESHKUMAR SPC R1 R2&R3
      (Service)              MUKUNDAN
                             NEELAKANTAN
                             To Implead
      MP.1/2009              - DO -

Gmail - Unanswered Grievance Petition-PRSEC/E/2009/01246 - venkym1@gmail.com

"Unanswered Grievance Petition-PRSEC/E/2009/01246"

show details 20:24 (5 minutes ago)


From.

Venkatesan.M Ref:DOPT- 2010/0327

16, Raja Apartments,15 (5A) B.K.N street,

Westmambalam, Chennai-33

To.

Dr. Syamal Kumar Sarkar, Joint Secretary (AT&A),

Department of Personnel and Training,

Room No. 109, North Block, New Delhi. Mail ID: jsata@nic.in



Sir,

Sub: Illegal SVRS & clandestine actions of Commerce Ministry to cheat the employees covered under CCS Pension Rules-1972.

Ref: PRSEC/E/2009/01246 forwarded to you on 30th.July2009-Unanswered.

Ref: DOPTcircular.F.No.27/8/2007/EO/SM.II Dt.28.12.2007

DOPT letter No.134/2005-Estt (A) Dt.17.08.2005

As I have been asked to liaise in the matter directly with Joint Secretary (AT&A), Department of Personnel and Training, I am sending this letter.

Instead of giving your direct reply you are evading your responsibility by directing the subordinate Export Inspection Council to answer my grievance which is neither authorized by you nor competent. Irony is that The Ministry of commerce which has issued the ILLEGAL SVRS circular now referred the matter to DOPT vide letter No.2/130/2009-EI & EP dt.24/12/2009 about the infringement of Allocation of Business Rules of GOI.

Since no reply is received till date from your end, I request you to give your categorical reply to my grievance at the earliest.

Thanking you.

Sincerely Yours,

Sign..bmp

27th.March 2010.

Chennai-33"

: President's Secretariat Helpline :::
I- Grievance Registration Number is : PRSEC/E/2009/01246-27th.JULY.2009

II-"Registration Number : PRSEC/E/2010/03560-08 Mar 2010

Name : Shri venkatesan.M
Date of Receipt : 08 Mar 2010
Current Status : The petition is transferred
Date of Transfer : 22 Mar 2010
Ministry/Department : Department of Personnel and Training
Officer's Name : Dr. Syamal Kumar Sarkar
Designation : Joint Secretary (AT&A)
Address : Room No. 109, North Block
New Delhi

Telephone No. : 23094010
E Mail : jsata@nic.in

Note: You are requested to further liaise in the matter directly with Joint Secretary (AT&A), Department of Personnel and Training, Room No. 109, North BlockNew Delhi for further information."

Gmail -
No response from DOPT for my RTI application - venkym1@gmail.com: "

                                   

DOPT-RULE MAKER BREAKS RULE


From: : M.Venkatesan,
16, Raja apartments, 15/5A-B.K.N Street,
Westmambalam,
CHENNAI-600 033
email ID : venkym1@gmail.com

To.
The Secretary,Central Infn. Commission,
New Delhi.

Sir,
Sub: RTI application ignored by DOPT
Please look in to the matter & initiate appropriate action at the earliest.

*RTI application sent to CPIO of DOPT on 13/01/2010 (copy attached-scan0003)

*I Reminder on 14/02/2010 to Appellate authority.

*II Reminder on 2/02/2010 to Appellate authority (email copies forwarded 23/02/2010)

* Copy of fax message sent to the secretary,DOPT on 22/10/2009

thanking you.
VENKATESAN.M


Please visit http://venkym.blogspot.com
http://citizenscharters-amockery.blogspot.com/"