This document details the proceedings of the 7th meeting held on June 28, 2008, in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, concerning the revision of state cadre allocations for government employees. The meeting, chaired by Dr. SK Sarkar, reviewed 18 representations from former Madhya Pradesh state government employees. Decisions ranged from allocation based on juniority and option to recommendations for rejection due to lack of grounds or specific circumstances like spouse policy. Several cases were deferred pending further information or personal hearings, including those of R.M. Patel and Shri Ved Prakash Mishra.
SOURCE PDF LINK :
Click to access 7sac_28062008.pdf.pdf
Click to view full document content
MINUTES OF THE 7TH MEETING HELD ON 28.06.2008 AT 11:56 AM AT RAIPUR UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF JS(A&AT&CS)
In compliance with the directions dated 17.04.2007 of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Petition No. 445/2001 in the matter of Godbole and others versus Union of India and others, the 7th meeting of the Committee was held under the Chairmanship of Dr S K Sarkar, Joint Secretary (A&AT and CS), DOPT at 11:30 A.M. Hrs at Raipur in Chhattisgarh. The meeting was attended by the following:-
- Shri Jawahar Shrivastava, Secretary, GAD, Govt. of Chhattisgarh.
- Shri Y. Satyam, Additional Secretary, GAD, Govt. of MP.
- Shri V. Peddanna, Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training.
The Chairman welcomed the members of the Committee and thereafter took up the agenda of the meeting for discussion. In the meeting, the representations of State Government employees of erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, covered by the decision dated 17.04.2007 in W.P. No. 445/2001 and also connected were individually discussed for revision of their allocation of State Cadre. A total of 18 representations were considered in the meeting. Brief record of discussion/decision in each case has been reflected in the last column of the Table.
| Name of the Petitioner | Petition No. | Decision taken |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Jawahar Lal Sisodia, Sub Inspector | 6591/05 | Allocation on juniority basis to Chhattisgarh. Hence the Committee recommended for rejection to the request, as there are no grounds for consideration in this representation for revision of allocation. |
| 2. Bharat Singh, Lecturer (Math) | 1322/08 | Option was for Madhya Pradesh State but allocated to Chhattisgarh State on option basis (by mistake). Recommended for allocation to Madhya Pradesh based on his option to Madhya Pradesh. |
| 3. Ashok Kumar Saiyam | 1322/08 | Option was for Madhya Pradesh State but allocated to Chhattisgarh State based on option to Chhattisgarh by mistake. Recommended for allocation to Madhya Pradesh based on his option to Madhya Pradesh. |
| 4. Mahender Kumar Gupta, Asstt. Gr. III | 1323/08 | Employee is non-State cadre. Non-State cadre employees are to be in the area where they are working at the time of bifurcation of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Hence recommended for rejection of the representation. |
| 5. A.K. Pandey, RADO | 2024/08 | Allocated to Chhattisgarh on juniority basis as per the guidelines – Hence Committee recommended for rejection of the representation as there are no grounds for || | | | revision of allocation. |
| — | — | — | — |
| 6. | T.K.Diwan | 2024/08 | Allocated to Chhattisgarh on juniority basis as per the guidelines – Hence Committee recommended for rejection of the representation as there are no grounds for revision of allocation. |
| 7. | Anil Kumar Pandey, RADO | 1349/08 | Allocated to Chhattisgarh on juniority basis as per the guidelines – Hence Committee recommended for rejection of the representation as there are no grounds for revision of allocation. |
| 8. | Prakash Dubey, RADO | 2024/08 | Allocated to Chhattisgarh on juniority basis as per the guidelines – Hence Committee recommended for rejection of the representation as there are no grounds for revision of allocation. |
| 9 | Om Prakash Tiwari, RADO | 2024/08 | Allocated to Chhattisgarh on juniority basis as per the guidelines – Hence Committee recommended for rejection of the representation as there are no grounds for revision of allocation. |
| 10. | Sudharshan Prasad Gaur, RADO | 2024/08 | Allocated to Chhattisgarh on juniority basis as per the guidelines – Hence Committee recommended for rejection of the representation as there are no grounds for revision of allocation. |
| 11. | Mahesh Kumar Malviya, AMO | 2039/08 | Allocated to Chhattisgarh on juniority basis as per the guidelines – Hence Committee recommended for rejection of the representation as there are no grounds for revision of allocation. |
| 12. | Harish Kumar Vijayvargai | 2039/08 | Allocated to Chhattisgarh on juniority basis as per the guidelines – Hence Committee recommended for rejection of the representation as there are no grounds for revision of allocation. |
| 13. | Rajender Kumar Yadav, RADO | 2024/08 | Wife working in Madhya Pradesh State. Hence the Committee recommended that he may be allocated to Madhya Pradesh under spouse policy. |
| 14 | Chetan Lal Netam, Foreman Press | – | Option is for Chhattisgarh State. Hence the Committee recommended that he may be allocate to Chhattisgarh State. |
| 15. | R.K.Sharma, RADO | 1036/08 | Allocated on juiority basis. Hence the Committee recommended for rejection of representation. Since as there are no grounds for consideration in this representation for revision of allocation. |
| 16. | R.P.Shukla, Asstt.Surgen | 6477/08 | The representation of Dr.R.P.Shukla. Asstt.Surgeon has been considered by the Committee. The representatives of Animal Husbandry Department and Panchayati Raj Chhattisgarh have Stated that Dr.Shukla belongs to Animal Husbandry Department. The advocate representing Shri Shukla informed that the representation of Dr. || | | | |
| — | — | — | — |
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| 17. | R.M.Patel, RADO | 1035/08 | Shukla may be considered as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court. In view of the position the Committee directed both the State Govts. to verify the facts of the case and place before the next meeting of the Committee for its consideration. |
| 18. | Shri Ved Prakash Mishra RADO | 6590/08 | Deferred and directed to give an oppournities the documents supporting the illness of his son. |
| | |
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chairman.