Service matter of central government

Narendra Dev Majhwar (Querist) 02 August 2016 This query is : Resolved
Sir,
1.I have joined my central government service of the National Sugar Institute,Kalyanpur,Kanpur - 201 017 in the year of 1996 as Technical Assistant (Sugar Technology) on the basis of my Scheduled Caste Certificate. My father Caste Certificate was verified by the competent authority as well as issuing authority in the year of 1975. The caste certificate was also verified by the Government of India, New Delhi in the year 1976. On basis of my father caste certificate, my caste certificate was also issue my the competent authority in the year 1979 and the fresh online certificate was issued the year of 2013 by the tehsildar kanpur.
2. In the year of 2002 I have got the promotion on the post of Senior Technical (ST)
3. In the year of 2002 & 2003 I have got the letter of cofirmation also got the financial benifit of MACP Scheam.
4.In the year 2014, I have got the opportunity to get selected on the post of Junior Technical Officer(ST) through Direct Recruitment from UPSC, New Delhi and the probation period was only one year.
5. After joining on the post of Junior Technical Officer(ST), I have served on the post of Junior Technical Officer for 02 year and 05 months.
6.After approx 35 years, One complainant, send the complaint to my office for my caste certificate that my caste certificate has been found fake.
6.My total service in this Institute has been more then 20 years, On the basis of fake complaint. My services was terminated by the Ministry as well as Director of the Institute.
7.The termination order issued by the Ministry as well as Director of the institute on the basis of Temporary Service Rules,1965. Is it correct or not.
8.Is there any possibility to represent my case either before the ministry or Director of the Institute.
9.Is there any possibility to chalenge either before the Central Administrtive Tribunal or High Court Allahabad.

Waiting your valuable suggestion eagerly

Yours faithfully
Narendra Dev
National Sugar Institute, Kanpur
Mob. 9415429330

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Guest (Expert) 02 August 2016
Appointment conditons as may be detailed in your appointment order and order on regularisation after probation on the post of JTO is required to be examined in detail in order to arrive at some viable opinion.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 02 August 2016
Mere complaint and termination!
NO opportunity to represent.

Consult a very able counsel specializing in service matters and show all employment related docs, service rules, etc .

R.K Nanda (Expert) 02 August 2016
Contact local lawyer.

Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 02 August 2016
Show all documents to local lawyer and discuss.

dr g balakrishnan (Expert) 04 August 2016
Your issue is on so called 'fake' certification. It was not found so for last 20 years or so.
your question is how to save yourself in a court of law.
if you are sure your certificate is not 'fake' obviously you can move a Writ under art 226 r/w 227 at a jurisdictional high court.
it is a position of law after L. Chandrakumar v UOI verdict, service is a property right. Now it falls under Art.300A after amendment to Art 31 of the constitution of india.
you need to be careful when writing your writ plaint, with reliefs. So you will need a good service lawyer in the high court relevant .
you may send me on my mail, yr plaint if you want vetting, along with your exhibits you rely on. tks n regds

Narendra Dev Majhwar (Querist) 05 August 2016
I am sure that my caste certificate issued by the tehsildar kanpur has been 100% O.K. first of all, I just want after working 20 years of service, Can I treat as temporary employee. My service on the post of Junior technical Officer was on probation only for one year and I have worked on the post of JTO more then two and half years

dr g balakrishnan (Expert) 05 August 2016
Believe you were a confirmed employee; if so you are no longer temporary servant

dr g balakrishnan (Expert) 05 August 2016
when you are a UPSC candidate by direct recruitment, you are permanent servant obviously.

dr g balakrishnan (Expert) 05 August 2016
Believe you were a confirmed employee; if so you are no longer temporary servant

Also there is obviously no domestic inquiry conducted; without findings the director terminating your services is bad in law;

You can move your writ with a condonation of delay application attached your writ will be admitted, but you should very carefully draft your petition and condonation application that is very vital, if so with right exhibits your case would be settled by the relevant high court.tks sir

Guest (Expert) 05 August 2016
Please clarify on the following points:

(1) was the post of JTO temporary or permanent for which you applied through?

(2) Did you apply through proper channel for the post of JTO for Direct Recruitment from UPSC?

(3) Was there a condition in the detailed recruitment instructions of the UPSC that the candidates would be selected for temporary appointment, subject to confirmation after probation period, etc.?

Narendra Dev Majhwar (Querist) 08 August 2016
Reply (1) As per the advertisement published in the Employment News through UPSC New Delhi the JTO post was permanent
Reply(2) Yes we have apply through proper channel for the recruitment from UPSC
Reply (3) As per the advertisement there is no any such conditions, after the recommendation of my name from UPSC, offer of appointment was issued by the ministry, in this offer of appointment there is condition for temporary appointment subject to completion of probation period. My probation period was expired on 31.01.2015 and no any order of extension of probation period has been issued till 27.06.2016. the termination order has been issued on 24/27.06.2016 without conducting any inquiry. all the activities has been done one sided only.

Guest (Expert) 08 August 2016
Dear Narendra Dev,

Your case is strong. Although you were appointed on temporary basis, technically you were deemed to have been made permanent on completion of your probation. You should not have been terminated without serving a charge sheet and conduct of inquiry. It was the duty of the management to give you a chance of hearing. Mere complaint cannot be treated as source of termination.

You may file a case in the competent court of law to get reinstatement in service.

dr g balakrishnan (Expert) 08 August 2016
L.Chandrakumar judgement applies as job is a property.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 08 August 2016
You may now ASAP, approach a very able counsel specializing in service matters.

dr g balakrishnan (Expert) 08 August 2016
Let us not confuse this poor man, badly affected man pls.

if Doab wants to handle the case but let him not confuse pls

Kumar Doab (Expert) 08 August 2016
Who is confusing?
What is confusion?

When did I ask the author to handover the case to me?

If Balakrishnan wants to handle the case, he may post to author, but not post comments that are confusing, pls.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 08 August 2016
My first post is reproduced again;

"Mere complaint and termination!
NO opportunity to represent.

Consult a very able counsel specializing in service matters and show all employment related docs, service rules, etc ."

The author has been asked to approach his counsel thereafter also.

Guest (Expert) 08 August 2016
Dear Dr. Balakrishnan,

If you don't mind, I don't think it is good tussle between both, you and Mr. Kumar.

You would like to appreciate that there is difference between a lawyer and a layman. The querist seems to be a layman, not a lawyer, who could be guided by an experienced senior lawyer on constitutional points. But, one thing is sure, if he is a layman, he has posted his query wrongly under the classification of "Constitutional Law." But, if he is a law student, he can be stated to be ignorant about the service laws. However, your replies for the guidance of a law student can be quite right on contitutional points. But your response was aimed at a layman. Previously, I also considered him as a law student, so my reply was quite simple, where I stated, "Appointment conditons as may be detailed in your appointment order and order on regularisation after probation on the post of JTO is required to be examined in detail in order to arrive at some viable opinion." That was just a clue to the querist to go through the terms & conditions of his appointment, which could serve the purpose of both the layman as well as the law student/ lawyer.

As a layman, what I understand, he was required to be guided in layman's language. You may also like to appreciate that about 99% of India's population consists of laymen, who does not know about law, what to say of constitutional provisions, due to no systematic effort to bring awareness of law amongst the general public. Evidently, it has become the sole property of the law enforcment authorities or the lawyers.

Not only that almost 99% people seek help of legal professionals to file & fight their case in the court of law. Only rareest of the rare dare to file and fight their own cases in the courts of law.

If you ponder upon your own pieces of advice, these pieces of advice can be well enlightening to the legal professionals, but I don't think these pieces of advice can be of any purpose for a layman, who wants to understand what is what and why of his problem and how to proceed further in the simplest.

For example, your first advice was "if you are sure your certificate is not 'fake' obviously you can move a Writ under art 226 r/w 227 at a jurisdictional high court.
it is a position of law after L. Chandrakumar v UOI verdict, service is a property right. Now it falls under Art.300A after amendment to Art 31 of the constitution of india."

I am sure the querist can neither have approach of the constitutional provisions, nor of the case law referred by you.

Again, your previous post referred to another case law of "L.Chandrakumar judgement applies as job is a property."

Hope you can well realize what is the basic requirement of the layman querist and whether that can help or confuse the querist. Moreover, you can also realize, may the Constitution of India be the mother of all laws, but all cases are not fought directly based on the povisions of the Articles of the consitution of India, rather under the provisions of laws and the Rules made thereunder. So, while dealing with the cases, more particularly the service matters, there is always a need to check what the prescribed rules under any law speak and whether there is not any violation of rules. If violation of rules comes in sight, only thereafter law of the land comes to the rescue of the affected person.

In service rules, there is a set of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1964, known in short, as the CCS(TS) Rules. According to the provisions of the said rules, a temporary person can be terminated from service by serving him with a notice of one month without quoting any reason. So, even if the job is treated as a property by a judgment, a Subordinate Legislation does not tend to amend the main rules, unless that is officially amended by the Executive or treated as unconstitutional by the judiciary.

In this case, I am sure the layman querist has no capacity and capability to approach the courts to fight for getting the main rule treated as unconsitutional. He has the dire need how in a simplisti manner he gets justice to get himself reinstated in service.

So, your reply, "Believe you were a confirmed employee; if so you are no longer temporary servant," although not wrong, but was quite premature without knowing the background. Had he not have applied for the job through proper channel, that could render your reply to be wrong in that case, as a directly recruited person from open market in any organisation is always appointed temporily. Had he not applied through proper channel, even for his own organization, he could not have the benefit of protection of his past service. Only based on the reason of his recruitment on application through proper channel and in his own organization, I have stated, "TECHNICALLY you were deemed to have been made permanent on completion of your probation." So, there is still a need to fight strongly on this point to convince the judge, as the management would persist on his own point of temporary status of the employee.

Although you are right in your statement, "also there is obviously no domestic inquiry conducted; without findings the director terminating your services is bad in law," but as per rules that applies in the case of a permanent employees only.

While all his previous service worth 18 years was permanent service, but due to fresh selection for higher post, although in the same organisation, he got temporary status on that position.

You must have seen, my first response was quite in layman's language, as I tried to make him aware about the terms & conditions of his srvice, while stating, "Appointment conditions as may be detailed in your appointment order and order on regularisation after probation on the post of JTO is required to be examined in detail in order to arrive at some viable opinion." But, when I saw that he is getting tutoring meant for the advocates, only then I made my points clear, so that he may understand, what he should divulge with reference to his appointment on the post in question.

After his clarigfications only then I concluded that he can get advantage of his past permanent service, as he applied through proper channel, where his service interests have to be made secure.

How, you won't mind my attempt to make the clouds of misunderstanding clear about one another.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 08 August 2016
Respected Shri P.S.Dhingra,

Sir,

In none of the threads including this one, I have initiated any tussle with Dr. Balakrishnan.

All these years I have not initiated any tussle with anyone.

I have appreciated the comments of Dr. Balakrishnan, in threads in which we participated, and I have addressed him respectfully and as expert in constitutional matters. You have also participated in those threads and must have noted my posts.

I have been respectful to all fellow Experts and companions and seniors.
In this thread also I have attempted to post to the best of limited understanding, for the benefit of author.

I have strived to illustrate and participate in enriching discussions.
I gain from such discussions and everyone gains from such discussions.
You have, and other experts also, made the discussions enriching.

It is in a lighter vein, that, if an employee has suffered at the hands of arrogant and high headed Line Managers/Executive etc then ultimately he is be guided to a very able counsel specializing in Labor/Service matters, for a considered opinion and guidance after due examination of all docs and facts, and not a dentist. I have not asked the author to go and engage a dentist or a plumber.

I have not asked the author to come to me, leave apart engaging me as his counsel, and the author has not written to me and I have not written to author.

Labor/Service matters are best handled by counsels specializing in Labor/Service matters, it being altogether different field.

At my age, by the respects that I have paid to experts, and by some notable contribution, which I feel I have made to this forum, I also expect reciprocal respect.

I have failed to understand despite being respectful, gentle, amiable why should anyone be spiteful, to me, and to anyone for that matter.

Not only in this thread but in other thread also Dr. Balakrishnan has posted comments on me that are not in good taste and expected in this forum by an expert about other expert.
Still, I have never so far, initiated any tussle with Dr. Balakrishnan.

I expect this shall end in this thread.

The author has suffered at the hands of bosses that are not all bothered about the prevalent Rules that apply to establishment, employee, and even them (bosses). It is crystal clear the bosses are not at all concerned about law/enactments/rules/precedence’s leave apart constitutional rights.

The action taken by bosses is extreme and it shall take time, patience and resources of the author to wriggle out of it.

By that time the bosses may be blissfully enjoying their retrial benefits.
It shall take time, patience and resources of counsel of the author, too, to fetch him relief.
Of course the right counsel is the one that specializes in Labor/Service matters

The author is free to engage anyone as his counsel.

I have not collected a single penny, to this moment, as on date, from anyone, at LCI.

Guest (Expert) 08 August 2016
Dear Kumar,

I can understand well. Since I felt there was nothing of conflicting nature in the replies of the experts and abruptly the arguments in brief was going to be started between Dr. Balakrishnan and you, only then I preferred to come forward with my detailed observation on the case. But my observation was not to criticise any of you, rather to avoid stretching of the thread with unwarranted arguments in public forum.

dr g balakrishnan (Expert) 08 August 2016
I appreciate the attempts of Digraji and kumarji, i never meant any contempt of any, i only said, if a lay man misreads he publishes his misunderstanding, so that advocacy do not suffer as such, now the issue seems some contempt of some one, that is not ideal i do not claim i am the ultimate of end of laws or the constitution of India, but i have to say Art 300A needs a lot of polishing as Art 31 is not truly properly appreciated;

It is like Jus Katju today made observations on hon SC it cannot direct on the basis of retd CJI. Lodha's report but hn SC shd have been recommended for suitable parliamentary Act, of course the hin SC could make recommendations. might be true, Jus Katju did not see the good views of hon SC let that Lodhaji's recommendation need not be tossed upon and down; thogh Katjaji is right so too SC's opinion too after all once pronounced by the hin court it falls under Art 141.

Anyway let us agree Expert means he is not really Expert after all experts' are all fallible; if experts do not appreciate the very meaning of Expertise itself is fallible, it is like NTPC Nuclear scientists Kudamkulam nuclear power plant maintaing itself is an one way traffic only that was well explained by the fisher woman in Sundari in a report that all of you might of heard and learnt; so 'Lay man' or 'Expert' do not counter each other but wisdom only prevails. I wish Advocacy shall be one some Wisdom tank - where all can swim and learn after all Advocates cannot be advocates of advocacy if they do not update themselves day in day out, that is te learning till death of any one; so upanishads became greater than vedas and scripturs themselves sirs.

Let us end the discussion with this of my humble submission to all the learned men. i see here, thanks and regards, if you think i am a hurdle l recommend my name may be removed from this august club.so no conflicts at all.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 08 August 2016
Respected Shri P.S.Dhingra,

Sir,

I have expressed my feelings.

I have posted in this august forum of LCI many times that I shall prefer to sit at the feet of masters and learn.

I have gained a lot from seniors, experts.

The experts have wholeheartedly shared, illustrated and readers have devoured.

There have been many instances of thankless querist/authors that collected FREE advise and then indulged in indecorous behavior.

While I would always remain united against such elements, I shall always offer my heartfelt apologies even if I don't err, but it is perceived as error.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 08 August 2016
Honorable Dr.G.Balakrishnan,

Sir,

I adore and admire Experts and seniors at LCI.

They are very sharp and brilliant counsels.

You are one of the seniors and experts at LCI.

Kindly continue to enrich the discussions at LCI with your wisdom and knowledge.

There is nothing else in my heart.

With Regards

KumarDoab.

Guest (Expert) 09 August 2016
Dear Dr. Balakrishnan,

I noticed your sentiments. Nobody on earth can claim to be an expert in any field of knowledge. Even a judge cannot claim to be an expert. His judgment is based mostly on the submissions of lawyers of both sides.

So, while someone has more the other one has less knowledge or understanding in different streams and fields of knowledge. Nobody can boast to be complete in all respects. Every human being on this earth, besides his own personal experience, learns from the practical experience of other fellows.

So, there was nothing to be taken to mind. No one is considered to be a hurdle against the others. The only thing is, in what manner we are able to convince the knowledge seeker.

Service matter of central government

Similar Resolved Queries :