TIMELY CONFIRMATION IN VARIOUS CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES - ISSUE OF GUIDELINES - DOPT ORDER
No.1801/1/12010-Estt. (C)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel. Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)
*************
New Delhi 110001
Dated: August 30,2010
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Timely confirmation in various Central Civil Services- issue of guidelines.
The undersigned is directed to say that the Supreme Court in its judgement on 8.7.2010 in civil appeal No.596 of 2007 (appeal of Khazia Mohameed Muzammil v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.) examined the contention of automatic/deemed confirmation after the expiry of the probation period. After examining the various judgements, the Apex Court were of the considered opinion as to what view has to be taken would depend upon the facts of a given case and the relevant ruler in force.
2. In para 22 of the judgement, the Apex Court observed as follows:-
"Before we part with this file, it is required of this Court to notice and declare that the concerned authorities have failed to act expeditiously and in accordance with the spirit of the relevant rules. Rule 5(2)of 1977 Rules has used the expression 'as soon as possible' which clearly shows the intent of the rule framers explicitly implying urgency and in any case applicability of the concept of reasonable time which would help in minimizing the litigation arising from such similar cases. May be, strictly speaking, this may not be true in the case of the appellant but generally every step should be taken which would avoid bias or arbitrariness in administrative matters. no matter, which is the authority concerned including the High Court itself. Long back in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma v/s Haryana State Electricity Board (1988) Supp. SCC 669] this Court had the occasion to notice that due to delay in recording satisfactory completion of probation period where juniors were promoted, the action of the authority was arbitrary and it resulted in infliction of even double punishment. The Court held as under:
'While there is some necessity for appointing a person in government service on probation for a particular period, there may not be any need for confirmation of that officer after the completion of the probation period. If during the period a government servant is found to be unsuitable, his services may be terminated. On the other hand. if he is found to be suitable, he would be allowed to continue in service. The archaic rule of confirmation, still in force, gives a scope to the executive authorities to act arbitrarily or malafide giving rise to unnecessary litigations. It is high time that the Government and other authorities should think over the matter and relieve the government servants of becoming victims of arbitrary actions.'
We reiterate this principle with respect and approval and hope that all the authorities concerned should take care that timely actions are taken in comity to the Rules governing the service and every attempt is made to avoid prejudicial results against the employee/probationer. It is expected of the Courts to pass orders which would help in minimizing the litigation arising from such similar cases. Timely action by the authority concerned would ensure implementation of rule of fair play on the one hand and serve greater ends of justice on the other. It would also boost the element of greater understanding and improving the employer employee relationship in all branches of the States and its instrumentalities."
3. In this Ministry's O.M.No.I8011/186-Estt(D) dated 28.3.1988 (copy enclosed), instructions have already been issued to the effect that confirmation will be made only once in service in the entry grade, but for some exceptions specified therein. Instructions on timely action to confirm or extend the probation have also been issued vide O.M. No.18011/2/98-Estt.(C) dated 28.8.1998. Seniority has also been delinked from confirmation in the O.M.No.20011/5/90-Estt.(D) dated 4.11.92.
4. The above directions of the Apex Court are brought to the notice of all Ministries/Departments for ensuring compliance of the above instructions.
s/d
(Mamta Kundra)
Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India
WORKERS ELIGIBLE FOR INTEREST ON GRATUITY, RULES MADURAI BENCH OF HC
An employee becomes eligible for gratuity on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years, according to Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
He is also entitled for interest on the gratuity in terms of Section 7(3) and 7(3A). Making these clear, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Arumuganeri Salt Workers Co-operative Production and Sale Society Ltd, Thoothukkudi district, to pay the amount to its worker, Mr A. Rajan, within 30 days from date of receipt of a copy of this order without further driving him to any other forum.
Mr Justice K. Chandru, hearing a writ petition from the Society challenging the order dated January 27, 2009 of the Appellate Authority under the Act, Madurai (R-2), directing it to make interest payment if gratuity was not paid within 30 days from the date of his order, noted that from the beginning, it was the stand of the petitioner Society that R-1 (Mr A. Rajan) was not eligible for gratuity. If Sections 7(3) and 7(3A) were read together, then there was no difficulty in understanding the eligibility for receiving interest. In the present case, the Appellate Authority had correctly construed the legal provisions and there was no case made out to interfere with the interpretation placed by the Authority.
The petitioner contended that payment of interest would arise only when there was delayed payment, and in this case, there was no delay since they had paid gratuity as ordered by R-2, and hence the question of payment of interest would not arise. This Court was unable to accept the said statement, since the entire controversy was with regard to the legal provision.
Reading Section 4(1) of the Act it would be clear that the date relevant for determination of interest was the date on which gratuity became payable, which in the present case was when R-1 resigned his job on 1-6-2003. When R-1 issued notice for payment of gratuity, petitioner employer did not honour the notice. On the contrary, it was only when R-1 instituted a claim before the Controlling Authority, the petitioner contended about the irregular nature of his employment and his alleged disqualification from receiving gratuity.
In the light of these, the writ petition stood dismissed, the Judge held.
Source: The Hindu
--
M.Krishnan
Secretary General NFPE
No comments:
Post a Comment