[Sadiq Hussain]

Thanks a lot sir

[Sadiq Hussain]

Thank you sir

[Sadiq Hussain]

Dear sir,
Good Morning,

The facts and circumstances are that, as observed by you the rules are very clear as to how the recovery of due subscribtions should be effcted and when a Government servant ceases to be a member of the scheme.

Similarly, the Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2012 [unlike THE CCS (RP)RULES] dictate that the pay of every such Government servant who was in service as on 01/04/2012 shall be fixed in the revised scale very promptly but not latter than 31/07/2012, and for this purpose no option is needed to be exercised by the Government servant. Admittedly, I was in service till 23/05/2012, although I was absent from duty right from 28/02/2012.

Above all, I was in receipt of the all allowances which stood absorbed in the existing basic pay for the purpose of restructuring the new scales.

Despite, the P&AO has fixed my pension taking into account the pay drawn by me on 27/02/2012 in old scale. As a result, I am deprived of 91.75% of allowances which I would have received on my pension had the revision of scales not taken place.

In fact, I have failed in citing the root cause of the reduction of my pensionary benefits is an afterthought order passed by the functus officio disciplinary authority. The order of punishment was issued on 22/05/2015 in which the entire period of my absence was ordered to be regulated as EOL. But, by means of an order which was issued on 22/07/2015 the said period came to be treated as dies-non.

The proviso to Rule 106-A of THE KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES RULES reserves the discretion with the disciplinary authority alone to treat the period of unauthorised absence as admissible leave or dies-non keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.

[Sadiq Hussain]

Thanks a lot sir,

As already made it clear by me in the query relating to bouncing of cheque for want of signature of the issuing authority, I am against offering gratifications or bribes, which has brought me to this position. Still I will never compromise, irrespective of the fact how huge is the amount of my legitimate claims. So the question of asking for or resorting to ILLEGAL remedies does not arise at all.

So once again I would thank you for the most sincere advice rendered by you sir.

Anyway, now I am satisfied that my interpretation of the very same rules was not wrong, so I can proceed to file the application before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

Simultaneously, it will be just and proper if I am enlighten about the fact as to whether the Revision of Pensionary Benefits and re-determining the admissibility of the quantum of my SAVINGS FUND may amount to a single Cause of Action or otherwise.

[Sadiq Hussain]

Respected sir (Dr. Ashok Dhamija ji);

I am proud of having found such a great advisor who never disappointed me either by asking me to cure the lacuna in my queries or giving me any scope for seeking clarifications on the advise so rendered to me. I salute you sir.

Sir, you are absolutely correct that the former rule reproduced above corresponds exactly to Rule 10 of our State’s Rules, namely; THE KARNATAKA STATE EMPLOYEES’ GROUP INSURANCES RULES, 1981 (for brevity the KSEGIS Rules, 1981). The latter to Rule 9 thereof.

But, I am most unfortunate that the authorities are reluctant to accept the true spirit of Rule 9, pertaining to recovery of due subscription. They intentionally caused me considerably heavy financial loss by contending that since the said rule envisages; “the subscriptions for the months for which no payments of salary/wage are made to a member shall be recovered with interest admissible under the scheme on the accretions to the Saving Fund in not more than three instalments commencing from his salary/wage for the months following the month in which he resumes duty after leave”, I cannot be extended the benefit thereof, inasmuch as I have ceased to be in service without returning to duty even for a single day.

I had tried my level best to convince them that the amount outstanding in the said account is my property having recovered for my hardly earned salaries. The same is remaining at the disposal and in utilisation of the Government of Karnataka. Whatever additional amount payable to me on the said amount in the name of INTEREST actually constitutes the RENT towards the same. But, it is regretted that even the Administrator of the Scheme including the Ministry of Finance have upheld the arbitrary action of my departmental authorities.

Sir, I would have approached the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal. But, I am not sure as to length of time the Tribunal may consume in disposing of my application. Please take note of the fact that an application filed in the year 2002 by a destitute widow of ill-fated Government servant, died in harness, claiming her legitimate right of Family Pension is disposed of in August 2014.

Hence, I am troubling you time and again so that an alternate effective remedy, if at all available, could be suggested by you sir.

[Sadiq Hussain]

Dear sir,

I salute you and your patience, since the queries made by me so far were considerably lengthy. Despite, you have extended your helping hand towards me.

Frankly speaking, I had submitted a query to another forum of experts, like this, with all most all same length. But, the experts had asked me to precise the same.

Thus, my cherished aspirations have have been fulfiulled by you sir.

So, I would request your goodself to accept my deep hearted gratitudes and thanks.

[Sadiq Hussain]

Sir, the paying authority, upon such representations made by me, has made a report to its supriors under intimation to me. It is contended therein that the judgement of the HC in the aforesaid case has not reached the finality on account of Government’s decision of filing SLP before th SC.This report dates back to 17/12/2015. However, the first SLP (C) was filed not earlier than. 23/01/2016.

[Sadiq Hussain]

Dear sir (Dr. A. Dhamija ji),
I regret, the judgement was rendered by a Single Bench of the High Court and the Appeal was preferred before the Division Bench, as rightly guessed by your expertise.
Sir, if you permit me to continue with this query, I may mention here that the facts and circumstances of this case, per my little knowledge, are very peculiar in nature. In fact, the suspended employee had belonged to judiciary department and the authority which had sanctioned his pension was the Principal District and Sessions Judge.
The sanction so accorded was within the framework of the rules governing the conditions of sanction. The Pension Verification Manual of the Accountant General makes it mandatory on the part of the said authority for serving notice to both the sanctioning authority and the pensioner pointing out irregularity, if any, found by it in the sanction of pay fixation. This dictum was never complied. Rather, the Principal Accountant General had reduced suo moto and unilaterally the entire benefits to 50% of the benefits which were sanctioned by the jurisdictional authority. It was this order of reduction had fell for consideration of the HC. Accordingly, the very same impugned order stood quashed by the Single Bench. In other sense the validity and legal sanctity of sanction accorded by the competent authority of the parent department of the pensioner was upheld. Despite, the sanctioning authority (Principal District Judge) had colluded with the A.G. to file the WA before the Division Bench, as if it was disputing its own sanction. Although, this legal aspect was not raised on behalf of the pensioner, the W.A came to be dismissed by the Division Bench.
Similarly, the SLP also was filed jointly by the Principal District Judge (sanctioning authority) as 1st Petitioner and the Accountant General (authorising authority) as 2nd Petitioner. However, an application was moved before the Hon’ble SC for deletion of the 1st Petitioner and thereby another SLP is filed by the Accountant General alone.
So, kindly suggest me about the most effective remedy to be availed by me, since the payment pension as sanction accorded to me by the competent authority of my department is still valid, like the sanction in the case referred to by me.
If, the law permits me to approach directly to the Hon’ble SC, please inform me about the probable costs thereof, for which I shall remain ever thankful to you sir.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Sadiq Hussain.

[Sadiq Hussain]

I am grateful to you sir. I will follow this advise.

[Sadiq Hussain]

Dr. Dharmija ji;

I am much grateful for being pleased to render me the expert advise.

Sir, I confirm that the Cheque does not bear the signature, of any authority, at all. The same was drawn on the RBI. The RBI has returned the Cheque to the Drawer himself for want of signature on 02/05/2016.

I am fortunate enough that the advise is afforded to me by a most competent expert, since I am enlighten about the minimum period of Notice.

As regards the email notice, the concerned authority has responded to it saying that a fresh cheque will be obtained from the concerned Treasury Office and sent to me at the earliest.

I may further be enlighten as to the course of action to be adopted by me, since the concerned authorities had acted in this fashion in expectation of GRATIFICATION from me and I have been bringing this aspect to more than one authority from time to time.

Sir, be kind enough to guide me in this regard also

[Author]

Posts