Enter Keyword and Search





Monday, March 22, 2010

Allotment of Govt.. accommodation to the State Level Political Parties

with 0 Comment
  

Government of India
Ministry of Urban Development
DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES

  

Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi
Dated the 15th March, 2010

  

No.12014/1/2010 - Po. II

  

CORRIGENDUM

  

Sub:-       Allotment of Govt.. accommodation to the State Level
Political Parties - Framing of guidelines regarding.

  

      The undersigned is directed to invite attention to this Directorate's O.M. No. 12/11/2000-CDN/Pol. II dated 4th May, 2001 on the above mentioned subject and to say that para-2(i) thereof may be subsitituted by the following:

  

2. (i)       only those recognized State level Political parties that have a minimum strength of four members in both Houses of the Parliament could be considered for allotment of office-residence in Vitthalbhai Patel House.

  

      Other terms and conditions laid down in the O.M. dated 4th May, 2001 will remain un-changed.

  

(R.N. Yadav)
Deputy Director of Estates



Seniority not a fundamental right: CAT

with 1 comment


Seniority not a fundamental right: Central Administrative Tribunal

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has said that public employees cannot claim seniority as a "fundamental right".

"As per the settled law, seniority is not a fundamental right of a public employee. It is only a civil right. There cannot be any change in this contrary to the principles of natural justice," the Tribunal bench, comprising Members Shanker Raju and Veena Chhotray, said.

The Tribunal said this while refusing to set aside an order by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi(MCD) revising the seniority list of its junior stenographers, It dismissed the petition of junior stenographers seeking to quash the order of the civic agency which had revised their 1988 seniority list.

The Tribunal noted that seniority list of junior stenographers was revised in 2000 by the MCD after duly considering the objections invited by it after circulating a provisional seniority list.

"The revision of seniority list of 2000 had been preceded by circulation of a provisional seniority list and inviting the objections. Even though the applicants still insist that their objections had not been considered, this is not proved," it said.

The Tribunal rejected the plea of violation of natural justice of petitioners on the ground that no proof in the form of relevant document was produced in support of it.

The petitioners, M S Thakur and others, were aggrieved at the changes in the revised seniority list of 2000 and approached the Tribunal for relief.
Source: Indian Express



Disclaimer:As and when orders amending the rules are published by the Government, the amendment orders will be published in our blog immediately. Readers are requested to refer to the source link is given at the end of the post. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy of the content on this blog, the same should not be construed as a statement of law or used for any legal purposes. 90paisa accepts no responsibility in relation to the accuracy, completeness, usefulness or otherwise, of the contents. Users are advised to verify/check any information with the relevant department(s) and/or other source(s), and to obtain any appropriate professional advice before acting on the information provided in the blog. Links to other websites that have been included on this blog are provided for public convenience only. 90paisa is not responsible for the contents or reliability of linked websites and does not necessarily endorse the view expressed within them. We cannot guarantee the availability of such linked pages at all times.

Recent Posts