"MEG JULY 10"
All India C.P.W.D. ENGINEERS TIMES A Monthly magazine of All India C.P.W.D. Engineers Association VOLUME – IV / ISSUE-7 (July 2010) For Members only Rs. 8/- Per Copy EDITOR Er. S.S.JAISWAL ASSOCIATE EDITORS Er. B.N.YADAV Er. B.S.NEGI Edited, Printed & Published by Er. Shanti Swaroop Jaiswal, on behalf of All India CPWD Engineers Association from B-003, Ground Floor, I.P.Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002 Printed at : CENTRAL OFFICE B-003, Ground Floor, A MOMENT OF TRYST WITH DESTINY, WILL THE OPPORTUNITY I.P.Bhawan, I.P.Estate BECKON TO THE PROMOTEE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS ALSO? New Delhi – 110002 Ph : 011-23379445 INDEX E-mail : aicpwdea06@Gmail.com CONTENT PAGE EDITORIAL 02 – 03 M.O.U.D. CIRCULAR / NOTIFICATION 03 – 04 CORRESPONDENCE MADE 04 – 11 BRANCHES / UNITS NEWS / CIRCULARS 11 – 16 All over the country I A C. P. W. D. E N G I N E E R S A S S O C I A T I O N ALL IND 2 Central Office Bearers President : EDITORIAL ER.S.P.S.SAHARAN (M) 91-9311353984 Dear Friends ! General Secretary : We are worried over the turn of events of the recent past. It ER.S.S.JAISWAL appears as if we are passing through very trying times. First it was Lathi (M) 91-9899617024 Charge, on innocent Engineers, now there is an attack on our freedom of 91-9968142069 expression. An undeclared/ unannounced ban has been imposed on Vice President : Lunch hour rallies in-front of Nirman Bhawan. No one in the administration ER.BRAHM DUTT had dared do this in the past. The rallies were not restricted & banned, (M) 91-9873452598 even when the “Work to Rule” agitation was at it’s peak in 2003. Joint Secretary : ER.VIJENDER SINGH The alleged misbehaviour, indecent activities & hooliganism by Charan (M) 91-9868083400 group were made as an excuse by the administration for imposing such ER.R.N.SINGH restrictions. The state can not put civil liberties on hold and curb the (M) 91-9868358090 freedom of speech & expression simply on the pretext of some stray incidents, which otherwise can be dealt with by the administration under Treasurer : existing set of rules. Peaceful assembly & freedom of expression are ER.S.K.SRIVASTAVA fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the constitution which (M) 91-9868323121 inter-alia states that all citizens shall have the right - (a) to freedom of Chairman speech & expression. (b) to assemble peaceably & without arms. It is in (Action Committee) : this context that the Association strongly condemns the encroachment on ER.KARAMVIR SINGH our fundamental right of holding peaceful rally & demonstration to air our (R) 011-26182639 grievances. Northern Region . It would not be out of place to mention that the report card of the ministry President : as well as the directorate in resolving the issues confronting the cadre has ER.ANANG PAL been abysmally poor. The issue of the placement of A.Es in the grade pay (M) 91-9717011177 of 5400/- is hanging fire and the file regarding Account Examination is Vice President : gathering dust in the ministry. The S.T. Quota has so far not been fully ER.A.P.SINGH filled-up in promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The directorate (M) 91-9868810358 has so far not been able to regularize ad-hoc promotions at E.E. level. Regional Secretary : None of the eligible JEs, A.Es & E.Es has been placed in the grade pay of rd ER.B.S.NEGI Rs.7600/- under 3 MACP despite the lapse of a period of more than one (M) 91-9810761650 year since the introduction of scheme. The court order to grant all the similarly placed A.Es in the pay scale of 7500-12000 from 01.01.96 has Joint Secretary: so far not been implemented. While the proposal of in-situ promotions has ER.S.K.VARSNEY (M) 91- 9873161896 been returned back & lying in the ministry, the cadre review proposals are yet to see the light of the day. ER.B.L.MEENA (M) 91-9711254256 Under the circumstances, it is but natural for the Associations to Treasurer : raise voice & express their concerns by holding rallies & ER. SUNIL demonstrations, which are the only peaceful means available to SRIVASTAVA them. Instead of coming to grips with the issues consistently being (M) 91-9868486812 raised by the affected cadre of subordinate engineers, the administration has preferred the bullying tactics by disallowing rallies & demonstrations, which deserves condemnation in no uncertain terms. That the things would come to such a pass, was never imagined. We have thus been brought face to face with an unsavoury situation. 3 This is perhaps the darkest moment in the history of C.P.W.D. Let us rise to the occasion and lodge our protest in strongest terms against the tyranny of the state. Er.S.S.JAISWAL (General Secretary) ************************ Ministry of Urban Development (Works Division) (EW-1 Desk) Notification for THE GAZETTE OF INDIA (Part –II, Section -3 Sub Section (i) issued vide No. 58/4/2007-S&D)/PF dt.9th July, 2010. NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the constitution, the President hereby re-designates the post of “Director General (Works), Central Public Works Department” in the Apex scale of Rs.80000/- (fixed) as Director General, Central Public Works Department, with immediate effect. Sd/- (J.S.RAWAT) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India ************************ Directorate General of CPWD S&D Sections OFFICE MEMORANDUM issued vide No. 55/4/2006-S&D/ACP dt.16th July 2010. Sub : Implementation of Modified Assured Carrier Progression Scheme (MACPS) in CPWD. (Constitution for Screening Committee) Reference is invited to this Directorate of OM No.12/19/2009-EC-IV(SC) dated 20.10.2009 vide which orders for the constitution of the screening committee for Group B, C & D employees t process the MACPS cases were issued. This Directorate has been receiving several references from different units of CPWD regarding applicability of above orders of composition of screening committee in case of Group B & C employees who are to be granted MACPS in PB3/ PB4 scales in Grade Pays of Rs.5400, 6600, 7600 etc. In this regard, ti is stated that screening committee for Group A (except officers of Organized Group A Service), B & C employees i/c ad-hoc Executive Engineer, who are to be granted MACPS in PB3 /PB4 scales in the grade pays of Rs.5400, 6600, 7600 etc. shall be as per following composition. 1. Director General, CPWD - Chairman 2. Addl. DG (S&P) - Member 4 3. Director (W) MoUD - Member As per the above referred MACPS orders dated 19.05.2009 of DoPT , the recommendations of screening committee shall be placed before the compentent authority for approval. This issues with the approval of Director General, CPWD. (Jayesh Kumar) Director (S&D) ***************** Associaitons’ letter No : AIEA/F-8/Vol.-VI/2010-11/829 Dated :06/07/2010 addressed to The Director General (Works), CPWD and copy endorsed to Sh.Jaipal Reddy Ji, Hon’ble minister for urban development, The Additional Secretary MoUD and The A.D.G(S&P). Sub : Promotion from A.E. to E.E. (Civil) under S.T.Quota. Sir ! It may kindly be taken note of that going by the 7.5% quota earmarked for S.T. category, at least 30 posts of Executive Engineers should have been allocated to them out of total 391 posts filled under the promotee quota since 2006. These 30 posts were to be shared equally between Diploma & Degree holders under S.T. category. Thus 15 diploma holder & 15 Degree holders A.Es’ belonging to this class should have been promoted. Their quota was however diverted to other categories for one or the other reason. Recently the screening committee had approved a panel of 13 A.E.Es & 11 Schedule Tribe A.Es for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers against the vacancies for the year 2009-10. While the panel was fully exhausted in case of A.E.Es & all the 13 empanelled A.Es were promoted, only 5A.Es out of 11 ST A.Es could find place in the promotion orders issued subsequently. The remaining 6 could not be promoted for want of vacancies. The panel thus lapsed after the end of the year. There are now 8 degree holder S.T A.Es who fulfils the eligibility criteria against the vacancies for the year 10-11 even without the application of relaxation of 2 months & 16 days in qualifying service granted in their case by DoPT vide No.AB14017/30/2009- Estt.(RR) dt… (note enclosed). As the posts falling within their respective quota has still not been fully filled up, a fresh panel comprising of all the eligible 8 degree holder as per list attached may be drawn for the vacancies of the year 10-11 by holding fresh DPC and the promotion be granted to all these eight Degree holder A.Es belonging to S.T. category without further loss of time. An early action on the matter is solicited please. Sd /- Er.S.S.JAISWAL 5 Associations’ letter No : AIEA/F-8/Vol.-VI/2010-11/828 Dated :01/07/2010 addressed to The Director General (Works), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and copy endorsed to ADG(Trg.) and ADG(S&P), CPWD. Sub : Discrimination meted out to the Executive Engineers belonging to Promotee quota in nomination to 2nd general management development training programme. Ref : O.M. No.SE(T)-I/EE(T)/IIM Bangalore /GMDP/ 2010-11 Dt.14.06.10 Sir ! Your attention is drawn to the aforementioned O.M issued by S.E.(T)-I of the office of ADG(Trg.), whereby 30 Executive Engineers as per list attached there-to have been nominated for “2nd General Management Development Training Programme at IIM Bangalore”. The list is said to have been drawn with the concurrence of D.G.(W). A cursory look at the list would reveal that none of the Executive Engineer nominated for the training belongs to Promotee stream. All of them are from Class-I DR Stream. The Executive Engineers belonging to promotee stream has thus been discriminated & meted out the step-motherly treatment as far as their nomination for the management training is concerned. Is it not astonishing that while the modern management techniques lay down emphasis on all inclusive vision and strategies, exclusivity has been resorted to in nomination for the very same trainings? The exclusiveness at best can be said to be the vestige of the past when feudalism reigned supreme. In today’s age when progressive ideas based on equity & all inclusive approach are gaining grounds, exclusive approach sounds out-land-ish and out-dated. It is a matter of grave concern particularly in view of the fact that while the DoPT did not think twice before treating promotee class-I officers on par with DR Class-I officers in the matter of batch-parity, CPWD seems to be unaffected by the changes taking place in & around and is still caught up with feudal attitude & mind-set. Needless to say that non-consideration of Promotees for such training is a discrimination of highest order, which is simply intolerable & unacceptable. The Association demands the directorate to take immediate corrective measures to remove the discrimination & nominate the Executive Engineers from promotee stream also for the said training. SD/- Er.S.S.JAISWAL (General Secretary) ************************* Associations’ letter No : AIEA/F-11/2010-11/827 Dated : 29/06/2010 addressed to The ADG (S&P), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and copy forwarded to the DG(W), CPWD & The Additional Secretary, Urban Development for information & necessary action please Sub : Regular promotion of Assistant Engineers against the vacancies arising out of ad- hoc promotions of Executive Engineers. 6 Sir ! It may well be acknowledged that there is an urgent need to look afresh & review the position & stand of the administration on the subject cited above. The vacancies caused due to ad- hoc promotions of E.Es are so far being filled on ad-hoc basis simply on the clichéd & more often repeated ground that those promoted as ad-hoc E.E. still hold their prior post of regular Assistant Engineer. They can not vacate their position of regular A.E, until & unless they are absorbed in the cadre of Executive Engineer on Regular basis. The logic that even though their substantial post is of Executive Engineer for all practical purposes, still they are regular Assistant Engineer only, may academically & technically be correct but is too simplistic to be applied to our case. Even otherwise, the practice followed in the past in CPWD repudiates the proposition now being put-forward by the administration. The records would vouch for the fact that the Assistant Engineers were being promoted on regular basis since 1980, while Executive Engineers have all along been promoted on ad-hoc basis except for the three occasions i.e. in 1981, 1993-94 & 1999 when they were promoted on regular basis. All the vacancies caused due to ad-hoc promotion of Executive Engineers were being filled on regular basis at Assistant Engineer level till 2006. It was only in 2006, when the process of regular promotion was discontinued & system of ad-hoc promotions was resorted to. Moreover it may be seen that in our case the ad-hoc promotions at Executive Engineers level is a matter of compulsion & not the choice. The ad-hoc promotions at this level has been resorted to in CPWD owing to peculiar circumstances & situations only, as obtained on date, otherwise there is no reason not to go in for regular promotions. All the requirements for regular promotions are met in our case. The vacancies at Executive Engineer level are real & substantive. There exists the formal recruitment rule for promotions. Promotions are being made in respective quota for both the streams. The court cases which have held-up regular promotions at most, will affect seniority. Thus while seniority can change the promotions are real & substantive. Further these posts are to be filled by the Assistant Engineers only. It is immaterial whether A is promoted or B. Who so-ever is promoted from this stream, will cause a real & substantive vacancy at the level of Assistant Engineer. It is in this context that the Association has consistently been demanding to fill-up the vacancies so caused due to ad-hoc promotion at E.E. level, on regular basis. During an informal meeting in your chamber, it was further suggested to prepare a detailed note to seek approval from DoPT for regular promotions against these vacancies. The Association would therefore request your goodself to process the case in the directorate and seek approval at appropriate level to pave way for regular promotions against these vacancies. An early action on the matter is solicited please. Sd/- Er.S.S.JAISWAL 7 Associations letter No : AIEA/F-11/2010-11/826 Dated : 24/06/2010 addressed to The DG(S&P), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. Sub : Regonalisation of transfer /posting of Assistant Engineers (Civil) and (Elect.) in CPWD guidelines. Ref : 1. Your office memorandum No.28/6/(334)/97-EC-III Dt.03.08.05 2. This office letter No.AIEA/F-8/2005/482 Dt.06/08/2005 Kindly refer the above O.M. whereby it was clarified that A.E’s tenure in field or planning group on promotion from JE will be counted afresh even if it is in continuation of his immediate previous stay in that group as J.E. meaning thereby that, if a J.E. is allowed to continue in the same group on promotion as A.E, his stay in that group as J.E. will not be taken into account for the purpose of the determination of his tenure in that group. This Association had strongly opposed the aforementioned O.M. vide it’s letter No.AIEA/F-8/2005/482 DT.06.08.05 and had demanded the withdrawal of the same on following grounds. 1. When the period of stay at a station as JE is counted for the purpose of determination of station tenure it defies logic not to count the stay in field or planning as JE for the purpose of determination of group tenure of A.E. 2. In the clarification it has been stated that it was the practice being followed in the past even before the framing of the guidelines for transfer & posting which came into being for the first time in 1998. If it was so, then why the procedure in question was not very explicitly incorporated in the guidelines itself, which were framed & finalized subsequently. 3. It may further be verified from the records that such practice was neither being followed prior to 1998 not after-words. ADG(NR)’s letter No.12/1/ADG(NR)/2005/728 dt.06.07.2005 on the subject matter testifies the above fact. In reply to Associaiton’s letter, the ADG(NR) had interalia stated that in regard to the issue of counting the stay in field /planning group as J.E. towards the group tenure for A.E., the status-quo-ante shall be maintained meaning thereby that the period of stay in a group as J.E. shall be counted as has been the practice in the past. 4. The mention in the said O.M. that the past cases shall not be reopened, clearly implies that the administration itself had doubts about the veracity of its statement that the practice was in vogue even before the issue of guidelines & was scrupulously being followed thereafter also. The direction so contained in the said O.M. lacks wisdom and is bereft of any rationality and righteousness. No reasonableness can be ascribed to it. The whole issue has been dealt in a very clumsy & callous manner in the directorate and needs to be looked at afresh. It is in this context that the Association once again requests to have a review of the whole issue. The aforementioned decisions of the directorate conveyed vide OM referred to herein above suffer from the infirmities arising out of lack of prudence & objectivity. Since being 8 illogical & irrational it can not stand any further scrutiny, it must be withdrawn & the clear cut directions must be issued to treat the period spent in any group as J.E. in continuity for the purpose of determination of the group tenures of A.Es, as is the practice in case of station tenure. An early action on the matter is solicited please. With thanks Sd/- Er.S.S.JAISWAL (General Secretary) ************* Associations letter No. AIEA/F-11/2010-11/825 Dated : 23/06/2010 addressed to The ADG(S&P), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and copy addressed to Additional Secretary (U.D) and the Director (S&D) CPWD for information please. Sub : Implementation of Director (S&D)’s order dt.13.05.98 for the placement of the 50% strength of A.Es in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 Sir ! The reference is invited to the director (S&D)’s order dt. 13.05.98, in terms where-of the Assistant Engineers to the extent of 50% of the total strength were to be placed in a higher pay scale of 7500-12000 w.e.f 01.01.1996 in pursuance of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission. Though the above order remained in vogue till it’s withdrawal in 2003, yet it was never implemented & no assistant engineer was placed in the scale of 7500-12000/-. Later-on in 1999 ACP scheme was introduced which had an in-built arrangement to provide two financial up-gradations in promotional hierarchy after 12 & 24 years of service respectively. The Junior Engineers as well as the Assistant Engineers were granted the scale of 10000-15200/- as 2nd up-gradation scale under ACP after 24 years of service. After the introduction of ACP Scheme, order for the placement of the 50% A.Es in the scale of 7500-12000 was treated as non-existent & automatically discontinued even without it’s formal withdrawal, perhaps under the notion that it was a sort of time-scale for the Assistant Engineers which can not co-exist with the scheme of ACP. Thus the Assistant Engineers were denied their placement in the scale of 7500-12000/- Aggrieved by such denial Er.F.C.Jain had moved to CAT to get the much sought after relief. The Hon’ble CAT was gracious enough to accept his pleas on the matter & delivered the judgement in his favour. The U.O.I. had gone in appeal against the Hon’ble CAT’s judgement. The hon’ble high court Delhi in U.O.I. V/s. F.C.Jain in CWP No.4664 of 2001, while up-holding CAT’s judgement had adjudged the scale of 7500-12000 as fitment scale in the context of AE’s of CPWD 9 and had inter-alia reiterated that “The scope & purpose of both the schemes are absolutely different, whereas in terms of the former the pay scale is revised which is confined to 50% of the cadre strength by reason of ACP Scheme, those who are stagnated in a particular post or a particular scale of pay is given higher scale of pay. It further went on to assert that “It is one thing to say that a person is entitled to a higher scale of pay having regard to the policy decision adopted by the state but the same has nothing to do with the ACP”. The Union of India had filed SLP (Civil) No.289/2003 in Supreme Court against the judgement of Delhi High Court on the matter. The SLP was however dismissed. Following the above judgement, number of eligible AEs had requested the administration for their placement in the pay scale of 7500-12000, which however went invain. The directorate did not pay any attention to such requests. Administrative apathy led the affected & expectant AEs to seek judicial intervention on the matter. Recently accepting the judgement dt. 17.03.09 of Hon’ble CAT in OA No.1751/07 in H.K.Garg V/s.U.O.I, the directorate vide their officer order No.8/20/2007-EC III dt. 23/3/10 has decided to grant the pay scale of 7500-12000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to him. The aforementioned office order is said to have been issued with the concurrence of Additional Secretary ministry of Urban Development order note dated 17.03.2010 in file No.8/20/2007-EC-III Ever since thereafter the above decision of the directorate, suddenly there came a spate of court cases. Encouraged by the favourable decisions from the courts every one seems to be knocking at the doors of the various courts and the courts are not failing them. Relying on the aforementioned judgements of the Hon’ble High court & CAT principal bench, the courts are disposing of such applications in the single hearing itself. Going by the precedents in the past, the administration has no other way except to honour the court judgement & grant the pay scale of 7500-12000 to the petitioners/ applications. Given the situation & circumstances as explained above, it is surprising to note that the administration is still sticking to it’s guns and is acquiescing in to grant the scale of 7500-12000 in such cases only where it has been earned by way of judicial order. This way the administration is only helping in generation of number of court cases against the government and has unwittingly strengthened the notion that the govt. is the biggest & worst litigant”. While the administration laments the growing trend to move the court just at the drop of the hat, it can not be absolved of the blame for the generation of court cases on the subject. There can be no two opinion about it that the frivolous court cases must be 10 stopped forth-with and a general order be issued for the placement of all eligible A.Es in the pay scale of 7500-12000 w.e.f. 01.01.96. The Association has all along been demanding to grant the scale of 7500-12000 to A.Es exactly on the lines, it was given to Er.F.C.Jain after judicial verdict in his favour. It is once again demanded to settle the issue by way of placement of all eligible A.Es in the pay scale of 7500-12000 as per Director (S&D)’s order dt. 13.05.98. An early action on the matter is solicited please. Sd /- Er.S.S.JAISWAL (General Secretary) ************* Associations’ letter No : AIEA/F-11/2010-11/824 Dated : 23/06/2010 addressed to The ADG(S&P), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. Sub : Modification in transfer /posting policy of Assistant Engineer (Civil) & (Electrical) in CPWD. Ref : Your OM No.28/6/334/97-EC III dt.12/05/10 Sir ! In 2003 an attempt was made to decentralize the transfer & posting of Assistant Engineers by devolving the power down to the level of Chief Engineers. The same had met with stiff resistance from the Associations. The proposal was ultimately withdrawn & the guidelines framed in 1998 were restored. Though the modification brought about in the guideline vide O.M. referred to here-in above can not be taken to be on par with the attempt made in 2003, yet the O.M. in question needs further improvement. We do understand that at times there may arise a situation when certain adjustments are needed to be made at local level to meet the immediate exigency of work or to over-come the unforeseen problems encountered as a result of unfolding events and the chief engineers are required to be provided with some elbowroom to cope-up with such happenings and eventualities in their respective zones. If the above referred modification has been brought about with the intent to overcome as explained herein above then the same is needed to be improved upon as suggested herein below to clear the air & misgiving if any. “Though the power to issue rotational transfer of Assistant Engineers vests with the ADG of the respective regions, yet in exceptional circumstances to meet the exigency of the work and to cope-up with the situations arising out of unforeseen events, the Chief Engineers shall have the power to relocate the Assistant Engineers (Civil) & (Electrical) in their 11 respective zones, without altering /changing their group provided further that the transfers so effected shall be bare minimum & strictly to meet the exigencies as described & detailed herein above. Such changes shall however be got approved & confirmed from the ADG of the respective regions”. It is requested to improve & modify the O.M. referred to herein above, exactly on the lines as suggested herein above. Sd/- Er.S.S.JAISWAL (General Secretary) ************** PIB, Govt. of India, Thursday June 10, 2010 Railways to accept two more proofs of identity for traveling on E-Tickets. In an important passenger friendly move, the Ministry of Railways has decided to accept two more proofs of identity for traveling on e-tickets. These are i) Student Identity Card with photograph issued by recognized School/ college for their students. Ii) Nationalized Bank passbook with photograph. These are in addition to the existing five proofs f identity for under taking journey on e-tickets namely; (a) Voter Identity Card, b) Passport, c) PAN Card, d) Driving License and e) Photo Identity card issued by Central /State Govt. The new provision will come into effect from 15th June 2010. There will be no concession i/c student concession admissible to the person booking e-tickets except concession for senior citizens. Ministry of Railways has asked all zonal Railways to issue necessary instruction to all concerned particularly ticket checking staff so as to educate them about this modified provision and to avoid inconvenience to the passengers. AKS/HD/LK/TR *************** Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions Deptt. of Pension and Pensioners Welfare’s OFFICE MEMORANDUM issued vide No.4517/2008-P&PW (F) Dt……….. Sub : Implementation of the Govt.’s decision on the recommendation of the Sixth CPC Revision of provisions regulating special benefits in the cases of Death and Disability in service – payment of ex-gratia lump sum compensation to families of central Govt. employees – modification –regarding. The undersigned is directed to say that in this Deptt’s Office Memorandum of even number dated 16th March, 2009, it was provided that ex-gratia lump sum compensation to the families of deceased Govt. servants i/c from sundry Govt. sources, such as the Prime Ministers’ Relief Fund, Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, etc. should not exceed the aggregate of Rs.20 lakhs in each individual case. Para 12 of Annexe to this Deptt’s OM 45/55/97-P&PW(C) dated 11th September 1998 was modified to that extent. 12 The matter has been further reviewed and ti has now been decided that there will be no ceiling fro grant of ex-gratia lump sum compensation in terms of deptt. of pension & pensioners’ Welfares’ OM No.OM 45/55/97-P&PW(C) dated 11th Sept. 1998 read with OM NO. 38/37/08- P&PW(A) dated 2nd Sept. 2008 and OM No.4517/2008-P&PW (F) dated 16th March 2009. The above revised provision will be effective from 1.1.2006 All other terms and conditions in the O.M. dated 11th Sept. 1998 shall remain unchanged. This issues with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Expenditure U.O. No.361/EV/2010 dated 4th June, 2010. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit & Accounts Deptt., these orders issue after discussion with the Comptroller & Auditor General of India. Sd/- (Tripti P Ghosh) Director (PP) ******************* Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Expenditure’s OFFICE MEMORANDUM issued vide No. 7/14/2010-E.III(A) dt. 5th July, 2010 Sub : Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008- Revision of option exercised under Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 In accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, where a Govt. servant opts to continue to draw his pay in the existing scale from the 1st day of January 2006 and switch over to the revised scale from the date later than the 1st day of January 2006, his pay from the later date in the revised scale is required to be fixed under Rule 11(i) of the Central Civil services (revised pay) rules, 2008. As per rule 5 of these rules, this option to switch over to the revised pay structure from the date later than 1.1.2006 is available to a govt. servant : (i) Who elects to continue to draw pay in the existing scale until the date on which he earns his next or any subsequent increment in the existing scale or until he vacates his post or creases to draw pay in that scale. (ii) Who has been placed in a higher pay scale between 1.1.2006 and the date of notification of these rules on account of promotion, up-gradation of pay scale etc. the govt. servant may elect to switch over to the revised pay structure from the date of such promotion up- gradation etc. As per rule 6(1) of central civil services (revised pay )rules, 2008 the option in the format appended to the second schedule was required to be exercised within theree months from the date of issue of these rules. Further Rule 6 (4) provided that the option once exercised shall be final. The staff side has represented on this issue and have requested that the first option exercised may not be treated as 13 final keeping in view the new system of pay band and grade pays and that employees may be allowed to revise their option if the option is more beneficial to them. On further consideration and in exercise of the powers available under central civil services (revised pay ) rules, 2008 the president is pleased to decide that in relaxation of stipulation under rule 6(4) of these rules employees may be permitted to revise their initial option upto 31.12.2010 if the option is more beneficial to them. The revised option shall be intimated to the head of his office by the govt. servant in accordance with the provision of Rule 6 (2) of the revised pay rules. 2008. In so far as persons serving in Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders issue after consultation with the comptroller and Auditor General of India. (RENU JAIN) Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India ******************** Aware engineer helps CPWD save power worth Rs75 lakh (Wednesday, June 9, 2010 0:44) Jagjit Singh Walia, an assistant engineer with the central public works department (CPWD), has given a new meaning to the slogan ‘energy saved is energy generated’. Leading by example, the environment enthusiast has helped CPWD save power tariff of Rs75 lakh in two years, in the process inspiring several colleagues to save energy at home. Walia looks after the maintenance of Krishi Bhawan, an impressive government building that houses four central ministries — rural development, agriculture, food and consumer affairs and panchayati raj. More than 3,000 people, including cabinet ministers and senior bureaucrats, work in the building which has 800 air conditioners (ACs). So, how did Walia save power despite such compulsions? He built a consensus among all those working in the building that ACs would not be used beyond 3-4 hours a day and set a timetable. “We have all realised that there is no need to operate ACs round-the-clock. This timetable with staggered hours is working to good effect,” Walia told DNA. The consensus on switching off ACs was matched with steps such as introducing energy saving devices and monitoring the use of appliances. Two persons were handpicked to go round the building to keep a tab on wastage of electricity and switch off power-guzzling appliances. “All officials have cooperated with enthusiasm. We have created the right atmosphere by pasting stickers and running an awareness campaign,” Walia said. The results are there for all to see. Energy bills have come down from Rs2.38 crore during 2007-08 to Rs2.12 crore during 2008-09 and Rs1.88 crore during 2009-10 — an effective saving of Rs75 lakh in two years. Walia hopes other government buildings emulate the example and bring down energy consumption 14 Commonwealth Games venues to be ready by August: CPWD Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:38:54 PM by ANI New Delhi, July 13 (ANI): B K Chugh, Director General (Works) of Central Public Works Department (CPWD), India’s apex civil engineering organization, has said that seven out of ten Commonwealth Games venues will be ready by the third week of July and all of them by August. Speaking at an event to mark the 156th anniversary of CPWD here, Chugh said: “I think, within a fortnight, the buildings would be complete; only things like development work, greenery, approach roads, all these works are on. Testing, commissioning, and even these things would be completed within a fortnight by the CPWD, should I say 20th July? By 20th July, we would be free from our responsibilities.” The venues which are incomplete as on July 12 are the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, the Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Swimming Pool complex and the new weightlifting stadium in the Nehru Stadium complex. He also mentioned that no decision is pending as far as the preparations of the CWG are concerned. “As far as I am watching this from the last practically one year, since I am on the scene, I am finding there is absolutely no dearth of any decision making of any sort. You would be surprised that we have been sitting late night, 11, 12 (upto midnight), but then we have made a time frame for decision-making. There is no decision pending from the last practically one year,” added Chugh. He said the delay was because there were some additional things, added to the construction of the venues, which are being worked on. The construction of an air-conditioned tunnel was being added to the main Jawaharlal Nehru stadium, where the closing and the opening ceremonies would be held along with major events, delayed the construction, Chugh noted. India is expecting a huge rush of tourists in New Delhi for the Games, apart from about 10,000 athletes from 71 teams representing 54 Commonwealth member states. The Commonwealth Games 2010, to be held from October 3 to 14, will be India’s biggest sporting event since the 1982 Asian Games in New Delhi. (ANI) ************* Setting the House in order. When the false ceiling in Murli Deora’s office at Parliament House caved in last July, it turned out that the rot had set in right at the top. The main kitchen, located right above the minister’s room, was spewing more sewage than the pipes could handle. 15 It was a disaster waiting to happen. Sir Herbert Baker, the imperial architect who designed the magnificent building that was to become the symbol of Indian democracy, had created kitchen space for 1,000 servings a day. Instead, it’s dishing out more than 4,000 servings every day to satisfy the demands of a burgeoning population of Parliament secretariat officials, security staff, media persons and parliamentarians’ friends and families. Deora is not the only victim of the seepage from Parliament’s overflowing kitchen drains. A thorough examination, probably the first of its kind since the building came up in 1928, revealed that at least three adjoining offices, including union home minister P Chidambaram’s, were similarly affected and needed extensive repairs. Some real dangers lurk behind the mellow sandstone façade of the stately buildings on Delhi’s Raisina Hill. Here, beauty is obviously skin deep. The external grandeur of the creations of Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker hides the rot that has set in inside. Years of neglect, abuse and overuse of spaces and facilities have eaten into a legacy that would have been preserved as a national treasure anywhere else in the world. The Deora shocker seems to have shaken the custodians of Delhi’s power buildings into launching the first major effort to turn back the clock since Rajiv Gandhi undertook the restoration of the Prime Minister’s Office, Hyderabad House and parts of Rashtrapati Bhavan in 1985. Three separate projects are under way to restore Rashtrapati Bhavan, Parliament House and North and South Blocks to their original splendour. It is, of course, easier said than done. Few have a feel for conservation or understanding of what it entails. This is particularly true when it comes to retaining the original character of the interiors. In a land with a decided preference for glitzy marble and parquet flooring, the stone floors put in by Lutyens and Baker are hardly valued. Every incumbent of the heritage property has introduced his or her quirks and whims over the decades, sometimes making structural changes and often altering the architect’s vision of the building. Former president Abdul Kalam, for instance, put in a Manipuri hut in the grounds of Rashtrapati Bhavan. He called it his “thinking hut”. It has now been removed, because it was thought to clash with Lutyens’ grandly classical style. Kalam also had a modern-day musical fountain installed in the Mughal Gardens. This too is considered an eyesore in an area where Mughal and English landscaping styles combine to create a unique ambience. Conservationists feel that the first step towards preserving a heritage building is to ban changes that alter its integrity and feel. “These are public properties and should be treated like national treasures,’’ said well-known restorer Sunita Kohli, who has been roped in for conservation work on Parliament House and Rashtrapati Bhavan. “Ideally, no incumbent should be allowed to make structural changes. They can make reversible changes such as soft furnishings or the colour of the walls. Anything else should be referred to a committee of experts with established credentials in the field of heritage conservation.’’ Mohammad Shaheer, landscape architect and a member of the five-person restoration committee for Rashtrapati Bhavan, echoed Kohli’s views. “There is a misinterpretation of residency and 16 ownership. A person living in a heritage building is a tenant and should not be allowed to make material changes,’’ he said. According to Shaheer, the gardens of Rashtrapati Bhavan are unique in terms of landscaping and design. “If we lose these gardens or inject new elements that are incongruous, we lose the sensitivity of the original,’’ he said. As a first step towards restricting additions and alterations to historic public buildings, the urban development ministry issued a notification in October 2009, identifying 141 structures in Delhi as heritage. In effect, it imposed a ban on structural external changes to these buildings. The tricky part is to get the interiors back to what they were. Few original drawings and pictures of the rooms and galleries are available in India. “They will have to be sourced from the United Kingdom,’’ said a senior official of the CPWD, which is doing the restoration work in conjunction with experts. “We have already contacted organisations like the Royal Institute of British Architects to send us the drawings made by Lutyens and Baker so that we have an idea of the interior detailing, including the furniture.’’ The more difficult part is to dismantle the maze of temporary structures that have come up in the corridors and courtyards of Parliament House and North and South Blocks to accommodate the growing demands for staff and security. Kohli, who was commissioned by Rajiv Gandhi to restore the PMO, recalled that they had 50,000 square feet of temporary structures removed from one of the inner courtyards of South Block and behind the building. “We could do that because there was political will with Rajiv Gandhi backing us,’’ she points out. Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar acknowledges that clearing Parliament House of the many temporary offices dotting its expansive courtyards is a tough call. It not only means treading on political sensitivities, but also involves aligning conservation with security concerns in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attack on Parliament. These are delicate tasks and the two committees set up to oversee the restoration work will have their hands full negotiating these minefields. A member of the technical committee tasked with the job said the first step is to conduct an audit of all the activities inside Parliament to decide which can be relocated as part of the cleanup exercise. “We need a profile of the Parliament 20 years from now. The two secretariats, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, will have to develop a vision statement that can be translated into a brief for the planners, so that we can begin restoration,’’ he explained. In the meantime, the committee of parliamentarians that is overseeing the restoration project has agreed that there will no further additions or alterations without prior approval. “We should treat Parliament House with reverence,’’ says Meira Kumar, underlining the spirit behind heritage conservation The Times of India News 17