Thursday 30 July 2015


Government of India, DOPT sent to various authorities Vide letter No. 1/5/2011-IR Dated 10thJuly, 2015 expressing the need for Harmonization of RTI (Fee & Cost) Rules and Appeal Procedure Rules under Right to Information Act, 2005.

Earlier, the Government of India had notified a set of RTI Rules, 2012 dated 31.7.2012. While drafting the RTI Rules, 2012, it was stipulated that once notified, the State Governments would be requested to adopt these rules as it is, so that there might be uniformity in the matter of implementation of the RTI Act throughout the country. However,few States have not yet harmonized their fee rules with that of the Central Government.

Therefore, in the latest letter it is requested by the Central Government to various authorities mentioned in the letter to review their Right to Information (Fee & Cost Rules) and Appeal Procedure Rules.


Government of India, DOPT (Establishment Division) vide office memorandum F. No. 11013/8/2015-Estt.A-111 Dated July 27th, 2015 issued instructions regarding requirement of taking prior permission for leaving station/ headquarters for going abroad while on leave. This is in line with the existing instructions.
1. When a Government servant applies for leave for going abroad on a private visit, separately prior permission of the competent authority for such visit is also required. The requests of Government servants for such permission are to be dealt with expeditiously.

2. It has been decided that requests for permission for private visits abroad may be processed in the attached formats. In the event of failure on the part of the competent authority to communicate its decision to the Government employee concerned with 21 days of receipt of the application, the employee concerned shall be free to assume that permission has been granted to him.

Monday 27 July 2015


In a recent judgement of the Supreme Court dated 02-7-2015, it was held that contractual employees cannot seek regularization with retrospective effect when regularisation policy was not in vogue

Facts of the case: The appellants were initially engaged on the post of Assistant Manager (Civil) by the respondent No.1–Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority on contractual basis for a period of 89 days. Initial appointments of the appellants were not made against any sanctioned posts.
However, their engagement continued from time to time, and the appellants have been continuously working on the said post. On 20.11.2002, the respondent authorities published an advertisement for engagement to the posts of Assistant Manager (Civil). The appellants and similarly situated persons who have been engaged on contractual basis filed a Writ seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to regularise their services on the post of Assistant Manager (Civil) and to quash the aforesaid advertisement dated 20.11.2002. The appellants contended that as they were working continuously, the respondent authorities instead of issuing a fresh advertisement should have regularised their services on the said post. By the judgment dated 28.09.2005, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the advertisement dated 20.11.2002 and directed the respondent-authorities to consider the claim of the appellants for regularisation of their services on the existing vacancies which were directed to be filled up from the existing contractual employees as per the Regulation/Rules and fresh advertisement could be issued inviting applications from the general candidates only for remaining vacancies. Challenging the order of the learned single Judge, respondent authorities filed Special Appeal before the Division Bench.

Pending adjudication of Writ Petition before the single Judge, a scheme for regularization of the contractual employees was formulated wherein a policy was framed regarding regularization of 27 contractual employees who had been engaged initially for a period of 89 days and continued thereafter. The State Government, vide its letter dated 05.03.2008, approved the policy formulated by respondent No.1 for regularization of contractual employees. Pursuant to the policy decision, the appellants and other similarly situated contractual employees were appointed on the post of Assistant Manager (Civil) vide appointment orders dated 06.08.2010.

After joining the said post, the appellants filed a Claim Petition No. 174 of 2011 before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow praying for regularization of their services from the date of existence of vacancies, that is 20.11.2002, the date on which the advertisement was issued, for appointment to the post of Assistant Manager (Civil) and with all consequential benefits. The tribunal, vide its judgment dated 23.06.2011, allowed the Claim Petition and directed the authorities to consider the appellants’ claim for regularization of their services on the existing vacancies with effect from 20.11.2002. Aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, the respondent authorities preferred a writ being Writ Petition

before the High Court. The High Court, vide judgment dated 29.10.2013 relying on the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra) allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent authorities and quashed the order dated 23.06.2011 passed by the tribunal granting benefits to the appellants with retrospective effect. Additionally, the High Court also quashed the appointments of the appellants dated 06.08.2010 as ex-facie illegal and directed the authorities to initiate proceedings in respect of illegal appointments which were made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ofIndia.

After considering the facts of the case Supreme Court held that the Division Bench was not right in setting aside the appointment of the appellants particularly when nobody challenged the appointment of the appellants. Since the appointment of the appellants were made pursuant to the policy of regularization, the High Court was not right in quashing the appointment of the appellants as the same were never in question before the High Court. The plea that was raised by the appellants was only to seek regularization with retrospective effect from 20.11.2002 and the consequential seniority.
The SC further held that the appellants were appointed on the post of Assistant Manager (Civil) only pursuant to the policy decision of the respondents for regularisation of contractual employees and thus, the appellants cannot seek for regularization with retrospective effect from 20.11.2002, that is when the advertisement was issued, because at that time regularisation policy was not in vogue. By policy of regularisation, it was intended to give the benefit only from the date of appointment. The Court cannot read anything into the policy decision which is plain and unambiguous. Having accepted the appointment orders dated 6.08.2010 and also joined the post, the appellants cannot turn round and claim regularisation with retrospective effect.

With this, the judgment of the High Court quashing the appointment of the appellants vide appointment order dated 06.08.2010 was set aside. Also the appellants’ plea for regularization with retrospective effect was declined. [Reference:- Supreme Court decision dated July 2, 2015 in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4916 OF 2015 SURENDRA KUMAR & ORS. …APPELLANT (S) V/S GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIALnDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. …RESPONDENT (S)]

Friday 24 July 2015


On 17/07/2015, Department of Expenditure has issued an OM no.12(21)/E.Coord/2015 to its employees with the subject ‘Execss Expenditure Over Voted Grants’. This is not a new OM but it is being issued every year just before or during the Parliament session but never followed by anybody. I doubt whether those who are processing the OM itself is properly reading it or not.
It is simply quoting the Public Accounts Committee para 12 of its 36th report on action taken by the government on their observations/recommendations contained in the seventh report (15th Lok Sabha) on “Excess over Voted Grants and Charged Appropriations (2007-08) to the effect that no firm measures have been put in place by the Ministries/Departments concerned to avoid excess expenditure by the defaulter ministries. The OM also invited a reference to Rule 52(1) of the GFRs. The issue of such an OM is in vogue since the time GFR (General Financial Rules) came into existence. But who cares.
Now the funniest part of the Office Memorandum: In this monsoon session of the Parliament, Finance Minister already prepared to seek approval for a supplementary Grant to finance a package to the public sector banks floating on the Non-Performing Assets (NPA). In this background, my first question is whether the burden of NPA is a spontaneous incident noticed by the Finance Ministry after the last Budget session of the Parliament which necessitated for supplementary grant in the monsoon Session? If not, why it was not included in the Budget? When the Minister itself does not honour the rules and regulations, how they can control the subordinates? This is only one instance. Almost all supplementary requests if analysed would come to this category. Second question is, how many M.P.s are utilizing their grants fully or at least substantially during the financial year so that it is not lapsed?
( To read my various other blogs, visit my web site – and my book:


The Government of India, reclassified the status of cities and towns by its office memorandum no.2/5/2014-E.II(B) dated 21/07/2015 for the purpose of House Rent Allowance (HRA) for its employees. Details are given below:

Wednesday 15 July 2015


In this case, the respondent Indian Air Force employee was rendered ineligible for further promotion and thereby invalidated on the ground of his being in medical category A4 G4 (Permanent). In the absence of any specific note on record as to the respondent suffering from any disease prior to his joining the service, he is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition while entering service as per Rule 5(a) of the Entitlement Rules.

The fact remains that the respondent employee was denied promotion on medical grounds and the deterioration in his health should therefore be presumed to have been caused due to service in the light of Rule 5(b) of the Entitlement Rules. Moreover, simply recording a conclusion that the disability was not attributable to service, without giving a reason as to why the diseases were not deemed to be attributable to service, clearly shows lack of proper application of mind by the Medical Board.

In these circumstances, the view taken by the Medical Board was rejected by the Supreme Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of above Rules and Regulations as well as settled principles of law, SC of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had not committed any error in awarding disability pension to the respondent for 60% disability from the date of his discharge along with 10% p.a. interest on the arrears. For all the reasons stated above, SC did not find any merit in the  appeal of the Union of India and dismissed the appeal directing the appellants to release the arrears of disability pension to the respondent within three months from today together with interest @10% p.a.


Monday 6 July 2015

GOI now issued Office Memorandum dated 03/07/2015 on: Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months - Supreme Court

Kindly refer to my earlier posting of May 2015 on the same subject regarding a direction of the Supreme Court to the Government to issue instructions regarding timely completion of the disciplinary proceedings including suspension. Now the Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training issued the order vide OFFICE MEMORANDUM F. No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.(A) Dated July 3rd , 2015 as follows:-
“Subject: Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 — instructions regarding timely issue of Charge-sheet - regarding.
........ in a recent case, AjayKumar Choudhary vs Union of India Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015 dated 16/02/2015 the Apex Court has directed as follows: We, therefore, direct that the currency of Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/ Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/ employee;

2. It is noted that in many cases charge sheets are not issued despite clear prima facie evidence of misconduct on the ground that the matter is under investigation by an investigating agency like Central Bureau of Investigation etc. In the aforesaid judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court has superseded the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance.

3. In this connection, attention is invited to this Department O.M. No. 35014/1 /81-Estt A dated 9.11.1982 which contained the guidelines for timely issue of charge-sheet to Charged officer and to say that these instructions lay down, inter-alia, that where a Government servant is placed under suspension on the ground of "Contemplated"disciplinary proceedings, the existing instructions provide that every effort would be made to finalise the charges, against the Government servant within three months of the date of suspension. If these instructions are strictly adhered to, a Government servant who is placed under suspension on the ground of contemplated disciplinary proceedings will become aware of the reasons for his suspension without much loss of time. The reasons for suspension should be communicated to the Government servant concerned at the earliest, so that he may be in a position to effectively exercise the right of appeal available to him under Rule 23 (i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, if he so desires. The time-limit of forty five days for submission of appeal should be counted from the date on which the reasons for suspension arc communicated.”