Directorate of printing Unfair inquiry of Recruitment Process 2007-08

Sir,
Brief History of Case :-

The Manager, Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 invited application for various post mentioned in Advertisement in Employment News 1-7 December, 2007 .
As per Recruitment Rules of the Group-C and Group-D was followed accordingly. The interview were held from Group-D employee and for Group-C were conducted interview and Trade Test as per Recruitment Rules laid down in the Gazette Notification vide GSR No.218 dated 29.05.2003 .
The Management of GIP, Ring Road, declared result of recruitment of various post through Office Order as per .
The Management conduct verification of document and candidates attended medical examination in properly and list of successful candidate were declare who were found suitable for various post of the trade advertised by the management .
An OM No. 23/1/2008-A.I dated 03.04.2008 issued by Directorate of Printing to stop the recruitment process vide initiate OM No. A-12031/1/2008-Ptg. dated 03.04.2008 issued by Ministry of Urban Development with immediate effect.
After the Trade Test and other formalities completed by the candidates who declared successful for the appointment to the various posts advertised in the Employment News by the Manager, Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhi, 110 successful candidates joined before the stopping of the recruitment process vide OM No. 23/1/2008-A.I dated issued by Directorate of Printing, New Delhi. One candidate named Sh. Diwakar S/o Ram Lakhan, Age 26, R/o H.No.961, J-Block, Jhangirpuri, Delhi was denied to join the duty at GIP, Mayapuri, Delhi. Sh. Diwakar approached CAT (PB), New Delhi for relief and the Hon’ble CAT pronounced the judgement as “In these circumstances, we remit this matter back to authorities for considering the matter afresh and for passing order in the matter within a period of two weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the applicant. Respondents can always give appointment to the applicant subject to the decision to be taken !
by investigating agencies in the matter” vide OA No.1194/2009 dated 07.12.2009. The Management failed to comply the above said order and the contempt was filed in the matter. The CAT vide order CP No.165/2010 in OA No.1194/2010 dated 04.05.2010as per Annexure-F, the Management before the court to give two weeks’ time to ensuring the compliance of order dated 07.12.2009. Sh. Diwakar was allowed to joins his duty.
Some candidates, who were denied to join their duty vide OM No. 23/1/2008-A.I dated 03.04.2008 in Govt. of India Press, Aligarh (UP), approached to CAT (PB), New Delhi and CAT had direction to Department they were allowed to join the duty in GIP, Aligarh but Department denied the order of CAT and approached to Delhi High Court. On 07.03.2012, Delhi High Court passed the judgement in WP(C) 4745/2011, The Hon’ble Court pronounced the judgement as There is no question of discrimination in the present case as well. No doubt, the petitioners had shown laxity in not taking proper decision in the matter, however, in such circumstances, direction should have been to take final view on the basis of CVO report within a time bound manner and in case the Government comes to the conclusion that the selection is to be saved and no action is to be taken against the persons already appointed, in that eventuality, these respondents could also be directed to be appointed. On the other ha!
nd, if the Government takes action within specified time which would have been allowed by the tribunal, then the tribunal could have directed taking action against those already appointed because of irregular procedure.
“Final view in the matter shall be taken within one month from the date of this order. If the proposal, as mentioned above, namely, report of the CVO is accepted, the necessary action would be taken qua the persons already appointed as well. However, if for some reason, it is decided not to accept the proposal and to continue with the existing appointments then the respondents herein shall be appointed."
In pursuance of order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 07.03.2012, the Deputy Director (A-II), Directorate of Printing sent a OM No. 7/17/2010-AI (Vol.II) dated 03.05.2012 and subsequent OM dated 04.05.2012 directing the Manager, GIP, Aligarh to cancel/terminate the appointment in respect of all candidate including those who have already joined in respect of GIP, Aligarh.
The OM No.C-13019/1/2011-Ptg. Dated 21.05.2012 was issued by Sh. K. L. Bhatia, Under Secretary, Ministry of urban Development, directing the Directorate of Printing to cancel/terminate the appointment in respect of all candidate including those who have already joined the service in GIP, Mayapuri, Nilokheri and Minto Road during 2007-08 in view of decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 07.03.2012 in WP(C) No.4745/2011, WP(C) No.5926/2011 and WP(C) No.5825/2011 as Annexure-I. The Deputy Director (Admn.), Directorate of Printing forwarded an OM No.1/1/2012-A.I dated 23.05.2012 directing the Managers GIP, Mayapuri, Nilokher and General Manager. GIP, Minto Road, to cancel/terminate the appointment in respect of all candidates including those who have already joined in during 2007-08 as Annexure-J. The Manager, GIP, Mayapuri issued Office Order No. GIPRRND/ Misc./2012/Estt.I/111 dated 23.05.2012 terminated the appointment in respect of all candidates including tho!
se who have already joined in during recruitment process 2007-08 as the recruitment process was set aside by the competent authority.
The affected employees of GIP, Mayapuri approached the CAT (PB), New Delhi vide OA No.1848/2012, the CAT (PB), New Delhi granted interim relief to maintain status quo and subsequently all affected employees were allowed to join their duties on 20.06.2012.
The CAT (PB), New Delhi pronounced the judgement 19.03.2014 dismissing the OA No.1848/2012 as per the light of Judgement of Delhi High Court WP(C) No.4745/2011, WP(C) No.5926/2011 and WP(C) No.5825/2011 on 07.03.2012 justifying the action of the Management with the rule of same and similar treatment with all as a view taken on the report of Chief Vigilance Officer.
The affected employees of GIP, Mayapuri filed WP(C) No.2013/2014, CM No.4200/2014 in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi who heard the parties and upheld the order of CAT.
The affected employees of GIP, Mayapuri, file SLP No.879/2015 rising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24.12.2014 in WP(C) No.2013/2014 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Govt. of India Press employees Union and Ors. Vs UOI in Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed SLP with comments “We find no merit in this SLP and the same is dismissed. However, appoint od any of the petitioner affected by the impugned order, when applies in future, pursuant to any advertisement, the Union of India shall consider age relaxation in their favour as provided under the law” .
Fact :-

(i) The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 07.03.2012 in WP(C) No.4745/2011, WP(C) No.5926/2011 and WP(C) No.5825/2011 was pertain to GIP, Aligarh. The matter/issues raised the Hon’ble High Court were not connected in respect of GIP, Mayapuri. There was direction to scrap the appointments process of candidates related to Aligarh Press.
(ii) The affected employees have been working since 29.02.2008 who has completed their length of service near about 10 year as the employees have completed more than 240 days in their respective services without any complaint from Management side. They were not given any notice about their extension of probation period as CAT has mentioned the fact in the judgement. The employees are supposed to be treated at par as permanent employee of the establishment. The management has taken legal action against the employees who submitted their false / fabricated documents terminating their services.
(iii) The Minister of Urban Development has approved the scrapping of recruitment process in 6 Govt. of India Presses namely, Faridabad, Mayapuri, Nilokheri, Aligarh, Coimbatore and Minto Road, New Delhi on 20.04.2012 as per the report of the CVO but action was taken against the Mayapuri, Nilokheri and Aligarh . It is totally injustice for Mayapuri press’s employees.
(iv) The Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO), Addl. Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development submitted the report to the ministry with his finding and recommendations. Sh. V. K. Sharma then Director (Admn.) of Ministry of Urban Development, issued an order to Director (Printing) then Ms.Maduri Dabral to take action against person responsible for these irregularities and submit action taken report within one month .
(v) The information given by the Directorate of Printing pertaining to action taken against the responsible persons for these irregularities that Sh. S. R. Bodra, Chairman of Selection Committee and the Members viz. Sh. Satish Chandra the then Dy. Manager, SH. R. K. Gautam, Asstt. Manager (Tech.) were held responsible for the irregularities and were charge sheeted for the lapses and all were exonerated form the charges framed. If charges of CVO have not proved during the enquiry on which basis the CAT has taken cognizance and the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court upheld the decision of CAT, the action of the Management is null and void as per the RTI reply dated 08.09.2014.
(vi) We have completed almost 10 years in this job with full honesty and sincerely without any blame and all the staffs have been over aged and not eligible for any other selection in Govt. sector jobs except to continue this job/employment.
(vii) During the legal process in Hon’ble Court Ministry has not found any employee guilty and no charge imposed to any employee. CVO has completed its enquiry partially without inquiry and involvement of any employee. Moreover all the member of selection committee has been exonerate from charges. It is the violation of natural justice.
(viii) Ministry have already taken action against the employee who found guilty during investigation.
(ix) The aggrieved families (i.e. old aged parents, wife and kids) of the 400 approx. employees will be left with no other option but to beg in the streets when sudden flow of income will be stopped
(x) We have no earning source except this job therefore it is impossible to live without income source.
(xi) Most of the employees have no own accommodation so they are living in government accommodation moreover their children are studying in schools. Termination of such employees may put down their families and children on road.
(xii) Termination of such a huge no. Of employees may stop down the work of Government of India press’s work. The above said employees have 10 years of experience in Govt. Press as new employees takes long time to understand his work. So kindly give us one time relaxation to us and confirmed our services Thanking you
Hariom
All the effected employee
Govt of India press Mayapuri

Reliance Big TV Customer behaviour and can.t watch tv

കംപ്ലയിന്റ് ഇത്ര മാത്രമേ ഉള്ളു ഒന്നുങ്കിൽ കണക്ഷൻ കട്ട്‌ ചെയ്യുക അല്ലെ കസ്റ്റമീറിനു ഉപകാരം ആകും വിധം പെരുമാറുക tv കാണാൻ ആണ് വെച്ചേക്കുന്നത് ഇത് ഇട്ടു കാണണോ പറ്റുന്നില്ല കംപ്ലയിന്റ് പറയാൻ വിളിച്ചാൽ no റെസ്പോൺസ്. വെരി ഗുഡ് and നൈസ് വർക്ക്‌റിലൈൻസ് dth big tv
S
കഷ്ട്ടം

Exide Life Insurance FAKE IRDA CODE CREATED BY EXIDE COMPANY

Dear Team,
Pls. refer to show cause Notice regarding my PAN card blacklisted by IRDA.
My Name is Saurabh Mishra and i am working in Kotak Life as a sales Manager and my HR department send me the mail regarding "MY Pan Card Black listed by IRDA ." i had cross check the PAN NO IN my operations and the code shows in EXIDE LIFE .
I wish to declare that I am a policy holder of Exide Life and I had given my KYC documents for below mentioned policy numbers. The documents were given to Ruchi -BM – Exide Life who is now working with PNB MET LIFE.
I have a doubt that my documents have been misused by some employee of Exide Life for registration at IRDA site and i have never given the IRDA EXAM .
I am regularly paying my premium for below mentioned policies and apart from this I have no connection with EXIDE LIFE insurance company. Policy No :- 03413966, 03413968, 03413965, 03413967
I had taken these policies in Sep 2016 & given my documents such as PAN CARD , AADHAR CARD, BANK DETAILS & Photo. I am wondering that how my pan got blacklisted on IRDA.

e-kalyan Regarding scholarship

To the
Eklyan office
Ranchi, jharkhand
Respect sir, I am sourabh kumar, I have filled the e-klyan form and it was approved by AA officer but I did not get my scholarship because my aadhar card wasproperly linked with account number.status of aadhar is also shows active there is not showing any kind of issues with my side its my requst to the department that show some kindness on me.. so please send my scholarship as soon as possible. Thank you
YOURS FAITHFUL
SOURABH KUMAR
RANCHI,JHARKHAND
JHARKHAND RAI UNIVERSITY RANCHI

Chennai Ford Worst Service by Noida Body shop Department

Yesterday I got the confirmation from the Noida Ford Manager that I can pick my car back from them ; And I called them today asking the time to pickup my car – then I got the response from their saying that sorry the work is done yet . It will take another 3-4 days to complete. Now they’re asking me to come next week . 🤬
After committing for 8 days to complete whole work , then how could even they manage to say without any hesitation that its going to take another week , where it is already day 20th.
When any car met an accident, already the person who met the accident is in trauma.
Instead of cooperating with the person who is giving the car for repair, these people make the condition more worse. This department should be the most sensitive and responsible one . But here the condition is just opposite. 😡
I met with an accident 20 days back and given the car to repair then only .
Its been a horrible experience with the Ford. I have taken the Insurance from where Ford has the tie-up to get the best service . But nothing seems to be in my favour.
Firstly, the insurance guy approved the amount without making any call to me and approved amount for only one-side repair .
Then I have chased for a week to get the complete approval. (Heights of miss-management was shown here).
And now after fighting for approvals , there is delay in doing the work.
How this can be acceptable from Ford – which is one of the top brand .
This is not fair at all ; I want each day claim from you guys as my car is with you for more than 21 days. I am spending Rs1000 daily in cab .
I want an immediate and proper action from you guys; else now I have to take legal action against Ford and Iffcotokio.
Vehicle VIN No(Engine number) – GY67799
Vehicle No-UP14DB5248
Service station-Noida ford sector 63

Edward [email protected]/ JACK LI A big freelance conman: [email protected]

The guy calls himself Eric ([email protected]), and phone number; +852 6563 3295. I did work for him amounting to $4994 and then he disappeared in thin air. This guy is a big conman. He pretends and baits you with continous work, and when pay day comes, you will not hear from him. Always do a search on these guys. They are a manace to our society. I have struggled to pay those people who helped me do the assignments. Eric, jacklii, or whoever you are, may you die like a rat, and get buried like a dog, you piece of shit.
You have made me suffer a lot.

HP Laptop Notebook Blind sopt on laptop visible on monitor

Hi,
I brought HP laptop from HP direct online store on 21/4/2018 for Rs.51000 (6 months installment). In the first week of May, not even first installment started, found a blind spot in monitor. Reported to HP support.
Case/Complaint id:5014217966, they took three days to check the complaint and providing a link now its not comes unde warranty and the way we are using is not proper.
I am in IT field for a decade and I know how to use a laptop and been using laptops for years and this is the first time facing this kind of issue. How come a laptop can’t even survive for 1 month and how can trust this kind of worst product for coming yeras.

Hp Team, Can you pls take this laptop and return back my money. I can buy other brand laptops.
Pls help me resolve this issue or else take the laptop and get back my money.

Samsung REPAIR

I BOUGHT A REFRIGERATOR FROM KAY .DEE ELECTRONICS 1B-1, OPP METRO STATION, SECTOR-18, NOIDA ON 29.08.2012 FOR RS. 105000.00 VIDE MODEL NO RS21HZLMR1 WITH WARRANTY OF 10 YEARS FOR COMPRESSOR
NOW THERE WAS COOLING PROBLEM. I APPROACHED SERVICE CENTER NOIDA, THEY TOLD GAS WILL BE REFILLED WHICH IS CHARGEABLE. I PAID RS 2000 FOR GAS FILLING. BUT IT WAS NOT WORKING. 2-3 TIMES COMPANY PERSON CAME AND REFILLED WITHOUT ANY EXTRA PAYMENT.
STILL COMPLAINT COULD NOT BE RECTIFIED. NOW THE SAMSUNG SERVICE CENTER SAYING THAT REFRIGERATOR CAN NOT BE REPAIRED. FROM LAST 10 DAYS THEY ARE NOT GIVING CLEAR CUT REPLY. FIRST THEY TOLD IT IS OUT OF WARRANTY WHEN I TOLD OK BUT YOU REPAIR IT AND TAKE CHARGES FROM ME. EVEN THEN IT IS NOT BEING REPAIRED.
I DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO. IT IS A COSTLY PRODUCT AND IT IS SUMMER ALSO. WITHOUT REFRIGERATOR SITUATION IS VERY DIFFICULT BUT SAMSUNG PERSONNEL ARE NOT TAKING CALL. IF THEY TAKE CALL JUST PROMISE TO COME TOMORROW WHICH NEVER COMES
PLEASE HELP