Stepping up of pay of the promotee senior with direct recruited junior appointed on or after 01.01.2006

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN(HQ),

18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA SHAH EED JEET SINGH MARG,

NEW DELHI-110016

F.110239/58/2008/ KVS (Budget)

Dated: 20.07.2012

The Dy. Commissioner
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
All Regional Offices

Subject: Stepping up of pay of the promotee senior with direct recruited junior appointed on or after 01.01.2006

Sir,

This is regarding stepping of pay of promotee senior with reference to direct recruited junior appointed after 01.01.2006.

1. The issue was examined in this office and referred to Ministry of HRD for clarification. Ministry of HRD vide letter No.F.3-43/2008/UT.2 dated 20th March 2009 has clarified that the stepping up of pay of the promotee senior with direct recruited junior appointed on or after 01.01.2006 may be agreed to subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:

(a) Stepping up the basic pay of seniors under the above provision can be claimed only in the case of those cadres which have an element of direct recruitment and In cases where a directly recruited junior is actually drawing more basic pay than the seniors. In such cases, the basis pay of the seniors will be stepped up with reference to the basic pay of the junior.

(b) Using the above provision, Government servants cannot claim stepping up their revised basic py with reference to entry pay in the revised pay structure for direct recruits appointed on or after 1.1.2006 as laid down in Section II of Part A of First Schedule to the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, if their cadre does not have an element of direct recruitment, or in cases were no junior is drawing basic pay higher than them.

(C) Stepping up of pay of the seniors in accordance with the above provision shall not be applicable in cases where direct recruits have been granted advance increments at the time of recruitment.

The issues prevailing in the region may be decided as per above clarifications.

Yours faithfully
sd/-

(M.A
Arumugam)
Joint.Commissioner (Fin

Broad Parameters for deciding the Caste claim laid down by The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in the Judgement in case of Anand  V/S  Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe claims has laid down the parameters for deciding the caste claims by the caste Scrutiny Committee.

The Supreme Court in this case set aside the decisions of The Caste Scrutiny Committee and the High Court Of  Bombay, Nagpur cancelling the caste certificate issued to the appellant by the Sub Divisional officer, Yavatmal, certifying that he belongs the “Halbi” Scheduled Tribe, notified in terms of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and remitting the case back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration in accordance with rules and the parameters laid down and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant.

The above said judgement is available on this blog in the judgements (S.N. 10 ) under title Disciplinary Proceedings “Important Judgements. Those interested can get the said judgement downloaded for their use.

No limitation for filing writ under Artticle 226 but Courts to interfere in cases where they are approached expeditiously

The Supreme Court in its judgement delivered on 25 th May 2012, while deciding the civil Appeal  filed by one Vijay Kaul & others has reiterated that though there is no period of limitation for filing a writ under Article 226 of the Consttitution, the Courts should not interfere after the  passage of certain length of time. The Supreme Court has reproduced the following extract of it's earlier land mark judgement in case of  

P.S. Sadashivswami V/S State of Tamilnadu, A.I.R.1974 SC 2271:

" It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts canno interfere in a matter after the passage of certain length of time, But it would be a sound and wise exercise their powers under Article 226 in case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the courts to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle matters."

The judgment in Civil appeal No. 4986-4989 of 2007 filed by Vijay Kaul and Others is available on this blog.

5