Rejoinder to Case No.2256/20/1/13 Forefeiture of Provident Fund
Revribhav <revribhav@gmail.com> Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:34 AM
To: covdnhrc <covdnhrc@nic.in>, sgnhrc <sgnhrc@nic.in>
Cc: gsrinivasan <gsrinivasan@newindia.co.in>, ksanathkumar <ksanathkumar@newindia.co.in>, "s.ramabhadran@newindia.co.in" <s.ramabhadran@newindia.co.in>, "p.nayak" <p.nayak@newindia.co.in>, "segar.sampath" <segar.sampath@newindia.co.in>, "rafi.ahmed" <rafi.ahmed@newindia.co.in>, "rakesh.kumar" <rakesh.kumar@newindia.co.in>, "hari.srinivas" <hari.srinivas@newindia.co.in>, "lalit.vaid" <lalit.vaid@newindia.co.in>
Where there is no vision, the people perish__________________________________
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
Dated: 30/04/2014
National Human Rights Commission,
Manav Adhikar Bhawan,Block C
GPO Complex,NIA,NEW DELHI-110025
Subject: Regarding your LETTER 1/APR 2014** Case No.2256/20/1/13
With reference to my complaint dated Septemeber
2013 your above mentioned letter, attaching reply of one Mr.
Nayak,***G.M.Personnel Dept,NIACL I clarify the following:-
**annexure6 ***annexure7
1) Under Para 3 Mr Nayak has referred to what he calls “series of
litigation going on between the company and Mr. Soni”.
Clarification:- That there is no pending litigation in the specific
complaint of forefeiture/attachment of PF of complainant without any
rule of law on behalf of NIACL. .Please refer annexure 1 for details
of and nature of litigations.
2. That the issue of forefeiture of Provident fund (I beg to
emphasise,without any consent of the complainant) is not pending as
on date before any court of law and/ or tribunal.(please refer
annexure 1 for actual details of all litigations).
That none of the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon between the
complainant and the NIACL empowered the forefeiture /attachment of the
provident fund of the complainant.
Appointment order of the complainant w.e.f. 24th February 2008 is
enclosed as Annexure-2
3. That there is no relevance of Mr. Nayak,GM,NIACL harping upon what
he calls “various misconducts” he attributes against the complainant
running into various paragraph of three pages as the chairman of the
insurance company,a superior authority to the rank of GM NIACL, vide a
self speaking order dated 9TH June 2011 pronounced: (quote begin)
Hence, on consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case
as also to meet the ends of justice, I admit the Memorial dated
25.5.2010 submitted by Mr. Shrigopal Soni and I hereby set aside the
Orders dated 5.11.2009 and 16.11.2009 passed by the Appellate
Authorities (quote ends).
That there is no stay order on the above order,the positive
consequences of the above order have yet to be implemented by NIACL
,however ,motivated by corporate hatred instituted against an
honest human being , red- tapism is applied behind corporate veil
instead of reviving the forefeited benefits of complainant, gratuity
etc.
4. That a distorted negative picture is painted against the
dignified complainant who consistently uses RTI against corruption in
public life in all 3 pages of the letter issued by NIACL GM I wish to
draw your kind attention to the last third para of the reply wherein
the facts are distorted to deviate the NHRC from the forefeiture of PF
(page No.3)
That one A. R. Sekar ,against whom my complaint addressed
to NHRC of September 2013 was filed , instituted the policy of fury
and hate by way of violent words against the complainant.One of the
several orders passed by him in the course of duty of a public
servant of a PSU reads as under: (quote starts)
On perusal of his appeals(numbering 74 as on date) filed by
the appellant to the undersigned,against his 109 no. of applications
under RTI submitted by him to his Employer/Committee of Parliament…/
Ministry of Finance/Central Vigilance Commission etc.,it is noted that
the appellant is not interested in any genuine information but is
merely making an attempt to subvert the mechanism of the Act for no
public gain. (quote ends). The absolute authoritative order
of Mr. Sekar effectively discriminating the complainant isolating him
against the Right to Information accorded to citizen of India,
amounts to being whimsical and capricious. It is against the Book of
Do’s and Don’ts applicable to every official of the general insurance
PSUs.
Mr Sekar held influence during 2007 to first quarter of 2014 ,
e.g. that of senior most General Manager, Chairman ex-officio,
Financial Advisor of NIACL one of his sample orders, reads as above
-Appeal No. 029/2009 dated 25th June 2009
Thus the complaint against an official of NIACL is substantial based
on material evidence.
5. That the hateful & humiliating wrath of said Mr. Sekar,in the
course of earning himself public money and permit abuse of public
resources was deliberate against an honest,qualified but financially
poor human being who ,even after several years faces the consequences
of illegal transfer (despite stay orders of court of law effective as
on the last order of 9.06.2011) and that of dismissal on, one , only
one “grave” charge ever mentioned in the memorandumī{quoted with
image}:-
The liberal and human Mr.
Sekar was seen in the personal company of one of the well known
corrupt official(s) of the NIACL salary No. 26019 who after about one
decade,evades any serious departmental action,an association leader of
NIACL as on 20 July 2012 at Jaipur (evidence in Annexure -3)
5. The complainant clarifies about the last order dated 9.06.2011
signed by NIACLchairman. The Chairman may have the authority to set
aside the punishment imposed upon the complainant however he had no
authority to transfer a Hindi Translator in view of at least three
grounds:-
(a) The chairman discriminated against the complainant violating the
well defined transfer and mobility policy of class 3 that restricts
the transfer within radius of 150-200 km.
(b) The Hindi department of the company has issued a policy dated
5.06.2007 that no employee holding designation of Hindi can
effectively be transferred without replacement of same designation.
The same is submitted as Annexure-4.
(c) The high court stay order dated 30.July 2007 was effective
restricting the chairman not to transfer the petitioner of writ
petition no.4575/2007
6. That it is not only the clear and unambiguous decision of
various court of law but also the NIACL directions dated 29.10.2009
that (a) no forefeiture from gratuity is permissible without specific
mention in the penalty order of the loss caused by employee (b) Amount
standing to Provident Fund of employee can neither be withheld nor be
attached.
The same is submitted as Annexure-5.
That there is no NIACL speaking order to recover any
single rupee from the Provident Fund of the complainant on the basis
of any enquiry/audit recovery/vigilance advice.
The NHRC is requested to issue directions to provide human relief to
the complainant to the NIACL chairman and the board of directors.
7. That the complaint keeps the dignity of a law abiding citizen of
India who has never filed any criminal case against anyone and, none
on behalf of NIACL have succeeded to implicate the complainant in a
criminal /cyber law case.
Affected by trauma of distorted facts in letter addressed to NHRC
,without even an information to complainant , I have ,(after receipt
of your letter enclosing the same) communicated on 22.04.2014 to the
G.M. as well as to the chairman of thePSU.,that I have never been
penalized by any court of law further I face no defamation case
and in the event of what Mr. Nayak describes as “misconduct”(s) in
his attached reply dated 19.11.2013 is real and substantial it must
reasonably be proved in the tribunal as neither the hon’ble high
court nor the NHRC are the appropriate forum to adjudicate it.
So far neither Mr. Nayak nor any other official of the insurance
company have responded. This leads to a reasonable conclusion that.
the reply 19.11.2013 is not based upon facts but motivated to
justify a corporate hatred against a human being for invoking RTI
against red- tapism & abuse of public money.
I verify that the facts mentioned above are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief,the matters under complaint that is,
forefeiture /attachment /adjustment from provident fund are not
presently the subject matter of any litigation .
Yours Sincerely,
Shri Gopal Soni
revribhav@gmail.com
Address: C231,Panchsheel Nagar,AJMER-305004 0145-2644106
By e-mail: annexure 1 to 7
: Info. &
necessary action please:-Chairman & Board of Directors,New India
Assurance Co. Ltd,87,M.G. Road,Fort,Mumbai-400001.
8 attachments — Scan and download all attachments
april 14 NHRC reply complaint 210913.doc
73K View as HTML Scan and download
NHRC-1 annexure litigation complaint sept 13.pdf
119K View as HTML Scan and download
NHRC-2 13.6.88 Appointment order w.e.f. 24.02.88.pdf
53K View as HTML Scan and download
NHRC-3 A.R.SEKAR with bribe taker 26019.pdf
123K View as HTML Scan and download
NHRC-4 5.06.07 no hindi transfer without replacement.pdf
85K View as HTML Scan and download
NHRC-5 PF gratuity cannot forefeit NIACL reply.pdf
84K View as HTML Scan and download
NHRC-6 1.04.14 seek comments.pdf
111K View as HTML Scan and download
NHRC-7 reply 19.11.13 GM complaint.pdf
413K View as HTML Scan and download
Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:30 AM
