15 November, 2012

Another PIL for scrapping coal block allocations


Another PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of all the coal blocks allotted to private companies since 1993 and a court-monitored CBI probe into the alleged scam involving over Rs 1 trillion.
The petition has been filed by former Secretaries, including Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian, and Common Cause, an NGO, alleging that the Centre had gone for “massive allocation of the scarce natural resource of coal to a few select private companies at no cost in a completely arbitrary and non-transparent manner causing a huge loss to the public exchequer running into tens of lakhs of crores of rupees.”
Among the other petitioners are former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami, former Union Secretaries Ramaswamy Iyer and Sushil Tripathi and Admirals (retd) RH Tahiliani and L Ramdas, who has been the Navy Chief.
Either a court-monitored probe by the CBI or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was necessary to “unearth the full magnitude of the coal scam which involves not only the Ministry of Coal but also the Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of Steel, Ministry of Power and governments of various states where the coal blocks are located,” the PIL said.
On September 14, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Coal Secretary on a similar petition. The apex court has sought details on various aspects to ascertain as to whether any guidelines had been violated in the allocations.
Since 1993, through the process of screening committee, successive governments had been allocating coal blocks for captive use of the manufacturers of iron and steel, power and cement. This process was highly arbitrary and resulted in a windfall gain to private companies, the PIL said.
The Coal Ministry announced a competitive bidding policy in June 2004, but continued with the non-transparent process of the screening committee “which was marred by multiple illegalities, corruption and favouritism. The screening committee recommended the allocation of coal blocks without comparative evaluation of the inter se merits among applicants, which is apparent from the minutes of the meetings of screening committee,” the petitioners said.
Of the 250 coal blocks allotted since 2004, 101 were for steel companies, 97 for power, 10 for cement and 37 for “commercial” use. The term commercial was apparently meant to violate the statutorily mandated “captive” concept and thereby provide ample scope to private parties to sell coal for windfall profits in violation of laws, they contended. 

The petitioners include former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian, former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami, former Union Secretaries Ramaswamy Iyer and Sushil Tripathi and Admirals (retd) RH Tahiliani and L Ramdas.
Source:- Thursday, November 15, 2012, Chandigarh, India, P. 2
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121115/nation.htm#2

Team Legal Point Foundation
Legal Point Foundation
Dr. Deepak Miglani [President] 
            9215514435      [Haryana],            9958086337      [Delhi]
Dinesh Miglani [Secretary],            8059670005      
Email:- legalbuddy@gmail.com 

Legal Tip is being received by approximately 500000 people. One day we will surely remove the legal ignorance from our country.


103 VACANCIES OF CLERK ::Fill posts on merit, orders HC


Twentyfive years after the Haryana Selection Service Board issued an advertisement for the recruitment for clerks in various departments, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the filling of the vacancies “strictly on the basis of merit”. In all, 103 vacancies will now be filled on the basis of the merit list prepared by the state of Haryana and other respondents.
A list of 5,373 candidates was declared on October 15, 1989, pursuant to the advertisement issued on July 22, 1987. Out of the total, candidates up to merit number 4,645 were appointed.
A single Judge directed the appointment of first 12 meritorious petitioners after 43 unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition in the High Court. The order was passed on the premise that there were only 12 vacancies.
After a series of litigation, the matter ultimately went to the Supreme Court and was finally decided on August 19, 1998, in the case of Roshni Devi versus state of Haryana. Referring to the judgment in Roshni Devi’s case, the Bench of Chief Justice
Arjan Kumar Sikri and Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain asserted that “necessary directions have already been given in this very judgment”. A direction “clearly maintains that if the vacancies exist during the period in question, the appointments could be made strictly on the basis of their merit position in the list…. A cumulative reading of the directions
provides the complete answer and the course of action to be chartered.
“It is clear that the court had directed that the appointments are to be made strictly on the basis of merit in the list prepared by the state on the basis of selection. It does not leave any room for the original writ petitioners to argue that others who did not approach the court should be excluded”.
The Bench concluded: “We, thus, set aside the direction of the single Judge given in the order or other orders confined to the filling of the posts on the basis of the inter-se merit of the writ petitioners alone.
“Instead, it is directed that 103 vacancies which according to the state of Haryana still exist pertaining to the period October 15, 1989, to November 18, 1995, shall be filled strictly on the basis of the merit position in the list prepared by the respondents”.
Source:- Thursday, November 15, 2012, Chandigarh, India, P. 5
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121115/haryana.htm#3

Team Legal Point Foundation
Legal Point Foundation
Dr. Deepak Miglani [President] 
            9215514435      [Haryana],            9958086337      [Delhi]
Dinesh Miglani [Secretary],            8059670005      
Email:- legalbuddy@gmail.com 

Legal Tip is being received by approximately 500000 people. One day we will surely remove the legal ignorance from our country.



Legal Alert:::Leave encashment to retiring employee facing probe can't be withheld: HC



The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant judgment, has held that the amount of leave encashment, payable to a retiring employee facing criminal or department proceedings, cannot be withheld.
With this, a Full Bench of the High Court, comprising three Judges, has cleared the air on the contentious issue of holding back the retirement benefits of alleged “delinquent” employees.
The Ruling
Taking up an appeal filed by Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd and other appellants, the three-Judge Bench of Chief Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri, Justice Ranjit Singh and Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain ruled: “ Only gratuity or death-cum-retirement gratuity can be withheld… We are, therefore, in agreement with the view (earlier) taken by the Division Benchof this court in BS Gupta’s case, holding that amount of leave encashment is payable to the retiring employee notwithstanding the pendency of the departmental inquiry or criminal proceedings”.
The Case
An employee of the Civil Supplies Corporation, Pyare Lal was served with two charge sheets. He attainted the age of superannuation during the pendency of the inquiry in April 2006. He was allowed to retire, but retirement benefits were withheld till the decision of the pending charge sheets.
An appeal was filed by the corporation, after a Single Judge of the High Court directed the release of retirement benefits, except gratuity.
The Issue
Before reaching the conclusion, the Bench asserted that the corporation’s appeal against employee Pyare Lal gave rise to a vital question of law, which was required to be decided. “The question is as to whether retiral benefits of an employee, who at the time of his superannuation was facing departmental action, can be withheld and, if so, which of those retiral benefits the employer is entitled to withhold”.
The Bench observed at the outset that the parties were unanimous that the gratuity of such employees could be withheld during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. But, the issue was whether encashment of earned leave could also be withheld, “or was it the right of an employee to get his earned leave encashed on the date of his superannuation, as retiral benefit, notwithstanding the disciplinary action which he is facing”. The Bench added: " What is to be seen in the present case is as to whether there is any rule which empowers the appellants to withhold the benefit of encashment of leave. Referring to rule 2.2(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the Bench concluded that except for gratuity or death-cum-retirement gratuity, the withholding of other retirement benefit was not stipulated.
“Counsel for the appellants also could not point out any other rule authorising the appellants to withhold the benefit of encashment of leave”.

We are in agreement with the view (earlier) taken by the Division Bench of this court, holding that leave encashment is payable to the retiring employee notwithstanding the pendency of a departmental inquiry or criminal proceedings
— High Court Bench
Source:- Thursday, November 15, 2012, Chandigarh, India, P. 5
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121115/punjab.htm#15

Team Legal Point Foundation
Legal Point Foundation
Dr. Deepak Miglani [President] 
9215514435[Haryana],9958086337[Delhi]
Dinesh Miglani [Secretary],8059670005
Email:- legalbuddy@gmail.com 

Legal Tip is being received by approximately 500000 people. One day we will surely remove the legal ignorance from our country.