Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Pensionary benefits only after 20 years of service: CAT
New Delhi, Jul 28 (PTI) Government employees can claim pension only if they have completed a minimum of 20 years of service, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held.
"The applicant, Mukesh, cannot claim pension, only for the reason that he had opted for the VRS. Qualifying service is essential for a government servant to claim pension as there is no relaxation permissible," the CAT, headed by Vice Chairman M Ramachandran, said.
The Tribunal passed the order on a plea of a Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) employee who alleged that he had not been given the pensionary benefits after he opted for voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) and sought directions for relief.
The CAT noted that the pension scheme was there as per the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and minimum incumbency of 20 years of service was required for a person to claim pension as a matter of right.
"The applicant, Mukesh, cannot claim pension, only for the reason that he had opted for the VRS. Qualifying service is essential for a government servant to claim pension as there is no relaxation permissible," the CAT, headed by Vice Chairman M Ramachandran, said.
The Tribunal passed the order on a plea of a Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) employee who alleged that he had not been given the pensionary benefits after he opted for voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) and sought directions for relief.
The CAT noted that the pension scheme was there as per the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and minimum incumbency of 20 years of service was required for a person to claim pension as a matter of right.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Homage to our CSIR feollow
I got the news first through a telephone call at 8.40 PM that day by one of my friends from CIMFR, Dhanbad, as the ZEE news was showing this incident as breaking news, later on CNEB started displaying the names of deceased employees. it was then that i could understand the gravity of the accident and was shell shocked to hear the name of Mr. K.B. Joshi
we should all get a lesson from this tragedy and work together for better safety measures in the future to avoid accidents of such magnitude*.This is just my humble tribute to the victims of this tragedy.
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT MANUAL OF e-OFFICE PROCEDURE DRAFT OF THE FIRST EDITION
Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances releases first draft of "CENTRAL SECRETARIAT MANUAL OF e-OFFICE PROCEDURE". This manual takes care of the present scenario demanding simplified, responsive, effective and transparent working of government offices with the help of state of art cost effective technologies available in the market.
ANNUAL ESSAY PRIZE COMPETITION-2009 (IIPA)
NDIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
INDRAPRASTHA ESTATE, RING ROAD
NEW DELHI-110002
ANNUAL ESSAY PRIZE COMPETITION-2009
Entries are invited for the Annual Essay Prize Competion-2009. The value of the prize for the competition will be as under:
First Prize Rs. 5,000/-
Second Prize Rs. 3,000/-
Third Prize Rs. 2,000/-
Any competitor who has got a prize on one occasion will not, on any subsequent occasion, be eligible for an equivalent or lower prize. The joint authorship of essays shall not be allowed and any essay under joint authorship shall not be considered for competition.
The following subjects have been prescribed and it is open to competitors to choose any of them.
1. Domestic Violence in
2. Globalisation and Economic Recession: The Indian Context
3. The Importance of Agriculture in Sustainable Economic Growth in
Essay should be based on personal research or experience of the competitors and show evidence of original thinking and scholarship as well as a critical analysis of the subject. Broad generalizations should be avoided.
The essay should be in English or Hindi. The length of an essay should approximately be 5000 words and the competitors must indicate the total number of words of the essay contributed by them. Essays exceeding 5,500 words will not be accepted. The contestants must indicate the total number of words of the failing which it will not be accepted. All essays must be typed in double space on one side of the paper only and those entries which do not adhere to the stipulation can be rejected. It should be submitted in triplicate under a “nom-de-plume” or alias. The full name and address of the competitor should be given on a separate sheet and enclosed in a sealed envelope bearing the nom-de-plume on the outer cover with the following inscription.
“Annual Essay Prize Competiton-2009, Indian Institute of Public Administration,
All essays should be sent to the Director, Indian Institute of Public Administration, Indraprastha Estate,
Cash Withdrawal at Point-of-Sale
RBI/2009-10/105
DPSS.CO.PD.No. 147/02.14.003/ 2009-10
22nd July 2009
To
All System Providers (VISA / MasterCard / American Express),
All Scheduled Commercial banks
Dear Sir,
Cash Withdrawal at Point-of-Sale (POS)
Presently cash withdrawal facility using plastic cards is available only at Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs). As on May 31, 2009, number of ATMs and POS terminals in the country stood at 44,857 and 4,70,237 respectively. The use of debit cards at Point-of-Sale (POS) terminals at different merchant establishments has been steadily increasing. As a further step towards enhancing the customer convenience in using the plastic money, it has been decided to permit cash withdrawals at POS terminals. To start with, this facility will be available for all debit cards issued in India, upto Rs.1000/- per day.
2. The conditions subject to which this facility is being extended is given in the Annex.
3. Banks may obtain the approval of their Board of Directors for offering this facility. The note put up to the Board should incorporate the product profile, risk perceived by the bank and the risk mitigation measures.
4. This circular is being issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the Reserve Bank under Section 18 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (Act 51 of 2007).
Yours faithfully
(G.Padmanabhan)
Chief General Manager
Encl: as above
Annex
Conditions for 'cash withdrawal at Point of Sale (POS)
1. This facility is available only against debit cards issued in India.
2. The maximum amount that can be withdrawn at POS terminals is fixed at Rs.1000/- per day.
3. This facility may be made available at any merchant establishment designated by the bank after a process of due diligence.
4. The facility is available irrespective of whether the card holder makes a purchase or not.
5. In case the facility is being availed along with the purchase of merchandise, the receipt generated shall separately indicate the amount of cash withdrawn.
6. Banks offering this facility shall put in place a proper customer redressal mechanism. Complaints in this regard will fall within the ambit of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme.
7. Banks offering this facility shall on approval by their respective Boards obtain one time permission of Reserve Bank of India, Department of Banking Operations and Development under Section 23 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. (A copy of the Board note / approval may be enclosed.)
2. The maximum amount that can be withdrawn at POS terminals is fixed at Rs.1000/- per day.
3. This facility may be made available at any merchant establishment designated by the bank after a process of due diligence.
4. The facility is available irrespective of whether the card holder makes a purchase or not.
5. In case the facility is being availed along with the purchase of merchandise, the receipt generated shall separately indicate the amount of cash withdrawn.
6. Banks offering this facility shall put in place a proper customer redressal mechanism. Complaints in this regard will fall within the ambit of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme.
7. Banks offering this facility shall on approval by their respective Boards obtain one time permission of Reserve Bank of India, Department of Banking Operations and Development under Section 23 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. (A copy of the Board note / approval may be enclosed.)
I-T dept can’t tax research work
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court, in a recent order, came down heavily on the Income-Tax Department, which unilaterally injected an application for
exemption for scientific and industrial research, without seeking guidance of experts on the matter. Tax authorities do not have the jurisdiction to decide on the issues pertaining to scientific research, according to a division bench of the HC comprising FI Rebello and JH Bhatia.
The observation was made while deciding on an appeal filed by Mumbai-based Indian Planetary Society (IPS), which claims to carry out planetary research, astrophysics, solar physics etc. IPS moved the HC, after the I-T Department declined to approve the body even after being accorded the status of Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (SIRO), by the Department of Scientific & Industrial Research of the ministry of science & technology.
The division bench pointed out that since the tax authorities do not have the required expertise to evaluate scientific research activities, it should have sought the advise of experts in the field before coming to a conclusion that a particular body has been genuinely carrying out the research activity. Any decision on such matters, taken without the guidance of experts in the filed, would be vitiated, the HC observed.
The tax authorities did not furnish any reasons for rejecting the application. It merely said IPS did not meet the requirements under Section 35 (1) (11) of the I-T Act, which deals with deductions for expenditure incurred on scientific and industrial research. The communication from CBDT to the IPS reads, “The basic requirement under Section 35 (1) (11) of the I-T Act undertaking adequate scientific research activity is not fulfilled.”
The division bench held that CBDT, which has the officers of the Income-Tax Department, is hardly an authority to decide whether an organisation is actually doing the scientific research or not. The HC pointed out that it is the central government which has the authority on such matters. The court also pointed out that recognition by the ministry of science and technology entails IPS to customs & excise deduction.
The HC further held that the authority to grant permission to such an organisation is of the Government of India and not CBDT. “Nothing has been shown before us to show that, CBDT under the business rules of the Government of India, has been allowed to discharge functions of the government under Section 35 (1) (11).”
Courtesy: Economic times
The observation was made while deciding on an appeal filed by Mumbai-based Indian Planetary Society (IPS), which claims to carry out planetary research, astrophysics, solar physics etc. IPS moved the HC, after the I-T Department declined to approve the body even after being accorded the status of Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (SIRO), by the Department of Scientific & Industrial Research of the ministry of science & technology.
The division bench pointed out that since the tax authorities do not have the required expertise to evaluate scientific research activities, it should have sought the advise of experts in the field before coming to a conclusion that a particular body has been genuinely carrying out the research activity. Any decision on such matters, taken without the guidance of experts in the filed, would be vitiated, the HC observed.
The tax authorities did not furnish any reasons for rejecting the application. It merely said IPS did not meet the requirements under Section 35 (1) (11) of the I-T Act, which deals with deductions for expenditure incurred on scientific and industrial research. The communication from CBDT to the IPS reads, “The basic requirement under Section 35 (1) (11) of the I-T Act undertaking adequate scientific research activity is not fulfilled.”
The division bench held that CBDT, which has the officers of the Income-Tax Department, is hardly an authority to decide whether an organisation is actually doing the scientific research or not. The HC pointed out that it is the central government which has the authority on such matters. The court also pointed out that recognition by the ministry of science and technology entails IPS to customs & excise deduction.
The HC further held that the authority to grant permission to such an organisation is of the Government of India and not CBDT. “Nothing has been shown before us to show that, CBDT under the business rules of the Government of India, has been allowed to discharge functions of the government under Section 35 (1) (11).”
Courtesy: Economic times
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
India Heads High on Neem Patent Saga - Patent Analytics Report
A new study by Dolcera has confirmed that India has indeed lived up to the competitive neem research and development efforts from the West.
A new study by Dolcera has confirmed that India has indeed lived up to the competitive neem research and development efforts from the West. Neem is considered India’s heritage and an integral part of India’s culture. Neem has traditionally been used as an ingredient in Indian cuisine, as a medicinal treatment for several allergies and diseases, and in religious ceremoniesacross the country. Time and again, there has been a hue and cry to prevent other countries from patenting the age-old Indian knowledge of neem.
Dolcera’s study has answers to key questions, including:
• Are Indians holding a legal upper hand on neem usage?
• What are the neem patenting trends in India and the US?
The study also reveals that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India, played a key role in India as well as in the US to remain one of the top patent owners in terms of number of patent filings on applications of neem. However, the complete picture is a little more complicated. Though CSIR is the top patent owner, individuals (41.84%) and private sector (31.63%) hold the majority of neem patents in India. Government institutes (which include CSIR, the Defense Research and Development Organization, and others) hold 26.53% of patents on India’s traditional asset.
While Indians have used neem for medicinal purposes in wound healing, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and skin care, US companies appear more interested in the areas of biodiesel production, fertilizers, dental formulations, food packaging, pharmaceutical compositions, etc.
Courtesy : LIVE-PR
A new study by Dolcera has confirmed that India has indeed lived up to the competitive neem research and development efforts from the West. Neem is considered India’s heritage and an integral part of India’s culture. Neem has traditionally been used as an ingredient in Indian cuisine, as a medicinal treatment for several allergies and diseases, and in religious ceremoniesacross the country. Time and again, there has been a hue and cry to prevent other countries from patenting the age-old Indian knowledge of neem.
Dolcera’s study has answers to key questions, including:
• Are Indians holding a legal upper hand on neem usage?
• What are the neem patenting trends in India and the US?
The study also reveals that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India, played a key role in India as well as in the US to remain one of the top patent owners in terms of number of patent filings on applications of neem. However, the complete picture is a little more complicated. Though CSIR is the top patent owner, individuals (41.84%) and private sector (31.63%) hold the majority of neem patents in India. Government institutes (which include CSIR, the Defense Research and Development Organization, and others) hold 26.53% of patents on India’s traditional asset.
While Indians have used neem for medicinal purposes in wound healing, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and skin care, US companies appear more interested in the areas of biodiesel production, fertilizers, dental formulations, food packaging, pharmaceutical compositions, etc.
Courtesy : LIVE-PR
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Union Audit Reports Scientific Departments (Compliance Audit - Report No. 16 of 2008-09) 2007-2008
Total report here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)