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
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
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 FRAUDON 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.
Friday, July 02, 2010
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'
Sunday, June 20, 2010
CASE POSTED FOR 21/06/2010 GOD ONLY KNOWS ABOUT THE ACTUAL PROCEEDINGS!!!!!
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.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
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.20th.April 2010.
Ref: Ref: PRSEC/E/2009/01246 dt.27/7/2009 forwarded to Department of Personnel and Training on 30th.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 grievancepetition sent to DOPT cannot be closed by an official of Commerce Ministry which is not competent to do so.
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.
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."
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"
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CAUSE LIST: "TO IMPLEAD DOPT IN WP 10442/2008 50. MP.1/2009 M/S.G.KARTHIK MUKUNDAN M/S.G.NANMARAN ACGSC (Service) FOR RR1 AND 2 M/S.R.THIRUGNANAM FOR R3"
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(special original jurisdiction) W.P. No. 10442 of 2008
MP.3/2009 TO IMPLEAD DOPT IN WP 10442/2008
M.Venkatesan - ……. Applicant/Petitioner
Vs
1. Union of India,represented by the Secretary,Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce ,Udyog Bhawan,New Delhi.
2. The Director,Export Inspection Council,(Ministry of Commerce), No.26, PragatiTowers,11th Floor, Rajendra Place,New Delhi 110 008.
3. The Additional Director, Export Inspection Agency (Chennai),(Ministry of Commerce),No.213, Royapettah High Road,Chennai – 600 014. ….Respondents/Respondents
4. The Department of Personnel & Training,Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel,Public Grievances & Pension,North Block,
New Delhi-110 001. …..4th Respondent/Proposed Party
AFFIDAVIT OF M.VENKATESAN-FILED IN PERSON ON 25/01/2010
The applicant petitioner humbly submits as follows:
Following points will decide that whether 1994-SVRS is correct in law or not. Present petition filed on 17.04.2008 & directives issued to respondents by the Hon’ble High Court. If SVRS is in accordance with law the respondents would have filed the counter in time. Since it has not been done so, it indicates the lack of statutory provisions.
1. To avoid misuse of power, Allocation of Business Rules-1961 under clause 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.
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.
My service record:
Date of joining in service-Export Inspection Agency (EIA) 08.03.1973 as Technical Officer
Date of leaving fm EIA 08.07.1994 as Asst.Director
It is submitted that there is No time latch in filing the Writ and the sequence of events are given below:
Sequence of events:
1. VRS announced in May-1994 by circular dt.21/5/1994 (Annexure-I)
2. Asked for clarifications vide letters dt. 30/05/1994 & 06/06/1994.
3. EIA asked me first to opt VRS vide letter dt.31.5.1994 (Annexure-II)
4. Opted for VRS on 08.07.1994 assuming that the scheme introduced by the Respondents was a valid one.
5. Relieved on 19.07.1994 with 3month’s notice pay.
6. Work sheet (on benefits) given on 24.10.1994 ( 3 months delay, otherwise I would have filed the writ before I got relieved from my service.)
7. I payment taken under protest on 21.01.1995 (though promised to settle in one month.)
8. II payment received under protest on 03.08.1995.
9. III payment received under protest on 06.10.1997. ( delay of 27months)
10. First WP.16155/1997 filed for DR.
11. DOPT replied in a letter dt.17/8/2005 that it approved only one SVRS-2002 (Annexure-III)
12. Original circular of Commerce ministry received under RTI Act-2005 changed the cause of action totally. (Annexure-IV)
I was forced to file the present petition WP.10442/2008 challenging the Scheme when my appeal for a settlement was turned down. (Annexure-V)
As the above said four vital points which are important to decide the writ, has not been answered till date by the respondent department, it is deemed that the VRS itself is not supported by any statutory provisions of government of India and it has to be struck down. I pray the Hon’ble court to pass appropriate order in terms the submissions made above.
(VENKATESAN.M)
Chennai
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Gmail - My Affidavit - venkym1@gmail.com: "Due to advocates strike I appeared in court on 25/01/2010 for hearing, but the Judge postponed it to 28th.January.So far EIA has not filed their counter & so I am going to appeal for ex party decision on 28th. Regards, VENKATESAN.M"
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.
