IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(special original jurisdiction) W.P. No. 10442 of 2008
MP.3/2009 TO IMPLEAD DOPT IN WP 10442/2008
M.Venkatesan - ……. Applicant/Petitioner
Vs
1. Union of India
Department of Commerce ,Udyog Bhawan,New Delhi
2. The Director,Export Inspection Council,(Ministry of Commerce), No.26, Pragati Towers Rajendra Place ,New Delhi
3. The Additional Director, Export Inspection Agency (Chennai),(Ministry of Commerce),No.213, Royapettah High Road
4. The Department of Personnel & Training,Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel,Public Grievances & Pension,North Block,
New Delhi-110 001. …..4th Respondent/Proposed Party
AFFIDAVIT OF M.VENKATESAN-FILED IN PERSON ON 25/01/2010
The applicant petitioner humbly submits as follows:
Following points will decide that whether 1994-SVRS is correct in law or not. Present petition filed on 17.04.2008 & directives issued to respondents by the Hon’ble High Court. If SVRS is in accordance with law the respondents would have filed the counter in time. Since it has not been done so, it indicates the lack of statutory provisions.
1. To avoid misuse of power, Allocation of Business Rules-1961 under clause 77/3 of the Constitution empowered only Dept.of Personnel & Training as NODAL dept. for framing rules/regulations with regard to Govt. personnel. All other ministries have to implement the same.
2. Commerce Ministry is a subordinate ministry which has no powers to frame schemes for personnel.
3. Any VRS should have the approval of DOPT or be passed by a Parliament session. Since 1994- SVRS has no statutory backing, it is just an executive fiat liable to be set-aside by the Hon’ble high court under Article 226.
4. Commerce Ministry’s original circular was edited deliberately to suppress vital information-a clandestine act to cheat Govt. employees who were covered by the CCS Pension Rules-1972.
My service record:
Date of joining in service-Export Inspection Agency (EIA) 08.03.1973 as Technical Officer
Date of leaving fm EIA 08.07.1994 as Asst.Director
It is submitted that there is No time latch in filing the Writ and the sequence of events are given below:
Sequence of events:
1. VRS announced in May-1994 by circular dt.21/5/1994 (Annexure-I)
2. Asked for clarifications vide letters dt. 30/05/1994 & 06/06/1994.
3. EIA asked me first to opt VRS vide letter dt.31.5.1994 (Annexure-II)
4. Opted for VRS on 08.07.1994 assuming that the scheme introduced by the Respondents was a valid one.
5. Relieved on 19.07.1994 with 3month’s notice pay.
6. Work sheet (on benefits) given on 24.10.1994 ( 3 months delay, otherwise I would have filed the writ before I got relieved from my service.)
7. I payment taken under protest on 21.01.1995 (though promised to settle in one month.)
8. II payment received under protest on 03.08.1995.
9. III payment received under protest on 06.10.1997. ( delay of 27months)
10. First WP.16155/1997 filed for DR.
11. DOPT replied in a letter dt.17/8/2005 that it approved only one SVRS-2002 (Annexure-III)
12. Original circular of Commerce ministry received under RTI Act-2005 changed the cause of action totally. (Annexure-IV)
I was forced to file the present petition WP.10442/2008 challenging the Scheme when my appeal for a settlement was turned down. (Annexure-V)
As the above said four vital points which are important to decide the writ, has not been answered till date by the respondent department, it is deemed that the VRS itself is not supported by any statutory provisions of government of India and it has to be struck down. I pray the Hon’ble court to pass appropriate order in terms the submissions made above.
(VENKATESAN.M)
Chennai
No comments:
Post a Comment