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/"

       

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

W.P NO. 10442 OF 2008 

M. Venkatesan                                                                                              …..Petitioner

Vs

Union of India

Represented by The Secretary

Ministry of Commerce & Industry

& 2 others                                                                                                 ….. Respondents

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. 

10                In 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.

EIA Counter.pdf - Google Docs

EIA Counter.pdf - Google Docs: "Loading...
1 / 4
1
2
3
4"