a translator's writ petition

7/22/2019 a translator's writ petition

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-translators-writ-petition 1/49

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURSDICTION(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

W.P. (C) No. … of 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:-.

1. Sri. Shri Gopal Soni

Son of Late Johri Lal Ji

R/o. C-231, Panchsheel Nagar

Ajmer 305 004

…. Petitioner W orkman

Vs.

1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd (NIACL)Through the then chairman Sri. A. R. Sekar

Ex-officio, presentlyseniormost G.M.

87,M. G. Road, Fort,

Mumbai 400 001

…. Contesting Respondent

2. General Insurers Public Sector Association

(GIPSA) through Sri. A. K. Singhal,the then CE

/ vice president, Jeevan Vihar Buidling, 3rd

Floor, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001.

… Contesting Respondent

3. By Name Sri. G Srinivasan

Ex-chairman General Insurers Public Sector association (GIPS A)

Present address:C.M.D.,New India Assurance Co. Ltd, .

(NIACL) 87,M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400 001

…. Contesting Respondent

4. Divisional Manager

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd

Kotwali Scheme, Khailand Market,

Ajmer-305001



2

5. Rajbhasha Sansadeey Samiti,(Parliamentary Committee on official language)

11, Teen Moorti Lane,

.. New Delhi- 110011

6. Hon”ble High Court of Rajasthan

Jaipur bench, C-scheme,

Jaipur (Rajasthan)302005.

7.Hon'ble presiding officer

CGIT, Distt. & Session court

Compound, Jaipur road, Ajmer-

305001 …

A Writ Petition under Article 32 of the c onstitution

of India for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other

writ order or direction ---

For the enforcement of fundamental rights of petitioner

under article 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India.

In the matter of seeking justice for a justified grade and

pay scale for non promoted Hindi Translators, of NIACL

as on 27.02.2007; unjustified discrimination of

petitioner in promotion as Hindi Officer & in the matter

of General Insurance Business Nationalisation Act-

1972 challenging the legality of so called New India

Assurance Co. C. D. A. rules-2003.

And

In the matter of judgment and order of the Single Bench

of the Rajasthan High Court dated 21st October, 2011

in Writ Petition No. 4575 of 2007

And

In the matter of interim orders of the Single Bench of the



3

October , 2011 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4007 of 2012

& 14838 of 2010 respectively.

To,

The Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India

And His Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India

The humble petition of the petitioner above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. (a). That the contesting respondents believe in

Matsynyaya,the law of fishes;their modus operandi is to enjoy

their advantage being a big fish and put the workman,a small

fish suffer excruciatingly slow process of law.The contesting respondents,No. 1 and 4 act on behalf of an

insurance company,a legal artificial person ,their whimsical

acts in collusion with like minded officials affecting

petitioner’s fundamental right to life ,right to equality and

equal protection of law are beyond ordinary activism of

company while the post of chairman was vacant and

respondent No.1 was working as ex-officio chairman. Mr.

Sekar grabbed the opportunity to challenge a reference

moved by the Central Govt. The said respondents represent

the head office and reporting office of petitioner’s employer

public sector insurance company respectively, as on the day

the petitioner, a humble class III employee was issued a

whimsical order of dismissal for a “grave” charge of leaving

headquarters (details follow in para 12 page 19) by a

manager , who according to RTI disclosure was himself

regularly leaving headquarters. Exploiting the loopholes

in the legal process a frivolous writ petition was filed ex-

parte stay and interim order has been obtained, deliberately,





5

To

rev [email protected]

“Mr. Soni…

I may advise you to put full stop to yourlegal matters including your case for

promotion .

As far as this countries legal system is

understood by me , the winner weeps at

home and the loser weeps at court.”

.

That respondent No.5 is a par l iamentary

commi t tee du ly const i t uted under sec t ion 4 o f t he

of f ic ia l language act -1963 , i ts sub commit tee I I I

inspects publ ic sector organizat ions, banks,

insurance companies etc. to ensure the

implementat ion of said act and rules of of f ic ia l

language-1976. I t was on the direct ions of the

said commit tee that post of pet i t ioner , that is ,Hindi

Translator was created in the general insurance

companies du ri ng 1980s .The sa id comm i tt ee

,admit tedly , d i rected respondent No.1 to do away

with glar ing anomal ies in the grade and pay scale

of Hindi Translators in the insurance company,and

to se e to i t tha t th e t ra ns lato rs a re t im el y

p rom o ted . I t was g i ven assu rance t o do so . I t i s

a formal par ty .

Respondent No. 6 and 7 are the competent

cour t of law and t r ibunal respect ively ,both are

formal par t ies.

A gist o f l i t igat ions between pet i t ioner and

http://us.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=a9rlk5e1fuca4





6

Ra jas than High Cour t i s the f ol l ow ing :

S. B. Civ i l

Wr i t Pet i t ion

No.

proceedings status

4575/2007 Stay order in

favour of

pet i t ioner

f rom

30.07.2007

upto disposal

Disposed on

21.10.2011

conceding

r ight o f

promot ion to

pet i t ioner

14838/2010

In the mat ter

of wage

revis ion

ignor ing

t ranslators

Pending for

long for

amendment

in wr i t

pet i t ion

4007/2012 Adjud icat ion

of Indust r ia l

d isputes

stayed

Since

30.07.2012

no hear ing

taken place,

CITR 4/2011

Central Govt .

. Indust r ia l

Tr ibunal

Ajmer

Pet i t ioner

f i led

statement of

c la ims dated

1/12/2011

Cent ra l

Govt .

Ref . dated

3.11.2011

stay order

9 .04.2012



7

(b ). That since 10th February 2008 without any

serious charge the peti tioner suffers capricious denial

of his duties of Hindi Translator though there is no

history of any alleged bribe taker(s) caught red-handed

demanding gratification being ever subjected to

suspension of more than a few weeks in the entire

Jaipur region of the contesting respondents presently

consisting of about six hundred twenty officials during

last 22 years.

As many as 78 NIACL public servants face charge

sheet under the prevention of corruption act as per

vigilance section of respondent No.1

Most of them (information denied arguing that they

are third parties) escape not only suspension but also

they feel protected in the presence of respondent No.1.

Contrary to ethics laid down in the book of DO’S and

DON’TS which prohibits the contesting respondents from

being whimsical in decision.

The relevant para of said book as supplied by insurance

division of Ministry of finance to the petitioner,vide letter dated

19th July 2012 reads as under:

“Do not be arbitrary and capricious in your

decisions. Your decisions should be

justifiable and based on sound reasons”.

That though, the last order dated 9.06.2012 issued by the then

chairman of insurance company that has been impugned with

respondent No. 7 presently, stayed by respondent No.6

sought to punitively “transfer” the petitioner , a duly appointed



8

Hindi Translator as “assistant”, yet ,the following

declaration of contesting respondents themselves makes

abundantly clear that the post of Assistant (mentioned as S.

No.2 ,Clerk) ,the post of Record Clerk (mentioned as S. No.3

below) and the post of a Translator are separate and that the

post of petitioner translator,is common only in respect of

belonging to class III, cadre wise, translator is not clerk.

circular dated 13.04.2007: Jaipur Regional Off ice-

330000 (A)Outstation Transfer Seniority List of All

Class III Employees including Record Clerks

Working for More Than Ten Years at one station as on

31.12.2006

S. Name S.R.No. CADRE1 SHRIGOPAL SONI 24001 TRANSLATOR

2 SANJAY KUMAR VERMA 21545 ASSTT. (C)3 KAILASH CHAND KHINCHI 30477 RC

Issued by Chief Regional Manager

..

In due course of time almost all class 4 employees

including sweepers appointed two decades ago, most of whom

have not been secondary pass have been promoted as

assistants. A sample list, during the month of December 2010

is the following:

Name of employee

Salary RollNo.

Gross monthlyPay

Bansi Lal 22137 Rs.48689/-

Gulab Singh 24275 Rs.33238/-Mehandi Lal 26707 Rs.25407/-

2. That the background of dispute, as conveyed o n

b e h a l f o f respondent No.1 to respondent No. 2 vide letter of 27



9

(pages 32-33) admittedly, pertains to act of prolonged pending

matter of injustice against the employees appointed to the

post of Hindi Translators in the offices of respondent No.1 and

4 including the petitioner . The text of said letter spells out in

clear terms that assurance has been given by NIACL ,company

of contesting respondents to respondent No. 5, Parliamentary

committee on Official Language (Rajbhasha Sansadeeya Samiti)

regarding justice to highly qualified Hindi Translators, admittedly

a technical post. The employees appointed as Hindi

Translators, are admittedly, placed un- justifiably in a lower

grade compared to their counterparts working in government

offices,even the said hindi translators ,who were appointed on a

new post during 1980’s including the petitioner , are, admittedly,

not assigned any pay scale of their own,are placed in lower pay

scale to stenographers (despite superior qualification) in the

insurance company of respondetNo.1

The said letter was issued from respondent No.1 to respondent

No.2 an association in the nature of employer’s association

which,according to ministry of finance information given to

petitioner, consists of CEO’s of the following 4 insurance

companies:

(a) . National Insurance Company Ltd, registered office Kolkata

(b) . New India Assurance Co. Ltd, registered office Mumbai

(c) . Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, registered office New Delhi

(d) . United India Insurance Co. Ltd, registered office Chennai

That humble petitioner ,one of those affected due to gross

injustice to Hindi Translator, due to non-compliance of the written



10

and respondent No.5, wrote time-to- time representations,

sought information of implementation of assurance under the

Right To Information act. The contesting respondents ,who

deliberately ignore to follow complaint redressal mechanism of

individual employees,(so that a complainant is compelled to either

die a poor man’s death or be part of systematic corruption) despite

mandatory amendment in the Industrial Disputes Act-1947 to the

said effect, are whimsical ly adamant to ensure that petitioner

never gets justice and even if he gets justice from any

government authority, any tribunal the order in favour of

petitioner shall always be challenged,contrary to established rule

of law .

. That S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 4007/2012 titled, New

India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Union of India and Ors. pending

with respondent No.6 High Court of Rajasthan, registered

dated 22.03.2012 , forestalling the Industrial Dispute

proceedings pending with respondent No. 7 is a clear example of

the malafide intention of contesting respondentsNo. 1 and 4.

3. That the offices of contesting respondents are, in fact and in

substance, run as a b s o l u t e a u t h o r i t i e s ; a s i f t h e y

e n j o y i m m u n i t y f r o m e v e r y l a w . Instead of

considering the admitted injustice to hindi translator’s case

with accountability, who suffer prolonged injustice as there has

not been a specific pay scale for them. Even there has not

been proper opportunity to timely promotion of employees

appointed as Hindi Translator to Hindi Officer, the same



11

implementation of assurance since February 27,2007 with

contesting respondents, as per the text annexed herewith as

Annexure-P/ 1 (pages 32-33).

4. That the petitioner , a law abiding translator, who did not

ever sue or was sued by anyone else, upto his age of about 42

years was forced, by compelling circumstances to file two

separate writ petitions under different circumstances praying for

justice from respondent No. 6. They were S. B. Civil Writ

Petition No.4575/2007 (disposed with directions to claim relief

from second writ petition) and 14838/2010 (presently pending with

respondent No.6) respectively. In respect of first writ petition the

respondent No. 6 granted stay orders against transfer of

workman which remained effective upto 21st October 2011.

When the wage revision of state owned insurance sector

employees during 2010 was due to be notified, without any

specific pay scale to Hindi Translators,the second writ petition

was hurriedly filed and as such typographical errors left therein

require amendment .The contesting respondent’s advocate

seeking adjournements, the same is pending for arguments

presently with respondent No.6

Both writ petition’s main parties were respondent No. 1 and 2

respectively.

That advocate on behalf of respondent No.2 GIPSA,while

suppressing the document of annexure P/1 (Pages 32-33),

defended its inaction by arguing of non supply of any specific

order issued by GIPSA, against the petitioner. The





13

form. So he applied on 12-05-2012 and

submitted his application duly filled in

along with all required documents mentioned

therein to the Regional office Jaipur of the

company. The said office controls

administration of divisional office Ajmer

which was in order . The application in

prescribed format was duly forwarded as per

formal information communicated to

petitioner and he fulfilled the eligibility

criteria as to be reckoned eligible for

promotion of Hindi officer exercise 2012

6. That petitioner has been shocked later on

to know through reliable sources that those

employees who have,in fact, no proper

experience of translation have been called

selected for fulfilling the posts of Hindi

officer 2012. While petitioner Hindi

Translator alone ,with experience of two

decades of translation,who is the only non

promoted Hindi Translator in the region of

Rajasthan has not been called for the same

written examination. This discrimination

attracts violation of article 14,and 16

Right to Equality and Equality of opportunity

in the matter of public employment.

The e-mail copy of petitioner’s application

dated 12-5-2012 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/3(Pages 36-37).

7. That in view of the aforesaid facts,supported by relevant

Annexures, it would be just and proper of this Hon’ble apex court

to direct contesting respondents stop immediately the gross



14

discriminatory exercise of promotion of Administrative Officer (

Hindi officer )-2012 and revoke appointments ,if any. Though the

petitioner has been mischievously denied any formal information,it

is reliably learnt that those who have been selected in the process

include one Devendra Sharma,Salary roll No.23868 serving at

Jaipur he is one of the juniors to petitioner as he joined services

later than the petitioner.

8. That contesting respondents No.1 and 4 , conspired to

abolish the petitioner’s lawful post of Hindi

Translator,accordingly,without any vacancy of Hindi Translator,

in the garb of what they called Transfer Mobility Policy, they

issued an order dated 5.06.2007,the same was being challenged

before respondent No.6 which was registered as S. B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 4575/2007 and by way of interim order, dated

30th July 2007,the respondent High Court prevented the

respondent No.1 from transferring the petitioner.

That even when the said order dated 30th

July 2007 against

transfer of petitioner Hindi Translator dated 5.06.2007 to a post

of assistant , was in legal force the contesting respondents,No.1

and 4 in mutual collusion, drafted yet another transfer order

petitioner,when the arbitrary dismissal order was in the lawful

process of being challenged . The second transfer order , which

the competent Central Govt. labour authoritiy included as part of

reference of industrial dispute,has been ,inter alia, pending for

adjudication of dispute in terms of Industrial Disputes Act-1947

before respondent No.7 tribunal. The due process of law has

dated 9.06.2011, in the garb of re-instatement of the



15

9. The contesting respondents,No. 1 and 4 colluded to inject

poisonous stigma to illustrious services of petitioner.

Accordingly,the respondent No.4 deliberately denied extension

of leave granted to the petitioner (after the petitioner started

asking information that would have exposed his welfare

association leader ,identified with salary no. 26019 a well known

alleged bribe taker),most regular employee in his

workplace,despite full balance of every kind of leave in the

account of petitioner. Thereafter, since last about 5 years, a

repressive campaign of deliberate defamation has been

unleashed against the petitioner marked by manipulations and

distortions of established “rule of law” as laid down by this

Hon’ble court , perpetrated by contesting respondents No. 1 and

4 ,none of whom have any intention to meanigfully reinstate a

workman whom they instigated to be subjected to painful

process of enquiries on whimsical charges,without any cross

examination, forefeited his 6 increments and thereafter

dismissed him,forefeiting his entire gratuity and thereafter

,presently subjecting him to face denial not only about 4 lakh

rupees of his own provident fund ,his gratuity etc. as blackmail

tactics to teach him a lesson for being honest and courageously

exposing systematic corruption.

That ,there is, a reference of industrial dispute pending for

adjudication with respondent No.7 tribunal since 3.11.2011, case

registered as CITR No.4/2011 Shri Gopal Soni Vs. New India

Assurance Co. Ltd, (translated as per the following):



16

against Mr. Shri Gopal Soni by managment New India Assurance Co.

Ltd,Ajmer are justified and lawful?

(2). Whether the transfer orders dated 9/6/2011 from Ajmer to

Ahmedabad issued to workman Shri Gopal Soni by management New

India Assurance while reinstating him are justified and lawful?

(3). Whether in consequence of the said two orders of

managment dated 16./11/2009 and 9/6/2011 demial of arrears of pay

w.e.f. 1/8/2007,denial of increment of pay to workman during years

2009,2010,2011 and denial of back wages from 10/4/2009 till date are

justified and lawful,if not workman is entitled to what relief .

10. The petitioner,whose wages were reduced to less than half

since April 2008 on account of arbitrary suspension without any

grave charge mentioned therein , has no income since

November 2009 has to face contesting respondents who have

depleted all his resources . That despite about two decades of

working on the post of Hindi Translator, out of about 8 Hindi

Translators serving Rajasthan region of respondents the

petitioner alone has never been promoted despite being the

most qualified of all. Instead on behalf of insurance company

whose public money is abused by contesting respondents,(e.g.

the officials enjoy travelling by air in-person from Jaipur/ Mumbai

to Delhi at Central Information Commission office instead of

attending video conference from Mumbai to defend their act of

denying information to petitioner) he has repeatedly been issued

transfers to a lower post which are malafide as the petitioner

was never appointed to the post of clerk /assistant.



17

joined services later than petitioner,despite that promoted and

either not transferred or transferred within a radius of 50-150 Km

:

Name Salary Roll

No

Designation as

on December

2010

Gross Pay in

Rs. December

2010

Sanjot Vyas 24929 Sr. Asstt 42935

Nasrullah

Khan

23734 Admn. Officer 48486

11. That humble petitioner faces consisitent workplace jealousy from

constesting respondents because of petitioner’s commitment to

ho nest y, transparency and accountability in public life, who has

filed applications under the right to information act against

systematic corruption in theinsurance sector , in keeping with the

following pledge,”

WE, THE PUBLIC SERVANTS OF INDIA, DO HEREBY

SOLEMNLY PLEDGE THAT WE SHALL CONTINUOUSLY

STRIVE TO BRING ABOUT NTEGRITY AND TRANSPARENCY

IN ALL SPHERES OF OUR ACTIVITIES. … WORK

UNSTINTINGLY FOR ERADICATION OF CORRUPTION

.REMAIN VIGILANT “…

Few of the facts that emerged due to petitioner’s whisle blowing

are the following:

(a) Respondent No. 2 association, being not registered as an

association, argues i t cannot legally sue and be sued yet

it spends public money of at least Rs. Twenty thousand per



18

month to an advocate.

(b) T h a t No law permits paying and receiving millions worth of

public money in the account of un - registered

association, yet the respondent No. 1 G.M. namely A. R.

Sekar continues to sanction public money of about Rs. Forty

lakh earch year to the account of respondent No.2 GIPSA , Mr

Sighal respondent No.2,working as Chief Exucutive of GIPSA

cheque of public money of about Rs. 35 lakh that was

sanctioned for the account of National Insurance Academy

(NIA),a public trust. It was allegedly deposited into personal

account of wife of the then NIA chairman,one Mr. Mishra.

Ignoring the grave matter Mr Singhal was merely transferred

from GIPSA to NIACL,respondent No.1 company and has

recently been rewarded with promotion as General

Manager,presently posted at Calcutta head office of the

National Insurance Company Ltd.

(C ). There is such a sharp polarization between honest and the

bribe takers employees that on the one hand the petitioner

suffers m u l t i p l e consequences o f arbitrary dismissal on

the other hand an association leader who was caught about a

decade ago red-handed demanding gratification gets paid public

money with salary No. 26019 Due to his association’s clout his

initial suspension was not only revoked but also recently on 3rd

December 2012 at Jaipur,he was awarded opportunity of

promotion. His photo (kindly refer para 21) handing over bouquet

to respondent No.1 exhibits the unholy nexus between corrupt

association leaders and the apex insurance bureaucrates.



19

12. In retaliation,of thepetitioner’s whisle blowing, he was

forced into dismissal with effect from 16th November

2009 on the basis of a so cal led “gyapan” wherein the

only “ grave “ charge ever alleged was (Translated extract)

:

“ The act of Mr. Shri Gopal Soni leaving

headquarters repeatedly without permission of competent

authority amounts to his gross (grave) violation of

company rules which is not expected from a public servant

(company personnel).”

13. That the petitioner being never supplied with any

official translation in English has still been unable to

understand how Mr. Kundra (who used to daily shake

hands with well known alleged bribe taker association

leader his office colleage) who issued dismissal of

petitioner stated that petitioner violated the rules called New

India assurance CDA rules 2003 whereas petitioner was

never formally accused of any such violation.

That ,one Ashok Samaria , a member of the same



20

welfare association which has been led in the Rajasthan

region by a well known bribe taker of salary No. 26019,

conducted so called “jaanch” (literally translated

as investigation) without a single opportunity to cross

examine any delclared or un declared witness, without any

iota of compliance of principles of natural

justice,submitted a controversial report (full report has till

date,been denied to the petitioner) clarified in his

concluding para that “ulterior motive” (he called doorasth

prayojan) was that the petitioner had obtained stay order

against,what Mr. Samaria called “transfer”

14. That deliberately forgetting the basic ethics that no public servant

can be punished for approaching the court of law seeking

justice the respondent No.1,himself a public servant, not only

issued order(s) stating that everything was OK despite two

different conduct rules of company (the petitioner was alleged of

violating 1975 rule however they invoked petitioner’s dismissal

and then transferred petitioner pretending his re-instatement in

terms of rule of 2003) but also he grabbed the opportunity to

get the petitioner dismissed from services of

Insurance company while he was occupying the vacant post of

company chairman being senior most general manager. .

Pertinent to quote here the relevant para of one of his “orders

under the RTI act”:

Appeal No. 029/2009 Dated 25th June 2009 regarding RTI

application dt.16.03.2009



21

as on date) filed by the Appellant to the

undersigned, against his 109 no. of

applications under RTI submitted by him to his

Employer / Committee of Parliamenton Official

Language / Ministry of Finance, Central

Vigilance Commission etc.,it is noted

that the appellant is not interested in

any genuine information but is merely making an

attempt to subvert the mechanism of the Act

for no public gain.

His umpteen applications are repetitive in

nature relating to domestic enquiry proceedings

against him and are designed not to

elicit information as defined in section

2(f) of the Act but to cause discomfort

to the authorities concerned for having

initiated disciplinary proceedings against him

which are pending decisions by the

Competent authority.”

15. It is most pertinent to mention here that S.K. Kundra ,merely a

manager, who pretended himself being competent authority

was not competent to dismiss the workman, a Hindi

Translator,the appointment letter of workman (translated)

a n n e x ed as Annexure P/4 (Pages 38-39) herewith states

“regional manager” as the appointing authority of workman .

16. Though public servant(s) framing false or incorrect document

,with intent to cause injury is punishable in terms of section 128



22

of the CrPC, the respondents are mixing facts with deliberate

falsehood since last several years, two glaring examples of

crossing the red lineare:

(a) .Mr Harichand, respondent No. 4 made deliberate obscene

remarks ,on the official letter head of the company, dt.26.03.2008

,part of the exhibits against the applicant ,on the basis of which the

petitioner suffers consequences of dismissal. It was an act of

spreading hatred against the family of the petitioner , he wrote in

his own handwriting

(translated)

It is surprising fact that the wife of Mr.Soni is not

following Hindu Family Traditions as she is

“comfortable” away from her sick husband deliberately

leaving the children with him,though it is apparent

from his letter there is no one else taking care of

him.

(b) One Mr Khangarot who reports to respondent No.4,

stated in writing on 15.05.2009 with reference to so called

domestic enquiry that petitioner is involved in what he described

as “hera- pheri” worth millions.(translated)

“ Mr Soni used to report me for legal and Hindi

department. He used to pollute the atmoshphere by not

working during office time.He often used bilingual and

non parliamentary language and called officers as

thieves was saying CRM to SDM all are corrupt. He

himself was involved in scam worth millions ...”

It is ironical that neither of the above two witnesses possess

proper insurance qualifications to understand principles of

utmost good faith or ethics .



23

(c ). The Central Govt asked the respondent No.1 to follow

the law of transparency, The then CMD NIACL.Mr. Ramdoss was

directed by the then Jt. Secretary, Insurance Sector, Govt of

India,Ministry of Finance, Mr. Tarun Bajaj

"Forwarded message ---------- From: [email protected]

Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010

Subject: Fwd: RTI Appeal 24.11.10 from shrigopal soni for disclosure

pertaining to application 23.09.2010

To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]

Sir, Please look into the RTI appeal attached herewith. Kindly intimate us

of the action taken. ( ignored by respondent No.1 and his associates).

17. That honest petitioner has not been deliberately issued any

document specifying any reason not to allow him the opportunity

of promotion that has been accorded to other employees,e.g. a

well known bribe taker trapped demanding gratification, salary No.

26019,despite being booked under prevention of corruption act

with effect from first week of January 2003 ,he has been

declared eligible and recently allowed participation in the written

exam for promotion to class 1 officer at Jaipur on 3rd

December

2012 (the photo in Para No. 21 shows alleged bribe taker a

favourite with respondent No.1).

18 . That i t i s t he m os t i ro ni ca l a ct t h at on behalf of

respondent No.1 one S. K. Kundra who filed written submission

with affidavit in the High court in r e p l y t o S. B. civil writ

petition No.4575/2007 as on 15th

February 2008 that was

mailto:[email protected]






24

respondent No.6 that petitioner was unfortunately denied of

promotion and he could in future become an officer of the

company the same Mr Kundra ,without observing the office

procedure of a formal note sheet signed the dismissal orders

against the petitioner for alleged “misconduct during 2007”.

Nobody sought permission from respondent No.6 ,nobody requested

amendment in W.S.

.

19. That respondent No. 2 GIPSA is not registered

with any statutory authority. The legal liability is ,therefore

shifted in person to Respondent No.3 ,the then chairman of

GIPSA,who is incidentally, the present chairman of the

NIACL, namely Mr. G Srinivasan . The said Mr Srinivasan was

issued written instructions from Director of Insurance,Govt of

India ,Ministry of Finance,the only competent authority

empowered in respect of service matters,rules and regulations,in

all public sector insurance companies,in terms of General

Insurance...Act-1972 ,not to transfer employees belonging to

Class III of workman petitioner beyond 150 Km in ordinary

circumstances and not beyond 200 Km by the authority of

chairman vide letter dated 16.11.2010. The respondent No.2 and 3

ignored their duties to issue a circular for strict compliance of

central govt. directions to GIPSA ,member insurance companies.

A text of the aforesaid letter is annexed as

Annexure P/5 (Page 40).

20. That the activism of contesting respotndents who sleep

over the matter of justice to translators is shocking.It is un



25

reasonable that a Hindi Translator,appointed on minimum

qualification of graduate with second class is either subjected to

transfer or promotion upon a post of assistant or senior assistant

after two decades of service without promotion. Both of the posts

require higher secondary qualification.

Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/6 (pages 41-47) is

a copy of the interim stay orders issued by Respondent 6 upon

the writ petition moved by respondent No.1 and 4.

21. That respondent No. 7 tribunal afforded opportunity of

mutual and inexpansive settlement of dispute pertaining to case

No. CITR 4/2011 so that speedy justice is delivered between

dispute of petitioner and respondent No.1 and 4 by spirit of LOK

Adalat, on 15.03.2012 at Ajmer. Notice was issued to both

petitioner and respondent No.1 and 4 on 27.02.2012 signed by

Hon’ble presiding officer of industrial tribunal. However no one

senior ranking authority,that is, Manager or higher ranking

authority from Regional Office of respondent No. 1 and 4 was

present on the occasion,though about 7 officials have been

appointed therein.

That, it is clearly the strategy of contesting respondents to

drag and prolong the dispute ,complicate the victimization and

waste public money to delay the process of justice while seeking

repeated adjournments in the courts, instead of ensuring survival

of an honest translator who spent two decades of his life

continuously serving the insurance company.

Had the respondent No.1 and 4 not co-ordinated together to

file a frivolous writ petition S. B. civil 4007/2012 the pet i t ioner



26

acceptable to respondent No.1, Mr Sekar who is adamant that

honest Petitioner is denied of any means of livelihood. . On

the other hand the respondent No.1 in person was seen in the

company “office secretry” of salary No. 26019 not only a well

known bribe taker but also one permitted an altered name , as

on 20 th July 2012 while visiting Jaipur as ex-officio chairman

of the insurance company. Evidence follows:

Grounds:

1. (a).Enforcement of Assurance given:

As per the admitted position of respondent No.1 insurance

company to employer’s association of respondent No.2 r egarding

assurance about justice to the proper pay scale and promotional

opportunities to Hindi translators (explained in a n n e xu r e 1

p a ge s 3 2 -3 3 ), the same is requested to be enforced with the

directions of this Hon’ble apex court.

(b). Acts against public policy

The contesting respondent’s acts of defying central govt.

directions.(para 16 b),denying opportunity of promotion as Hindi Officer

to a Hindi Translator ( consequent to dismissal for moving high court

seeking justice) are acts against public policy. The acts of respondent



27

class III employees beyond 150-200 Km,also Mr. Singhal not considering/

forwarding the letter of 27.02.2007 to Central Govt for implementation are

clear acts against public policy.( annexure P/1 and P/7 ,Page 32-33 and

48) .

2. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF the petitioner

It is submitted that the fundamental rights of a citizen of

India as enshrined in article 1 4 , 1 6 , 21 of t h e

constitution of India have been sought to be taken away

by deliberate acts of artificial legal persons, and / or

contesting respondents, they misguided the Hon’ble high

court’s to stay the proceedings under a legislative act .

The petitioner in such peculiar circumstances has no

alternate remedy except to pray for protection of his

livelihood with human dignity.

That this Hon’ble court in D .P. Maheshwari Vs.

Delhi Admn. and. Ors 1983 3 SCR 949 has laid down rule

of law “ We think it is better that tribunals, particularly those

entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where

delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace, should

decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying

some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in

the exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution stop proceedingsbefore a tribunal”…

The act of High court stopping proceedings vide orders dated

9.04.2012 and confirming the stay orders dated 30.07.2012 as

per Annexure P/ 6 (Pages 41-47) violates clearly the rule of

fundamental rights including, right to earn a



28

law laid down in aforesaid case law of D. P. Maheshwari.

Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the process of law before a

tribunal has been stayed by respondent No. 6 High Court without

genuine or reasonable ground ,no specific right of contesting

respondents was breached.

Double Standards on citizen’s Right to Information:

That respondent No.1, 2 and 3 acted together and secured stay In

the high court of Delhi on 1.12.2010 by filing W. P. (c) 8041/2010

against central information commission’s full bench decision to

follow the right to information act (RTI)-2005 in the GIPSA as the

respondent No.2 association runs entirely on public money..

On the other hand senior ranking managers of GIPSA member

company officials themselves invoke right to information act.

One S. S. Hira,salary No. 15287 in his official capacity of

chief regional manager of NIACL, sought information from central

board of direct taxes on 13.10.2009 regarding income IT/TDS

challan,trading account,Audit report etc in respect of 4 persons.

Mr. Hira who filed second appeal against the Central Govt. was

personally heard on 3 January 2011 by Central Information

Commission (Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001130DS) has been

rewarded with promotion as deputy general manager.

Respondent No.1’s negative attitude to petitioner’s right to

information is exemplified in Para 14 Page 20.

.

3.THE IMPUGNED Conduct RULES, 2003

It is submitted that the present Writ Petition pertains to illegality of



29

2009 which frames certain new definitions, between

commencement of so called enquiryand completion of same;

particularly,the title of conduct rules itself has been altered. It is

submitted that the said rules of 2003 cannot be invoked bycontesting respondents against the petitioner as the contesting

respondents do not posses any powers,in terms of General

Insurance Business Nationalisation Act- 1972, to frame any fresh

rules of conduct applicable to employees The power (to frame

conduct rules) has been vested in the Central Govt. only. The

Insurance Division of Ministry of Finance,Govt of India have

clarified the petitioner that they have not delegated any such

powers to respondent insurance company or GIPSA vide reply

dated 23.08.2012

,Relevant para is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure

P-7

Averment:

Denial of promot ional opportuni ty in recentexerc ise of c lass I I I employees to Hindi Of f icer to pet i t ioner is a f resh mat ter in the presentwr i t pet i t ion not pending by way of any other wr i t pet i t ion wi th ei ther h igh cour t or th isHon’b le apex cou r t.

The petitioner craves leave of this

court to raise additional grounds and/or

submit additional evidence/documents at

the time of arguments.

The challenge to a reference in terms of a legislative

act ,that is, Industrial Disputes Act-1947 can be raised

on very limited grounds and certainly not to

deny the right to livelihood of petitioner,as has been done

by contesting respondents.

A workman dismissed, a woman burnt, exploited child

labourer, a displaced tribal, tortured dalit are not simple law



30

It is capricious that a Hindi Translator appointed on

Minimum qualification of Graduate with second class

,denied of a specific pay scale of the post be

transferred/promoted to a post of lower qualification,that

is,either assistant or senior assistant,both posts having

qualification of 12th

pass, after two decades without

promotion. The contesting respondents having no desire

to do justice, their advocate in high court merely seeking

adjournments,this Hon’ble apex court is requested to

remove the gross anomaly causing great suffering,

discrimination and gross injustice.

PRAYER

In view of the above it is most respectfully prayed that

this Hon’ble Court may most graciously be pleased to:

1. a. an appropriate WRIT,direction or order calling for

records of and thereafter striking down S. B. Civil writ

petition 4007/2012 filed by contesting respondents No. 1

and 4 in Rajasthan High court with compensation to

petitioner.

b. Interim relief of directions to contesting respondents to

permit petitioner resume his duties at his lawful workplace

Ajmer till the legality of transfer beyond limit of 150-200

Km ,dismissal by way of victimization ,denial of back wages

etc. is adjudicated by respondent No.7 tribunal.

c. Directions be issued to call for record of Single Bench

Rajasthan High court,Jaipur writ petition No. 14838/2010 to

consider all non promoted employees appointed as Hindi



31

Translators ,during 1980’s ,as on 27th February 2007, including

the petitioner, justified pay scale of Hindi /administrative officer .

d. Directions be issued to respondents No. 7 to revive the

industrial dispute and consider orders issued in terms of New

India Assurance Co. CDA rules2003, as void ab initio

e. To stop future whimsical orders,the book of DO’S and

DON’TS be directed to be enforced in letter and spirit in all the

offices of contesting respondents.

f. Statutory audit and vigilance be directed into accounts of

GIPSA with a direction to record the statement of petitioner.

h. Directions be issued to NIACL to revoke the forefeiture of

Petitioner’s gratuity and Provident Fund of about Rs 4 lakh

i. Directions be issued to contesting respondents comply

the amendment in the Industrial Disputes Act-1947 that

stipulates grievance redressal of individual employees.

j. The petitioner be granted protection as a whisle- blower .

(ii) To pass such other orders and further orders as may be

deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the

case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

Drawn and filed by:

PETITIONER- IN –PERSON

Place: Ajmer DATED 12.12.2012 amended 18.3.2013



32

Annexure- P/ 1

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD.,MUMBAI (H.O.)

CORP.HRM/CL III-IV CELL/2007

February 27,2007

Mr. A.K.Singhal ,Vice President ,

GIPSA

Jeevan Vihar, 3rd Floor (Rear Portion)

Parliament Street , Sansad Marg,

New Delhi 110 001.

Dear Sir,

Re: Representation against the recategorisation of Translator as Assistant and

anomaly of pay scale of translators Vis-a-vis qualification requirement

We have received representations from Hindi Translators working under our Delhi R.O.

I and II on the above subject matter. Copies of the same alongwith the enclosures are

enclosed for your perusal.

Employees have mentioned in their representation that as per Department of Official

Language, Ministry of Home Affairs,post of Hindi Officers, Hindi Stenographers,Hindi

Translators,Hindi Typists were created in the year 1985 in our Industry.

Hindi Translator was a new post in our industry with educational qualification of

Graduation,they were appointed in the grade of Assistant with six additional increments

(four plus two graduation increments). Employees further represented that this

additional four increments clearly shows that Management recognized the Hindi

Translator not only a separate cadre but also a higher cadre than Assistant.

After Wage Revision of 2005 various Sr. Assitant grade and Assitant grade posts were

recategorised as Sr. Assistant and Assistant respectively. Due to redesignation as Assistant employees feel that they have been downgraded and it is also a clear, blatant

and unconstitutional violation of terms of appointment as they were appointed as Hindi

Translator.

During the visit of Parliamentary Committee on Official Language to our Srinagar DO on

19/6/2006 it was pointed out by the Committee that the post is treated as technical post

requiring educational qualification of post graduation.



33

The translator is placed at the level of Assistant whose minimum required educational

Qualification is 12th passed. Not only this even stenographers who are placed one post

ahead of the translator required minimum educational qualification of 12th standard.

Pof. Ramdev Bhandari,Dy Chairman asked us to get resolved grievances of the

translator and see that justice is mad to all Hindi Translators working in New India

Assurance. Committee has also reminded of action to be taken on pending matter of

creation of /up gradation of separate cadre for Hindi Staff and the officers and see that

translator working in our Company are duly promoted as Hindi Officer and not diverted

elsewhere. They have also advised to upgrade the cadre upto Dy General Manager

level. We have also assured the Committee that the issue will be taken up with GIPSA

to resolve the grievances of these translators as well as creation of separate cadre of Hindi Staff.

We now request you to discuss this issue in ensuing GM (P) meeting and let us have

your advice in this regard.

Thanking you.

Yours faithfully,

(N.TOPPO)

DY GENERAL MANAGER



34

Annexure-P/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH ,JAIPUR.

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No…14838/2010

Date of Order: 12.10.2011

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI

Mr. Chandra Mohan Sharma for the petitioner,

Mr. V.S. Yadav for the respondents.

The matter has come up on an application with the

prayer to delete the respondent No.1 from the array of

party respondents.

Learned councel for the respondents submit that neither

any order passed by respondent No.1 nor any of its action

is under challenge. Even no prayer has been made against

respondent No.1. All the reliefs have been prayed against

the respondent No.2 & 3. Thus, petitioner unnecessarily

impleaded respondent No.1 as party to the writ petition,

thus liable to be deleted.

I have considered the submissions made and after going

through the record, I find that no order or action of

respondent No.1 has been challenged or any prayer is made

therein against it.



35

Only Para 2 of the writ petition make a mention about

status of respondent No.1 without indicating as to how it

is necessary party to the litigation.

..2..

In the light of the facts given below,the application

for deletion of name of respondent No.1 is allowed. The

notification under challenge has not been issued by

respondent No.1 and the petitioner is otherwise an

employee of respondent No.2, thus he can be claim relief

prayed for against other respondents.

Amended cause title be filed within two weeks.

(M.N. Bhandari)J.



36

Annexure P/ 3:

Ref CORP.HRM. CL-1: CELL:RPJ:2012

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Regd. & Head Office: New India Assurance Bldg,87,M.G. Road,Fort,Mumbai-400001.

APPLICATION FOR THE POST OF A.O. (HINDI OFFICER)

To,

Regional Incharge,

JAIPUR R.O.

Dear Sir,

1. Name (in Full) (In capital) SHRI GOPAL SONI

2. Salary Roll No. 24001

3. Cadre Hindi Translator

4. Place Ajmer* DO

5. Date of Birth 19.09.1964

6. Age as on 47

7. Educational QualificationQualifying Degree

Graduate English,Hindi,Economics; Journalism ,

M.A. English, Hindi

Name of Exam Year of

Passing

University/Board Subjects

Offered

% obtained

M.A.

English,Hindi

1988,1990

(respectively)

University of

Ajmer

English,Hindi 45

DETAILS OF PAST EXPERIENCE:-

EMPLOYER NAME

& ADDRESS

PERIOD DESIGNATION

FROM TO

New India

Assurance Co. Ltd.

24.02.1988 TILL DATE Hindi Anuvadak

(Translator)

CATEGORY GEN SC ST

Yes OH HH VH

N.B. Then applicant has been an OBC,however,since the prescribed form has no

place for OBC,opted for General.OBC reservation,if provided,may kindly be

considered. P.T.O.



37

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Regd. & Head Office: New India Assurance Bldg,87,M.G. Road,Fort,Mumbai-400001.

R.O. PERSONNEL DEPT.,

Verification of Details:

Educational qualification

a) M.A. in Hindi

b) i. Was English a

subject upto

degree level

Yes/No

Yes/No

ii. Whether Hindi

was one of the subject at

Bachelor’s Degree

Yes/No

Experience Whether possessing

experience of translation

work from English to

Hindi and vice versa

Yes/No

Eligible/Not eligible

*as per appointment order.

SIGNATURE OF REGIONAL HEAD_

With SEAL

Text verified as true

N.B.

Sent dated 12.05.2012 by speed post No. ER500707985 IN

To,Chief Regional Manager,The New India Assurance Co. Ltd,

II Floor,Nehru Place,Tonk Road,JAIPUR-302015.

The aforesaid application was received on 14.05.2012 and was forwarded dated23.05.2012 as per information supplied by Mr. M. L. Chulet ,Manager ,Personnel,

contesting respondent’s Jaipur Regional Office.



38

Annexure:P/4 Text of appointment letter

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.(A Subsididaryof the General InsuranceCorporation of India)Regional Office: 8-Gulab Bhawan,Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,NewDelhi-1100002

Phone … Telex… Dated:13.6.88

R.O.ii/Personnel/Recruitment/Neelam/87

Shri Gopal Soni

964/44,Badi Nagphani**,Ajmer-305001

Dear Sir/Madam,

With reference to your application Dated ---and therafter interview/Medical test for the post of Hindi Translator / Assistant (clerk)/Assistant (typist)

****************************

We are pleased to inform you that you are appointed in the grade of 520-30-670-45-850-60-1210-75-1660 on the post of of Hindi Translator /

Assistant (clerk)/Assistant (typist) to the basic pay of 580 on

***************************

Probation. You shall be entitled to amendment in the aforesaid pay scale and other allowances as

per rules prevalent in General Insurance Industry and you shall be accepting the amendments ,if any,in the aforesaidpay scale. The following terms and conditions shall be applicable to you

in addition to serviceconditions of those applicable to other confirmed employees of your grade:-

1. Your appointment shall be with effect from 24.02.88 your reporting for duty toRegional Manager/Deputy Manager/DivisionalManager.

The New India Assurance Co Ltd, Branch Office, Ajmer

However,the aforesaid date should not be later than a fortnight to the acceptance of thisletter.

2.(a) You will be on probation for a period of six months which may be extended at the

discretion of the Management.(b) During the probationary period your services will be liable to be termination without

notice and without assigningany reasons by the Company.

3. ****** ((applicableonly to assistant (typist))

4. You shall be entitled to confirmation of services if you succeed by completing the probationary period.

5. On confirmation of probationary period you shall be entitled to other allowances,e.g.

Provident Fund,Gratuity etc.

6.Increments in salary are not released automatically,they are based upon regular attendance,good conduct,satisfactory work and performance and subjected to other rules of the

Company also.



39

7.While in the services of the Company,including probationary period you will be subject tothe rules and regulations of the company,including General Insurance (Conduct,Discipline

and Appeal)Rules,as are in force from time to time and carry out instructions given to you

from time to time orally/in writing.

8. During the probationary period if you leave/resign from the services of the Company,you

are required to give three full day’s notice in writing. In default company shall have right to

deduct from dues payable to you/recover from you directly an amount equivalent to threedays salary.

9. On confirmation your appointment is terminable at any time by giving one month’s notice

in writing on either side without assigningany reason.

10..You are liable to be transferred from one department to another from the Companuy to

any subsidiary of the Corporation or from one place to another as and when need to do so.

11. The Company’s right at law to take any action against you and to recover the dues of the

Company from you and/or to claim damage from you and the rights of the like nature willnot be affected or deemed to be waived by any reference to the terms and condictions

mentioned herein and they are expressly reserved notwithstanding any specific mention

herein of the rights of the Company.

12. You will have to undergo such training either during probation or any time thereafter asmay be prescribed by the Company.

13. Your appointment shall be subject to with effect from your reporting for duty. Theappointment letter shall be cancelled in the event of your not reporting for duty within a

fortnight.

You may return the duplicate of this letter of appointment duly signed by you,to

indicate that you have accepted all the conditions mentioned in this letter.

Yours Faithfully/

(RajendraBeri )DeputyManager/RegionalManager

**typographical error badanagmani

****** (words which have been deleted by the Company have been indicated*****)

Verified as true translation ( from Hindi)



40

Annexure P/5

F. No. S-1 1012/07 /2010 -Ins.1

Government of IndiaMinistry of Finance

Department of Financial Services

2nd Floor,Jeevan Vihar,

Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

Dated:16.11.2010

To,

Shri G. Srinivasan,

Chairman,Governing Board of GIPSA,

Chennai.

Subject: Wage revision for LIC/GIPSA non-lie public insurance companies

Dear Sir,

Please refer to Government of India Gazette Notification (S.O. No. 2472 (E)) dated 8 th

October,2010 which amended the General Insurance (Rationalization of Revision of

pay-scale and other conditions of services of supervisor,clerical and subordinate staff)

Scheme,1974. Vide this Notification “Para 18” of the rationalization scheme,1974 has been amended to provide for transfer of an employee beyond a radius of 150 kilometres

to exceptional circumstances. Further it provides that only the Chairman-cum-ManagingDirector or an officer not below the rank of Scale-VII can authorize such transfer

beyond a radius of 150 kilometres. In case of transfer beyond 150 kilometres thedistrubance allowance shall stand revised from Rs. 400/- per month to Rs. 600 per month.

2. In view of the discussions and keeping in view the organisational requirements of GIPSA companies for maintenance of the harmonious industrial relations,it may

be suggested that the provisions for effecting transfer of employees under theTransfer and Mobility Policy may be utilised in the most judicious manner by the

management of the public sector insurance companies. Further,it is suggested thatthe transfer requring shifting beyond a radius of 150 Kilometres with the approval

of General Manager be restricted to a distance which is minimum as per requirements but within 200 kilometres.

3.You are requested to kindly confirm having taken note of the above.

Thanking you.

Yours faithfully,

(Lalit Kumar)

Director (Insurance)

Text verified as true



41

Annexure P/6



S.B.Civil Misc Stay Petition No …/2012

in

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. ………/2012

1. The New India Assurance Company

Limited,through its Chairman and Managing

Director, 87,M.G.Marg, Fort,

Mumbai- 400001.

2. The Divisional Manager, The New India

Assurance Company Limited, Khailand Market,

Kotwali Scheme, Ajmer-305001.

Petitioners

Versus

1. Union of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment,through its Secretary,

Sharam Shakti Bhawan,Rafi Marg,New Delhi - 110001.

2. Presiding Officer,Central Governement

Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court,

Distt. & Sessions Court compound ,AJMER,Jaipur

Road,Ajmer.

3. Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central),Haribhau Upadhyay Nagar,

Pushkar Road,Ajmer-305001



42

4. Shri Gopal Soni son of Shri Johril Lal Soni,

by caste soni,R/o C-231,Panchsheel Nagar,Ajmer.

Respondents.

S.B. Civil Misc.Stay Application under Article

226 & 227 of the constitution of India.

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice

and his other companion Judges of

the High Court of Judicature for

Rajasthan at Jaipur Branch,

Jaipur.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIP:

The humble petitioners abovenamed most

respectfully beg to submit the present writ

petition as under:-

1. That the petitioners are filing the present

writ petition before this Hon’ble Court wherein

they have full hope of success.

2. That the pettioners have got a strong

prima facie case in their favour.

3. That the facts and grounds of the writ

petition may kindly

parcel of this stay

be treated as part and

application to avoid



43

unncessary repetition.

3. That the impugned order dated 3.11.2011

whereby the reference has been made by the

respondent No.1 under Section 2(A) of the ID

Act,1947 to the CGIT-cum-LC,Ajmer for

adjudication suffers from error apparent of

law as well as gross violations of provisions

of the ID Act,1947. The reference in regard

to termination order dated 16.11.2009 is not

tenable because the petitioners vide order

dated 9.06.2011 had reinstated the respondent

no.4 in service and once the workman was

reinstated the case was no more that of

termination/dismissal. Thus, the reference is in

gross violation of Section 10 as well as

Section 2(A) and 2(K) of the ID Act,1947,

therefore,in case the operation of the impugned

order dated 3.11.2011 as well as the further

proceedings pending before the CGIT-cum- Labour

Court,Ajmer are not stayed then the petitioners

will suffer huge irreparable loss and injurywhich cannot be compensated in any terms.

4. That the balance of convenience also

lies in favour of the petitioners.

It is,therefore,humbly prayed that the stay



44

application may kindly be allowed and execution

and operation of order dated 3.11.2011 whereby

reference has been made by the Ministry of Labour

& Employment,Government of India,New Delhi to be

adjudicated by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court,Ajmer as

well as the further proceedings pending before

the learned Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,Ajmer in reference case

No. CITR-4/11 titled Shri Gopal Soni Vs. The New

India Assurance Company Ltd. May kindly be stayed

during the pendency of the writ petition.

Or any other appropriate interim

order or direction may kindly be passed in

favour of the petitioners which this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and peoper in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

Your Lordships,

humble Petitioners

Through their councel,

(V.S. Yadav)

Advocate



45

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH ,JAIPUR.

S.B. Civil writ petition No.4007/2012

Date of Order: : 9.4.2012

Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

Mr. V. S. Yadav for petitioners

Issue notice to respondents Nos. 1 and 4 only

as other respondents are formal party,by making

it returnable within six weeks.

In the meantime,operation of the impugned order

referring to labour court shall remain stayed.

Stay will come in effect only after service of

notice on respondent No.1 and 4.

(M.N. BHANDARI),J



S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4007/2012

The New India Assurance Company Limited & anr.

VERSUSUOI & ors

Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr

VS Yadav-- for petitioners

Mr Shashank Sharma—for respondents No. 1 and 3



46

Heard on the application moved under Article

226(3) of the constitution of India by the respondent

No.4 for vacation of the interim order dated 9.4.2012.

Respondent No.4,present in person,submits that interim

order passed by this court may be vacated. The dispute

has already been taken up for adjudication by the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). No

ground is made out even to challenge the reference

made by the Ministry of Labour.

Learned counsel for petitioners, on the other

hand,submits that reference of dispute is not even

competent. It is submitted that before approaching

conciliation officer, petitioners preferred a review

petition followed by memorial against the order of

dismissal. They were pending consideration before the

competent authority and memorial submitted by the

petitioner was accepted vide order dated 9.6.2011 ,

whereby, order of dismissal was recalled by

inflicting lesser penalty.The failure report was yet

given by conciliation officer on 2.9.2011 when

dismissal was not existing in view of acceptance of

memorial,thus dispute pertaining to dismissal referred

at point No.1 of the reference does not exist. It is

further stated that once dismissal goes,other issuesregarding transfer and fixation of wages cannot be

raised by the individual but it can be through the

union or majority of the workmen as section-2A of the

Industrial Disputes Act,1947 does not apply in such

matters, thus reference of the dispute becomes

incompetent, hence,stayed by this court.

Respondent No.4 submits that petitioners have no

intention to reinstate him. While accepting memorial

, he is shown Assistant therein,whereas,said post

was not held by respondent No.4 as he was Hindi

Translator. Since wrong designation was given while

accepting the memorial,there was no occasion for him



47

Accordingly,Union of India has rightly referred the

dispute before the labour court.

I have considered submissions of the parties and

perused the record.

It is not is dispute that before finanlisation of

memorial,respondent No.4 raised dispute before the

conciliation officer and memorial was accepted before

the failure report. The order of dismissal was

substituted with lesser punishment thus it was not

existing at the time of failure report and,at the time

of reference. The respondent No.4 has disputed his

designation mentioned in the memorial but merely

mentioning even wrong designation does not take away

the effect of decision on the memorial where

punishment of dismissal was substituted with lesser

punishment.Accordingly, first issue of reference is

not legally tenable in absence of existence of the

order of dismissal.

Once the first issue of reference goes, two

issues of reference at item No.2 and 3 cannot be

raised by an individual but can be raised only

through union or majority of the employees as

section 2-A of the Act of 1947 allows dispute by an

individual only in the matter of discharge and

dismissal which is not the case herein as order of

dismissal has already been substituted with lesser

punishment.

For the reasons given aforesaid, I do not find any

ground to vacate the interim order. Hence,application

filed under Article 226(3) of the constitution of

India is dismissed.

The writ petition may now be listed for admission

and disposal after ten days.

verified as true copy

(M.N. BHANDARI),J



48

Annexure-P/7

F. No. M-18011/79/2012 -Ins.1Government of IndiaMinistry of Finance

Department of Financial Services

2nd

Floor, “Jeevan Vihar”,

Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.Dated: 23.08.2012

To,

Shri Gopal Soni,

C-231,Panchsheel Nagar,

Ajmer-305004.Rajasthan

Subject: Information sought under the Right to Information Act-2005

Sir,

Please refer to your application dated 18.07.2012 received in this

Department on 24.07.2012 on the above noted subject and the point wise

information are as under:

Point No. 4: Ministry has not issued any specific order to delegate the power of making rules, in terms of section 18 of GIBNAAct,1972, to NIACL or

GIPSA. Till the year 2000, the four general insurance companies were

subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India (GIC) and the Central

Government delinked them from the superintending control of GIC making

them report to the Government directly…

Yours faithfully,

(S. K.Mohanty)

CPIO & Under Secretary to the Govt. of India

Tele: 23748788

RelevantText verified as true



a translator's writ petition

Documents