Dear Sir Please read the below mail and Kindly Do Needfull..if possible
Regards Srinivas ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nutan Thakur <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:46 PM Subject: [IHRO] Harassement To: IHRO <[email protected]> Friends, I present the case of my husband Sri Amitabh Thakur, the 1992 batch IPS officer presently on extra-ordinary leave at IIM Lucknow for a Fellow Program in Management in Human Resource Management (HRM) which will show up to what extent an officer can be harassed intentionally, for no particular reasons. An interesting aspect of the case is that it has used the Right to Information Act 2005 to a very great extent in getting justice done in this given case. Information like how many officers were given and denied Study leave, how many officers wer denied extra-ordinary leave, how many officers weregiven Central deputation etc were generally obtained with the use of the Right to Information Act. It all started when he had appeared in the CAT examination in the year 2007 and got admitted in IIM Lucknow in April 2008. He had then requested the State government on 30/04/2010 to grant him a study leave of 2 years from 10 June 2008 as per the provisions of the All India Services (Study Leave) Regulations 1960. Under rule 3 of these Regulations, a special course of study consisting of higher studies or specialised training in a professional or technical subject having a direct and close connection with the sphere of the officer’s duty are included for grant of Study Leave. For reasons which are better not to explain some of the concerned officials were intentionally not in a mood to grant him study leave. When he could not get the Study leave within the due date, he requested the IIM authorities to extend his academic session. He again made many requests to the State government to grant the study leave in the next year, followed by reminders. Not getting any reply, he even requested to give him Extra-ordinary Leave under the AIS (Leave) Rules in case of any legal difficulty in giving the Study Leave. When no reply was obtained, he was left with no option than to move the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench. Here he filed Original Application No 154/09 for grant of study leave. This application was disposed of by the CAT directing the State government to decide his case within 2 weeks. When nothing still happened, he moved the High Court, Lucknow Bench through Writ Application No- 713 of 2009 which directed the State government to decide the matter within one week. After this the State government rejected his request for both Study leave and extra-ordinary leave through his order dated 22/05/2009. My husband again moved to CAT against this order in OA No 238 of 2009. CAT gave an interim order limiting to consider his case regarding Extra-ordinary leave. The State government then granted him extra-ordinary leave on 08/06/2009. In the order, the State government itself said that the course was very useful for his service and yet denied him the Study leave, which he deserved. The case kept pending in CAT and now on 07/07/2009, decision of two members bench of CAT, Sri M Kanthayya and Dr A K Mishra has been delivered saying that- “We feel that this is a fit case for direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicant for grant of study leave as per rules and pass a reasoned order.” There were three reasons quoted by the State government to reject Sri Thakur’s application- he did not take permission from any competent authority before getting admitted in the given course, there was a great deficiency of IPS officers of Superintendent of Police rank in the State and the course was of 4 years while as per law he can be granted a study leave of only 2 years. On each of these issues, CAT has come very critically on the government. It says- “From this, it is clear that there is no such provision for prior permission before seeking admission in the given course and further when there are instances allowing such study leave without any objection on the ground of prior permission, and raising such objection in the case of the applicant is not at all proper and justified.” Also, that “When permitting such a number of deputations and more particularly after the request of the applicant for the grant of study leave, is not at all convincing on the ground of dearth of officers of SP Rank in the State.” The Tribunal also says in its order that- “Though the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant for grant of study leave/EOL vide GO Dated 22/05/2009 with the above mentioned reasons, they have subsequently granted 2 years EOL to the applicant vide Office order dated 8/6/20 and at the same time they have not given any importance to their earlier objections which itself indicates that they are not so grave to reject the applicant’s claim for grant of study leave.” Thus it is now clear how a person can be harassed just for no particular reason even going beyond the purview of law and acting in the most illegal manner. So far my husband has filed 3 cases in CAT and 2 cases in High Court and he has appeared in the Tribunal and the High Court himself, taking no other person as his lawyer. One hopes that the matter will be finally settled now. Now it is for the State government to decide over the issue afresh, keeping in mind the order of the Tribunal and the related laws and regulations. Dr Nutan Thakur, 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow # 94155-34525 -- Regards G.Srinivas/Samata D.No.- 14-37-9, Krishna nagar Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Mobile : 9989860484 Telefax : 0891-2737662 www.samataindia.org www.dhimsa.net
