Friday 30 October 2015


This is an army case, decided by the Supreme Court of India, but the principle involved is equally applicable in civil cases also.

This is a case where it was found that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted by the Commanding Officer at any stage against the appellant in this case as required under the procedure. More importantly, there was nothing on record to suggest that the authority competent had taken into consideration the long service rendered by the appellant, the difficult living conditions and the hard stations at which he had served.

The material facts were not in dispute. It was not in dispute that the appellant had within a period of 12 years of the service suffered as many as four red ink entries. All these entries were awarded to him on account of overstaying leave for a period ranging between 29 days to 66 days.

There was nothing on record to suggest that the nature of the misconduct leading to the award of red ink entries was so unacceptable that the competent authority had no option but to direct his discharge to prevent indiscipline in the force. Also the ASG, did not dispute the fact that many number of other personnel were still in service no matter they have earned four red ink entries on account of overstaying leave. In such cases, the only safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power by the authority would be to ensure that there is an enquiry howsoever summary and a finding about the defence set-up by the individual besides consideration of the factors made relevant under the procedure.

The SC took notice that it was common ground that a red ink entry might be earned by an individual for overstaying leave for one week or for six months. In either case the entry would a red ink entry and would qualify for consideration in the matter of discharge. If two persons who suffer such entries were treated similarly notwithstanding the gravity of the offence being different, it would be unfair and unjust for unequal could not be treated as equal. More importantly, a person who had suffered four such entries on a graver misconduct may escape discharge which another individual who has earned such entries for relatively lesser offences may be asked to go home prematurely. The unfairness in any such situation makes it necessary to bring in safeguards to prevent miscarriage of justice. That was precisely what the procedural safeguards purported to do in this case.

In the result this appeal against a judgment and order dated 14th December 2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal succeeded and was allowed by the Supreme Court andt he order of discharge passed against the appellant was set aside. Since the appellant has already crossed the age of superannuation, it was directed that the appellant should be treated to have been in service till the time he would have completed the qualifying service for grant of pension but without back wages. Benefit of continuity of service for all other purpose should, however, be granted to the appellant including pension. Monetary benefits payable to the appellant shall be released expeditiously but not later than four months from the dateof this order.

(Ref.:Supreme Court Judgement dated October 16, 2015 in Veerendra Kumar Dubey V/s Chief of Army Staff & Ors.)


Saturday 17 October 2015


Now Ministry of Finance, GOI, vide Office Memorandum dated 16/10/2015 issued a revised method of pay fixation for those who are promoted in between 1.1.2006 and the date of notification of CCS(RP)Rules, 2008.

This is applicable in cases where promotion took place in the pre-revised pay scale during the period between 1.1.2006 and the date of notification of CCS(RP)Rules, 2008 when the pre-revised and revised pay scales were different and the posts carried the character of feeder and promotional grades,  pay fixation on such promotion shall be allowed under \rule 13 of the CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 with the following conditions:

  1. The promotion had taken place between 1.1.2006 and the date of notification
  2. FR 22(I) (a)(1), which was applicable for fixation of pay on promotion before promulgation of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008
  3. The concerned employees had opted to come over to the revised pay structure from a date occurring prior to the date of notification of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008.
  4. The concerned Recruitment Rules have been amended subsequently to provide for merger of these grades into a single grade/post.
However, this order applies only in case of promotions carried out in the pre-revised structure during 01.01.2006 and the date of notification of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008. Hence, the benefit of Rule 13 of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 would not apply in cases of appointment to the post which was in the higher pay scale in the pre-revised pay scale, where such appointment is made after the date of notification of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008. 

I think there can be more clarifications in this regard.
For more information, go to the following link:



Wednesday 14 October 2015


GOI,Department of Personnel and Training vide notification dated 12/10/2015 amended the due date for Furnishing of Information and Annual Return of Assets and Liabilities and the Limits for Exemption of Assets in Filing Returns. The new date is 15/04/2016. Details are as follows:

2. In the Public Servants (Furnishing of Information and Annual Return of Assets and Liabilities and the Limits
for Exemption of Assets in Filing Returns) Rules, 2014, in rule 3, in sub-rule (2),-
(a) in the first proviso, for the words and figures "on or before the 15th day of October, 2015", the words and
figures "on or before the 15th day of April, 2016" shall be substituted;
(b) in the second proviso, for the words and figures "on or before the 15th day of October, 2015", the words and
figures "on or before thel5th day of April, 2016" shall be substituted”.

(Author,s Note: This is only for information purpose)


Tuesday 6 October 2015

Procedure for booking of air-tickets on LTC- Clarification

DOPT vide OM. No. 31011/5/2014-Estt (A.IV) dated September 23, 2015 directed to refer its earlier O.M. No. 31011/4/2014-Estt.(A-IV) dated 19th June, 2014 which lays down that the Government employees are required to book the air tickets directly from the airlines (Booking counters, website of airlines) or by utilizing the service of Authorized Travel Agents viz. 'M/s Balmer Lawrie & Company', 'M/s Ashok Travels & Tours' and 'IRCTC' (to the extent IRCTC is authorized as per DoPT O.M. No. 31011/6/2002-Est(A) dated 02.12.2009) while undertaking LTC journey(s). Vide DoPT's O.M. 31011/5/2014-Estt.(AIV) dated 24.09.2014, the web-portal of these authorized travel agents will also be treated as an acceptable mode for purchase of air tickets on LTC subject to the conditions stated vide Department of Expenditure's O.M. No. 19024/1/2012-E-IV dated 5thSeptember, 2014.

It further stated that various Ministries/Departments continue to send references to DoPT seeking relaxation regarding the booking of air tickets for the purpose of LTC from the travel agents not authorised by the aforesaid O.M.. In most of the cases, the common reason stated by the LTC beneficiaries is that they were not aware of the guidelines and inadvertently booked the tickets from other travel agents. 

Therefore, they advised to ensure a wide circulation of the guidelines as stated in para 1 of this O.M.. It was also advised that this point may also be emphasized by the Administration whenever any advance is sought or intention to avail LTC is conveyed by the Government servant.