THANKS TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 WHICH EXPOSED THE
BIGGEST FRAUD ON GOVT. EMPLOYEES IN BLATANT VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTION BY COMMERCE MINISTRY OFFICIALS.SHRI.S.LAKSHMIKANTHAN ,INCHARGE DIRECTOR OF EIC MANIPULATED ORIGINAL CIRCULAR TO SUPPRESS THE VITAL INFORMATION.
M.Venkatesan,
Mobile:9444030900 email: venkym1@gmail.com
Dishonesty (or fraud) and malice in exercising statutory powers
REJOINDER TO THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3
I am the petitioner in the above petition and have gone through the counter statement of R3 and humbly submit as follows:
1. Without prejudice to the right of submission of para wise comments to the Counter statement of the Respondent No. 3 herein, it is humbly submitted preliminarily that the counter statement of R3 has to be ignored and no orders have to be passed on the basis of the said counter statement. It is humbly submitted that the R3 viz Export Inspection Agency – Madras (EIA) is a subordinate of Export Inspection Council (EIC), R2 herein and as such it has no independent powers to deal with the facts of the case and it has to work under the dictatum of R2. The R1 and R2 being the higher authorities for the Export Inspection Agencies, they should have filed the counter statement whereas they have not chosen to file the counter statement which shows that the facts and allegations mentioned in the petition are deemed to be true. Further the executants of the counter statement on behalf of R3 have not stated anywhere in the counter statement that they have been authorized to file this counter statement on behalf of the other respondents and as such the counter statement is liable to set aside in liminie.
2. With regard to the averments made at para 2 and 3 of the counter statement, it is humbly again reiterated that the R3 has not been authorized to file this counter statement on behalf of the other Respondents as R3 is only a subordinate, specifically to R2 and coming under the control of R2 and R1 herein. The question as to whether the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SVRS) valid in eye of law has to be answered by R1 and R2 as they are the formulators of SVRS and the R3 is only an authority of implementing the same. As such R3 cannot be in a position to defend the case of R1 and R2. In the absence of any defense on behalf of the R2 and R1, it cannot be construed that the SVRS has the statute authority. In view of that it is humbly submitted that the Counter Statement of R3 cannot be construed as correct in the eye of law and it is need not be considered. Further it is submitted that the R3 has denied the allegations except those are specifically accepted and for making that statement it has no authority as it is being a subordinate to R1 and R2.
3. With regard to the averment made at para 5 of the Counter Statement of R3, it is humbly submitted that the statement is bald and made without any document in that regard. Though the EIAs and EIC are Statutory Bodies under the control of R1 herein, both adopt and follow the Fundamental Rules and Service Rules and Pension Rules being followed by other Central Government Offices and as such the submission that EIA and EIC have its own rules may be correct for other purposes but it is incorrect with regard to service matters. It is humbly submitted that both EIA and EIC are following only rules of Central Government for service matters. If the EIAs and EIC are following any other rules for the purpose of service matters, they may be directed to file strict proof to that effect.
4. With regard to the averment made at para 7 of the Counter Statement that the letter dated 31.05.1994 did not contain inducement and that the option form dated 08.07.1994 signed and submitted by the petitioner is absolutely unqualified and unconditional and it is binding on the petitioner, it is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble Court crave leave the said letter dated 31.05.1994. The petitioner herein has submitted the option form dated 08.07.1994 in view of the letter dated 31.05.1994 bona fide, believing that the SVRS is beneficial and it is formulated in accordance with law and that of the power was vested with R2. The Deputy Director (Administration) has issued the said letter wherein he has directed to opt for the scheme then only the details of benefits would be informed to the petitioner. The said letter shows attitude and conduct of the R3 and it is not only inducement but also coercive. It is humbly submitted that the R2 was well aware that the SVRS is not backed by any authority and it had played fraud on their own employees by way of inducing them to opt for the SVRS. If it is known to the petitioner that the SVRS is formulated without any authority or any statute, he would have not submitted the option form itself. It is humbly submitted that the said letter dated 31.05.1994 is not only inducement but also coercive. The R3 in the counter statement has not clearly established that how the said letter has not induced the petitioner herein. As such the said statement is bald and it is need to be rejected in liminie.
5. With regard to the averment made at para 9 made in the counter statement of R3, it is to be submitted that the petitioner has raised the question of authority of R1 and R2 at para 9 of his petition. It is humbly submitted that the R3 has conveniently omitted to answer the issues raised by the petitioner in para 9 of his petition. The petitioner has categorically stated at para 9 of the petition that the “ Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 read with Article 77(3) of the Constitution of India, the Ministry of Commerce is not empowered to frame schemes but it is the duty of the Department of Personnel and Training(DOPT)” whereas the R3 has only given an evasive answer which is bald and bad in eye of law. Mere denial of the averment made in the petition is deemed to be an acceptance to that effect. It is further submitted that on an application made under RTI Act, 2005, the DOPT had replied vide letter dated 17.08.2005 that they have not issued any special voluntary retirement scheme to central government employees besides special voluntary retirement scheme introduced for surplus central government employees on 28.02.2002. The R3 has also conveniently omitted to answer this issue. As the R3 has not specifically denied the averments with regard to the power to the Ministry of Commerce and the subsequent letter of DOPT, it is humbly submitted that the averment made at para 9 of the Counter statement of R3 is vague and it is to be rejected at threshold.
6. With regard to the averment made at para 11 of the counter statement that the petitioner is estopped from his changing his position after about 14 years and that the petition is barred by latches and deserved to be dismissed, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner came to know only after the enactment of RTI Act, 2005 that the SVRS itself has been formulated by the R1 and R2 without any authority to that effect. It is well settled in law that the any scheme formulated without any authority or backing of any statute, whatever may be the time lapsed would not be treated as a scheme formulated in accordance with law and is liable to be setaside. Therefore, the averment that the petition is misconceived and that it is barred by latches and limitation is made without taking in to consideration the sequences and event that taken place subsequently. It is humbly submitted that when the basic scheme is vitiated by inducement, fraud and coercion and that there was a fatal flaw, the petition cannot be dismissed on the mere submission of latches and limitation.
7. With regard to the averment made at para 12 of the counter statement, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner has been induced and coerced indirectly to opt for the SVRS. It is further submitted that the mere statement that the SVRS has been approved and issued by the Competent Authorities without explaining the formation of such Competent Authorities and their scope, do not deserve any merit and it is to be rejected in liminie. It is also pertinent to submit that the R1 and R2 has circulated another SVRS in the year 2002 for which they have obtained proper approval from the DOPT. If at all they have power to formulate SVRS, it is their duty to explain as to why this time they have complied with the directions issued by the DOPT.
8. With regard to the averment made at para 13 of the counter statement in respect of Ground D made in the petition, it is humbly submitted that the R1 and R2 has played fraud on their own employees by way of inducing and coercing the employees indirectly to opt for the SVRS. The petitioner in bonafide had opted for the SVRS hoping that the SVRS is legally valid and backed by law and statue. If the R1 and R2 are bona fide, even now they can consider the representation of the petitioner for opting Voluntary Retirement under Rule 48A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
9. With regard to the averment made at para 14 of the counter statement, it is humbly submitted that the said decision reported in 2008(3) CTC page 746 will not be presently applicable to the present petition as the same is related to Industrial dispute and particularly the issue in the said decision regard to a validly formulated voluntary retirement scheme. The matter presently before the Hon’ble Court is a SVRS formulated without any authority or without any backing of law. Thus the said decision is inapplicable to the present case. Further the WP No. 16155 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner is in the year of 1997 and it is filed before the enactment of RTI Act, 2005. The scope of the WP No. 16155 of 1997 is entirely different from the scope of the present writ petition wherein the Hon’ble Court is going to decide the very validity of the SVRS formulated by the R1 and R2 without any authority or backing of any law.
10In view of the forgoing submission and taking into consideration the counter statement has been filed only by R3, R1 and R2 have not chosen to file any counter and also taking into consideration the inducement, coercion and fraud vitiate the basic SVRS, the petitioner herein prays that the writ petition be kindly be allowed in view of justice and equity.
SIGNATURE
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai this the Day of February 2010.
Sir,
Sub: Information sought under RTI Act from CPIO regarding my fax message to the SECRETARY,Department of Personnel and Training.-Ref:2009/09.
Ref:RTI application-ref:2009/14 sent to CPIO on13/01/2010.
NOT RECEIVED ANY REPLY FROM CPIO.PLEASE EXPEDITE.
THANKS & REGARDS,
VENKATESAN.M
c.c to CIC"
Saturday, February 13, 2010
RTI-CPIO directs applicant to read the acts published in EIC website !!!!! What a knowledge of CPIO!!!!!!!!
Dear Mr.KTNS,
I know pretty well that you will receive such a noncommittal & evasive replies from all CPIO's of various ministries in Delhi - a ploy of Govt. officials. That is called a MOCKERY for which crores of rupees spent on fat salaries for CPIO & Apellate Authorities. Ultimately you won't get any tangible reply or solutions for yr queries which force us to judiciary & media finally.
For your specific question the MOST LEARNED DEPUTY DIRECTOR of EIC is asking you to read the website & this is how the Govt.machinary works.However please appeal to the Appellate Authority with a copy to CIC & my website.
Thanks & regards, VENKATESAN.M
Mob:9444030900
Skype:venkym9971
From: : M.Venkatesan, Ref:2010/2/4 16, Raja apartments, 15/5A-B.K.N Street, Westmambalam, CHENNAI-600 033 email ID : venkym1@gmail.com To.
The Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training
Room No.109, North Block,New Delhi-110001.
Sir, Export Inspection Council, a subordinate dept. under the Commerce Ministry has stated the following vide its letter No.EIC/D(Q/C) VRS/121/2006/3848 Dt.04/9/2009. 'Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 1994 for the employees of Export Inspection Council/Agencies was duly approved by the Govt. of India which included consultation with DOPT' As the above statement is contrary to the communication No.134/2005-Estt.(A) dt.17th.August,2005 received by me, please clarify the role of DOPT with regard to the 1994-SVRS as early as possible. Thanking you, Sincerely Yours, VENKATESAN.M Mob:9444030900 Skype:venkym9971"
"FOR ORDERS ~~~~~~~~~~ TO IMPLEAD IN WP 10442/2008 37. MP.1/2009 M/S.G.KARTHIK MUKUNDAN M/S.G.NANMARAN ACGSC (Service) FOR RR1 AND 2 M/S.R.THIRUGNANAM FOR R3"
I am a retired Seafood specialist & RTI activist.As whistle blower I exposed the Commerce Ministry's VRS fraud on Central govt. employees,covered under Pension Rules & waging a lone legal battle for the restoration of pension.Chennai coordinator for SRKVMSchool,Manalmedu.
