HOLDING OF DPCs- A QUESTION OF LAW, THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, Judicial Precedents AND SPECIFIC RULES with special reference to RPF GROUP ‘A’ CADRE POST OFFICERS - ASSISTANT SECRUITY COMMISSIONERS (ASCs) ON ADHOC BASIS vis-a-vis UPSC /ASCs- DIRECTLY POSITIONED OFFICERS IN THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD
MY FEELINGS AND PROPOSITION!!!
1) Not keeping their positions and ranks, conditions prevailing in the service matters, within the rights of the officers, one works in the Railway Protection Force with zeal and enthusiasm and results could be seen in our day to day news and through media; many of the personnel are on deputation in Railway’s Vigilance, in other Ministries and on abroad Missions. But still, the untold misery and discontentment in heart and heart that prevailed though not coming out on the way for THEIR duty , without shirking responsibility, the personnel, in particular the departmental promote ASCs work on adhoc basis for years together, and some times over decades without further promotion as that of their brotherly direct ASCs in the same department. While the adhoc SYSTEM IN RPF –GROUP ‘A’ CADRE POST continues without further promotion on completion of three years, the reason as put by the Railway Board, the Directorate is that adhoc ASCs are not eligible for next higher promotion as they have not been regularised through a Departmental Promotion Committee; thus and hence they are losing their regular promotions even for years and retire as such with less pension than that of their juniors or direct ASCs; while the direct ASCs shall be promoted to next higher rank immediately on completion of three years of service and elevated to the rank as Divisional Security Commissioner- SA Grade, and thereby on completion of around 12-15 years service they get the expected rank as DIG/IG. Further blowing up points are continued in the forth coming paras:
MY FEELINGS ARE SELF-EXPLANATORY...!!! ALL MY EFFORTS made through HONORABLE PRESIDENT'S SECRETARIAT, PMO's OFFICE, MR, CIC, NHRC, Vigilance, AND SO ON SINCE 10 YEARS yielded zero results and FAILED TO CONVINCE THE RPF / RAILWAY BOARD.
2) Now that THE JCM COULD COME FORWARD TO VENTILATE THE ISSUE of DPCs IN A PRECISED AND fittingly EFFECTIVE MANNER IN ITS MEETING held in May, 2017, the same can be perused in the web...
3) THE UPSC...IN RPF DPC'S SELECTIONS OF 2008/2009 FOUND TO HAVE BOWED DOWN TO THE OTHER MEMBERS FROM RAILWAY BOARD,RPF IN THE PREPARATION OF SELECT PANEL LISTS--WHEREIN--THE DPCs COULD place ONE EXPIRED person’s name (died in 2000 while working over South Central Railway), RPF INSPECTOR as FIT after the DPC member’s verification of ACRs, SR, and Integrity Certificate of one Mr. Joseph Kurian; Like WISE, two more names of RPF Inspectors-- M.Vijaya Kumar, Hari Prasad Rao of SCRly-- who are found to be the Outstanding personnel with several Divisional / Zonal / Railway Board, RPF, / MR / recipient of IPM/PPM or so, names could not even be found in the DPC's Panel Lists, and no remarks made in the UPSC recommendations sent to Railway Board...I have dared to project these above and some other illegalities / irregularities in RPF to the Director General, RPF and to others, including the Vigilance Department...all are silent on the matters...
4) The Railway Board is declining to honour the Apex Court Judicial Precedents, their own set of Rules—IREM- Para-228; RPF Rules and straightaway closing the case by stating that the case cannot be considered for deemed promotion as DSC at par with the juniors since retired when the DPCs were held; they said, even the Judicial Precedents and latest Apex Court Judgment Order in Sony Verghees case cannot be applied to me as I am not one of the Petitioner in that case.
5) But, herein, I could place a material fact and documentary evidence on contrary to their version, and as to how they are playing dual role in the administration in the Railway Board, RPF by applying their differential treatment and application of Rules /the Law:
The Railway Board taken action in the case of retired DSCs - SA Grade and up to the rank of IGs / retired and all were given deemed promotion at par with their juniors as per seniority before superannuation and pension fixation benefits were given even though they were not the Party- Petitioners in the Writ Petition filed by ONE Mr. Bhupathy @B.Mohan in the Honorable High Court, Kolkata. The SLP filed by UOI and others was dismissed by the Honorable Supreme Court. No retired Officer submitted any representation, but their deemed promotion was given by the Railway Board since the Board, RPF was interested Party .
6) My question is that when they /Railway Board could give deemed promotion to the retired officers as stated above, why the same facility and rule, the precedent adopted by them is declined and denied to retired ASCs, why they are adopting differential equations and different formulae and rules only towards ASCs retired...
7) Trust shall not be betrayed- between the Master and the Servant-- Hon'ble Apex Court version can be seen in the VII CPC Report...
8) PARA...xi...concerning to Do P&T / UPSC....OF JCM MINUTES...placed hereunder: CAN ANY OFFICIAL IN THE MINISTRY / any other Ministry set right the matters in the Railway Board, RPF on the issue of holding timely DPCs as per the Rules and the Law, discontinuance of ADHOC PROMOTIONS IN RPF - adopt the Orders of GOI, Adhoc CONTINUANCE FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS with express permission of the UPSC AND to honor and respect the Law not to DEPRIVE PRESUMTIVE/DEEMD/PROFORMA PROMOTION to retired ASCs IN RPF - Resolve and remove this PATHETIC CONDITION as is now PREVAILING SINCE 1980S.
All the DGS from IPS cadre and the departmental ADG come and go with false promises to Adhoc ASCS; they could not speak openly while holding the post and on the matter about holding of DPCS as per provisions of the rules and judicial precedents delivered by honorable supreme court orders and on deemed promotion. No one care in RPF. This is going on as a traditional matter of right in RPF directions prevail in railway board, they are rejecting even genuine grievance projected with judicial precedents, IREM rules, RPF Rules, such is the state of affairs in RPF.
Latest Judgment Order of the Honorable Apex Court delivered in April, 2017 is yet to take its shape on record and the Petitioners / similarly placed ASCs retired are to see the light of the day, as the DPCs even of 1986-1996 cannot overshoot the seniority of the Inspectors as maintained by the Railway Board, like the names of Sony C. Verghees and others as Petitioners and some others who are seniors to them in the Inspectors list even though they are not Petitioners and not submitted any representation, their names cannot be dethroned? If it is executed and implemented, the names of other DPCs held in later years also to be given effect to for presumptive ,deemed or proforma next higher rank promotion at par with juniors...since they are similarly placed , circumstanced , identically situated positions as that of Sony Verghees, etc.
9) IREM. Para 228, apex court orders are found to have confined and locked up. To their own setups and specifically inclined to give regularization and next promotion orders , then they set up DPCS draw juniors names in place of retired seniors names and interpolate their names in the inter-se with the directly recruited ASCS; once this exercise is completed, they all get their next higher rank promotion grade immediately on completion of stipulated years of service, while the same is denied to other unlucky departmenta; ASCS on the ground that they are on Adhoc and hence not eligible for actual promotion as divisional security commissioner RPF. Even though they too completed three years continuous service as ASC. Like that of direct ASCS...unfortunate?)
Para (xi) of the JCM Minutes of May, 2017:
Another point raised was about the instructions issued by the DOP&T following the assurance given to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a contempt case which was said to have created a situation where the DPCs are not being held and the employees are retiring without getting promotion. It was stated that UPSC is also refusing to accept DPC proposals and insists that clarification from DOP&T may first be obtained. As a result promotions are not taking place and many officers have retired without promotion. The Staff-Side requested that necessary clarifications may be issued by DOP&T urgently so that DPCs can be held in the...
If possible kindly consider to review the matter of holding DPCS in time schedule, and if on one or the other account, the DPC is not held on administrative account, as per provisions of rules, there shall be ear marked quota in the next higher rank promotion grade posts to the departmental official and the rest be filled with direct official coming from UPSC;
As and when the DPC is held on delayed account of the administrative errors, mistakes, the departmental official who is getting the promotion, as per the DPC panel list placement, even if retired, his / her name should be brought and placed in accordance with the seniority of the year of vacancy in which he or she could have got the promotion / confirmation / regularization had the DPC held in the year of vacancy when the retired officer was in service and the same lost on account of delayed DPCS, their pension benefits shall be given at par with the junior in accordance with their seniority before superannuation. Pension should thus be equalized with that of the junior.
If the above proposal is adopted in right perspective, in spirit and action, we can see that there will be no grievance from any one and the rules shall be followed scrupulously by railway board RPF official without any waste of time, there shall not be any own schedule pleasure DPCS by vested interests and working conditions in RPF railway board, everything shall be set right.
Reference:
1) No.28036/1/2012-Estt(D)-GOVERNMENT OF INDIA- MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINIING-OM
Dated the 3' April, 2013-OFFICE MEMORANDUM- Subject: Ad-hoc Appointment/Promotion — Review of – Regarding-- reiterating its earlier OM- O.M. No.28036/8/87-Estt.(D) dated 30.03.1988 read with O.M. No.28036/1/2001-Estt.(D) dated 23.07.2001;
O.M. No.28036/8/87-Estt.(D) dated 30.03.1988 ; O.M. No.39036/02/2007- Estt.(B) dated 14.11.2008; OM No. 39021/1/94-Estt.(B) dated 22.07.1994;
2) :Rectification of administrative errors – Grant of Proforma promotion –
No payment of arrears / non-payment of back wages on proforma promotion--be given deemed promotion, if any, before retirement and also the benefit in the matter of fixing pensions - IREM- Para 228---Honorable Apex Court’s Judgment dt. 21-09-2006 …'The result is that the respondent will be given deemed promotion, if any, before retirement and also the benefit in the matter of fixing pensions…'The result is that the respondent will be given deemed promotion, if any, before retirement and also the benefit in the matter of fixing pensions…;
3) Board's letter No.E[NG]I-2005/PM1/34C.C dated 23-02-2007; letter dated 02-07-2003; Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment dt. 13-08-1997 in Civil Appeal No. 8904 of 1994 [Union of India & Others Vs. P.O. Abraham & Others] upholding the provisions of para 228 of IREM, Vol.I, 1989 regarding non-payment of back wages on proforma promotion was circulated to the Railways along with this Ministry’s letter No. E[NG]I-2002/PM1/16 dt. 02-07- 2003. The validity of these instructions has again been upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court recently in Civil Appeal No. 4222/2006 arising out of SLP[C] No. 23021/2005 in Union of India [ through General Manager, Northern Railway & Others] Vs. Shri Tarsem Lal & Others in their judgment dt. 21-09-2006; Union of India and Ors v P.O.Abraham and Ors in C.A. 8904 of 1994 decided on 13.8.1997.
4) RPF ACT AND RPF RULES;
