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 . Vs. 1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd (NIACL) Through the then chairman Sri. A. R. Sekar Ex-officio, presently seniormost G.M. 87,M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 . Contesting Respondent Petitioner Workman

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 (GIPSA) Present address:C.M.D.,New India Assurance Co. Ltd, (NIACL) 87,M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400 001 . 4. Divisional Manager The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Kotwali Scheme, Khailand Market, Ajmer-305001 . Contesting Respondent

Contesting Respondent

..

5. Rajbhasha Sansadeey Samiti, (Parliamentary Committee on official language) 11, Teen Moorti Lane, New Delhi- 110011 6. Honble High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur bench, C-scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan)302005. 7.Hon'ble presiding officer CGIT, Distt. & Session court Compound, Jaipur road, Ajmer305001

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 Act1972 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 Rajasthan High Court dated 30th July, 2012 & 12th

October , 2011 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4007 of 2012 & 14838 of 2010 respectively.

To, The Honble 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 exparte stay and interim order has been obtained, deliberately, forestalling industrial disputes proceedings , circumventing

the only law that protects a victimized workman so as to prevent justice to petitioner by stopping any relief from victimization,that is, stop gross discrimination, release of back wages including increments and /or wage revision etc . It is the consistent order of respondent No.1 to spread defamation,(details follow in para 14,page 20) ,inter alia, that no discomfort be caused to those involved in so called disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

The contesting respondent No.2 and 3 held key positions in a hitherto un-registered association, performing duty therein ,since the association is not a legal entity,as admitted before Rajasthan High Court in reply dated 22.09.2011 to civil writ petition No.14238/2010; the moved by the are

petitioner,therefore

named

individuals

personally liable for their deliberate negligence in ignoring their public functions/obligations (of

statutory nature). All the contesting respondents are public servants in terms of Para 31 and bound to follow the

directions of the Central Government as per the General Insurance Para Business 19(3) of Nationalisation the said Act-1972, act .

particularly

The contesting respondents have not framed any reasonable promotional avenues for non promoted Hindi Translators ,when the petitioner pleaded against injustice he received the following un-official e-mail (personnel),quote follows : from a deputy general manager

From

kv.krishna@newindia.co.in

To

rev ribhav@yahoo.com Mr. Soni I may advise you to put full stop to your legal matters promotion . As far as this countries legal home .
That respondent No.5 is a parliament ary

including your case for system is at

understood by me , the winner weeps and the loser weeps at court.

committee duly constituted under section 4 of the official language act-1963 ,its sub committee III inspects insurance public sector organizations, etc. to banks, the

companies

ensure

implementation of said act and rules of official language-1976. It was on the directions of the said committee that post of petitioner,that is,Hindi Translator was created in the general insurance companies during 1980s.The said committee respondent No.1 to do away

,admittedly, directed

with glaring anomalies in the grade and pay scale of Hindi Translators in the insurance company,and to see to it that the translators are timely

promoted. It was given a formal party.

assurance to do so . It is

Respondent No. 6 and 7 are the competent court of law and tribunal respectively, both are formal parties. A gist of litigations between petitioner and contesting respondents in the Jaipur bench of

Rajasthan High Court is the following: S. B. Civil proceedings status

Writ Petition No. 4575/2007 Stay order in favour petitioner from 30.07.2007 upto disposal 14838/2010 In the matter of revision ignoring translators 4007/2012 Adjudication of Industrial wage Pending long for for of Disposed on 21.10.2011 conceding right of

promotion to petitioner

amendment in petition Since 30.07.2012 no hearing writ

disputes stayed CITR 4/2011 Central Govt. Petitioner filed statement claims of

taken place, Central Govt. Ref. dated

.Industrial Tribunal Ajmer

3.11.2011 stay order

dated

1/12/2011

9.04.2012

(b).

That since 10th February 2008 without any

serious charge the petitioner 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 presen tly 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 DOS and DONTS 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

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

330000 (A)Outstation Transfer

Regional Officeof All

Seniority List including

Class
31.12.2006

III Employees

Record Clerks

Working for More Than Ten Years at one station as on

S. 1
2 3

Name SHRIGOPAL SONI

S.R.No. 24001
21545 30477

SANJAY KUMAR VERMA

KAILASH CHAND KHINCHI

CADRE TRANSLATOR ASSTT. (C) 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 Bansi Lal Gulab Singh Mehandi Lal Salary No. 22137 24275 26707 Roll Gross monthlyPay Rs.48689/Rs.33238/Rs.25407/-

2.

That the background of dispute, as conveyed

on

b e h a l f o f respondent No.1 to respondent No. 2 vide letter of 27 February 2007, full text annexed herewith in annexure-P/1

(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 of said letter spells out in

4 including the petitioner . The text

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 1980s 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 respondet No.1 The said letter was issued from respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 an association in the nature of employers association which,according to ministry of finance information given to petitioner, consists of CEOs 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 assurance of respondent No.1 admitted before respondent No.2

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 mans death or be part of systematic corruption) despite mandatory amendment in the Industrial Disputes Act-1947 to the said effect, are whimsically adamant to ensure that petitioner from any

never gets justice and even if he gets justice 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 respondents No. 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 enjoy immunity from every law. Instead of

considering the admitted injustice to hindi

translators case

with accountability, who suffer prolonged injustice as there has not been a specific pay scale for them. Even there has not timely promotion of employees the same

been proper opportunity to

appointed as Hindi Translator to Hindi Officer,

glaring discrepancy has been a recorded matter pending for

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 respondents advocate seeking adjournements, the same is pending for arguments presently with respondent No.6 Both writ petitions 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

petitioner,denied of any means of livelihood since long,was

12

unable to be personally present before respondent High Court .In such peculiar circumstance , vide interim order Writ dated Petition

12October 2008 in respect of S. B. Civil

No.14838/2012 titled Sri Gopal Soni Vs. The CEO, GIPSA & Ors the High Court pronounced an that the petitioner is otherwise

employee of respondent insurance company and allowed

application on behalf of GIPSA for deletion as respondent No.1 The Honble court,however ignored the submission that wage revision of insurance employees is approved by Ministry of Finance,insurance division only after recommendation of GIPSA . The said respondent Ministry has not filed any reply in the matter till date. The full Text of the said order is annexed as Annexure- P/ 2 (pages 34-35).

5. That despite the un ambiguous declaration of the been respondent challenged High any by Court the ,which contesting has not

respondents,in

respondents are discriminately, refusing the petitioner,inter promotion That employees. vide that they alia, accord No. opportunity to other CLof

legal

forum,the

said

1:Cell;RPJ;2012 declared cadre of

reference

vacancies

the respondent No.1 company for promotion 2012 and to the

CORP.HRM.

invited applications. This circular was not communicated officially However, the petitioner to the somehow was , petitioner. un

A.O.(Hindi officer)

officially, provided a copy of application

13

form.

submitted

So

along with all required documents mentioned company. which The in said office controls Ajmer

his

he

applied

application

on

duly

12-05-2012

filled

and

in

therein to the Regional office Jaipur of the administration was of divisional . The office

prescribed format formal

order

petitioner and he fulfilled the eligibility criteria as promotion of Hindi officer 6. That petitioner has to know through employees selected who to be reckoned exercise 2012 eligible for

information

was duly forwarded as per communicated to

application

in

experience of translation have been called officer 2012. While Translator alone petitioner Hindi

have,in

reliable sources that those fact, no proper

been shocked later on

for fulfilling the posts of Hindi ,with experience of two

decades of translation,who is the only non Rajasthan has not been called for the same written attracts examination. violation of This article 14,and

promoted Hindi Translator in the region of discrimination

Right to Equality and Equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment. The e-mail copy of dated 12-5-2012 is petitioners annexed application as

16

Annexure P/3(Pages 36-37).

herewith

7.

That in view of the aforesaid facts,supported by relevant

Annexures, it would be just and proper of this Honble 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 the petitioners lawful post of Hindi

abolish

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, dated 9.06.2011, drafted yet another transfer order of re-instatement of the

in the garb

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 been forestalled presently by stay order of respondent No. 6

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 Honble 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 thereafter

dismissed him,forefeiting his entire gratuity and

,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): (1).Whether penalty of dismissal orders dated 16.11.2009

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. A few Hindi Translators, junior to petitioner, those who have

17

joined services later than petitioner,despite that promoted and either not transferred or transferred within a radius of 50-150 Km : Name Salary No Roll Designation as Gross Pay in on December Rs. December 2010 Sanjot Vyas Nasrullah Khan 24929 23734 Sr. Asstt Admn. Officer 2010 42935 48486

11.

That humble petitioner faces consisitent workplace jealousy from constesting respondents because of petitioners commitment to h o n e s t 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 FOR OF OUR ACTIVITIES. WORK

UNSTINTINGLY

ERADICATION

OF CORRUPTION

.REMAIN VIGILANT Few of the facts that emerged due to petitioners whisle blowing are the following: (a) Respondent No. 2 association, being not registered as an association, argues it 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 the other hand an dismissal on

association leader who was caught about a

decade ago red-handed demanding gratification gets paid public money with salary No. 26019 Due to his associations 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 thepetitioners whisle blowing, he was

forced into dismissal with effect from 16th November 2009 on the basis of a so called 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 as so called jaanch (literally translated

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 petitioners 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

On perusal of the Appeals (numbering 74

21

as on date) filed by the Appellant to undersigned, against his 109 no.

the of

applications under RTI submitted by him to his Employer / Committee of Parliamenton Official

Language / Ministryof Finance, Central Vigilance that the Commission appellant etc.,it is is noted

not interested in

any genuine information but is merely making an attempt to subvert the mechanism for no public gain. of the Act

His umpteen applications are repetitive in nature relating to domestic enquiry against him and are as but designed defined to proceedings to

not in

elicit information 2(f) of the Act

section

cause discomfort

to the authorities concerned for having initiated disciplinary proceedings which are pending against him

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 line are:
(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: tarun.bajaj@nic.in Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 Subject: Fwd: RTI Appeal 24.11.10 from shrigopal soni for disclosure pertaining to application 23.09.2010 To: mramadoss@newindia.co.in Cc: revribhav2@gmail.com

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 h e m o s t i r o n i c a l a c t t h a t on behalf of who filed written submission reply to S. B. civil writ was

respondent No.1 one S. K. Kundra with affidavit in the High court petition No.4575/2007 as on in 15th

February 2008 that

re gi st e re d a s ap pl ic at i on N o. 93 9 4/ 2 00 8 o n 10 . 03 . 20 0 8 b y

24

re sp o nd e nt

No . 6

th at

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 against the petitioner for alleged

dismissal orders

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 liability is ,therefore of the

with any statutory authority. The legal

shifted in person to Respondent No.3 ,the then chairman GIPSA,who is incidentally, the present chairman of

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 Annexure P/5 (Page 40). as

20.

That the activism of contesting respotndents who sleep matter of justice to translators is shocking.It is un

over the

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 Honble 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 iti oner workman would have been reinstated by now,which is not

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 company position of respondent No.1 insurance

to employers association of respondent No.2 regarding promotional

assurance about justice to the proper pay scale and opportunities to

Hindi translators (explained in a n n e x u r e 1

p a g e s 3 2 - 3 3 ) , the same is requested to be enforced with the directions of this Honble apex court.

(b). Acts against public policy The contesting respondents 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 No.2 and 3 ignoring their duty to issue written circulars not to transfer

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 Honble high courts 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 fundamental rights

including,

right to earn a

livelihood with human dignity.

That this Honble 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 proceedings before 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

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 citizens 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 commissions 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.1s negative attitude to petitioners 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 contesting respondents invoking and framing Conduct rules of

29

2009 which frames certain new definitions, between commencement of so called enquiry and 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 by contesting 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 promotional opportunity in recent exercise of class III employees to Hindi Officer to petitioner is a fresh matter in the present writ petition not pending by way of any other writ petition with either high court or this Honble apex court.

The

court to raise additional grounds and/or the time of arguments.

petitioner

craves

leave

of

this

submit additional evidence/documents at

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 cases but living, suffering human beings seeking justice.

30

It is capricious that a Hindi Minimum qualification of

Translator appointed on

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 Honble 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 Honble Court may most graciously be pleased to: 1. a. an appropriate WRIT,direction or order records of calling for

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 petitioner. b. Interim relief of directions to contesting respondents to 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 1980s ,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 DOS and

DONTS 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

Petitioners 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 JAIPUR BENCH ,JAIPUR. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No14838/2010 Date of Order: 12.10.2011

AT

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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Name (in Full) (In capital) Salary Roll No. Cadre Place Date of Birth Age as on Educational Qualification Qualifying Degree SHRI GOPAL SONI 24001 Hindi Translator Ajmer* DO 19.09.1964 47 Graduate English,Hindi ,Economics; Journalism , M.A. English, Hindi % obtained 45

Name of Exam Year of Passing M.A. 1988,1990 English,Hindi (respectively) DETAILS OF PAST EXPERIENCE:EMPLOYER NAME & ADDRESS New India Assurance Co. Ltd. CATEGORY GEN Yes PERIOD FROM 24.02.1988

University/Board Subjects Offered University of English,Hindi Ajmer

DESIGNATION TO TILL DATE Hindi Anuvadak (Translator)

SC

ST

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 ii. Whether Hindi was one of the subject at Bachelors Degree Whether possessing experience of translation work from English to Hindi and vice versa Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No

Experience

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 dated 23.05.2012 as per information supplied by Mr. M. L. Chulet ,Manager ,Personnel, contesting respondents Jaipur Regional Office.

38

Annexure:P/4

Text of appointment letter THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (A Subsididary of the General Insurance Corporation of India) Regional Office: 8-Gulab Bhawan,Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,New Delhi-1100002 Phone Telex Dated:13.6.88 R.O.ii/Personnel/Recruitment/Neelam/87 Shri Gopal Soni 964/44,Badi Nagphani**,Ajmer305001 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 520-30-670-45-850-601210-75-1660 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 service conditions 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 to Regional Manager/Deputy Manager/Divisional Manager. The New India Assurance Co Ltd, Branch Office, Ajmer However,the aforesaid date should not be later than a fortnight to the acceptance of this letter. 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 assigning any reasons by the Company. 3. ****** ((applicable only 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 to the 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 days notice in writing. In default company shall have right to deduct from dues payable to you/recover from you directly an amount equivalent to three days salary. 9. On confirmation your appointment is terminable at any time by giving one months notice in writing on either side without assigning any 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 Companys 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 will not 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 as may be prescribed by the Company. 13. Your appointment shall be subject to with effect from your reporting for duty. The appointment 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/ (Rajendra Beri ) Deputy Manager/Regional Manager **typographical nagmani error bada

****** (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 India Ministry 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 8th 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-Managing Director 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 the distrubance 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 the Transfer and Mobility Policy may be utilised in the most judicious manner by the management of the public sector insurance companies. Further,it is suggested that the 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN S.B.Civil Misc Stay Petition No /2012 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. /2012 1. The New India Assurance Company in JAIPUR BENCH ,JAIPUR. AT

Limited,through its Chairman and Managing Director, 87,M.G.Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400001.

2.

The Divisional Manager,

Assurance Company Limited,

The New

Kotwali Scheme, Ajmer-305001. Versus 1. Union of India,

Khailand Market,

India

Petitioners

Sharam Shakti Bhawan,Rafi Marg,New Delhi - 110001. 2. Presiding Officer,Central Governement

Employment,through its Secretary,

Ministry

of

Labour

&

Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Road,Ajmer.

Distt. & Sessions Court compound ,AJMER,Jaipur

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 Honble 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 petition as under:1. That the petitioners are filing the present most

respectfully beg to submit the present writ

writ petition before this Honble Court wherein they have full hope of success.

2.

prima facie case in their favour.

That the pettioners have got a strong

3.

That the facts and grounds of the writ petition may kindly be treated as part and parcel of this stay application to avoid

43

unncessary repetition. 3. That the impugned order dated 3.11.2011

whereby the reference has been made by the Act,1947 to the CGIT-cum-LC,Ajmer for

respondent No.1 under Section 2(A) of the ID 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 no.4 in service and once the workman was

dated 9.06.2011 had reinstated the respondent 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 injury which 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 well as the further proceedings pending before the learned Central Government Industrial adjudicated by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court,Ajmer as

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,Ajmer in reference case No. CITR-4/11 titled Shri Gopal Soni Vs. The New during the pendency of the writ petition. India Assurance Company Ltd. May kindly be stayed Or any other appropriate interim

order or direction may kindly be passed in

favour of the petitioners which this Honble circumstances of the case.

Court may deem fit and peoper in the facts and Your Lordships, Through their councel, (V.S. Yadav) Advocate humble Petitioners

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 Honble 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH ,JAIPUR. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4007/2012

AT

The New

India Assurance Company Limited & anr. UOI & ors VERSUS

Honble MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr VS Yadav-- for petitioners Mr Shashank Sharmafor respondents No. 1 and 3 Respondent No. 4 in person BY THE COURT:

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 has already been taken up for adjudication by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). No made by the Ministry of Labour. order passed by this court may be vacated. The dispute

46

ground is made out even to challenge the reference 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 competent authority and memorial submitted by the whereby, order of dismissal was recalled by dismissal. They were pending consideration before the petitioner was accepted vide order dated 9.6.2011 , 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 issues regarding 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

to join the post. The intention of the petitioners was not to reinstate him,otherwise his correct designation would have been given while accepting the memorial.

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 the failure report. The order of dismissal was before

47

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 the effect of decision on the memorial where

mentioning even wrong designation does not take away 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. 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 Once the first issue of reference goes, two

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.

and disposal after ten days. verified as true copy

The writ petition may now be listed for admission (M.N. BHANDARI),J

48

Annexure-P/7 F. No. M-18011/79/2012 -Ins.1 Government of India Ministry 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 GIBNA Act,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
Relevant Text verified as true