Committee on Subordinate Legislation

C. all No. 32S-Vol IX

COMMITTEE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

(SEVENTH LOK SABHA) •

NINTH REPORT

,(Presented on IO December, I98r)

LOX SABRA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI

Dt:#mber, r9~I /Agrc/zayana, 1903 CSt ka)

?ria: R.1. 3.65 .. CDRRlGEND'; TO THE NINTH rlEPORT OF THE mWMITTEE ON SUOORDINATE LEGISLATION (SEVENTH lDK SABHA) (PRESENTED ON 10 DECFMBER, 1981)

Page Paragraph Un. F9r Read No. N", .-

1 2 2 hell held

18 S 59 50 • 23 Col. Nn;3 ...., combersome cumbersome Agninst S.No.3(ii)

31 10 • Agreemen Agreement from bottnm

33 2 Bide Paragraph Vide P 3ragraph

3..~ Cel. N".3 theirin therein Ag'ain s t' S. Nn. 3 "" 36 ~l. Nell. 3 3 .P r~s ambl e pre ambl e Against i.No/S 37 ( i) Col. No.3 Against S.No.6 1; givern given ( ii) -M- 1-1- nindividual individual ( iii) -M- d) pUlication publication

39 7 correct the page n umber as ~ 42 0:Il. ;0.3 (i)~gain$t i.No.ll 12 - -2 'j invokerl 1nVl"'l ked ( ii) against 3. )\;0. 12 ' , a as 43 Col. No.3 ( i) Against St-NoI3 2 in cases heret in cases where he ship the ship IS ( ii) -t+.- 13 prolet pilot 50 Col. No. 3 ( i) Against S.No.21 3 Act 9~ Act 1948 ( ii) -dp- 6 purpose, an . purpose at an 65 0:11. 1\",. 3 1 from , Twenfth Twelfth bottom

81 (i) 11 1 ~han V\hen CONTENTS PARA No. PAoa No.

COMPOIrnoNS OP TID COlllllrtTU (iii)

REPORT

I. INTIlODUCTlOM 1-5 II. Implementation of Recommendation contained in para- 6-15 graphs 13 to 15 of Sixth Report of the Committee on Sub- ordinate Legislation (Fifth Lok Sabha) regarding the Indian • Posta and Telegraphs (Clas. IV Posta) Recruitment Rulea, 1970 (G.S.R. 19311 of 1970) II nI. Implementalion of Recommendation CODtained in Para- 17-119 gr~ 65 of the Twentieth Report orthe Committee on Sub- ordinate Legialation (Fifth Lok Sabha) regarding giving of RetroSpective eft'ect to the-orden framed under~ous Aet. of Parliament (i) The Naval Ceremonial Conditiona of Service I: ~i,eellaneoUi. (Amendment) Regulatio... 1973 (5. R.O. 55 of 1973) (ii) The Territorial Army (Amendment) Rates, 1974 (G.S.R. 70 of 1974)' .5 IV Implementation of recommendations contained in para- ,o-f& graph' 95-g6 of the Ninth Report of Committee on Sub- ordinate Legislation (Sixth Lok Sabha) regarding the Indian Railway Stores Service Recruitment Rulea. 1969 (G.S.R. 151 of 1969). • • • • • • • 8 V. Implementation ofrecommend?tion contained in paragraph 49-57 45 of the Sixteenth Report of Committee on Subordinate Legislation (Sixth Lok Sabha) regarding the Seamen'. Pro- vident Fund (Amendment) Scheme, 1976 (G.S.R. 11133 of . 1976)· . • • . . • • • • 15 VI. Action Taken by Government on varioUi reeOJllll\endatlQDI anti auurances given to, the Committee on Slihordinate sa Legislation. 18

I. Summary of Main JlecommendatiOlllIOblervatiou mack by tbe Clammlttee. III II. Mini.try of Railwaya (Railway Board) letter dated 30 Nov- 115 ember, 1976.

III. Windlry ofRailwaya (Railway Board) tetter dated 16 Feb- SIt ruary. IgBo. • ••••••• IV. eop,. of Note rqrarding Seamen'. Provident FUDCi Scheme. 51 V. Statement .hlJwingaction taken by Government on the re- commeoclatiom made by, IIJIII auurances pvea to tbe Com- mittee on Subordinate LqriJlation. 53 VI. Minutes of the Thirteenth, Fourteeath, 8iateenth Twentie- th, Twenty-fint, Twcnty-eighth, Thirtietll ;;i Thirty- fint .ittiJIIP of tbe Committee. ••• • • • 13 2835 LS-l COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (1981-82)

1. Shri Mool ChlUld Daga-Chainnan

MEMBERS

2. Shri M. Ankineedu 3. Shri Xavier Arakal • 4. Shri Ashfaq Husain 5. Shri T. V. Chandrashekharappa

6. Shri Eduardo Faleiro 'j ~'• 7. Shri M ... Kandeswamy • a. Shri K. Lakkappa 9. Shri Balasaheb Vikhe PatH 10. Shri M. Ramanna Rai 11. Shri Ratansinh Rajda 12. Shri Ashoke Sen 13. Shri Ajit Pratap Singh .. " 14. Shri Chandra Shekhar Singh

SECRETAJUAT

1. Shri S. D. Kaura-Chief Legislative Committee Officer. 2. Shri Ram Kishore-Senior Legislative Committee Of/icef'. 3. Shri S. S. Chawla-Senwr Legislative Committee OfJicer.

(iii) I REPORT

INTRODUCTION

I, the Chairman of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation. having been authorised by the Committee to present the Report i,., their behalf, present this their Ninth ·Report. • 2. The matters covered by this Report were considered ·by the Committee at their sittings hell on 5. 6 and 24 January. 29 June, 8 July, 3 and 22 October, 1981. • 3. At their sitting held on 24 January, 29 June, 3 and 22 October, 1981, the Committee took evidence of the representatives of the (i) Ministry of Railways (Hailway Board) and Ministry of Homa Affairs (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms) regarding the Indian Railway Stores Service Recruitment Rules. 1969, (ii) the Ministry of Shipping and Transport regarding the Seamen's Provident Fund (Amendment) Scheme, 1976, (iii) Minis- try of Defence regarding giving of retrospective effect to the Naval Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous -(Amendment) Regulations, 1973, and (iv) Ministry of Communications (Posts and Telegraphs Department) regarding Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Class IV Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1970. The Committee wish to express their thanks to the officers of the Ministries for appearing before the Committee and furnishing the information desired by them.

. 4. The Committee considered and adopted this Report at their sitting held on 7 December, 1981. The Minutes of the sittings which form part of the Report are appended to it.

5. A statement 3howing the summary of recommendation.. ,- observations of the Committee is also appended to the Report. D

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN ·PARAGilAPHS 13 to 15 of SIXTU REPORT OF THE COMMI1IEE" ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (F'IFI'H L1)K SABHA) RE- GARDING THE INDIAN POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS (CLASS IV POSTS) RECRUITMENT RULES, 1970 (G.5.R. 1932 OF 1970)

6. Notes 2 and 3 below the Schedule to the Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Class IV posts) Recruitment Rules, 197{) provide tnat Extra.Departmental Staff and Casual Labourel'3 may be considered for Clau IV POIta against the vacancies for direct recruitment for Class IV Posts subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be directed by the D.G., PlrT from time to time.

'1. It was pointed vut to the Department of Communications that the Rules should, as far as possible, be eelf-contained and the terma . and conditions subject to wlfich any category of persons may be coDiidereci for recruitment should be specified therein, rather thaft be left to be regulated separately. 8. In their reply, the Department of Communi:"'3tions stated as follows:- ...... There are detailed instructions under which Extra· Departmental Staft may be considered for recruitment to Cla. IV posts. The Casual Labour are a.ppointed to Class IV posta 8ubject to general . instructions issued by the Department of Personnel in this regard. There are detailed administrative instructions the inclusion of which will make the statutory Recruitment rules un- MCeaaarily lengthy. Further the St:ltutory rules have been promulgated in the form' prescribed by the Department of Personnel. They ate to be supplemented by Administrative instructions. As bas been observed by the Supreme Court in the Sant Ram V.. State of Rajasthan (AIR 198'1 SC 1910) the Gov- ernment can supplement the rules and issue instructions on matters in respect of which the Rules are silent, though the Rules cannot be amended or supeneded by Administrativf' instructions. It is, therefore, felt that the detaU...... need not be included in the Statu!ory He- eruitment Rules." , 2 3

~. The Committee on Subordinate Legislation (1972-73), whie. ~onsidered the above reply, observed as follows, in paras 13 to 15 -of their Sixth Report (Fifth Lok Sabha):- "13. The Committee are not convinced by the ar&uments advanced by the PlrT Department for not accepting the suggestion that the tel'ms and conditions subject to which 'Extra Departmental Staff and Casual Labouretoi' may be considered for Class IV posts against the vacanciea for direct recruitment should be specified in the Rules. They have time and again emphasised that the rules should, as far as p.ossible, be self-contained. 14. Apart from this, there is another important aspect involv- • ed and that is empowering the D.G., P&T to lay down the conditions of recruitment outside the rules through De- partmental instructions, which the Committee feel, is tantamount to sub-delegation of legislative power. De- partmental instructioIh> laying down the conditions of recruitment are not 'published in the Gazette, and, therefore, would not come to the notice of the Committee for their scrutiny. Moreover, the Committee feel that conditions of recruitment, being of basic importance, should be regulated through the rules, rather than be left to be regulated outside the rules. 15. The Committee also do not see much force in the De- partment's argument that the inclusion of the c~nditions of recruitment will make the rules unnecessarily lengthy. They are of the opinion that the conditions can be givp.n briefly in th~ Schedule to the Rules. The Committee, therefore, urge the P&T Department to take early steps to include the Departmental instructions in the Rules."

10. In an interim reply dated 18 May, 1977 to the above recommendations, the P&T Directorate stated as follows:- "Action for amendment of our Statutory Rules of Class IV was initiated in consultation with Deptt. of Personnel and A.R. and Ministry of Labour. But the rule.. could not be finalised as the question whether EDNs hold c:vil posts within the meaning of Article 311 of the Comhtu- tion was. under the cqrW~atiQn of ~he St,lp.reme Court. 'The Supreme Courth,ve since pronounced their judge· .ment on 23-+1WT'r.and its implications ar6being ex~ined. , .- 4 After the study of these implications further action to amend the Recruitment at Rules will be taken by tm. office." 11. A8 no further reply was forthcoming from the Ministry, the Committee decided at their sitting held on 8 July, 1981, to hear evidence of the representatives of the Ministry of-Communications (Po&ts and Telegraphs Department) regarding inordinate delay in implementation of theit' recommendation. 12. At their sitting held on 22 October, 1981, the Committee heard evidence of the representative!> of the Posts and Telegraphs Department. 13. During evidence the representatives of the P&T Department explained that there were certain administrative orders, which were not part of the f:tatutory rules, for appointment of Extra- Departmental staff and t~ Casual Labourers to Class IV Posts in the Po.ts and Telegraphs Department. The representatives however, conceded that constitutionally and legally speaking. they did not have authority to issue such administrative instructions. The representatives further submitted that P & T Department decided several years back to make statutory rules as recommended b:v the Committee for the purpose. The draft rules were accordingly formulated and sent to the Department of Personnel and Adminis- trative Reforms for concurrence. That Department in turn forwarded the rules to the Director-General of Employment and Training who suggested that extra-departmentll agents should tiM be recruited through the employment exchanges only. Thereafter, a dilCuaion was held and a revised draft of rules was made out. . 1" When pointed out that the matter had been hanging over for more than eight years, the representatives of the Ministry apologised for the avoidable delay and gave an assurance that they would try to do the needful before the end of the year.

15. ftere ... been laonIlnate delay of more than 8 years Oft the part ef MlDlatry of ComIDbdeatlons (P_ta ad Telecnpbs Deptl) ta Implemeatiq tile I'eCOIIUDeDda"'" of tile Committee containecl In pancraphs 13-15 of tIIeir Slxtb Report (JI'UtIa Lok Sabha). The Report ... pl'e8eltted to the Bouse 'on 7 May, 1m, aad a copy of tIae ...... was forwarde4 to die .... aDd Telepapllls Departlneat OIl • M.,.. Ina fer MlfIlI.I7..... TIle c.maalttee I'ep'et te DOte tIaat DO ~.nD~atloa was received froID the Mini1dr7 exeept .. IDterina ~,...... 11 May, 1m aItMtIP. tile MiDistrJ' was espeeb." ' to Im,.....t tile nco· ...... tile Cemmittee within • per\o&t 5 « six months from the date of the presentation of the Report. So much SO that the Ministry seems to have slept over the matter till the Committee eaII the representatives of the Ministry to appear before them for oral evidence. As would be seen from the oral evidence of the representatives of the Ministry, the P&T De,partmeut had decided several years back to frame statutory rules for recruitment of Class IV employees from extra departmental staff and casual labourers but the matter remained pending with the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Ministry of Labour. JAt. The Committee are constrained to observe that the Ministry / Department had treated the recommendations of the Committee in most casual manner and did not pay due attention to the implemeu- tati4n aspect of it which it deserved. The Committee would also like to observe that wherever there are inordinate delays in finalising matters in consultation with various departments, the matter should be sorted out at the highest level in the• Ministries. The Committee trust. that the requisite action would be taken to implement the aforesaid recommendation of the Committee within a period of three months from the date' of the presentation of this Report.

III

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 65 01" THE TWENTIETH REPORT OF THE COM- MITTEE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (FIFTH LOK SABHA) REGARDING GIVING OF RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDERS FRAMED UNDER VARIOUS ACTS OF PARLIAMENT [(i) THE NAVAL CEREMONIAL, CONDITIONS OF SERVICE & MISCELLANEOUS (AMENDMENT) REGULA- TIONS, 1973 (S.R.O. 55 OF 1973) (ii) THE TERRITORIAL ARMY (AMENDMENT) RULES, 1974 (G.S.R. 70 OF 1974)] 17. The Naval Ceremonial, -Conditions of Service and Miscel- laneous (Amendment) Regulations, 1973, were published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 4 dated 3 March, 1973, but were made effective from July, 1971. The Navy Act, 1957, under which above Regulations were framed does not empower Government to give retrospective effect to the Regulations framed thereunder. 18. Similarly the Territorial Army (Amendment) Rules, 1974, were published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 4 dated 16· February, 1974, but were made effective from 19 November, 1971. The Territorial Army Act, 1948, under which these Rules were :6 Jramed alao does not confer any.power on Govetament 10 .maP Rules with retrospectivee1fect. 19. The matter was taken up with the Ministry of Defence ~d their attention was invited,to ~agraph 49 of the Se~enth Report of Committee on Subordinate Legislation (Fourth Lok Sabha) where 1he Committee had noted the follOWing observation of the Attorney- General in this regard: "The Legislature may make a law with retrospective effect. A particular provision of a law made by the'Legislature may operate retrospectively, if the law expressly or by necessary intendment so enacu.. A law made by the Legislature may itself further empower subordinate legislation to be operative retrospectively. Without such a law, no· subordinate legislation can have any retrcx;pective effect .... ,.

20. After considering tpe reply at the Ministry of Defence, the Committee in paragraph 65 of their Twentieth Report (ruth Lok Sabha) observed as under: - • "The Committee note with copcern thatretrmjpective effect to the eight ·Orders'...... has been given without an auth(lrisation to thia effect in the parent statutes. As without such an authorisation, no subordinate legislation can operate· retrospectively, the Committee feel that retrolpective effect given to the 'Orders' in question was without due legal authority. The Committee, therefore, desire the Ministries/Departments concerned either to give effect to the 'Orders' in question from the dates of their publicAtion in the Gazette or, alternatively. to take steps to incorporate a provision in the relevant Acts empowering Government to give retrospective effect to these ·Orders·...

21. In their action taken reply on the above recommendation, the Ministry of Defence in respect of thf Territorial Anny (Alnendment) Rules. have stated that necessary corrigendum has been issued vide S.R.O. 153 dated 30 April. 1977. which takes away the retrospective effect of the Rules. The Ministry have further stated that no action had been taken with retrospective effect under these Rules. 22. Regard\Jlg the Naval Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and MJsceUaneol1S (Amendment) Regulations, 1973 the Millistry have republlsbed the ameoldment vide 5.R.O. 273 dated~ SeptelQber. I.- 1979 making it effective from the date of publication. . .. 7 p. The Committee considered the matter at their sitting held on 6 ~uary, 1981, and observed that although the Ministry of Defence hlil renotified the Naval Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous (Amendment) Regulations to make them effective from the date of their publication, i.e., 28 September, 1979, th~ Gov- t'rnment might have taken certain actions during the time of operation of 1973 Regulations under the retrospective effect given to them which had no sanction of the Law. The Committee heard evidence of the representatives of the Ministry of Defence in the matter at their sitting held on 3 October, 1981.

24. When asked whether the Navy Act, 1957 under which the Naval Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous (Amend- ment) Regulations, 1973 were framed provided for giving of retrospective effect to the Regulations framed thereunder, the representative of the Ministry stated that the Act did not specifically provide for issue of Regulations with retrospective effect but that did not mean that they had no right under the law. The representative of the Ministry of Law, however, conceded that .there was n.o power to give retrospective effect to the 'Orders' under the Navy Act. 25. When enquired as to why they had given retrospective effect to the 1979 amendment when they had no,such power under the Act,. the representative of the Ministry stated that they had to issue S.R.O. 1979 for two reasons. One reason was to take note of the objection of the Committee on the earlier order having retrospective effect and the second re8'Son was to revise the age limit. He further added that when S.R.O. 55 of 1973 was objected to by the Committee, they explained the circumstances under which they had been compelled to issue it because the U.P.S.C. had already issued a notifiCA- tion in 1970 changing the age limit for ~ntry into N.D.A. The Com- mittee after considering the explanation of Ministry again objeCted to the giving of retrospective effect. They, therefore. thought of superseding the 1973 Regulations by new Regulations. In the meanwhile the·age limit for entry into N.D.A. was changed from '16 years to 18 years anod again frLm 18 yelrs to 181 years. Hence, they had to issue S.R.O. of 1979.

26. When asked whether it would not be proper to amend ,the Navy Act,the representative of the Ministry stated that they were thinking of amending the Act and t.hey had decided not to issue any Regulations in future with retrospective effect.

27. When asked that certain persons might have been recruited . on 1he ~ of impugned Regulations and how those recruitment. 8 could be considered~ valid, the representativ~ of the.Ainistry of Law agreed that action under those Regulabons ~~ullity., He further stated that it was also a fact that the U.P.S.C. had advert~d the posts from 1970 taking into consideration the advancing of Age limit and certain persons might have been selected on that basis. However, no body had raised any objection so far. He further clarified that the remedy was by amending the Act.

23. As regards regularising the action taken by the Government . between 1970 and 1979, the representative of the Ministry stated that they would make reference to the Ministry of Law and seek their advice about the content and need of a new legislation to validate all that had happened between 1970 and 1979.

21. Considerin& the fad that the Ministry of Defence had to resort to "vin8 of retl'Ollpeetive e&ect to the Naval Ceremonial Condi- tionl of Service ad MilcelIaneoIll (Amendment) Regulations due fo chance ia dae .. limit for entry into N.D.A. made by U.P.S.C., the Committee do JIOt eoasider it aeeessary to p~e their reeom- mendatioa made In paracraph 85 of their Twentieth Report (Fifth . Lok Sabha). The Committee, however, deire the Ministry to .,mead the NO)" Ad, 1857 suitably In order to avoid recurreMe of cuch a s1tuatloa III future. .

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 95-96 OF THE NINTH REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (SIXTH LOK SABH/L) REGARDING THE INDIAN RAILWAYS STORES SERVICE RECRUITMENT RULES, 1969 (G.S.R. 151 OF 1969)

30. Item 9 ot the Appendix to the Indian Railway Stores Ser- vice Recruitment Rule!!, 1969 provides that the relative seniority of Officers recruited to the service by the competitive examination held by the Union Public Service Commission would ordinarily be determined by the order of merit in the examination. How- ever, the Government of India reserved the right of fixing seniority at .hriT diacTetion in individual cases. The Government also reserved the right of assigning to officers appointed by other m~s (\f recruitment positions in the seniority list at theiT discretion. 9 31. The Ministry of Railways (Railway Board). to whom the matter was referred for stating the genesis of item 9 of the Ap- pendix; bad in their reply inter alia stated as follows:-

" ...... item 9 of the Appendix to the Recruitment Rules for the Indian Railway Stores Service is based on a similar provision appearing in the Rec~uitment Rules for the' various Railway Engineering Services, viz., Indian Railway Service of Engineers, Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers, Indian Railway Service of Electrical Engineers and Indian Railway Service of Sig- • nal Engineers, which have been in vogue for a long time ... recently the Honble High Court, Allahabad, while dis- missing the writ petition No. 964 of 1969 filed by Shri K. K. Gupta, Deputy Director, Research Designs and Standards Organisation, Ministry· of Railways, Lucknow, Vs. The Union of India and others, have held as invalid the above mentioned clause of the Recruitment Rules for the Indian Railway Service of Signal Engineers so far aa it empowers the Government to fix seniority of Officers recruited otherwise than through Competitive Examina- tion at their discretion. The reasons for declaring the above-mentioned clause invalid, as given by the Hon'ble High Court, are that an unguided power has been given to Government to fix seniority of officers at ito:; discretion and the rules as framed can enable the Government to discriminate among persons similarly placed. ~ As already stated abovp, a similar clause exists in the Recruitment Rules for all the Railway Engineering Services- and the Indian Railway Stores Service. Therefore. action has been initiated in the Ministry of Railways to amend the above-mentioned clause in the Recruitment Rules for all the Services, in consultation with the Union Public Ser- vice Commission and the Ministry of Law."

32. Taking note of the above reply, the Committee on Subordinate Legislation in paragraph 22 of their Fourth Report (Fifth Lok Sabha) had observed as folIows:-

"The Committee note that the Ministry of Railways have since issued notifications omitting item 9 of Appendix to the Indian Railway Stores Service Recruitment Rules, 1969 and similar provisions contained in Recruitment Rules relating to Railway Engineering Services. They 10 desire that new proVlSlOD8 for regulating senion"ty of officers to be appointed to these services should be :framed at an early date and furnished to the COJDDlittee:fOr m.. formation." 33. In their action-taken note on the aoove recommendation the Ministry of Railways had stated as under:- "The principles governing the seniority of officers, appointed to various Class I Services from different sources, specified in the various Recruitment Rules except officers of the Medical and other Mise. Categories have since been finalised and circulated to All India Railway Administra- tions concerned ...... 34. In paragraph 2 01 their forwarding letter· No. E (o)I-72SRG/29 dated 30-11-76, the Ministry of Railways have, inter alia mentioned that the principles, indicaied in the Appendix to that letter, do. not fetter the general powers of Government for giving to individual oftlcers, in special cirCUmstances, such position in the seniority list as the circumstances of the case may require. 35. After coDlldering the above reply of the Ministry of Railways, the Committee in paragraphs 9S-96 of their Ninth Report (Sixth Lok Sabha) observed as under:- "The Committee note that in implementation of their recommendation made in para 22 of their Fourth Report (Fifth 1M Iahba), the Ministry of Railways have circulated a let of 'principles for determining the relative seniority of Class I Officers on the Indian Railways' in the form of admin1atratlve instructions instead of incorpol'ating them in the relevant Recruitment Rules and notifying them in dJe Guette for the information of all concerned. The Committee also note that in para 2 of their forwarding letter No. E(o)I-'12SRG/29 dated 30-11-'18 (Appendix II)' the Ministry of Railways have, inter aha mentioned that the Pdnc:iplee cl.rculated by them do not fetter the general ,owen of Government for giving to individual officers, in .pecial circumstances, such position in the seniority list as the circumstances of the case may require. The Committee feel that this paragraph gives as impression tliat the Railway Administration have stin· unfettered powen in the matter of fixing seniority. The Commj... t~, desire that the 'special clrc:umstances' in which the sema- -.Appendix II. .----- 11 rity of a person may be fixed otherwise than in accordance with the principleS appended tt) the Ministry's'-Jetter should be clearly defined, and made part of the Principles. The Committee also desire that Principles for determining seniority should be placed on a statutory footing.

The Committee also note' lhat the Miriistry Have not yet formulated the requisite rules in respect of Offtcers of the Medical and other miscellaneous categories; The Com-· mitte~ will like the Ministry to finalbre the requisite rules in respect of Officers of these categories alSo at a very • early date;" 36. In their a.:tion taken note dated 16 February, 1980, the Ministry of Railways have stated as under: • " ...... the General Principles for determining the relative seniority of Class I Officers appointed to various Indian Railway Services circulated under this Ministry's letter of even number dated 30-11-1976, were issued with the approval of the President. These General Principles are strictly followed in the manner of Statutory Rules, and have in fact been challenged in the Supreme Court where the matter is subjudice. Seniority Lh3ts, drawn upon the basis of these General Principles are circulated widely to the concerned Railway Officers. Objections when received are duly considered and if any rectification of the seniority list is necessary, this is done. It is pointed out that the following practical difficulties may arise if principles governing seniority in the ~stablished services are included in statutory rules:- (i) In the recruitment rules, broad features like scale of pay, method of recruitment, educational qualifications, experience, composition of DPC etc. are incorporated. Ancilliary aspects like seniority or compilation of common eligibility list, are matters left to be dealt by administrative instructions. (il) Incorporation of seniority provisions in' t.he recruitment rules would encumber the rules with details. If Gov- ernment review policy in regard to seniority, it will in- ~ ehaDgetf in the recruitment rules. This would not be in the interest of the administration or would serv& the purpose for which these rules are framed. 12

(iii) There! are :1 large number of executive instructions which are disiinct from statutory rules. As long as they are not inconsistent with statutory rules, they have the same force as statutory rules.

In regard to para 2 of the Railway Ministry's letter of even Dumber dated 30-11-76. this Ministry have considered the reeommendatioDS made by the Committee on Subordinate Leglslatioo of the Lok Sabha and point out that the intention of this provision is mainIy to cover circumstances which cannot be foreseen but may anse; these circums- tan'Ces cannot also be enumerated. However, to dispel'the impression that such provision may be used arbitrarily by the adminlstration, it has been decided to substitute the provisions of the relevant paragraph to indicate t:lat, in cases not covered by the principles indicated in the Ap- pendix to Railway Ministry's letter dated 30-11-76, seniority of ofBcers appointed to the service shall be governed by such orders as may be issued by the Government after consultation with the UPSC, wherever necessary. It has also been decided to issue general principles of seniority for miscellaneous categories like Senior-Scale posts of Medical Deptt. and other Senior-S:ale/Junior-Scale posta tn miecellaneous categories vir. Printing and Stationary Department, Organisation of the Chief Mining Adviser and Chemicals & Mettallurgists, where there are both direct reeruits and promoteee. The inter-se seniority in such cases will be broadly in accordance with paragraph 6 of Annexure-I to the Deptt. of Personnel O.M. No. 9/11/55- RPS, dt. 22-12-1959. A cow- of the general instructions issued to the Railway AdmJrdstrations as mentioned in preceding paragraph is enc10aed for the information of the Lok Sabha Secretariat."

3'7. The Committee considered the action-taken note of the "Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) at their sitting held on 5 January, 1981, and heard the evidenee of the representatives of the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) for not placiJlg on statutory footing the JllUCUtlve instructionsl ,overDing seniorit.y of Class I Oftleers or various Indian Railway Services/Ofticers of the Medical and M1sc:ellaneous categories at their sitting held on.24 January, uat: - 13 38. When asked aool.!-t the manner in which the ~niority list, of Class I Oftlcers had been prepared and whether the princip'les of fixing seniority were being published as part of the Rules, the representative of the Ministry stated that the principles governing the seniority list of Class I Officers had been framed in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission and that they had issued them to all their subordinate offices.

39. Replyfn, to the question of discretionary powers of the Gov- ernment in the matter, the representative stated tha.t they had no discretionary powers as such. They had to determine the seniority on tJte basis of 11 principles that had been laid down. He further added thet these were administrative instructions and that they were in elaboration of the statutory Rules. 40. When asked whether these admv.istrative instructions could not be put in the form of statutory Rules, the representative stated that it could be done. He. however, explained that the Department of Personnel was the parent Department which laid down the Rules for all the Government Depa~tments and that they acted in consultation with them. He further clarified that the principles which they had laid down. had been published departmentally and issued to their subordinate offices. As for giving them a statutory shape he requested the Committee to call for the comments of the Department of ,Personnel in the matter. To a specific query whether the Ministry of Railways had any difficulty in giving them statutory shape, the representative categorically stated that they had no difficulty once it was decided by the Department of Personnel to do so.

41. The Committee also heard evidence of the representatives of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms in the matter on 29 June, 1981.

42. On being asked whether the Rules were published in the ~~azette of India after' the approval of Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, the representative of the Department stated that Ministry of Railways and certain other Organisations were exempt from the purview of the Department of Personnel and Ad- ministrative Reforms. The Railway Department were competent to frame their own Rules for Railway Services without consulting the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. 43. When asked whether the above mentioned Rules were referred to them, the representative of .the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms stated that in 1979, the Ministry of Railways .tt 2835 LS-2. , i , ' - .• 14 made a reference to their Department and they tendered their advic:e to them and the Ministry of Railways acted according to their advice and amended their earHer instrUctions of 30 November, 19'16 regarding principles of seniority vide theIr letter of 16 February, 1980.

44. In reply to a question whether the principles of determining seniority should be given statutory footing, the representative of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms stated that they had not given any advice to the Ministry of Railways on that issue. They had only explained to them the position pertaining to the other Civil Services which were within their purview. He further explained that in the case of Rules of few Services like that I.A.S./I.P.S., the relevant Service Rules contained the principles of determining seniority. He also stated that the general principles of seniority which they followed in Central Services were laid down l1ide their circular letter dated 22 December, 1969 and those instructions had stood the test of time. Those instructions had also come up 'for judicial scrutiny before the Supreme Court. The U.P.S.C. had also accepted them.

45. When specilicalJy asked whether the administrative instructions regarding principles of seniority could be given a statutory footing or not, the representative of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Rf'forms stated that it was not necessar~' to give statutory force to these instructions. He further stated that it was not obligatory that ever~·thing must be covered under Statutory Rules. The Courts hnd held that where Statutory Rules were silent the executive instructions could be issued and those instructions could be examined and scrutinised by the judiciar:; if l1nybod~' challenged them.

46. The Committee note that the representatives of the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) have conceded clurine their evidence tbllt they have no objeetton to pladD' the t!xecutlve instructions gov- em., tht'l principles of determining relati\'e seniority of Class I otBceh of the Indian RaUways on statutory footing. The Committee further note that Railway Department is competent to frame its own au). for the Railway Servi~ "'itbout consulting the Department of Personnel Uld Administrative Reforms. The Committee feel that now the Man.try of Railways (Railway Board) should han no dilllculty in giving statutory form to the princ:iples of determini~.g the ftlath'''' seniority of Class I officers including olfturs of the Medical and other misHllaneous categories as contained in their Jettn No. E(o)I-1!SR8-zt datt'd 30 No~~mber. 1m. 15 47. 'fbe Committee do Dot see any force in tbe 6ulty pointed out tty the Mbdstry .that the inclusion of principies for determinin« seniority would render the Rules cumbersome. The Committee are also not convinced with their pleas that determinaticm of seniority is an ancilliary matter and that there are a large number of executive instructions which have the force of iaw sO long as these are not inconsistent with the statutory Rules. 'the Committee feel that these principles of determining seniority should be as eood a part of the recruitment RuleS as other details like scale of pay. method of recruitment, educational qualification, experience etc. Further tbe influsion of details of these principles would instead of encumbering the Rules, would makc the position clear and eliminate to a great extent the chances of favouritism and discrimination, if any.

48. While noting the averment made b:\; the Ministry of Railways that the cases of seniority not (~overed by the principles of seniority now fomling part of thl' l'xecutive instructions would be decided in consultation with u.P.S.C.. vide Minilitry of Railway's letter dated 16 Febnlary. 1!t80. thc Commlttel' feel that this aspect of the mattl'r should also bl" incorporate-d in the rules.

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 45 OF THE SIXTEENTH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (SIXTH LOK SABHA) REGARDING THE SEAMEN'S PROVIDENT FUND (AMENDMENT) SCHEME, 1976 (G.S.R. 1233 OF 1976)

49 Sub-parClgraph (5) of paragraph 59 of the Seamen's Provider!t Fund Scheme, 1966, as inserted by the Seamen's Provident Fund (Amendment) Schemp. 1976. reads as under:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraph (3), a member may withdraw the full amount standing to his credit in the Fund. on terminatIOn of his service in the case of retrenchment, redundancy and without any prospect of further scope of employment duly certified by the employer, Seamen's Employment Officer and the Shipping Master:

Provided that at least a period of six months has elapsed since his last employment, preceding the date on which 16 the member makes the application for final withdrawal with the appropriltte· supporting ~J.UIlents to the ,. Commissioner." i· . .

50. The Ministry of Shipping and Transport (Transport Wing) were requested to state the consideration for fixing the period of six months which should elapse before an application for final withdrawal from the Fund is made. It was also pointed out to the Ministry that proviso to paragraph 69(1) (d) of the Employees Pro- vident Fund Scheme, 1952 on the lines of which the above provision had been made in the Seamen's Provident Fund Scheme had already heen omitted from those rules 1Jide G.S.R. 1184 of 1974.

51. Not being satisfied with reply of the Ministry of Shipping and Transport (Transport Wing) the Committee in para 45 of their Sixteenth Report (Sixth Lok Sabha) recommended as under:-

"The Committee are not convinced by the arguments advanced by the Ministry of Shipping and Transport (Transport Wing) that a period of six months must elapse before a retrenched Seaman could make an application for final withdrawal from the Seamen's Provident Fund. The Com- mittee are of the view that when proviso to paragraph 69(1) (d) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, on the lines of which such a provision has been made in the Seamen's Provident Fund Scheme, had since been deleted, the Ministry of Shipping and Transport (Transport Wing) should have no objection to delete proviso to paragraph 59(5) of the Seamen's Scheme for the sake of uniformity in the pattern of provident fund schemes for the workers in different establishments of Governmf'nt. The Committee desire the Ministry to issue the ne<'el'.sary amE'ndment to the Seamen's Provident J"und S"hE'mf' at :tn early date."

!i2. In their action-taken note dated 5 June 1979, the Ministry of Shipping and Transport (Transport Wing) have stated as undt'r:- " ...... the matter has been 100kE'd into and It is felt that the retention of proviso to paragraph 59(5) of the Seamen's Provident Fund Scheme is essential. A note'" containing facts for the retention of aforesaid provi9:> IS enclosed for being placed before the Committee."

• Appendix IV 53. The Committee considered ,the action-taken note of the Minis- try of Shippine and Transport (Tiansport Wing) at their sitting held on 5 January, 1981, and heard the evidence of the .representatives of the Ministry :regarding retention of proviso to paragraph 59(5) 'of the Seamen's Provident Fund Scheme, 1966 at their sitting held on 29 June, 1981. 54. During the course of evidence the representative of the Minis- try stated that the matter regarding implementation of the aforesaid recommendation was referred to the Board of Trustees which had been constituted. to operate the Provident Fund for the Seamen. The Board had representatives of the emplo)~es, ship owners as well as of Seamen and Dir~ctor General of Shipping. The Board examined the r~commendation of the Committee and suggested that the existing proviso to section 59 (5) of the Seheme might continue as that was in the interest of the orderly working of the Scheme and in the interest of the Seamen. He further eXl?lained th9t all Seamen in the country were governed by the Seamen's Employment Provision! and Seamen entered into an agreement with the ship owners every time there was a voyage and that procedure was accepted and agreed to between the Seame:::l and the ship owners through the auspices of the National Maritime Board. Normally a voyage took 4 to 6 months period and once it was complete, for all practical Ilurposes there was cessation of that particular employment, and the Seamen had to wait for some time before he got his name in the roster again. 55. When asked whether the collection of supporting documents i'or claiming refund after period of 6 months was cumbersome process for the Seamen, the representative of the Ministry replied in negative and stated that documents were maintained in the office of the Seamen Provident Fund Commissioner in Bombay and a ,mtinuous service record was maintained by the Seamen Employ- n1ent Officer in respect of every seaman. 56. When asked how a waiting period of less than 6 months could be misused by Seamen, the representative of the Ministry explained that since the waiting period between two voyages ranged between 9 months and 1 year, there might be tendency on the part of Seamen to apply for refund of deposits from the Provident Fund as SOon as they came back after every voyage. 57. In view of the position explained by the Ministry, the Com. "littt~e do not consider it necessary to persue their recommendation contained in paragraph 45 of their Sixteenth Report (Sixth wit Sabha). 18

ACTION T.uEN BY GOVERNMENT ON V~OUS RECOM- MSNDATIONS OF, AND ASS~NCES GIVEN TO, THE COM- MI'rI'EK ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

59. The ComaUttee note with ~tW~ the aetia taken by Govenunaat on thI!Ir earIieI- rec:ommendatioDs, u indicatetl in Ap· pendlx v.

NEW DEuu; MOOL CHAND DAGA, December 7, 1981. Chairman, Committee on Su.bordinate Legi3I Cltion. APPENDICES APPENDIX I (Vide paragraph 5 of the Report)

SIIDlIIUU'y of main recommendations/observations made by the Conunittee

S. No. ParaNo. Summary

~------.~------~-.~~--- 1 2 3 l(i) 15 There has been inordinate delay of more than 8 years on the part oJ Ministry of Communica- tions (Posts and Telegraphs Department) in • implementing the recommendations of the Com- mittee contained in paragraphs 13--15 of their Sixth Report (Fifth Lok Sabha). The Report was presented to the House on 7 May, 1973 and a copy of the same was forwarded to the Posts and Telegraphs Department on 8 May, 1973 for necessary action. The Committee regret to note that no communication was received from the Ministry except an interim reply dated 18 May, 1977 although, the Ministry was ex- pected to implement the recommendation of the Committee within a period of six months from the date of the presentation of the Report. So much so that the Ministry seems to have slept over the matter till the Committee called the representatives of the Ministry, to appear before them for oral evidence. As would be seen from the oral evidence of the representatives of the Ministry, the P&T Department had decided several years back to frame statutory rules for recruitment of Class IV employees from extra departmental staff and casual labourers but the matter remaind pending with the Dep'artment of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and, Ministry of Labour. -- -~------~ -.

21 22

1 2 3

l(ii) 16 T,he COlJJIlU~ u.e co~k'ained. to observe that the Ministry/Department had treated the ....,. or"'d_•• ,. ... C~"" ~. ~.~t euual meMl' u4 did not pay due attention to the implementation ~pect of it which it deserv~ ed. The Committee would like t~ observe that wherever there are inordinate delays in finalising matters in COIURlltation with various depu1~ ments, the matter should be sorted out at the highest level in the Ministries.

1 (ii) 'I'he ConuniUee trvst that the requisi~e action. wGoUJcl be t.aken to i1nplement the aforesaid recoOUDenciatlon of the Committee within a pt"riod of thr,ee months from the date of the presentation of this report.

2 29 Considering the fact that the Ministry of DefelK!e had to re'30rt to giving of retrospective effect to the Naval Ceremonial Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous (Amendment) Regu- lations d~e to change in the age limit for entry into N. D. A. made by U.P.S.C .. the Committee do not consider it necessary to pursue their recommendation made in paragraph 65 of their Twentieth Report (Fifth Lok Sabha). The Com- mittee, however, desire the Ministry to amend the Navy Act, 1957 suitably in order to avoid re- currenee of such a situation in future.

3(i) 46 The Committee note that the representatives of the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) have conceded during their evidence that they have no objection to placing the executive instructions governing the principles of detennin- ing relative seniority of Class I Officers of the Indian Railways on statutory footing. The Committee further note that RailW9Y Depart- ment is competent to frame its own Rules for

~--..------.. ------23 ------1 2 3

tb, a.llway Service witM"t consulting the De- par1JD!nt of Personnel ,nd Administrative Re- fonns. The Committee feel that now the Minis- try of Railways (Railway Board) should have no difticulty in giving statutory fonn to the principles of determining the relative seniority of Class I Officers including officers of the Medical and other miscellaneous categories as contained in their letter No. E (0) 1-72SR6-29 dated 30 November. 1976.

3(ii) 47 The Committee d"o not see any force in the difficulty pointed out by the Ministry that the inclusion of principles for determining seniority would render the Rules combersome. The Committee are also not convinced with their pleas that determination of seniority is an ancilliary matter and that there are a large number of executive instructions which have the force of law so long as these are not inconsistent with the statutory Rules. The Committee feel that these principles of determining seniority should be as good a part of the recruitment Rules as other details like scale of pay, method of recruitment, educational qualification, experience etc. Further the inclusion of details of these principles would instead of encumbering the Rules, would make the position clear and eliminate to a great extent the chancl's of favouritism and discrimination, if any. -.

3 (iii) 48 While noting the averment made by the Ministry of Railways that the cases of seniority not covered by the principles of seniority now forming part of the executive instructions would be decided in consultation with U.P.S.C. 24

..-----~------1 2 3

vide Ministry of Railways's letter dated 16 Feb- ruary, 1980, the Committee feel that this a~ct of the· matter should also be incorporated. in the rule;;.

4 57 In view of the position explained by the Ministry of Shipping and Transport, the ~om mittee do not consider it necessary to persue their recommendation contained in paragraph 45 of their. Sixteenth Report (Sixth Lok Sabha) . APPENDIX n (Vide paragraph 34 of the Report) Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) letter

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Ministry of Railways (Railway Board)

Dated 30 November, 1976 9-Agrah. 1889(5)

No. ~(o) 1-72SR6/29. New Delhi, dated 30-11-76 The General Managers, All India Railways, inc!. CLW. DLW. JCF, MTP(R)/Calcutta and G.M. (Construction), ·S. RI~' .. Bengalore. The Director GenerRI, RDSO, Lucknow. The Chief Administrative Officer (R) MPT (R) Bombay -do- New Delhi -do- . Madras. The Principals, (i) Railway Staff College, Baroda. (ii) Indian Rly. Institute of SJg. Engg. & Telecommunication Secunderabad. (iii) Indian Rlys. Institute of Advd. Track Te<:hnology, Poona. (iv) Indian Railways Institute of Mech. & Elec. Engg- Jamalpur. Sub: Principles for determining the relative seniority of Class-I Officers on the Indian Railways.

Consequent on the deiE;tion of para 8 Appcnuix-I to the Indian Railway Service of Engineers, Indian Railway Service of Signal Engineers, Indian Rail way Service of Electrical Engineers, Re- cruitment Rules. 1962, paragraph 9 of Appendix I of the Indian Rail ways Service of Mechanical Engineers Recruitment Rules, 1!68 and the 1. R. S. S. Recruitment Rules, 1969 for determining the seniority of officers on their appointment to Class-I Service, the

'2-.J Board have decided to circulate tire prihciples, laid down for determining the seniority of officers, appointed to various Class I Ser- vices from different sources, specified. in the various ~ruitment Rules except officers of the Medical Deptt. and other misc. categories. These are enclosed as an Appendix* to this letter. 2. The principles, indicated in the Appendix· to this letter. do not fetter the general powers of the Government for giving to individual officers, in special circumstances, such position in the seniority list as the circumstances of the case may require. . 3. The seniority 01 officers who were recruited as Ty. Officer:o; during the war period or of the officers Who were taken over by the Indian Railway from the ex-States Railways or ex-company managed Railways or isolated cases of officers where the seniority has already been determined under orders applicable to such officers at the relevant time shall not be altered, based on principles now set forth in the Appendix· to this letter. 4. The PrinCiples, menlioned in the Appendix* to this letter, have the approval of the President. ANNEXURE (Vide paragraph 4 of the Appendix II) PRINCIPLES FOR DETERMINING THE RELATIVE SENIORITY OF CLASS 1 OFFICERS OF ALL SERVICES ON INDIAN RAIL- WAYS EXCEPT OFFICERS OF THE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CATEGORIES.

Prindple (0 The seniority of officers. appointed to various Indian Railway Services (CL. I). shall be determined on the basis of the "date for increment on timp scale" to be specifically determined in eadl case in accordan('e with these principles. Principle (ii) Unless otherwise stated. officers appoInted to the Indian Railway Services (CL. 1) on the basis of competitin' examinations. held by the Union Pub- lic Service CommiSSion. shall count service for seniority from the date they commence earning in- crements in the regular scale as Assistant Officers sUbjfft to the conditions that the intf!1'-se seniority of Oftkers in each service recruited as probatio- neT!l ia a particular year will be regulated by th~r plate in the order of merit. 27 Principle (iii) In the caSe of ofti<:ers, recruited otherwise than through the regu1ilr competitive examinations and who may be granted higher initial pay on recruitment, the date for increment on time scale for the purpose of seniority, shall be so adjusted as to allow suitable credit in assigning seniority.

Principle (iv) In cases of prolonged delay on the part of an officer in joining service after receiving orders of appointment, he is liable to ential loss in seniority. If the period of training and consequently the period of probation in the case of officers, appointed to the Indian Railway Services on the basis of the competitive examination hald by the Union Public Service Commission from time to time, is extended in any particular case due "to the training not having been completed satisfactorily, the officer concerned is liable to loose in seniority.

Principle (v) Officers recruited· as Temporary Assistant Officers (Unclassified), on permanent appointment to the Junior Scale (CL. I) in various Inriian Railway Services may be granted weightage in seniority on the basis of half of the length of the service counted from the date of their joining service as temporary Assistant Officers (Unclassified) to the date of their permant-nt

Principle (vi) The Order of selection by the Union Public Service Commission of Officers, who are permanently appointed to the JU!lior Scale (CL I) from amongst Temporary Assistant Officers shall not be disturbed irrespective of the weightage worked out in accordance with prinCiple (v) above. The Cm"ernment will be at liberty to restrict the date for increment on time scale in the case of an officer with longer service as Temporary Assistant Officer so as to place him in seniority below an Officer who has been assigned a higher position based on merit although such an officer might have rendered lesser service as Tem- porary Assistant Officer. 28 Principle (vii) In the case of Class II Officers pennanently promoted to Class I Services, if two or more than two officers are promoted on the same date their relative seniority will be in the order of selection. Subject to the aforesaid provision the seniority of officers, permanently promoted from Class II to Class I Services, shall be determined by giving weightage based on: (a) the year of service connoted by the initial pay on permanent promotion to Class I Service; or (b) half the total number of years of continuous service in Class II, both officiating & permanent; Whichever is higher, subject to a maximum weightage of five years. Principle (viii) As permanent promotion from Class II to Class I Service a~d permanent appointment of T.emporary Assistant Officers to Junior Scale (Class I) involves definite act of selection, the inter.se seniority of t>fBcers in each of the categories will be regulated by the date of permanent promotion or permanent appointment to Class I Service. Principle (ix) Officers, permanently appointed to the Junior Scale (Class I) from amongst the categories mentioned in principles (vi) and (vii) above against quotas of \'acancirs reserved for them shall be placed below or above a particular .bat~h of direct recruits accordingly as their dates for increment on time scale are earlier or later than the earliest date on which anyone of the direct recruits in a particular batch joined service. Principle (x) The seniority of officers, recruited to Class I Services under the provision of the rules relating to "Oc- casional admission of other qualified persons" shall be determined by the Government on the merits of each case.

Prmcipll:" (xi) Seniority of the released Emergency Commissioned Officers or Short Service Commissioned Officers appointE'd to various Indian Railway Services against vacancies reserved for them, shall be determined mping in view the instructions issued by the Cabinet Secretariat (Deptt. of Personnel). ~ APPENDIX m (Vide paragraph 36 of the Report) MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD) LETTER DATED 16 FEBRUARY, 1980 GoVERNMFNT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS RAILWAY BOARD

No E (0) 1-72SR-6/29 New Delhi, dated 16-2-1980. The General Managers, All Indian Railways, inel. CLW, DLW.. ICF, MTP (R) /Calcutta and G.M. (construction), S. Railway, Bangalore. The Director General, RDSO, Lucknow. The Chief Administrative Officer (R) MTP (R) Bombay. The Chief Administrative Officer (R) MTP (R) New Delhi. The Ch:ef A~inistrative Officer (R) MTP (R) Madras. The Principles, (i) Railway Staff College, Baroda. (ii) Indian Railway Institute of Sig. Engg. and Tele-Commu- nication, Secunderabad. (iii) Indian Railways Institute of Advd. Trll.ck Technology, Poona. (iv) Indian Railways Institute of Mech. and Elec. Engg., Jamalpur. SlJ1IJEcT.-PrincipW:?s for determining the rellative seniority of class I Officers on the Indian Railways.

Reference-Railway Board's Letter of even number dated 30-11-1976. It has been decided that the provision contained in para 2 in this letter shall he substituted by the following prOvision: "In cases not covered by the principles indicated in tt:. appendix to this letter, seniority of officers appointed to

2835- LS--3. .1 29 ,,- , 30 the Service, shall be governed by such orders as may be issued by the Government in consultation with the UPSC, wherever necessary." 2. In regard to Senior Scale posts of the Medical Department and Senior Scale/Junior scale posts in miscellaneous categories viz. Chemists and Mettallurgists, Printing and Stationery Department 'and Organisation of the Chief Mining Adviser, where both direct recruitment and promotion is resorted to, it has been decided that relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees shall be determined according to rotation of vacancies between the direct recruits and promotees which will be based on the quotas of vacaneies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion, respectively in the relevant recruitment rules. APPENDIX IV

(Vide paragraph 52 of the Report)

Copy of Note regarding Seamen's Provident Fund Scheme

SUBJECT.-Implementation of recommendations contained in para 45 of the Sixteenth Report of Committee on Subordi- nate Legislation (Sixth Lok Sabha) regarding the Sea- men's Provident Fund (Amendment) Scheme. 197. (G.S.R. ]233 of 1976).

Recommendations contained in para 45 of the 16th Report ot Committee on Subordinate Legislation (Sixth Lok Sabha) regarding the Seamen's Provident Fund (Amendment) Scheme, 1976 (G.S.R. 1233 of 1976) have been looked into by this Ministry. This Ministry still feels that the retention of the proviso to paragraph 59(5) of the Seamen's Provident Fund Scheme is essential due to the following facts, even though the proviso to paragraph 69(1) (d) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 which was referred by his Ministry as the model for making similar proviso in the Seamen's Provident Fund Scheme, had been omitted vidp G.S.R. 1164 of 1974:-

The Seamen's Provident Fund Act, 1966, Section 2(a) refers to Agreement with the crew under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. Under paras 23, 26 and 27 of the Seamen's Provident Fund Scheme, 1966, every Seaman signing Articles of Agreemen is required to become a member and Provident Fund is payable. The articles at Agreement are generally for a voyage of 6 months, covering more than one voyage, if the voyage is less than 6 months. After the completion of the Articles of Agreement, the Seaman has to remain unemployed for some time, before his turn comes up for next employment in the category allotted to him under the Seamen's Employ- ment Office Rules, 1954, under Section 95 ot the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. This period of waiting varies from category to category and extends from about three to six months.

31 32 3. In view of the above facts, it is considered that the retention of the proviso to sub-paragraph (5) of Paragraph 9 of the Seamen's Provident Fund Scheme, 1966 is essential to justify the claim for Provident Fund dues of individual members (seamen) who are retrenched having been declared surplus with no chance of future employment. Also, the proviso as above will, to a reasonable extent, preclude the possibility of intentional avoidance of the provisions under para 59(3) of the Seamen's Provident Fund Scheme, 1966.

~ This note has been approved by the Minister in this Ministry. APPBNDIX V

(llidl Paragraph 58 of the Report)

.tat ... nt showing action taken by Government on the recommendation. made by J and aaurancc. given to the Committe. On Subordinate lAs'ialatioa

11. Refereaci to Para No. of Summary of recommendation., assurances Gi.t of Government'. reply No. Report

(I) (2) (3) (4)

1. .ixteeath Report (Fifth Lek Tbe Committee are not convinced ofthe reply given by the Depart- The Indian Supply Service (Clals I-Re- $abba) 2S ok 26 ment of Supply for deleting the provision requiring specification cruitment by Competitiv~Examination) in the Notice of the number of vacancies to be filled on the result Rules,1963 and the Indian Inspection tJ;j 01 the examination. The Committee feel that this is a salutary pro- Service (Class I-Recruitment by Com- c..o vision which enables the prospective candidates to assess their petitive Examination) Rules, 1963, have chances of success in the examination and should be retained in since been amended suitably G.S.R. NOl. the Indjan SupPly Service/Indian Inspection Service (Clba I Re- S80 and S81 dated 24-S-191O. cruitment by Competitive Examination) Rules. To meet the requirement oHhis provision, the Committee desire the Minis- try/Dqlartment concerned with the examination to intimate to the Union Public Service Commission at least an approximate number of vacancies to be filled before the Noticc of cumination is issued by the Commission. The Committee desire the Department of Supply to re-incorporate the deleted provision in the Indian Supply Serviceflndian Inspec- tion Service (Clau I-Recruitment by Competititve ExaminatlOD) Rules. The Committee further desire the Department ofPeraonnel and Administrative Reforms to emphasise upon all Ministries/ Departmentl tke need for including the above provision in all Rulal Regulatlona relatiag to competitive examinations with which they millat • ..,...... (1) (2) (3) (4l

1- ii.I~lllbR,ltp~~t (P.flla L')k Tile C'!1I~itteeare dittretleCl to D

One of rhe aWn ~ Car cklay ,ifta by the Minittriel/I)epart- (ii) Miniatry of Shipping and Transport _ta it late receipt of G.s.R.. N-. from the Prea. lD thb c:oo- (Transport Wing) have designated a neetioa, the Committtee wi. to draw the atteatiOD of.lI MiDi .. Ikputy Secretary as the officer res- tr~u to their recc.uDIlDdalioo mack in ~ 35 of ponsible Cor ensuring timely laying of their Ninth R.eport (Fifth Lok Sebba) IIDd reiterated in their Rulrs on the Table rti4, their O.M. No. nun-tit ibid FOUTtecalIa Reportt in ~rd to the Dew p:pc:e- 5-G/(17)/75 dated 1I!l-7-1975' dun introduc:ed by the CoatroUer of PrIDting and Stationery for obtainiDf G.S.R.. NOI. of noti6catiODI. The Committee delire an Mi~tt to follow the Dew prooedure acru- (iii) Minittry of Petroleum and Chemicals ~ly. Dilicaftiea, if any in obtaining G.S.R. NOI. uDder the have issued aecessary instructions new proczdurt: Ibould be aorted out in conJUltatioo with tbe to aU coocerned ~ their OM .• No. ~ CoatroUcr of Priatq and Statioaery. 1l013110/7S -Pari. dated 8-6-1975.

'!'be C:amittee find it difficult to appreciate explanation for (iv) Ministry oC Labour have atated cklay giving by the Ministry of Steel and Mines (Department of that due care ia being taken to ensure Mines) and the Minittry of Energy (Ikpartment of Coal) that no delay occurs in laying 'Order.' that the porent Act under which the Rules had been formed did in future 11* their O.M. No. H. aot apec:ify aay limit for laYiag .f RulC5 on the Table of tbe 1I013(9)f75-PFI dated 10-9-1975. HOUle.

~ True, under the Ac:t, the Rules are required to be laid belore the (v) Ministry of Tourism aad Civil Avia- HouIeaor Parliament usoon.. may be aner they are made. But tion have iSlued i .. truetioDl to all tl1e Committee on Sub-ordiJ».te LeCialation, after putting SectioDi ia the Ministry vide their a realOnable Co.. tructioa of the wordJ 'al 'OOD U may O.M. No. 1I6-P.G.(15)f75 dated 10-6- be, had recommended as early u iD the September, 1954 that 1975· . rules etc: .lhouId be laid oa the table of the HoUle within a period of 7 days after their publication ia the Cuelle (lliM paras !1-32 or Second Report (Firtt Lak Sabha). Later, ia (vi) MiDiltry of Commerce have Doted view 01 the cli8ieultiea experien«d by the GoverumCllt in com- the recommendatioD an. have issued 1)'il1~",itb tim reco,D.u:nhllon. th~CJ.u,uittec (ai.ed the necessary instructions to all eonc!crn period from 7 days to I~days oitU para 72 of Second Report • to ensure timely laying of 'Orde~' (Second Loa: Sabha). :$ince then the Committee have been on the 'table uide their O.M. No. re~tcdlystressing the need of laying Orders on the Tabl~ H-11013/15I 75-ParJ. dated 10-9-1975. WIthin a period of 15 days after their publication in the Gazette.

(vii) Ministry of Steel &. Mines (Department The Committee feel that the existing procedure in the Ministris/ of Steel) have noted the recommenda- Dcpartmentl for keeping a table on laying of rule5 etc. on the tions of the Committee for future Table of the House neeth to be tightened. Each Ministry/Depart- guidance vide their O.M. H-1I015(S)/ ment Should make a high ranking officer responsible for 75-Parl. dated 31-5-1975. euauring timely laying of rules on the Table. The Com- mittee also desired the Department of Parliamentary Affain to licvUc some procedure in consultation with the Ministries/ (viii) Ministry of Industry and Civil Sup- Departments of Government of India to a~'oidrecurrence plies (Department of Civil Supplies &; of CIIICI of dealay. Co-operation) have circulated the rceornmendatiolU of the Committee to all officen and Sections in the Min- istry for timelr laying of 'Orden' etc. oid. their O.M. No. H-1l012(24)/75- t.Q P&; C dated 19-9-1975. !.11

': (ix) The Departmc:nt of Parliamentary AJrain have brught the recommendation of the Committee (contained in para 42) (0 the Notice of aU the Minis- tries/Departmentl for compliance ,ide thClr O.M. No. F·32 (4)f75-R &; C dated 6-6-1975.

~. (Sixt~thReport (Fifth Lok The Committee are satisfied to note that. on being pointed Ollt, The Ministry have since amended RuiCi 3. Sabha) 100 the Ministry of Commumnications proposed to amend Rules 3. 9 '9 and 10 (I) of the Wireless and and 10 ofthe Indian Wireless Telegraph Rules. 1973. Telegraphs Rules. 1973 as desired by the ao as to incorporate theirin the exceptions envilaged under Committee uid# G.S.R. 2286 dated the them. The Committee desire the Ministry to issue the proposed 23-8-1975. amendments at an early date. (.) (.) (s) (4)

sA. Niotemalh Repan (Yafth Lok 1M Committee are DOl ooavinoed by the reply of the Ministry Rule a8(9) of the Oil Industry (Develop- SUIaa) J' thaI tM Chairman. being a VffY responsible penon. would ment) Rules. 1975 has since bttn luitably tHe the earliest poaibk iU'ps to have his ckcision rati~dby the amended to provide that the Chairman appropriate forulIL The Commitltt feci that there mould be no shaD gel his decWon rati6ed by t~ difficulty in fiUng a rime-limit within which the decision of the Board 01' the Committee at its nen Chairman abould be got rati6ed by the Committee or the Board. sittina ... G.S.R. No. 7fa(E) dated In ClLIe the MinotrY feel thaI it 0 not possible to do 10, it should 1~-1.-1977· alleast be provided In the Rules that the decision of the Chairman would be ratiJied al the ont sitting of the Commilltt or the Board. The Committee desire the Ministry to amend the Rule3 accordingly al an early date. f· Ninteenth Jleport The Committee are not satiJfird with the reply of the Depv~ntof The Ministry of Law,Juatice and Company (F1I\h Lok Sabba) !6 Culture. The Commillee feel that IeCtion 2(2) olthe Victoria Main (Legislative Departtment) have Memorial Act, 1903 which empowen trustees to do all acts brought the observation of the Committee ~ De«>.ary for pl1rp~1eof the Act makes too wide a delegation. 10 the nOlice of aU Miniltries/Departments They desire that to avoid any ambiguity, the limits of delegation for compliance iii.their O.M. No. F.4 mould be well d~finedin an Act and the authority for important (6}/76-L.I. dt. .1-6-1978. matters envisaged to be regulated through rules should clearly now from and not be implied from its provision.. The Commilltt will like the Department of Culture to bear thi. in mind in future. They will also like the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company of the Main (Legislative Department) to bring the above ob!eI'V&- tionl ComnUtlee to the notice of aUthe Miniltries/Departments of Government of India.

5· Nineteenth Report In their previous Reports, the Committee have repeatedly em- The Ministry of Law, Justice, and Company (YIfth Loll: Sabha) ...a-~o phasised the need for citation ofprccise statutory authority in the AITain (Legislative Department) have presamble to rules. The idea UDderl~ingthe above recommendation brought to the notice of all Ministrie., II to enable one to know whether the rules have bttn made under Departments of the Government of India due Iepl authority and within the limits laid down in the parent viiU their O.M. No. F. 4(6) 76-L. I law. Thd words" and or all other POWeti enabling him in thil dated 21-6-1973 their informatiqn for behalf" used In the preamble to rules, as in the inl~tcue, compliance in future.' • wp a penon llfUeuing a. to what "other powers" .~. • According to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Compan)' Mairs (Legislative Department) the expression 'all other powen'in this case refers to Section 21 of the G~neralClauses Act. If so, the Committee feel that this Section should have been cited in the preamble instead ofthe word "and all other powers". The Committee are not convinced by the argument of the Ministry • that it would not be elegant to make an express reference to this Section as it is in the nature of a rule of construction. The Committee have come across a number of cases in which the expression "and all oth"r powers enabling him in this behalf" has been used in the preamble to rules. The Committee will like the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs to issue necessary instructions to all Ministrietl/Departments to cite precise statutory authority in the preamble to rules, and avoid using cxpreaions of the above naturewhich may keep the public aguessing as to what 8' other powers' are. The Ministry of Law should also !ee at the vetting stage that precise legal authority is invariably cited in the preamble to rules.

6 Nineteenth Report The Committee note that important information 1~invariably being Ministry of Finance(DepartmcntofRevenue) w (Fif\h Lolt Sabha) sent by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and In- have since amended suitably Rules 204 -.;J 54 &: 58 surance) under registered cover Acknowledgement Due. In view and 205 of the Central Excises Rule., of this, the Committee feel the Ministry should have no tlifficulty 1944 relating to service of decision order, in making a statutory provision for the same by amending the re- summons or notice CJideG,S.R. No. 306 levant rules. The Committee desire the Ministry to amend the dated 25-2-1978. Rules accordingly at ,an early date. • The Committee note with satisfaction the assurance givern by the Ministry of l'inance(Department of Revenue) Ministry of Finance (Department ofRc\'enue and Insurance) that Dide therir O.M. No. 223/17/86-Cx'6 as far as possible, relaxation would be granted only to a class of dated 24th April, 1976 have stated i,.,., a!lse~s,and that the power to grant relaxation to individual use- Dlia as follow. : ssees would be use donly in very gr:nuine and deserving cases where '!l Th~Committee's recommcndation ... such a relaxation is warranted in p\1blic interest. The Committee has been carefully considered. The desire that even in such cases of rela:tation to nindividual assessees, intention behind the recommendation the Ministry should, besides issuing Trade Notices through trade appears to be to give the widest pub- associations, also publish the Orders in the Gazette so that they licity to the relaxations granted by the come to the notice of the general public and persons similarly pla- Government so that all concerned ced might have the benefit of such relaxations. The Committee assessee. come to know and avail desire the Ministry to make necessary amendment in the Rules to themselves of the relaxations if appli- provide for pulication of relaxation. in the Gazette, cable to them. Government are fully in accord with this objective. (I) (t) (3) (4)

'3' Some doubt was, howner, Celt whether the objective lOught to be achiC¥l:d could be fllily served by publication of a notification in the Gazette. This was partly becaUle of the form.Ut~' such as vetting by the Law Ministry and consequent ume-Iag involved in publication in the Gazelle. It was also felt that as the majority of assessees do not subscribe to Govern- ment Gazettes, but derive their in- fornution on trade matte" basically from Newspapers whose frequency and availability IS much greater than that o( the Gazettes, the letter would be better and quicker medium (or C.II reading the public. ClD

'4' However, there have been some recent developments as a result of which the problem has practically ct1lsed to exist. Experience had thown that in the put when IUch restrictions were impoaed, numerous relaxation. had to be granted, 10 that production and/or distribution of commodities mlt{ht not be unduly interfered with. Accordingly, prior to the preacntation of the budgets for t977-78 and t978'79, no restrictions under Rule 224 (3) were imposed. No evidence has come to light to show that there had been any abuse of the freedom from restrictions on these two OCcasiODl. The general policy of the present ~

the

cir.

No.

,"" and

any

952-

nece-

dated

high

Rules back·

concer-

I'tleflu

appear

(Depart

110_,

guidance

imposed

No.

Merchant Transport

Transpolt

since all

necessary,

very

obsln/alio,.,

pre-budg1!t

1M restriction. suitably

not

too

a carefully

G.S.R.

reasons issued

t/u1S

possible,

1M of &

Minel

being

bt future

any and

have I,.

Concession

vide G.S.R.

the

Pollution

after would

,t/UoRS

sillce

for

and

amended least

Against

special

that

,tDiotd,

would

Dilk

1974

ut:stion

conlidered

Committee

S·C(IO)i76-CDN

issue.

q is

Shipping

ha\'c

Mineral

~24(3) the

been observations/recommendat_ Section)

Steel

any

Shipping

only

the restrictions

Ministry live the Nn.

the

eXCtp~naJ Rules,

be of

for by

Mines)

Rule a

since

Wil,g)

decision.

the COTllmiltu

the

18-9-76.

(Prevention

would ~3-7-'977.

oil) all)'

(~) of

Will.'

has. amendment

"'"

O.M.

in "o,o"d

made

elt.

i1y

Ministry 29

12-3-1980.

Mil!istry

under

to clearance if too of ground, level ill mould restriction that /0'

Government

Ministry

• vide ned

'960

ions

culated

dated

the

ment (Coordination

1349

sary

Sea

(Shipping

Rule

Shipping

(i)

The

not

draft

note

date.

desue

desire

agreed

regretted also

Transport

mODey

exceeding

early

have

information Ministry

bav/!

future.

the

not

have in the and

Committee

hich publication

Committe:

Ministry requisite ....

Ministry

The

desire

date.

mattars interval

the

The

the

Shipping

within early

They

such

Commerce

that

regarding 1972.

that

amendment leMee.

rules.

the and about

July.

to pmlcribe

final

Ministries

time-limit

tisfaction

ofDcfence

necessary particu1an

since

the

careful satitfaction

the inspection!. aJ

the

to Labour

the

refunded

two with with them

amendment that

giving

Rules

Ministry

issue

note

note not Rules note

Wing), to

the

preamble

between

the

would

given

necessary

tile

Ministries

bpIe

the

yeua repJy

Ministry

being

specify Committee

amend Committee

Committee

these

the their

rulaia

('I'raDsport

to two

iaue

expended to

the

The

•

' ,

Sabba)

Sabha)

Report

Repwt

Sabba)

Loll

93 75

Lok

97-99

(rtnh

(Fifth

N~thReport Nmeteenth

Nineteenth

(FiftJi

7·

I CI) (.) u) (.)

T'be Comminee mtcraletheir euiin' ~datioru mad~in (iiI Ministry of~ce haw' c;rcu'lIled the para II of their Fint Repon (Fourth Lok Sabha), Para4q of their ot.ervationt/recommendations of thf' Fifth Rq»on (Fifth Loll: Sabba) and paTa 8 orthtir EigtitlJ Repon Committee to all cOllcernm in Ihe Mini· (Fifth Loll: Sabba) that adequate opponunily shout" be ghoal 10 Ill)' for future guidaJ.ce "., O.M. No. the public to go through the dnft rules and ofro- their comm",1s. 13(11)176 D(Parl. datro 5-3·1980. • To eruure this, the particulars aboUI (i) 1M dale oftbe Gueue in which the draft rules were publ~; (ii) the date on which the (iii) Minittry of C".ommerce have since Gazette copies containing the draIi rules were made availabt~to CIrculated the rn:ommendation in th~ the public; and (iii) the last date fixed for ~ipl of public Department ofCoDllllerC'e for information commenta tbrreou, mould invariahfy be given iu the PI ~le to and guidance rid. their Endol1mletlt No. the final ~Jaws. H. 11013/11/7' ParI. dated 4-6-1976,

The Commi~ abo desire the Miniitries{Departments to allow, to be OD the.afe side, I S daY'iJ·.tead of 30 days .. at present from the date o(pubJieation o(Gurtte (or inviting COIIIJIW.IS/ objectioM trom lhe public .. generally there it a time-lag between the date o( publ ieation o( a Gazeote and the date which ita copies are made available to the public. t 10. PInt Report • • The ColDlDinee b&ve been repeuedly ~ that when the Act. (i) Miniltry ofWorb and HoUling rNIItheir (Slsda Lok Sabba) give a ritrht to the public to scnd their comments on certain draft O. M. No. H. 11016/4177 PBNdated 1.1·13 rules. it it only reasonable that IlIfficient time should be given 10 3-6-1978 hav~ in timaled that th~ the public to .tudy the draft rules and send their comments/ Directorat~of Printir.g in the Miniatry suggellion. on their provirioJ ~.With thi. er.d in view, the Com- have ilIUm 6 Memoranda in regard mittee have desired that a p<'riod o(not lea than 80 clear daY', to the timely printing andlupplyof uelusive to the time taken in pUbliahing the draft rule. in the Weekly and Extraordirlar}' Guet\es gazette and df'SP8tching the Gazette copies to various parts of right from 1978 10 1979 th~ latest the country mould he given to 1M public to .end their com- beinlf D.O. No. O·17084/8/77·P dated ments on such draft rules. 'rhe C".ommitlee, howev~rregret to 4-1·1978 to all MiniatriesfDepvtments of note that in the case of the 'Orden' enunnerated in the the Government of India and to the Appendh, the net period allowed to the public to send their com- Managers of the Govemmen 01 India IDCtJtson the draft rules wu lea than 30 daya. In one cue, the Preues (Minto Road and Ring Roed), net perIod available with the public wu barely two days, and New Delhi, Faridabad and Nail. in two cues, 9 days. The Committee will once again like to empIwile that a period of not 1_ than SO clear days mould inftriably be liven to the public to ICIld their commenta!lUf· '-Olll on die dnA rul_. • 1bcColM)ittcenotc that while in four out of the 11 eueaenumo- (ii) Department .f Parliamentary Aft&ire rated in the Appendix, the MiniltriesfDeparunenta had them- have aince brOU~ to the notice Idvea given a period of 1_ than 30 days 9,12 and 22 days of all Ministries artmenta of the (two euea) for receipt of commentalsuggeation. ,"om Gao.rernmenta of ndia for their the public. In the remaining 7 cases the period guidance and strict compliance PiM available was reduced to less than 3:> dayt 81 a result of delay in their O.M. No. F, 32 (5)/77-R6:.C. making available the copies of thc Gazette containing the draft dated 2-12-1977. rules to the public. In one ofthrse cases, 81 many 8145 daytwere taken in making the copies oCthe Gazette available to the public. (iii) Ministry ofShi pping & Transport Even in case of Gazette Extraordinary, copies were made avail- (Coordination Section) have brought to able to the public after an elapse of 7 daysin one case and 10 dayt the notice of all concerned in the Ministry in another. The Committee will like the Ministry ofWorb and and have noted for guidance and com- Housing to evolve some procedure to ensure that the time-lag pliance in future (O.M. No. CPAj9{78 between the publication of a Gazette and making available the dated 8-9-1980). copia to the public is reduced to the barett minimum vi~.3 to 4 days in case of Ordinary Gazetta and the one day in the case of (iv) Ministry of Finance (Department of Extraordinary Gazettee at the most. Economic Affairs) have noted the recommendations of the Committee for compliance in future (O.M. No. 57(6)/ Ins, 1/75 dated 23-8-1977).

~evertheless,the Committee will make it clear that the onus to en- (v) Ministry of Labour have noted for sure that in no case the period allowed to the public for sending guidance and compliance the instructions "" commenta/suggeations is less than 30 clear daytlia on the Mini- contained in paras 11-13. The Mini- stries/Departments reeponsible for the administration of the rules. stry have also stated that they are nor- In case a Ministry/Department finds that in a particular ~ due mally giving 45 days notice to the public to any reasons the net period made available to the public works to send their commenta/suggestions on out to less than 30 dayt, they should extend the period for receipt the draft rula (O.M. No. S. 16011 (3)/ or c:ommentsJsuggestions so that the net period made available to 77-LW dated 28-1-1978). the public doa not fall short of 30 clear days. The Committee daire the Department of Parliamentary Affairs to (vi) Ministry of Industry (Department of bring theee observations to the notice of all MinistriesfDepart- 1ndustrial Developmen t) ,,;tU their Office ments for strict compliance in future. Memoranda dated 5-8-77 and 10-10-77 received with O.M. No. 1O/4/77-Parl, dated 1-4-1980 have stated that it would be en.ured that in future 30 dear da~ will be available to the public for sending their comments on the draft rule. to be published by the Ministry. They have even confirmed that this practice is currently beiag followed by the ~ partment. (vii) Ministry ofCo~rtthave nottd the recommendation of the Commiltee for compliance (O.M. No.1 (20)/11-F.I &: P datecll5-9-1977).

11 , First I\epot1 'The ColDDliltee note that Bye-law 4 of the Morar Cantonmellt Bye-law 4 of the Morar Cantonment (Sisth Lok Sabba) 16 (Rrgistratio.l and Cluaificalion of Contract on) '-'y-)a" •• 1«;'69, a (RqJisuation and Claasi6cation on- Co- lUt.tiluted by S.R.O. 288 ofl974, doa nol providdor givilCg as tracto •• ) Bye-laWl, 1969 has been amen- opponunity of being heard to a contractor. before his dCPOlil is dtd auitably by the Miniltry of Defence forfeited on aocoUD t orbit failure 10 tmda- for worb for more than _ S.R. O. 414 dated 2-8-1980, one year. 'The ColDDlitUe are not ~ with the reply ofthc Miniltry of Defencc that the Cantonmen I Board having been given the dilcretion to waive the for fciture would take into SCCQUDI any rqweacntation lWbich the COntractor misht make spinll the forfeiture of hit drpolil. The Committee n* hardly re-ctn:II that giving of a reaaonble o~ity ofbcing heard to a "penon .... before the penal prC'vi.ionl of a law me involktd against 'him is J:I one of the buic requitementl of natural jwtice, The Comm- ittee desire the Minidry ofDefenCC' to amend the Bye-law in qUell- ion 10 U 10 provide thcrin for givng. reasonable opportunity of being heard to thl" (nntrarlor before hi. dl"pOlil II forfeited, I' Fint Report . . The Com",itlec arc not salisfied with the reply of the Ministry (i) The Ministry of Commerce hive noted- (Siatla 1.01: Sabha ) of Colll,n!rce that they d.., not cO"15ider it necessary to IJive the recommendation of the Com. ll~ a refcrence to tbe Rule to the Guette Notification .pccifytnlJ mittee for compliance (O.M. No. 1(110)( the standard JPCc.ific:alion ,a both the Ru1caand the Nou- n-EI &: EP dated 15-9-1977)' Reation, had been iaaued in the Queue of the .ame date. The Committee feel that, for the convenience of the public, (ii) Department of Parliamentary Afl'aiR whencver a commodity is broUlht under quality control, have since brought to the notice of aU reference' .hould invariably be made in the Rulea Releating to Ministricll Department. of tbe Govern- ill inapcction to the Dotifica~vingthe atandard Ipcci6- ment of India for their guidancc and cation in rapcct of that co ty notwithatandainR the .trict compliance ';M their O.M.No.F· fact that both the noti6c:atiolll arc printed in ,the Gazette 311(~/77·RItDdated Nil-lIm. oCcbcaame date. The Committee daire that their recom· mcadatloa .in tbiI reprd should be brlMHl.ht to the notice vt all u.e ~ l~tI fgr coDipliancc ill f",t\ln', The Committee note the reply of the Ministry of Shipping and The Ministry have .inee amended the 5 lint R(r~thLoll: Sabha ) Tralllport (Transport Wing) that in eases heret heshiJ?' arrival Kandla Port Pilotage (Fee) Order, 1975 118 time Wa! delayed due to exceptional circwnstana"l lake fire to provide that only fifty per cent of on board the VftSeI, , grounding etc., special .consideration, pilotage fee otherwise chargeable .hall could always be shown. In view ofth.s ,the Committee feel be cllarged in CIIIe where a pilotages that the Ministry should have no difficulty in amending a the to Pilot Station to pilot a incoming Order to provide that full pilotage fee would not ~ recovered vessel in accordauce with the requisition in cases where the prolet had to return for n:M0Il beyond and if the pilot hili to return due to the control of the Master of the ship. The Committee desire non-arrival or late arrival of the veuel for the Ministry to issue the nea:uary amendment to this affect realOIll beyond the control of the Master of at an early date. the vessel on account of any shipping, casualty, i•• grounding or fire on board the vessd f7itU .G.S.R. 320'E, rhted 5-S-lgBlo

The Committee note with satisfication that the Ministry of Ship- Th" Ministry have since amended the 14 (Fint ~~~)LoII: ,J-bha ) ping and Transport (Transport Wing have no objection to Rule to the desired effect viM S.O. No provide in S. R. '17 A.O. 17 that a re3Nnable opportunity of 1412 dated 14-5·rCl77. being heard would be given to an allottee before any action is taken against him for breach of any rule or r.onditm of allotment. The Committee desire the Ministry to iaaue the ~ m'CCIIBry amendment to this effect at an early date. <.0:>

15 Seventh Ileport Despite several reminders, the final reply of the Ministry of Law The observation (.of the Committee have (Sixth J.oll: Sabha) Justice and Company Affairs (Legislative Department) has not been brought to the notice of all Mini _ 190 lis-a&. so rar been received. tries/Departmen to of (k,vemmen t of India for compliance !Jit/6 Ministry of Law, The Committee regret to note that although more than adeqWl!(o Justice and Company Affairs (Legidative time has been taken by the Ministry of law, Justice and Company Department) O.M. No. and Company Affair iLegislative Department), they have not F4(S)/78 L.J. dated 16th August, r978. vet sent their reply.

The Committee observe that as far back a May 1955, the Committee on Subordinate Legislaton in para ,7 of .heir Third Report (First Loll: Sabha) had emphasised on Govern- ment to make a suitable provision for laying and modification in all future Bill which may seell: to delegate power to make rules, regulations, etc. or which may seek to amend earlier Act giving power to make rules, regulations. etc. This recommen- ~tionwas accepted by (k,vernment !Jid~para 78-79 of their SlXth Report (First Loll: Sabha). (I) (2) (3) (4) ------_..-',... Tbc Coauuiuee DOte that. while in the <:Me of rules, Government bavoeby and Ivge been eoUIpIyinC with the above recommendation or &beCoIDllliIllr%, ~ have f~edto comply with the laid recommendation in 10 far at regulation. lU"e con~. Of the 19 A.cu enUJD£rated in Appendiz n, 15 ~ puscd by Parliament after the Couuniuee m.de the above recommendation, only in two of theR where the regulation-maki", power 11M ~:I cJQrcrred ou the Central Government, a provilion 11M been m.de for the laying of rqulation. before Parliament. In noDe of the remaing 13 Acta, where rqulation-making power has been conferred on Subordinate bodies, IUCh at Corporaliuna, Boanb, Councila, etc. a pi"ovirion hal ~'made for ~~f refU1alionl framed thereunder before Parliament. Tbc ·ttee are aurpri.ed that, after havinl accepted the above reeommo.datioDl of the Committef', Government ahowd !::rid 10 .cant a rt"gard to it 10 far at regulation. lU"e co ...- t The a.in reaIOnI now liven by the Miniltritl/Departmenll for not incorporatinr a provilion for laying of RegulatioDl in ActsfBlUaare

(i) The regulation. lU"e genet"ally framed by autonomoUi bodie. With regard to their internal working, and lU"e, therefore, not: of genet"al public interest ; and

(li) a provilion for their laying before Parliament would not be co_tent with the aUlonomoUi character of IUcb bodie.,

"1'beCommitl~ nOle lhatsirnilar argurnenll ware ,iYen by the Mini- Itry of Finance for not incorporating a prOVISion for laying of R.c:aruIation. fiamed ulJder the Slate Bank LaWi Amendment Bill, 1913. The Committee whicb had gone into the matter in deplh had 1I:eI. no force in these arguments, AI obeerved by the Commi- ttee in pvu 86-87 of their Secolad Report (Sixth Lok Sabha), the body which delegates the power hu • right to ICe that the power deJeptcd by it doesnottranagraa tbelimilSlaiddoWD by iI, whether the de1qate il the Central Govetnment or a body lubordinate toit Irnotvery material, Nor did the Committee lee any force in • :h~arwument that the layinl ofn-gulations relating to 811 autono· i moUl body before Parliament might impin~its autonomy of ~ result in day·to-day intetference \\lith its affairs, As obsaved by I me Committee even now the Committee on Subcrdinate Legis• • lation can, 8Ild do~ scrutinise the regulations framed by IUbor· di11ate bodies under delegated powers, Laying of IUch regulatiolll before Parliament would result in no more interfertnce in tlJe afliain of tlJe:ie bodies than their scrutiny by the Committee on liubordinate Legislation. So as not to leave any room for doubt, the Committee willliite to make it clear that their whole purpose in uIlinl Govenlment to lay the regulation. framed under deli· ,,'ed powers before Parliament i. to tnable Parliamtnt to see that the rqrulationl framed under IUch pow", are within the .imit. laid down by it and do not con tUn any unreasonable or inequitoul proviaion not inteuded by ParHament.

The Committee reitttate their earlkr r~onunendatjonson the subject &lid desire that like rules, regulations shOUld alSO be laid before Parliament and there mould be a provision to this df~t in the + relcv&llt statute., Likewise, there should invariably be a provi. VI .ion in the relevant statutes for publication ofregwations to be framed there under. With thi.end In view, the Coounit~desire the Minimies/DepartmentJ of Government of India to aamine all Acts delegating power to make regulations, with which they are administratiye1y concerned, ant! to incorporate suitable provi. lion. for publication and laying of·:egulationsin those Act. whiclt donotcontain such provisiON The Committee desire the Ministry of Law/Departmeut of Parl~entaryAffairs to _ue neaaaary inattuctiOIil to all Ministriea/ Departments of the GovemmCD t of India to thU effect.

16, SEVENTH REPORT The Committee ftWet to note that the Petroleum Rulerwhich were The Ministry of Industry (Departmenta (SIXTH LOK SABHA) published in draft form on 16-9-72 for inviting suggestion/object. Industrial Development) have noted the 38-40 ion. from the penons aft'e::ted thereby were finally published aftet recommen~alionfor future compliance • time-lag of about 4 yean. As concedal by the representative of uiJe their O.M. No. 23 (4}/78-MI .... the Ministry of Industry during the CO\Jl"lC of hi I evidence before the 19-7-1980 Committee, broMIly IpQkinl, lis to nin~monlhl pa MId Ibould normally be adequate for 1M publication of an,.draft rules. /u IUCh, !be dday o( lICIrly four ran in 1M final publication oflhe ruIa in this caM': _ in:r;~e. The Commillee cannot help apraIin, coneent at !he isical manlier in which !he malUIr bad beeu dealt with.

One ortbe _ndor delay in the finalisarion of the rules ia the Iarwe II umber ofltages through ,."hich me,;had to JIUI bd"ore thdr publication, The Commiuee feel that in auch cases rules may be finalieed at m«tingw of offi<'en of tile Ministrielf~tsCon- cerned, inllead of making fTequmt tiDlfXOn suming to and &0 reo ferenc:a and waitin, for tMir replies 10 be received in due coune, ~ Q)

n.e Committee note that in order toexpedile the publicaion of rules, the Ministry of IndUltry have decided that when draft ruIn are prepared and published for invitin, objtttiona, they would abo be Knt aimullauwualy to all the agencies inatead of.ellding them to one agency at a time.o that the comments of an concerned are available at the same lirru-, Like-wile, in order that the final publication of the rules ia not ddaynt on accoun I of delay in receipt ofHindi tranalation from the Official Lansuage Commiuion. the Committee desire that, in CaR of voluminou. rules. lnlteaci of lending the entire rules at a time, the Miniltrieal Deaprtments may send them in bat~. The Committee hope that aU these Ilepl wiD go a long way in reducing delays In Inalitutlon of rules. The Committee trUit that the Mini_ry 01 Indultry wiD bencd"orth take care to lee that such c:aIeI of inordl- ute delays do Dot recur......

II,

all

been

Noti-

under their

dated,

Part

Instruc-

Admini-

ri-u

...

viu

have

is,ul'd

Government

Recruitment

India

and

e/ir.ct

the of

1976

publi.h

since

,6-Eltt(RR)

113-5-lgSl.

ute.,

Consolidated

Personn,,1

d~ired have posts/seMc..S

Gaz"tte

framing

... or

6/51tqfh

th"

dated,

1979.

set form~

14017/114

in tn ..

various

dt.

3(i)

493

for

regarding

Petroleum

May,

D..-partmr.nt India

Mation

GSR

8trative ammded

Section

tions

The Ministries/Department, of

Rules

O.M.No.

The

are

in i.

I, and

the

the lfare any

.. reply

being 15(1), '['his case

avoid

Dire-

of expre-

at invite

Mini- Other

to W

a date

that

persons,

•

Commi-

the O.M.No

to Recruit-

d.-Iavq

delays

regularity

the

Rukt

conditions.

retrospective Hindi regularity

vague

mattn The

quantity'

circular,

by case. the

Social

with

so plira

such draft

legi.lation) from or

(Amendment) Administrative

Administrative

the

from

circular in the

the

wiJllike

for

different this and given

the

large

U!e

reducing amend

and amend~nu

!i~iftcan~ 1976

issued

the

Central

on the

by be nni:.1tllion..

paint tnerein.

•. satisfied

prevalent for

orrndustrv(Depart~nt

to abl}' to month

!!peciry

the

discuss

ran~in!r

circumstances

1967 return reasons

ntly

feel

that, with to

to ..

Rule IItm~

the

pos~ibte,

had

of subordinate

ml'ntioned

Recruitment

Education taken

Committee

proposed

Personnel

lay'!

main

i~ of .. propolled intervals'

differ of

Ministr}( be

case special

d ~ithin

the According

the

it them

far rules

'unrea!!On

August,

treat{

posts

the

to powble

of ordinarily

the

requested

have

be knowing of

Petroleum Jlh

Committee

the IV

issue or,

all

in satisfaction I

not

(including

be 'regular

will

Ministry

to inter-Departmental

and, the Rules.

scrutiny/diseuwons, the

one

the

after

that

c1ass

interpreted

in the

will should it

of comments

with connection

inordinate measures

(Depertment

for

Cnmmit~r,

that

Affairs

Ministry

and

.. only this

that

Committee,

time expr"wonslike 115(1), result

dated

thdr

thl" note

Education) Ministry

precision

172(4) legislatinn

time

may

Development) not

III

finalisation

ortheMinistries/Depart~nts of 'frequent' Affairs the

the

that

!try

the long

Rule

with

equipment Rt'CJ'Uitment

vague

deprernte

and reprding by with

the ofHo~

conceded

Class which

g6 Mini

the up 1974.

Home

date.

out

rules

npinlon

desire

U!lt'

unduly

b.-en

Committee attention

Industrial

the

avoided.

determinable

Committee

the

regard

years is taken

provi~nn!'of ape\! of aions. the 're&50nable' ttee go(6), early

of which

Report,with

effect. finalising is the Ministrv Rules, 2G-3-67-Estt(D) the stry Reforms) reference (Department has ment require ctorate Ministry/Department

The In

Committef'

The

SABHA)

REPORT

SABHA)

LOK

50-5 REPORT

LOK

57--60

SEVENTH

(SIXTH

I,.

SF.VENTH

(SIX'MI

Ill. (.) (-> (,) (f>

wile. aArr tile period oroac month.. that Minittry/ Deparlllllellt can ptUIIIIC COIICW'teO« of Home Ministry and procrecl rwtber. A. reprds COIUUltaliOll with tbe Uilion Public ~",/eeCol1lmi_ion. &1baa bella Iud diJwft tbat ordinarily they will COf)\'ey their adrice witlaia four Olive week&. It bas been rlUtb~rlaid down that if the ComnIiaioa" advice _ the draft ra;ruitnlent rules is not received witbill tbiI period tbe Aclnainillrative MinlatrylDepartJJleft' should IeWe the naatfft by penooa1 diJcuni_ with the oSCCI' collClenled in the Comm;'ion. . '!be Comraitl«!e baY~a redin! that the Minirtries{Departme"ts aft Dot unctly follow ins the JX"OC"durelaid down by the Department ofPen')'1nel."d Admhittratlve Reforms in Appendix VI. They t, ~re all the Minittrie.!D~partmenlsto streamline tbeir exi.tine procedure for /initiation of RecruillllCnt Rules in accordance with tbe inltnac<.ionl contained in the above circular. In partI. cular. IlreSI may be laid on letdemrnt of matten by mutual dileUllion at meet/nes of oIIicen of different Miniltriel concerued with tbe 6naliauon oIRuJea.

fte Committee note tut the Department ofPertonnel and Admin/- Rrative Reforms have prepared a detailed note conJOlidating aI.the instructiODI and Itnlamlioinl the procedure in reprd to framing of recruitment rules, which hu been sent to the U:l>.S.C. for concurrence. The Committee desire the Department to ilme the note at an early date and imprea upon all th~MinistrielJ Departments to strictly follow the Instructions contained therei" 10 that delays in finalisation ofrul~sare reduced to the baretl JQinimum if nol eliminated altClFther. \o;;l "'"

" .

•

ill

No.

and

have

428"

and

future"

J9711

Board

ruJeI

service 1978)

SJ2-E

(Amend

view DefCllce

Board

dated in

Industry (General O.M. preseat.

in of Provident

Petroleum)

the

Rule.

other

(G.S.R.

India

GoverlJrnent the

of Oil

conditiolJl Chemicall of

Rules,

Attendance)

Condition.

kept

(G.S.R.

Committee

iuued

following

Afl'airl

397-E

7(1)I'fJ-F'm.

No for

the

31-A

1978

the the Employee.

P(VS-II)

service

Development

19711 Dcvelopment No. as

made

Home

Developmeut

will Service) &.

Board apply.

FuodameJatal

(General (Medical 1976

~curily

Petroleum, (G.S.R.

of (Contributory Rules be

Board

rule

Rules. other

framed

(Department

of O.M. the

the to and

Rules,

shall 1978

1978).

Ind'Ptry

Rules,

Tndustry

that

of JndlDtry 197'.

Internal

lince

1978).

3-12-''>79). Bbted

Miniltry

luch

oblenatlon

Service)

Employ~ Employ"".

Ministry

.taff

Fund) of

required

Oil Employees rep.rd

Rules, India

Oil

1I/21019/2/78-S

ruIea:

May,

vuu Fertili%en

ment) and have

calle

been

tbo dated

provide

Supplementary of J)eye~t CondihODl (Ministry'l

(2) n.

are

The (I)

(3)

With

in for

to the in-

the ex-

this

•

time-

to quest- there-

time

that

rulelof

Srcurity

already

Comm-

number

convinced

am~dm"nt

from

Miniltry

preferable

have

invariablv

tbe framing

desire an ruin

latest

not

service waiver

Interaal a~

1978.

authorised

the

Committee 1975

are Committee.

place.

proclaimed

their

.hould

aad

that for

service

the

Rny

The In

ofissuing general however. framing

small, who

June,

the

th.,se

Petroleum have too

for

from

Defen~

Committee is that

Ministry request of

tllll30tbJune. 25th

officer

Board. time-limit

question

time

the

Emergeac\ea Bought

b)'

future.

the

The

person

the

the stabilised.

the

the of

su~ted

Committee. the

desire

pre8Cnt of

the

has

have to

latett Ministry

and at

The and

lines

31-A

rules.

rank

both

the

iuued

the

Development

lherefOl'f! waiver

extension

rule removing

1971 rules

Board

ad"anced

th~

are

accede

that

arise.

on of

Ministry

and

fannulated the

ltaffstrength

(3)

aot not

Dote note

rul.s

the

general

minimum be of seeking

Industry

power

Rub

the framing

argument

the

doe. of

the

.uch

revoked.

December, for hoen

till

Oil

should

the sub-rule India

been 3rd of

Itage cue ion the unication. srant ercilC by wait above-mentioned emplo~s fore. time Committee limit

dicate Committee

The

111

Sabha)

Rcpart

R."port

Sabha)

Lok

Loll

Seventh

(Seventh

(Sixth

19.

20. ~

of ..

the

all

the

the-

that

No.

made

hav

such

in haft

dealt

dated

proce_ in

that

Ilgaiut

Employ-

nable

laYing

out

Iaple£ Transport

particular

numbered. rule

future

Minl,try

9-10-1979.

O.M.

1980.

for

Ministry will

guard

administrative

such

in inserted

and

would to

Committee

vid,

of regretted carried

t:ftry

to Committee

)/75-MD

this

dated

The

Parliament

lICrially

that on the (4)

numbering

been 9

Welfare year

the avoid

administrative

bave

occur

to III

providing

and are

to due of

dment.

file

bas (Regulation

10-10-1979).

Shipping

evolved

MSD(61 in

before

No. fUlure.

ensure

....

carried

not

was Family SA

to that

Wing) 1948

year arn

rt'g8rding

suitable

Act

rule single and been

!7!J-Estl.

ezplained

NOs.

and

Scheme

tbat

Act, the

has

noted

Worke"

laprs in

stated 979

not

Section

1 oblCl"YatiollJ

Ministry

1101

.uch amendmenu (O.M. amendment (Tra!llpOrt statutory been lapse. auo ~ticu1ar was with

dure t- H-

omillioo

ensure omi~uons He:.Ith

AmeDdment

under

menl)

new

every

The Dock

The

the

for

from

that 'nle

out,

title, to

have

tnrir

lauer

tbe Corwn- date.

Rules,

pointed

then: as

Family

conoem

't')76'

in~ting

purpolM

and

Shipping

(h~ the

Minutry

recurrence

short issued

~!Ons

desire

back

deiire

Wmg)

of public. early

...r for

painted for nt)

Shipping (Dep.1rtment being

:\men

the recommenda-

a~nd

its

with ..

IH8 tbe

the

far

framru

also

the

0:" in

title

to on

'Rule'

I,. title

avoid

error as

.\ct

reiterated

't')77'

or no

numbered

to desire

read

being

Wdfare

(&cond the

short

(Transport

~OI'.

and (Amendm

to that,

IIrWUee

Sch~m'- pu~ Department

agreed

Committ~

on Ministry

Commiu~

th~ its

t;,

'Order' Cnmmiuce'.

serially 562

the th~

location

~ulJltitute

recommendation

amrndmrnt in

Family

the

tbe

h"wcv~,

ba.-e

that

r~ctifird be

The

Sahna) to the

for

(3) any

funploymt"1lll (G~nC'f.lI) tb"

Committee

procedure

tbe

easy

Tran~t Laying

tbat to and ;n

G.S.R.

of recommendation

satisfaction

!!bawn

have

LoIt

amrnding

Recruitm"nI '"

with

The

Wing)

and

should and

amendr.d

them.

this

eltpiain

notice

with under

th.-rein

Health

Reports.

Cummit~ sati,faction

legislatioD (Fir.t

suitable

1';)77)

year

('..ornmill~

numbrr

since

with

furture.

Ministry

ry a

due "f

should made

satisiaction

R,.arl"n)

amendment.

Shipping with note

(Rrgulation rclcrence

compl~'ing The in

...

the

(Tra!UpOrt corrigendum

Fund devil("

ParliameDt.

9'35 01

~rial

Report

take

have

bad

publish~ a with

not

nece

provi.ion

not note comply

to to leU

Ministry

number

(Proof

.ubwquent

Iapeet time

1977.

before

Dote

Workers

Nrd

and

iJIued

the have that 'G.<;.R. wlK-reas

brin.

relevant

Ministry .....

tapir.

Committee Health)

convenient ilia

UDder

malte Dock

lbdr Winlatry out, Committee RWe., time several Ibr.y relevant [)ev.o,lopment the the 01 that doQl of lbe itlcc Miaist,., aodfiatlon ., anee 1976

Welf

andTraasport

Commi~

1'be

Committee

Tbc

1'bc

(I)

121

bha)

Ileport)

Sabba)

Repert

SabIIa)

Report

1;ok

16-18

....

Lok

tkenlh

IeYealb

(1'!Ur (8ialb

Thlrteath

(SiJdb

lIS II

21. .. iu short die 111MG.S.R. !l91 published in the Guett. or India dated the !lSth February, 1978. •

The Committee, however, cannot help expressing their IUrprill that the Department of Health were not aware of the printing error in the ruks till it waa brought to their notice by the Com- mittee. The Committ~have repeatedly ~mphasiJedthat as IOOIl IU the rules are published in the Gazette, the Ministries/ Departments concerned should take immediate steps to examine them whether they have been correctly printed and if nccetSary, to Wue corrigcndwn thereto SUO molo without waiting for the Committee to point it out. The Committee desire the Ministrv to be careful in future in this regard and devise suitable procedure to ensure that IUch miatakcI are not repeated.

The Committee are not convinced with the explanation given by The observatiolU or the Committee have .. Tblrt.ecnth Report Con (Sbtb Lok Sabba) the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of been noted to msure that in future IUch ... 111-41 Health) for not appending the e:

The Committee further omcrve that in many ca!CI the UIUal plea taken by the MinistrieJ/Depar1IDCDts concerned in sucIa • mattrn is 'oversight' or 'inadvertent omission' etc. The Com- mittee note whh surprise that inspite of repeated recommendations of the Committee which were brought to the notice or all Ministries/Departments from time to time by the Depart- 2 3 4

__ 01 Parliamenwy A6ain or the Co-ordiaetiacWiDiIbis, the MiailtridlDeparfmmII CIIOCftDrd do DO( c::ue to tUe adeq~ Il~ to mture apimt ~ 01 such lapees. The Commiltee desire !he De~1 of Parliamentary Main to lxinlihe ot.crvaliolu of' t~ CommiUff 10 th~notia 01 all ~Drpartmenu 01 GoYemment i~1 upoa them 0ftCIe apiJl the n~ 01 takint adequale It~ps10 thaI lUcia "pia do DOt rccun.

II Thlrteentb ~ The Committee arr not cOIlyinced with Ihe explanalion rivea by ~ Ministry of Health and Family Wei· (Sixtb W Sbha) tbe Minittry of Health IUId Family WelCare (Department of fare have noled th~recommendalion~1 26-11 Health) for delay in the i_ of amendmenl to the C!!Jltral obwervationa of the Committee for com· Health Service Rules a. a result of which there WIll a ti~lal plianee in furture ~ their O.M. No. of over II yean between the date of publication of the amend- ]OOll/]/78oCHS. v. dated 29-]2·]980. ii ment and tbe date from which thr rule. 10 amendeed have The Department of Parliamentary AftldQ been sivrn relrMpec:ti~-eeflttt. The Committee arc deeply haye allO cilTUlated the recommendationsl di.lrcstr.d to note that an unduly long lime for four yean was observations of the Committee to aU taken by the Mini.h)· in finalisinR the aJ1l("n~ntin ronl\ll- MinilfTiCl/Drpartmrntsfor aYoiding delays lation wlth the Union Public S"n"ic .. Commission, Mini.try in the finaliution of Rec:uritment of Law and the Department of Peno[lnel. The Committee note Rul" .. ilk their O.M. III•. F. 32(14) lhat even after final i!at ion. th.. issue of amendment wu /78RI:C dated 24-1·1979. further linked by the Mini.try with th~proposal for restructuring of the Central Health Service on the ba.is of recommendation. of the Third Pay Commwion cllIUing more deJay in notifyin, the amcn~nt. The amendment was subaeQueotly deliDked in 1977 frf)lll the reorganisation .f the Central Health Service and i_d in October. 19n. Thh reRecta a causal approach to the iSlUe on the part of the Ministry particularly in view of the Couunillec'. r.arlirr rccommr.ndallonl made in paras sa and 59 or their Seventh Rc.(!Ol"t (Sixth Lok Sabha) in which attention or the Minittril'S/lkpartmentK or the Govcrommt of India had been drawn to the procedure laid down by the Mini.try or Home Affain in their Circular lettn 1110.']J)/3/67- Bitt. (D) dated the 11th AuIJUSl. 1967 to avoid ddays in finali· ,.... ~ R.ecruitment Rules. The Committee desire that the aforel&id recommendations be brought to th" notice of .n Miniatric./Departments once apin by the Department of Parliamentary Affairs.

The Committee feel that there was no reason for wit holding the issue 0( Notification pending restructuring of the Central Health &ervice which had resulted in an avoidable delay of 3 year. without any adequate grounds. The Committee .treu that once a set of amendments to any rules are final bed. they .hould immediately be notified and not held over on the ground that some other impending amendments are under consideration at that time.

,. n,irteenth R"port The Committee note with satisfaction that. on ~ing point.. d The Rule. have since bee. smenck. IUlt- (Sixth Lok Sabha) out. the Ministry of Labour have agreed to amead Rule. 3(2) (a) ably by the Mini.try of Labour piG 31-31 and 4(2}(a) of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Rule •• G.S.R. No. 14SS, dated 2-12-1978. 1976 to provide that a member of a District or Sub-Divisional Vigilance Committee may resign his office by giving notification in writing of not less than 30 days to the authority which no- minated him and he shall be deemed to have vacated hi. (,Qu. office either on the date of acceptance of his resignation or on the expiry of the period of notice which~-eris earlier.

The Committee desire the Ministry to issue the propoeed 4lmend- ment to the rules at an early date.

27. Thirteenth Report The C:lmmittee note that in term! of sub-rule (4) of the revised The Indian Telesraph Rule., 19S1, have (Sixth Lok Sabha) rule 416 of the Indian T~\egraphR.ules. 19SI, the Telegraph since been amended luitablr pith G.S.R. 39-42 Authority is empowered to refuse an application for or with- 132 dated 26-1-1980. draw an existing telephone or similar service, without notice, from persons engaged in smuggling activity or acting in violatioft of any law relating to conservation of foreign exhange resource. or acting prejudicially to public safety and interest etc. In such ClUeS, the persons concerned arr informed in writing within seven ~:I.YSof t~e action taken together with r~ns therefor. In thIS COnnection the Committee also note the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Hukam Chand Versus Union of India (AIR 1976 SC 789) wherein dealing with rule 422 of the Indian 2 3 " Te"pb Rub which alJo empown- the Divisional Enginccr to dUcoooect the telephone connections of any subscriber in the event of =~ncy with or without noti«. the Supreme Court had ;."., -., ot-rved that minimal safeguard apinat arbitrary exerci~of this drastic power under the rule is that the Divisional Engineer should be ~uiredto record reaIons in writing in regard to lUI satisfaction for taking action which requirement i. implicit in the rule.

On the analogy of the aboo.·e rulin~the Ministry of Communi- cations were ~kedto amend Rule 416 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 19S1 so as to provide for recording of reasons in writing by the Telegraph Authrority before taking any action under lUb-ruk (4) thereof. AI a further safeguard against arbitrary !PC of power provision in the rules for affording an opportunity of making a suitable presentation b)· a subscriber who had ~ beco deprived of a telephone or similar service after he had heeD intimated the reason for the action taken against him. The Mini.try, however, have not sent any reply 10 far to this point.

The Committee take ,.,rioUl note of the fact that the Ministry of Communications had not furnished any reply to the communication sent to them by the Committee for eliciting further information irupitc of reminders sent to them on 2nd May and 3rd August, 1978. The Committee impresa upon the Miniltry to be prompt in furnishing information IOught by the Committee. In case the Ministry was not able to fur- niah the information aaked for by the .tipulat~date, they ibould haw asked for extension of time from the Committe. giving tbe reasons for doing 10.

The Committee now desire that the Ministry should issue IUIlCIldmenU to the Order without any delay on the linetl IlJlFlted by them in paras 39--40 above. The recommendatiolll/oblervationa of the Committee contained in paras 79-80 have been carefully Dotcd for compliance in •future . 118. Thirteenth Report (Sixth Lok The Committ~are not satisfied with the reply of the Ministry of The r~ommendations/observation.of the labha) 7g-80 Civil Supplies and Cooperation for not implementing the re- Committee made in para 53 of Twentieth eorwnendalion of the Committee made ill para 53 of their fwen- Report (Fifth Lok Sabha) were duly tieth Report (Fifth Lok Sabha) which ,vas presented to the kept in view while framing the Standards House on the 3rd :-Iovember 1976, that the question of amcnd- of W ..ightl and Measures (Packaged ing thC' Packaged Committees (Regulation) Order, 1975 could Commodities) Rules, 1977. These Rule. not be undertaken in time because of SvlDe admini~trativerea- Were issued in replacement ofthe Packag- "

29, Fourteenth Report The Committee note that a replv to their communication dated the The Department of Parliamentary Main (Sixth Lok Sabha) 18 and 45 ~ IS th April, 1976 was received "from the Ministry of Railways after have brought the recommf'ndations/o~ a period of more than two years on the 24th June, 1978, The lIC'Vations of the Committee to the notice Committee deprecate the inordinate delay on the part of the of all Ministrio/Departrnents of the e,) <,) (3) (.)

~(jni.1ryin eer.ding I~ircomm""'IO tht' poir.1I rtrrITrd 10 thrm Go\'m n1t'nt (If hdia f(lf Fuifill' rt' A. d by rhr Conunilt~.The Committee UPf'C1 the' Minillrin/Ik- slriC'1 C'ompliaJ1C't' lid, Iht'ir O.M. 1\0. partmenll to br prompt in a"",ding 10 the comm\Jllicationl sen t F. 32(1.5)/i8-P&T dat('d 14-2-1979, to them by a ParliamC'1ltary Committee.1

The Committee recommend that the Minimio/Departmenll ck- v;.e .arne procedure 10 thallhe recomm",dationl orthe Commi. ttee are IIr.ctIy complied with and nOlloJllighl of while laying the amending oroen on the Table ofLok Sabha,. •

JO Fourteenlh Report The Committee note with "Iiaraclion Ihat, on bt'ir.f.! poiJ,trd out, RulC'1I " II., 1>,""i Milk Srhrnlt' Dlliry (Sixth Lok Sabh.) 22 the Miniltry of ~icultureand Irrigalion (Ikparlmml of Agri- F.. gil" I'i, f1 IInlJ (It (CJaF~]]1ar d . Clasa (.II en culture) hue dce.ded to delete the repealing provision of rule 8 IV Pll!IS) RC'truiln't'J' I Rulr~,1975 hu of tbe IkIhi Milk Schemt' Dairy Engil!NTing Brar.C'h (Ct_ III since b<'en omillrd Ai, G.S.R. No, 14 of and Ct-IV POllS) Rf'CI'uitrnf'nt Ruin, 1975 u it was unne«s- 1979, aary. The Committee desire the Mir.islry 10 illUe the neceaaary anaendment at an early date.J

31 Fourteenlh Report (Sixtb Lok The CO'1lmittee note the' reply of Ihe Ministry of Finance (Depart- (i) The DepartlDent of ParUamentary Sabha) +9-50 mcnt of Expenditure) for nol being able to pllblim simultaneoU51y Affair! have brought to the notice o( the EncUsh and Hindi v~rsionsof Ihe Central Civil Servlcea (Re- all Ministrie./Departments of the Go- vised Pay) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1975. The Committee, vernment of India the recommendt,. however. recommend thaI in case! wh('re dIM! to urgt'ncy. Eng- lion of the Committee for guidanee lith venion of a notification containing R lIles is fir~tpliblithed, and strict compliance 'ith their O.M. a foot-note should bt" given 10 the notification Ihat its Hindi ver- No. 32(15)/73-R&:C dated 14-2-'979. lion wiD be publuh~dlater on, ancl, when the Hindi version iI (ii) Th .. Ministry of Finance (Department pubUshed subsequently, an indication should be given therein of Eltpenditure) hllve noted the re- reprdin, Ihe previou.. publication of its English venion also commendation of the Committee for DlCntionin, therein the Notification No. and the date of tbe compliance In future pjif O.M. N •• Gazette in order to facilitate easy referencing. 1119-EI79 dated 26-4-1979. The Committee would like the ~partmentof Parliamen~ Affairs to bring the above re(ommendation of the Committee to the notice of all Mini.!tries/~partment!of the Governmrnt of India for Itrict compliance in future. !II Fourteenth Jteport (Sixth Lok The Committee are lurprised to note that the 'Orders' indicated in (i) Ministry ollndUitry (DepartmeRt orln- Sabha) ~6-6e the Appendix IV had not been laid on the Table of the House dustrial Development) have noted until the lapoe was brought to the notice oCthe Ministries eoncern- the recommendations/o~rvationa ~ by the Commitl~.'I1le Committee fffi that had they not oC the Committee for future compli- pointed out, the Mi.lhtrie! might have failed to co:nply with the ance. The Ministry are also main- statutory requirement of laying them on the Table of the Houoe taining the neceaaary Register regard- and consequently Members of Parliament would have been de- ing notifications isaued under various prived of their statutory right of sug~e~tingmodifications to those Act! etc. as d~siredby the Committee Orden, Tbe Committee cannot but take a serious view of this (O.M. No. 18(S2}/P&tC/74-PP&tC lapae on tbe part of the Ministries con~ned. dated 31-5-lgSo). The Ulual plea of 'inadvertance' and 'administrative· oversight (ii) Ministry of Agriculture and lrtiga- taken by the Ministries of Shipping and Transp',rt (Transport tion (Department of Rural Develop- Wing) and Agriculture and Irrigation (Department of Rural ment) have stated that a register j, Development) on their part for thi.lapse io not acceptable to the now being maintained for entering (.JI Conumttee. The Committee have already mad" recommenda- notifications iaued under varioul ...... tion in para 32 of their Ninth Report (Fifth Lok Sabha) preoe'lt- Acts and the statutory requirements ed to the House on the 19th November, 1973, that he Mininries/ to be fulfilled in regard thereto. The Departments should maintain a register for entering notifications Ministry have also reiterated that issued under various Acts and the statutory requirementl to be every effort will be made to ensure fulfilled in regard thereto. that no auch lapses occur in future . • (O.M. No. F. 16-26/73-AM dated 111-1-1979)· On the 18th December, 1973, the Department of Parliamen- (iii) Ministry of Commerce, CiviJ tary Affairs had brought the abo,'e recommendation of the Supplies and Commerce (Depart- ComJDittcc to the notice of all MinistriesIDepartment!. Subs- ment of Commerce) have .ince ~quentlythe Cabinet Secretary bad also addressed a D.O, issued necessay insttuctioDl to au to all Ministries of Guvernment laying down procedure to be concerned in the Department re- followed to facilitate timely compliance with the statutory sardina t.hl' procedure to be follow- requirements relating to subordinate legislation. ed to ensure timely compliance with the statutory requirements relatins The Committee express their deep anguish that inspite of ex- to subordinate legislation. (0. M. b~'!'tionsfrom time to time, such lapses on the part of Mi- No. H. I 10 I 3/u/78-Parl. dated nIStries/Department! continue to occur. The ComlWttee urges 9-1- 1979)· t~ Miniuri~Depart~tsto r~ t""ir ~lUsllngpr~ure for cbrcking tb~Ioophoks, if any, 10 tblt such ~psd do (iv) The Department or Parliamentary DOl new. Affairs have brought the recornl1lftl- dationsfobrrvations or th~Committee (paras :;g.60) to tbe notice of .11 Ministnet/Departments of the Go- v~ment of India for guidance and slrie! compUance .. Ibdr O.M. No. F. 32(15)f78-R. &: C dated 14-'-1979).

The Committee are altonub~dto not~ tb~ r~ply or thr Mi- nhtry 01 Commerce (Oflia: oIth .. ChW Cont~leror Imp'lrts and Elitports) in re~rd10 Newsprint Control (:\m~ndmenll Orda, 1,75 t1~1th,ey did not have a copy or the essential Commodities Act nor w~rethey aware or the rdevant pro- vWOIU or the Act. The Commilt~~lIt~ct the Ministri ... to be eqwp~d with athst the India Code. The Co- 't. mmit1ft' cannot but ~mphasisethat the Mini!try which issues an 'Order' i. primarily re1pon~bkfor laying It before Par- liament within t~ .tipula~~riod.

~3 ~~nth Rtport (Sinh The Comruilla- not~with 'lati.racli')R Ihat, on bdn~pointed (i) Ministry of Home Affairs (Depart- Loll Sabha) out, the Minislries oIlnformalion and Broadcasting and ment of Peronnel & Administrative 8 Home Affairs hwe i!loSued amendment. to the Laluhadweep Reforms) have since issued nece- Admini

Sf Se.mteenth RqIOrt (Sixth The Committee are inclined to accept the contention of the The Ministry of Works Be Housing (Direc- 1.01:Sabh.) Ministry of Works and HolHing that the amendm~ntunder torate of Estates) hav~sinc~ circulated 19"'20 reference ~ingof a clari6catory natur~,tile retruspective th~ r~commendation.'oh,(,,.'ations of effect to it had ~com~necessary to make Ih~Allotment of the Committee to all Offi(wl and aec- Government Rl!Sidences (General Pool in Ddlli) s.,cond tions of tile Directorate and also to Amendment Rules, 19']6, con,istent with the earlier orders all attached and lubordinate officel of Th~ Committee, therefore, agrtt' not to in\i,t upo:t the Mi- th" Ministry for th~ircompliance in nislry to amend the E"planatory Memorandum appended to future vide their O. M. No. 12038(7)1 the Rules for th .. aftIrm:\lion that no one would be adverse. 79·Pol. II, dated 7'5-1979. Iy affected as a result of retrospective ~ffectgiven to the aid Rules. The Committee note the assurance given by the Ministry that Ie"" the recommendation of the Committee made in para 10 of their second Report (Fourth Lok Sabha) in this regard would be complied with in future.

35 ~teenthReport The Committee consider it a clear Ca!e of negligence and lack Govemmen t have noted the recommenda- (Sixth Lok Sabha), of care or the part of the Ministry of Energy (IXpa11ment tions olth., Committee for future guid- 39-41 of Coal), Had it not been brought to the notice of the ance (Departm"llt of Coal O.M. No, Ministry, the statutory obligation of laying the Order on the S4016/JOI8C-CPD dated 2·S-1980), Table of the Ho~ would not have, perhaps, been complied with. The Committee are surprited to know that the Ministry was "ot even aware of the requirements of the statute under which they had issued the amendment to the Colliery Control Order. 1945,

The Committee also note that even after the lapse had been brought to their notice it t.ook the Millistry morc than a yrar ~oI~y t~e Order on th~Table of Lok Sabha without much JustIficatIOn, The Committee cannot but deprecate such a casual approach on the part of the MiJ,j~tryand expect them to be careful in furture of such Ca!eS. (I) (2) (3) (4) ------,.. tqpIfdI ~ giving of ahon title to the RulQ, the Commillee note thaI, on "eillg poinltd OUI, the MiniJtty ha"e linn' done 10.

36 Ellhtftatb IlqIon The Commillee are of the opillion that Ihe Miltillr,' of Hrallh The Miniltl)· of Health .... d FUllih ( iab Lok Sabba) ~d Family Welwe (Departmmt of Health) .ould have Welfare while noting the obeervatinm 9-11 been ~ fortbrilfht ."d tpecific in rrpl};ng to lhe Commil- rerommmdations of the Committee ful' ~'. inquirira. The Committee note that the Dru(ll, and future lUidanee h.\~a!attd that now a CownrtiCi (Fifth Amendment) Rule., 1977 wn'r ~ilhrd pn;od of 3 months from the date th .. in the <>-tIe on the 11th lItovnnbcr, 19n .... d the reply GurUle i. made avail.bl .. to the public of the Mi"i.try ,,·ilh regard 10 maILing availabl.. thr Gazell .. ia gilTn for their comlllrnta, The dat .. on c:opirato the public _ communicattd Oil the 29th July, 1978, which the copira of the Gu .. tte ue made i.e., after an irttrYal of ova eighl montht. "1M Committ .. e a"ailable to. thr public is allo bri. It are amazed to find that l"\Tn after IUch a long time, it had indicaJed in the plTamble of the Noli- nol beaJ ~bJe for the Min.try to ltate the exact datr on Ikation. (O.M. No. X.IIOI4/1/77- ~ which copira of the Gaztctt .. contaillin!! draft rulra were actually DltMS dated 8-8-1979,) IJ1IIdr available to the pub.ir, The Committee have Itrraed time and &pin that information baRd on JlIftUmptiona can- Dot be relied upon by thrm rlprCiaJly when the exact &rt. call eaaily be ucertaintd, 1"hr Committee deprecate the caauaI mU1ner of approach on the pan of the Ministry ill replying to their poitlh. 11ae Committee need hardly Area that reply of the Mioiltry .hould have httn apttific and perti- nent to the poinll raiJtd by them.

The Commiltn! are not convinc~with the pJna advItnced by the Mit,iatry that a departure waa made from the nonnal practice of givillg thirty dear daY' for inviting obj«tiooaJ &uggfttiona &om the public on the draft rulra .. they relatl"d to an amendmeut of urgent nature. Had th .. urgrncy brrn indeed a real o.,c It should not have taken them eight montha 10 publish the final rule. after the publication of draft n&l-. ...

ti.e the the

the

th.

alao

have

.uch

their

com-

daued to

future

or in

32(6)/79- nece<;Sary that

Irrigation fur

ror

nde

hue concerned

Commi.tee

Seclions

circulated

Parliaancr.lary

recurreru;t: circulalf'd No. all

II111lrt)

fOf

11013!7j79-P;·r~

lhe·

avoided 3(g)/79/D(Parl.),

a~"'r<'(l

and

future

haw:

Ministry

and

Ministry

M. avoir

}o'. Agrie

of of

in India 0

have

7-94/75/MIIA)

7-6-1979.

r"comm~da'ion

the

Ilio.

will

"Ihe

future.

i('«!Ilrparlmenls

not"d

OnKen

No. Agriclllturt· th"

Dd;'nc(" vidt

rccomm"Y'datioll

No. and

dated

istry

of V.O.

Ule

have

1-5-1979.

23-5-1979.

mi"i.tl

n.l\[.

Mir

Department

their

all

(Department

17-9-1979.

di\(T~ancy uiJk forwarded

guidance

nOI('d

di!Crepanries Circular

copcer-nuj the dated

•

recornmcndations/observati',ns Affain

Gov<,rnmc'lIt

Ministry

pliance, compliance R & C rrcommclldatio/ls Committee

dated

lIide

Mini~try The

(i)

(iii)

(ii)

in to by

for the

Lok

case

'Cir- time

duly

regu-

made

(Sec-

in Lrfott:'

which

could

Sabha)

•

No. seDt

Ground

given Gazette,

and

pllhlic

Miniatry/

Commiltee

have

and

Wt'Te

ifi.

rulet,

been

thnnsel\'t's

notification

was

the

compliance. Department

(Follr.h

the Lok r("Comanenda.

the Memorandum

therr",

. not

mentioned

dale O.M.

the

the in

(Department

of Affairs for had

rul,.,.

the have

Central

recommeMlatioll.i to

Pecruitment

th sight

earli.,. t~ir

Report

while

explanation

(Fourth finally

that

1974

!\irmoraadum the

draft

given the

Committee

lost

commf"l' sending

thi!,

df"ct

the

\·ide

published of thdr

he are

Fint

the Explanatory

.. Irrigation

note wa5 y

The

the

l:-y Services)

RI'p,,,

invariably

compliance,

nna\'oidable,

their

it MardI,

d..,tached responsibility it

P.i1li.mlt'ntar\' issue

th"

e"sur is tI"'ir

and

'B'

circulated

for

8houlcl

with

the got

n'itcrate

Expbnatory

of 1976. of the

!end

rrcommt>ndati"m

After 22nd to

when

should

&cnnd

and

who

dfcrt rt:'lrosp''Ctive of

contaillillg

but

time

the 28

that

con\'incrd

and

cea.'Ie

therefore,

unhappy

'A' after

rulcs

thilt

their

Rules,

"publishing

.hal out

not

public

'\<:rriculture

Affairs

gi/ing are of and thc

not

rule'S

para attention

Gazette

cannot

not even

fiilalised.

dated

printing.·

rules

10 lftopaltmellt

10 are

find Ministries/DepartmcnlS or

the

sufficient

(Group

and

due

for

retr05pective does

for

are drafl

tn avoidance

all the

th~ pointed

.. para that

pay

etc.

mad detected by

such

Board

Mi"istrics(Departrnents

translation in

P,-ess to

rul~ Amendment) Committee

)/69-R&C preamale

Ministry

Committrt'

again

I be

Parliamentary

all Committee

ConlTnittee

the

lion

the

Sabhal

study copi.,

avail"bc, Gazette.

the regarding wh('l'e lations, 32(

madt:' noted culated The of 10

failed

a100gwith

Agriculture) the

Hindi Water not

cond The and to Department

The

Sabha)

19-21

Rrport

l.ok

(Sixth

Eight~th

------

f (I) (I) (3) (.. )

it is tbe duty of the ~{inistry!Deparl~nlconcernro to ~-.rify whether thoe .ame baJ !x-en correclly prinlro and to issue cotrigendum thereto if n<"C~sSary.The Conunitl~regret that in the p~nt calC, the ~linislf}-ha\~publishl"d the E~tory ~{emorandumonly after the CommittCl" had p'Jlnted it out to thml. The Committee

38 Kich'eenth R.,p'lrl Th'! (!<')'Yl-nitt..,. find frtllll tho, "'I)l)' "f Ihe ~iillistryof Health Ministry or Health and Family Welfare (Sixth L-.k S dJ!l.l) and F.unily Wdlan: tll:l! th·' pi"" of urg<'llcy in public int("rl"St have noted ror compliance the ob.erva- 42 a' arn" out hy facts. According PFA dated 29-6-1979. In the '{ini.,ry', inel had ("'cided to amend P.'II'! +~of th,' Pr.,""nl ion or F'Kltl :\dultcrarinn Ru/t-s on Ihe 8th "\'JIfIHt, 1.977 irnrnrtlhtt·l),. Th,' COlllllliltee oh."·r\~Ihal th., draft rul .. ~ Wf'r.. p"bli.h,·d in the Gazelle on the 16th N"vr.mb.'f, 1977 i.r. ,,~tt'Ca p"riod or mon, than Ihn'" month' of the Cabin .. '" d,~i~inn.Th" COOlOli!!( ... (eet thaI had the ~iini.'rybt~na lilll .. Illor(' al,'rt and \·il{ilant and had talcrn immrdi;lte SIC(I~In implrllleni the Cabinet's d('chion. Ihe minimum required !>"riod of 30 daY" could haw easily b"'''n giv1'n 10 Ih,· puhlic tn "II,mit thdr sU~!:"slions/()bjeclilJns en the draft ruks. Till' Cllmlllill".. exhort th .. ~iinistryto ty, prompt and alert in hanJling such important matters in future. ~9 Ei"htceQth Rep~ Tit, 00111111;"".' 11"(' with s;llisfacti,,,, thai. OR hcing pointed The Ministry haYf' since issued oa (Sixth r.Jk ~"bba) Ollt, Iii" 'fnistr), 'Jf H"IIth nUll Family Wdr:lCC (Ilepart- amendment to Ihe Prevention of Food ~ .. , ment of H:'llth) have a~,..,edto notify the ,tandan!. of Ad.alteratinn RulcI,1955 as desired by 'llliity f)~('W ; 'W' ,·(,,,1 rap" ;"",1 oil throu~han amendment th" Committ(~vide G.S.R.. No. 710(1:;) to tn~Prev:ntion of Fo xi .\dultcration Rules, 1955. The dated 22-12-1980. C',",'n:!!"" ,1",irl' !h' Mini~!ryto is'It" the propo ...d aml'nd- m:ut to the ab:we J('u1cs at an early d .. te if not already done, • Ei~!lt"":Hh 40 R"port Th', C:'''11 n' tt,.~n')r~ with ntisr"el inn that Ihr: ;\f;ni~tryof The Ministry of Petroleum, Chemical. and (Sixth I.,k Sahh'l) P"tnhl!l1. Ch~m:-'alsand F":iiI;,':r, (D"IM-tment of Petro- FcrtililOCTS CJ)rparlmrnt of Petroluem) 59-61 1'''1'11' h:w" 3'l'rt,,'d to subititute suh-rul~(2) "r Rule :!4 of have issu.,d the neeenary amendment to the Oil I.ldu

"(2:\\ whil.: writirig of 10551''1 lInckr suh-rul" (2)' th" Boanl shall have regard to the tolhwing, namely:--

(i\ the loss dOl'S not disclose a d,'f~tin the rules;

Cii) th., loss doe, nut disclos(' an), d,.fr:rt in cf)mplying with the ,

(V) if the los. of any prop~rtyacquired by an oil industrial concern with the assistance of the Board i, due to fire, fltXKl. earthquake or any oth~rnatuml caust', it has I><,,,n cn~uredthat the facts where promp'ly reported, and pro,,-ed, to the ~ntir" satisfaction of the Board that the circumstances aforesaid wht'Te bevond the control of the said oi I i ndustrial conc~rn; (yi) if th.: loss is due to any expenditure on all or allY of the measures sp<-'Cified in section 6. a detailed investigation has been carried out by the Board to ascertain th~causes thereof and to <. TIre that not due to lack of DrOner ,pchnical 2 ) 4 ..._ ~ ______.. ,_____ ... __.... ____ ..._ ....._. __ ... ______..._ -_-.4 .....- -~-----.------~-.--- IUrW)' in a.uessing the t«hnical snundneu and viability of the mealure or any other lapse on the part of the oil induatrial concern executing luch measure. I'

The Committee approves the pcopoeed amendmellt and the l(\IiddinM and eII:sire the MiJliatry tu issue them at ao early date_

41 Twmty-6nt ~JnI't :\Ithough the CommHte.: apprW.!te tbe !w,g and strain whicb The Ministry of Finance (Department of (Sixlh Lok Sabba) thc Mini"ryof J'inllnce (Dc {Jarunent of Revenue) have to Rf'venue) have since ismed an Office 23- 24 u£ldergo in ofollowillg Ill' c."i..uug prOC('dure for laying '1<:u";- Order No. 3 dated 24-9-1980 to all tiv.:' nutific~tioa.befvrt· I>.lrliauwnt more s<. when such noti- oliicers and secliom ill the Department ficatioll! arc lent to the Preis for pulJlicatiun in the Gazette of Revenue in compliOlnce with the after 6- O() P. M. in addition 10 other. Parliamentary work suggr;tions IDOld,: by the Committee in :t ai aIm maintaining of utm'>st teet-ecy i. tbe matter y,:t the regard to laying of scnsitive and 1I0n- q UC"lIt;ollis more oC P4rlia rncnt.vy pr-operl y tha.n the adminis- sensitive notifications issued under the na,j\'c convellience of thc ~{ioistry. Customs and Central Excise Acts. (0. M. No. H. IIOtU/:.!/78-Parl. dated The Committ.. e fiOld it diflicult to accrpt th .. pica of the ~fini~lry27-9- t gBO). for two clear da)"i' ~racctime for supply of CydOSlylcd copie~of such nutific .• lion.< for circublio:1 to ~{(!mhers.1'<11: The gist of he in.tructiLlns issued by the C·)!nm.iuce are of the opinion that keeping in view Ihe time- ~lini'lryin this regard i$ as under ; launourcd a·ld wdl-cRajya Sabha sallie day befor!! the Houses adj'lurn S .. cr~iali It to elMblc their circulation to Members the Same For the day. F'ur Ihis Purpose as soon night alongwith o:her P.uliamclltary Papen. In this amm- ·as its decide,l II) lay the notification on Kt'm~:11III!' Minhtry w·.... I,l I{~tm!)re time to fumish the anv day, a rt:quc,t S tUul,1 l>c ~t:ntin ~ r<'qui;ite number of c()pic< of tbe notifications. Tne C.lm- wfi?ing to the Speaker. Lok SabIa and mittee ther"core. recomn~rhtthat in the Cal\! of tbe ':k;!Hitive' C,\ linnlll. H.ajf4 ')auf!a sceki'lg per- notifications !lent to the Pres, for publication after 6 P.M. mi •• ion to lay the notification br.f'ore two ropi4"' of notification with a 1.. \I,·r to the Speak~r,Lok 1I0,*~adjrHII n on that day. It t/vore S,)!>h" an,1 Chairman, Rajya Sabha may be !rut irnm"rliateiy i. any rliHiclllty in getting GSR numher inf,,.millg them of the Minister's int,,"tion to lay tl ..· notifica- the same clay, the: notification may be limls on Ih .. Table the following day amllhe remaining 2,;0 laid without th .. sam", Ih" GSR Hindi and 550 English copies may be "'lit to both the Secrt'- number bci.lg furnhhf'C1 later. tariats by mid-night !lame day for circulation to the Member. f,,. Ih"ir information beli,re it i. publi'hed in the Pr~ for If the notifle;)ti''" i. ""nt to the Press information of the general public and in oth .. r respects th,. for i~me'after 6'00 P.M. two copiC5 of proa-dure already approved by the Committ ..e in para. 5 to 9 of the notificalinn with a lettrr to the their Twenflh Report (Fifth Lok Sabha ) be followed. Speak"r and the Chairman ,hould be srnl immediately, !leCking pcrmi"ion to la)' the notifieati"n on the Table of both Hou'CS Wore th"y adjourn on the ne"t working day. Both the Scer .. tariat.s ,liQuid also simultaneoudy b" informed that 500 and 250 copies of Engli'\ V ..rsion and 250 and 100 cnpi .. , of Hindi Version resp"ctively will be ""nt to thrill by midnight the ""me eay (the day on which the notifi- 8' cation is publ:sJl~d)for circulation tQ the Members of both the House. for • their information t..-rore it is publi.hed in the Pres. (j.". neWt p'lpecs) for inrormation "f the general public. (In the categl>rv of scn~itivenotifica- tions will fall all notificatioM making chang~in ...xport duti"... majr~changMi in procedun'1 and chang~in import and Central t'ltCUe dllti(~involving revenue of more than R •. 50/- lakhcs per annum, ""cept ca,.,,,,where an existing conceL'lion is being contin ued).

In rega~dto other thall ."nslt ".... noti- ficti0J)8 (non-«r •• itive notifications) these .hould be laid on the Table of the two Houses within !leVel! day of (.) (I) (3) (4' ~------_. their publication in the Gazette aft" arranglltg to obtain the GSR number within that period.

,-\11 notifications (s",lith'e and 11011- sensitive) i.ued durillg the intet- st'SSion riod should he laid on the Table 0 both the HOUKS within ~~n days of the commenu.ment of the nat aeaion.

42. T_Iy-1na Report The Committ~ar.. unhappy 10 n"II' that Ih.. Ministry of~ 111(' Ministry of Dd'rnee have .inee (Sillth Loll Sabba) fence havr failni 10 ."aJi!l(' Ih~il1lp<)r1anc~ of incorporating' incorporated the layiug provision in layinll; provicion in th.. T'-rTilnrial Army Act. 1948. Th .. the Tnrilorial Army Act, 19<48. (viti, '2-'3 Committ~lind Ihat in!II'ad of cMn-inli! oul Ihe dirC'Clion Act No . .53 of IQSO). of the COmmitt .... uprtiili"u.ly, Ihr' \lini.try ha\'" givrn a ~ peOUllctOry reply thaI \Il1drrtaking of Irgi.lation by way of an amrndment to an rxi!tif'1l Act of Parliam"'t in\'olvn con.idtTable admini.lraliw alld proc«\ur.J work oolh in GovtTnnll"lIt and Ihe Parliament. TI", Commill"" oWn· .. that her.. the questioll it morr of proprirly Ihan of adminisl- trative conveni .."cr of the Ministrv. 11u' Committ~ further oiJJM"ve thaI the laying 1" Q,istion in th.. Acts COl I fen on Parlianu~nta righl 10 amend, lIlodifyor t'\· .. n annual the Orders frame in pwsance of the pOWIT dl"... gatcd under those Act. Non-incorporatioJl ofth .. laying provision in the Acll rr.ulb in denial of luch a righl 10 Parliament.

The Committee, thercfoN', desir .. th .. Minis.ry to bring forward neceaary amendm.. nt to the Territorial Army Act to incorporate therein the 'laying provision' at their earliat but in no cue than the Autumn Session, 1979.

t1. Twent,. Ii,.t R4"port (Sillth The Committee nllte with satisfaction Ihal on being poinled 0111. The Major Port of New Tuticorin Rule Lok Sa~h.)57.58 ok 61 the Mini.try of Shipping and Transport (Transport Wing) have 1977 have .ince been amended luitably alreed to provide for issue of a sh·)w cause notice to tbe license lI'U G.S.R. No. 7811 dated 11-7-'980. belore cancellation of a licence under! ub-rulc! (2) and (3) at Rule 62 of the Major Port 01 New Tuticorin Rule, "J77. The COllllUillet- have, however, accepted the !\linistry's contention that laying down a maximulU time·limit lor suspension of a liccnce is not drsirable.

The Committee note with satisfaction that, 011 Ix·ing poilltnl out, the M.inistry of Shipping aud Tralllipurt (Transport Wing) have agreed to amend rule 73(6) of the :-bjur l'urL of :\t:w Tuticoriu Rules, 1977 so a! to pro,-ide therein for recording of reasons in writing before any exemption i! granted. The Committee appron: the proposed .1mendment and desire tht" :-linistry to notify th .. same expeditiously. f4. Twenty· first Rt-port (Sixth Lolt The Commit te~depreeak the failure on the part of the- :'liniatry The Ruk-s in qUf'tison have.inee been amen- Sabha) 65-66 of Defence (Department of Defellc,: ProJuetion) looend penient ded to the tI",ir.. d effect vide S.R.O. No. reply to the specific issue raised by the ill inspi'~of repeated re- 3"5 dated 27-g-1978. minders. The Conlluittee have time and ag.un slres.scd that failure to furnish replies to the points raiS(;d by the Commillee not only hampers their work but also results in unnece&Sary prologa- lion of tht: infirmities in tilt: rules. The Committee now, however Q) desire the !\1inistry to issue the necessary amendment to the Ex- "'-l planatory :-lemorandum appended to the Civilians in Defence &nices (Revised) Sixth Ptmendment Rules, 1977 stating Ibat nobody would be adversely affected as a result of retrospective effect sivcn thereto, if not already done. Inspite of several reminders, the Ministry have not so far intimated whether the ncccs:w.ry amcr.dment to the Explanatory l'.lemorandum has since been issuec; in the Gazette or not. The Itrange part is that instead of taking the action as suggested, the Mini3try have along with their letter dated tbe 9th March, 1979, forwarded a copy of the corrigendum correcting a patient printing error in the Rules which has nothing to do with the point raised by the Committee.

45. Twenty-lint R~port(Sixth Lolt The Commiltee note that the Ministry of Commerce have set up an The Tobacco Board Rules, 1976 have since Sabha) 77,7 8 & 79 Expert Group on Tobacco on the 15th July, 1978 to examine in been amended luitably vide GSR 384(E) tlr alia the need for amending the Tobacco Board Act, 1975. dt. 20-6-1979. The Committee also note that the Expert Group has been :coked (.) (2) (3) (.. ) ------_ ...... - to submit thm R~ within a prriod of six monlhs. nle Com- miu« furthe- note Ihat the Ministry •.-anl a pmo(1 of 6 to 8 monlhs f.,.. introducing a comprrhrlluYe Hill 10 amrnd Ihe To- bacco Board Act aCre- rt:"cript oflb .. Report oftb .. Expert GrouP. and thai the amrndmt"flt fT'COmmendt-d by IhMYIwould 1)(" inror- por&trd in that Bill. From 1M rt:"ply of Ihe Minutry, Ihe Com- mittee find that Ihe Mini'lry may nol t.. able 10 intrtldutt Ihe BiU to &.IDend.1u- Tobacco Board Act bd"oreJuly-AugUl~1979. The Commillee furth ..r note that in a similar ca., n-gartling the Oil Indunry (lNv .. lopmenl) RuI.... 1975 Ih" Minislry of Prtro- wum and Chemical, had agrttd 10 am ...nu thne rull's by tI,·lrting th., ~uon ~rdingwaiving of recoveries and bad also isslled guidelines regarding writing off 10Sk5. •

I The Commillff, therefore. drsire the Mininry or Commerce either to g: amend Ihe Tobaeco Board Act, at the lalt"'lt by the Monsoon Selsion. t979. or;n the alternative. tIu- rules in quesuon might be ameodf,d on tlu-Ii,," M'the Oil rndtmry tDrvelopmem) RIlI,~, t975. to implement th ... recommendation of Ihe ('..ommill~.The Commillee also dMire Ih .. Ministry 10 lake necC"SSary aclion al their earlidl so Ihat the operation of Ihe impllnged ruk may not continue any more.

46 First Report (Seventh Lok The Commilll'e nole wilh sali.faclion Ihat, on b..ing pointed 0111, The Drpartnwnt of Personnel and Adminis· Saliba) 19 the Departmenl of Per!lonnr.l and Adminislratiw, Reform~hav .. 1r&lh'e Rd;lfIn~have amended the Rec- agreed 10 dele'e the word, "Ir J)O\I' from rule 5 of Ihe StafT Sdec- cruitmenl Rule, ,uitably viM G.S.R. 713 tion CommiNon (Group 'C' PO'll, of Statistical Assistant/Econo- dated 26-5-1979. mic Investigator) Recruilment Rules, 1978 regarding 'power 10 relax' in ordf,r 10 confine th .. rc'laxalion provision of rules to a cia. or category of prr'lOns. The Commillee desire th .. Ministry to iaue the necessary a~nd~nl 10 the above rules at an early date.

.,Fim Report (Seventh Lok The Commilll"t' note thai th .. MiniMry of Railways (Railway Roard) Mini~lryof Railway~ (Railway Board) have &/..ba) 31 have since published the Explanatory ~Iemorandllm10 the 7 rnol('d the recolnllu·ndatlon of th(' Com- Order mentioned at S. NIn. :I 107 and I~to 13 of Appendix Ill. mittee for Slrict compliance in future vi4t Regarding the remaining .. Orders at S. Nos. 8 to 1 I of'tbe Appen- O.M. No.80m:GR)I/15/1 dated,-B-lgBo dix III. the Committee, with reluctance, a~ inclined to accept the explanation of th.. Ministry that no purpose would be lerved in publishing the Explanatory Memorandum at this stage as the amendments involved are of minor character and as also the Ministry have certified that ~trospectiveeffect gh"n to the rules orden did not prejudicially affect tile right of a"',' penon. The • Committee, however, desire the Ministry to he c,,,,,ful in future in such matten. 48 Fint Report (Seventh Loll In view of the explanation furnished by the Departm,,!}t of Person- The Department of P"rsonnel and Admi- Sabba)S6 nel and Adminldrative Reforms regarding giving d'retrolpective nistrative Reforms (Ministry of Home effect to the 'Orders' framed by the Departm"nt under Artide Affairs) have noted the o~ervationof the '309 of the Constitution, the Committee reluctantly do not like Committee for compliance in future uide to insist on the publication of the E"planatorv Memorandum at O.M. No. 1/16/76-CS. 111 dated 119-5-lgS1 this belated stage. The Committee, however, desire the Depart- ment to Collow scrupulously their ,.:u1i..,r r~comm,.ndatir)nmade in para 10 of Second Report (Fourth Lok Sabha) in such cases in future. 49 Tbird Report (Seventh Loll Tbe Committee note witb satisfaction tbat, on being pointed out, Ministry of Finanr"" (Department of Re- Saliba) !Ia the Ministry of Finance (Department of Re"enue) have agre!:t\ to venue) have suitably amended the Bagga- amend the Baggage Rules. 1978 a.~sug~ted. Tb,. Committee ge RuIe5, 1978 uit/6 G.S.R. 716-E pub- $ would like the Ministry to issue the nec('S.ary amendments at an lished in Part lI, Section 3(i) of the early date, if not already done so. Ga~etteof India Extraordinary dated 116"2-1«.10. 50 Third Report (Seventh Lok The Committee note that the Ministry of Tourism and Ch'i1 Avia- The Rules have since bern amended suit- Sabba) 30 tion have agreed to specify a time-limit of 30 days or one month ably by the Ministry of Tourism and Civil within which the Chairman should accept the rcsignation"Or after Aviation v;.u G.S.R. No. 33(E) dated its expiry the resignation should he dcemed to ha\'e been accept- cz7-1-lgBl. ed. While concurring with the ~fillistry'sproposal for specifying the time-limit the Committee dl'Sire tilat the necusary amendment to tbe Air Corporation Rules, 1954 he issued at an early date. 51 Third Report (Seventh Lok The Committee approve the ame:ldment of sub-rule (cz) of rule 5 The Archaeological Survey of India (De- Sabha) !l7 &: 4f• of the Antiquities and Art Treasuns Ruks. 1978 as proposed by partment of Culture) have am .. nded the the Ministry of Education and Culture (Department of Culture- Rules suitably .uk G.S.R. No. ~6(E) Archaeologi~1SllIVey of India). The Committee desire the dated 1D-2-Igl!I •. Ministry to issue the amendment at an early date. The Committee approve the amendment as proposed by the Minis- try of Education and Culture (Dt-pt!. of Culture- Archaeological Survey of India), and desire the Ministry to issue it at an early date. MINUTES APPENDIX VI (Vide paragraph 4 or the Report) l\UNUTES OF THE THIRTEENTH SrrrIN(J OF THE COMMITTEE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (SEVENTH LOK SABHA) (1980-81) , The Committee met on Monday, the 5th January, 1981 from 11.30 to 13.35 hours. ~

PRESENT • Shri Mool Chand Daga-Chairman

MEMBERS 2. Shri M. Ankineedu 3. Shri Eduardo Faleiro 4. Shri Harish Kumar Gangawar 5. Shri K. Lakkappa 6. Shri T. N agartnam 7. Shri M. Ramanna Rai .8. Shri Ratansinh Hajda 9. Shri Ajit Pratap Singh SECRETARIAT 1. Shri S. D. Kaura-Senior Legislative Committee Officer 2. Shri S. S. Chawla-Senior Legislative.Committee. Officer 2 to 'J • • • • {v) Implementation of recommendation contained in para 45 01 the Sixteenth Report of Committee on Subordinate Legislation (Sixth Lok Sabha) re: The Seamen's Provident Furnl (Jimendment) Scheme, 1976 (G.S.R. 1233 of 1976)-(Memo- rondum, No. 42). . 8. The Committee. considered the above Memorandwn In depth ~and decided to hear evidence of the representatives of the Ministry of Shipping and Transport (Transport Wing) regarding retention ot proviso to paragraph 59(5) of the Seamen's Provident Fund Scheme, 1966. The Committee also desired to peruse "Articles of Agreement" -currently in vogue. I 9 to 16. • • • • .'~Ifed portioo. of the MiDulcl are 110' cx.vued by tl:e ·Report. 73 74 (ix) Implementation of recommendations contained in paras 95-96~ of the Ninth Report of the Committee on Subordinate Legis lation (Sixth Lok Sabh4) regarding the Indian RaiLway Stora Service Recruitment Rules, 1969 (G.8.R. 151 Of 1969)-(Memo- randum No. 46). .

17. The Committee considered the above Memorandum and decided to hear evidence of the representatives of the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) for not transforming the executive instnretions governing seniority of Class I officers of \'arious Indian Railway Services/Officers of the Medical and Miscellaneous Cate- gories on Statutory footing . • • • •

MINUTES OF THE FOURTEENTH SIITING OF THE COMMITI'EE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

(SEVENTH LOK SABRA)

(1980-81)

The Committee met on Tuesday, the 6th January, 1981 from 11.30' to 13.30 hours.

PnESENT

Shri Mool Chand Daga-Chainoon

MEMBERS

2. Shri Eduardo Faleiro 3. Shri Rarish Kumar Gangawar 4. Shri Jaipal Singh Kashyap 5. Shri M. Ramanna Rai 6. Shri Ratansinh Rajda 7. ShrJ Ajit Pratap Singh 8. ShrJ Chandra Shekhar Singh a. Shri Xavier Arakal

SECRETARIAT

1. SIiri S. D. Kaura-Senior Legislative Committee Officer 2. Shri S. S. Cbawla-Senior Legislative Committeeomcir

····Omitted portions of the Minutes are not covered by this: Report. 75 • • • • (i) Implementation of recommendation contained in para 65 of thr Twentieth Report of the Committee on Subordinate Legisl~ non (Sixth Lok Sabha) re: giving of retrospective effect tc>' the orders framed under various Acts of Parliament [(i) The NavaZ Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous (Amendment) Regulations, 1973 (S.R.O. 55 of 1973), (ii) The Territorial Army (Amendment) Rules, 1974 (G.S.R. 70 of 1974)] (Memorandum. No. 51).

3. The Committee considered the above Memorandum and noted that the Ministry of Defence had issued corrigendum vide S.R.O. 153 dated the 30th April, ]977 to the Territorial Army (Amendment) Rules, 1974, which took away its retrospective operation. -

4. As regards the Naval Cerem:>niai, Conditions o'l Service and Miscellaneous (Amendment) Regulat on~, 1973, the Committee felt that although the Ministry had re-notified the Amending Regulations to make them effective from the date of their publication, i.e. 28th September, 1979, the Government might have taken certain actions during the time of operation of the 1973 Regulations under the retrospective effect given to them which had no sanction of the law. The Committee, therefore, decided to hear evidei'l.c~ of the representatives of the Ministry of Defence in the matter. • • • • MINUTES OF THE SIXTEENTH SITTING OF THE CO:MMITI'EE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (SEVENTH LOK SABHA) (1980-81) The Committee met on Saturday, the 24th January, 1981 from 11.30 hours to 13.40 hours. PRESENT Shri Mool Chand Daga-Chairman MEMBERS 2. Shri T. V. Chandrashekharappa 3. Shri Eduardo Faleiro 4. Shri Jaipal Singh Kashyap 5. Shri K. Lakkappa 6. Shri T. Nagaratnam ····Omitted portions of the Minutes are not covered by this: Report. 7. Shri M. Ramanna Rai 8. Shei Chandra Sbekbai Singh 9. Shri Xavier Arakal 00'

REPRESENTATIvEs OF THE MImSTBY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BoARD) .1. Shri K. P. Jayaram, Member StKLf! & Ez-officio Secretary. 2. Shri C. Ramakrishna Rao, Legal Adviser.' 3. Shri Radbey Shayam, Deputy Secretary. 4. Shri M. C. Misra, Director, Security 5. Shri R. K. Kharbanda, Additional Director (Security). 6. Shri V. Ganesh, Joint Director• • • • • • SECRETARIAT 1. Shri Gian Ch::md-I\dditional Secretary 2. Shri S. D. Kaura-Senior. Legislative Committlee OfJicer 2 to 13. • • • • (iii) Implementation of Committee's recommendation contained in paras 95-96 Of their 9th Report (6th Lok Sabha) regarding the Indian Railway Stores Service Recruitment Rules, 1969 (G.s.R. 151 of 1969). . 14. The Committee desired to know the manner in which the seniority list of Class I Officers had been prepared and whether the principles of tl.xing senIority were being published as part of the rules. The representative of the Ministry stated that the principles governing the I>eniority list of Class-I Officers had been framed in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission and that they bad issued them to all their subordinate offices. 15. Reply;ng to the question of discretionary powers of the Gov- ernment in the matter, the representative stated that they had no discretionary powers as such. They had to determine the seniority on tbe basis of 11 principles that had been laid down. He further added that tbese were administrative instructions and that they were in elaboration of the statutory rules. 16. When asked whether these administrative instructions could not be put in the form of statutory rules, the representative stated that it could be done. He, however, explained that the Department of Pel'lOnnel was the parent Department which laid do~ ,the rules for all the Govemment Departments and that they acted in eo~tIl tation with them. He further clarifted that these principles' wb1di they bad laid down, bad been publisbed departmentaly and issued

- -Omitted portions cf the Minutes are not covered by this Report. 77 to their subordinate offices. As for giving them a statutory shape he requested. the Committee to call for the comments of the Depart- m~n~ of Personnel in the matter. To a specific query whether the . Ministry of Railways had any difficulty in giving them statutory ~ape, the representative categorically stated that they had no difficulty once it was decided by the Department of Personnel to do so.

17. When asked whether Government had any discretionary powers to change the seniority in special cases, the representative of the Ministry again denied this and said that perhaps the wording of their reply in that regard had led to some confusion. The representative corrected the reply to read as under:

"In cases not covered by the principles indicated in the Appen- dix to this letter, seniority of officers appointed to the services shall be governed by such orders as may be issued by the Government, in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, wherever necessary."

He also contended: "So, there is no question of taking arbitrary decisions. The factors that will be brought to our notice by individual officers will be taken into account, they will be referred to the other officers and then changes will come about. Whenever at any point of time the seniority position of some officers have to be changed, the affected officers are issued notices. stating that the Ministry has received certain representations from certain otftcers on. such and such lines, and they are requested to ftle their objections within a partieular period. " 18. The Committee then wanted to know whE:ther the Ministry of Railways had referred that matter to the Ministry of Home Affairs and if so, what was their reply. In that connection, the Committee desired to have copies of the reference made by the Ministry of Railways to the Ministry of Home Affairs and a reply of that Ministry within a period of 15 days to which the representative undertook to furnish.

19. The Committee, howeyer, desired to call the representative!! of the Ministry of Home also to hear their "lews in the matter. 20. When asked about the framing of seniority rules regarding officers of the Medical and Miscellaneous categories, the represen- 2335 LS-6. 78 tative stated that the same. ~p1es would apply. He further stated that with respect to certain categories of posts. as, to how! tltey would be determin.ed, they had supplemented that with a. cPIlUnwU- cation. (The witnesses then withdTew) The Committee then adjouTned.

MlNUTES OF THE TWENTIETH SI'lTING OF TltB' COMMITTEE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (SEVEl'(Tlt LOK SABHA) (1981-82) The Committee met on Monday, 29 June, 1981 from 11.00 to 13.00 hours. • PREsENT Shri Mool Chand Daga-Chairman

MEMBERS 2. Shri Xavier Arakal 3. Shri Ashfaq Husain 4. Shri T. V. Chandrashekharappa 5. Shri Eduardo Faleiro 6. Shri K. Lakkappa 7. Shri M. Ramanns Rai 8. Shri Ratansinh Rajda 9. Shri Ajit Prat.ap Singh 10. Shri Chand~a Shekhar Singh I. ReprLtentatwes of the Ministn} Of Henne AffaiTs (DepoTtment of Peraonnel and Administrative Reforma) 1. Shri A. C. Bandopadhyay-Secretary (Personnel). '2. Shri J. K. Sharma-Director.

II; Repre~t4tives of the MinistTy of Shippiag and Transport t. Sh'ri A. P. Padmanaban-Jomt SecT'etm'y 2. Shri S. N. Kakar-DirectoT 3. Shri K. Lal-Under Secretary

SllcltlmuuAT spn S. D. Kaura-Chief Legislative Committee Officer.<-.. 2; The Committee 8rst heard evidence of the representatives of the. Ministry of Home Mairs (Department of Personnel and Ad- ministrative Reforms) regarding the Indian Railway Stores Senit... Recruitment Rules. 1969 (G.s.a 151 of 1969). 79 3. On being asked whether the Rules were published in the Gazette of India after the approval of Department of Personnel and Administrative -nefol'm.<;, the representative of the Department stated that Ministry of Railw&ys and certain o.ther Orgarusations wt!te exempt from the purview of the Department of Personnel and Ad- mjnistrative Reforms. The Railway Department wen! Competent to frame their own Rules for Railway Services without consulting the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms.

4. When asked whether the above mentioned Rules ·'Were referred to them, the representative of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reform!> stated that in t979, the Ministry of :Railways madl! a reference to their Department and they tendered their advice to them and the Ministry of Railways acted according to their advice and amended their earlier instructions of 30 November, 1978 regarding principles of seniority vide their letter of 16 February, 1980.

5. In reply to a question whether the principles of determining seniority should be given statutory footing, the representative of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms stated that they had not given any advice to the Minist.ry of Railways on that iS6ue. They had only explained to them thf> posit'ion pertaining to the other Civil Services which were within theIr purview. He further explained that in the case of Rules of few Services like that I.AS./I.P.S., the relevant Service Rules contain the principles of determining seniority. He also stated that the general principles of seniority which they followed in Central "Services were laid down vide their circular letter dated 22 December, 1959 and those instructions had stood the test of time. Those instructions had also come up ·for judicial scrutiny before the Supreme Court.'nte U.P.S.C. had also accepted them.

8. When specifically asked wHether the administrative instructions regarding principles of seniority could be given statutory footing or not, the representative of the Department of Pel'sonnel and Administrative Reforms stated that it was not nece!sal'y· to gWe statutory force to these instructions. He further stated that it was not obligatory that everything must be covered under stAtutory Rules. The Courts had held that w!lere statutory Rules \Wte silent the executive instructions cOuld be issued and thoS'e instructions could be examined and scrutinised by the jutUcisry it anybody ehallenged them. '1. The representative of the Department of Personnel and Ad- ministrative Heforms wu asked to furnish a COpy each of tne 1011 ow- m~ documentt to the Commil.tee: (i) Reference made to U.P.S.C. by the JJepartment of Person- nel and Administrative Relorms regcU"ding prinClples lOr determining seniority and reply ,of U.il.S.c. thereto.

(ii) O.M. dated 22 December, 1959 laying down general principles for determining the seniority.

(ill) Supreme Court judgement relating to principles of leniorit)'.

[The TepTeSentatives of the Department of ~Tsonnel and Act.. ministTative Reforms then withdTew.] . '0. The Committee then heard evidence of the representatives of the Ministry of ShIpping and Transport regardmg implementation of 'recommendation contained in para 45 of the SlXleenth Heport of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation (Sixth Lok ::;abha) regarding the Seamen'. Provident Fund (Amendment) Scheme, 1976 lG.S.lt. 1233 of lV76).

9. When asked. whether the Ministry of Shipping and Transport would implement the recommendation of the Committee contained in paragraph 45 of Sixteenth Report (Sixth Lok Sabha) , the representative of the Ministry stated that they referred. the matter to the Board of Trustees which had been constituted to operate the Provident Fund for the Seamen. The Board had representatives of the employees, ship owners as well as of Seamen and pirector General of Shipping. The Board examined the recommendation of the Committee and suggested that the existing proviso to section 59(5) of the Scheme might continue as that was in the interest of lhe orderly working of this scheme and in the interest of the Seamen.' He further explained that all Seamen in the country were governed by the Seamen's Employment Provisions and Seamen entered into an agreement with the ship owners every time there was a voyage and that procedure was accepted and agreed to between the Seamen and the ship owners through the auspices of the National Maritime Board. Normally a voyage took 4 to 6 months period a:!ld once.. it., was complete, for aU practical purposes there was cessation of that particular employment, and the Seamen had to wai.t for some time till he got ~ name in the roster again. 81 10. When asked whether the eollection of supporting documents ior claiming refund after period of 6 months was a cumbersome job for the Seamen, the representative of the Ministry replied in negative and stated that documents were maintained in the office of the Seamen Provident Fund Commissioner in Bombay and a continuous service record was maintained 'by the Seamen l!;mployment Officer in respect of every seaman.

11. Whan asked how a waiting period of less then 6 months could be misused by seamen, the representative of the Ministry explained that since the waiting period between to voyages ranged between 9 months and 1 year, there might be tendency on the part of seamen to appiy for refund of deposits from the Provident Fund as soon as they came back. after every voyage.

12. In reply to a question that there was undue delay in settlement of Fund claims especially at Cochin Port, the representative of the Ministry stated that they would certainly issue instructions to the Director General of Shipping to ensure speedy settlement of cases. I [The representatives of the Ministry of Shipping and Trans pon then withdrew]. 13. After considering the views of the repl'esentatives of the Ministry of Shipping and Transport, the Committee decided to drop their recommendation contained in para 45 of their Sixteenth Report (Sixth Lok Sabha). The Committee then adjourned.

MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST SITTING OF THE COMMITTEE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (SEVEN'rH LOK SABHA) (1981-82) The Committee met on Wednesday, 8 July, 1981 from 15.00 to 16.45 hours. PRESENT Shri Mool Chand Daga-Chai'1ioon

MEMBERS 2. Shri Xavier Arakal . 3. Shri ABhfaq Husain 4. Sbri K. Lakkappa -5. -.&lui ..M.&4maDDa Bai ,6. Sh.ri .Batans:ah Bajda .7. Sbri ,Cbaruiu Shekbar Singb

SEcaftAlUAT 1. Dr. D. N: Gadhok-Chief Legi.slative Committee· OfficeT 2. Shri· S. S. Chawla-Senior Legislative Committee Of1ker

2 to 7 • • • • .(Dr) Im~&atioo oj recommendaRons contGi1wd in pci-.aslS to .l5 of the Si:x:th Report of the Com.miiaee on Subordinate Leg;,. lation (Fifth Lok Sa.bha) ~gaTdiRg the Indian Po,ts and Te1e~h.s (Claa IV PO$t8) Recruitmem Rules 1970 (G.s.R. 1932 of 1970)-(Memorandum No. 67).

a. The Committee considered the above Memorandum and dec'd· ed to bear oral evidence ,of the representatives of the Ministry of Communications regarding dela)1' ill implementation of the Com- mittee's recommendations. 9 to 13 • • • •

MINUTES OF THE TWENTY.£IGHTH SITl'ING OF THE COMMITTEE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (SEVENTH LOK SABHA) (1981-32) The Committee met on Saturday, 3 October, 1981 from 11.45 to 13.00 hOUri.

8hrt 'Moot Chand Daga~ft l'IZMRDIs 2. Shri M. Ankineedu 3. Shri Xavier Arakal 4. Shri Ashfaq Husain 5. Shri K. Lakkappa 6. Shri Balasaheb Vikhe PaW 7. Shfl Ajit Pratap Singh 8. Shri Chandra Shekbar SIngh ...

-Omitted portions of the Minutes are not covered by this Report 83

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1\(INISTIIY OF. DlnKCE_ l. Shri P. K. Kaul, Secretary 2. Shri K. K. Mathur, Joint Secretary (N) 3. Vice Admiral S. L. Sethi, Chief of Personnel Naval HQ; 4. Shri B. R. Atre, Deputy Legislat've Counsel, Ministry of Law.

SECRETARIAT Shri S. S. Cha,wla-Senior Leg;sl.a.tive Committee Officer 2. T,he Committee heard evidence of the representatives of the- Ministry of Defence regarding giving of retrospective effect to the Naval Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous (Amendment) Regulations, 1973 (S.RO. ff.i of 1973) [Implemen- tation of recommendation contained in Piragraph 65 of the Twen- tieth Report of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation (Fifth Lok Sabha)].

3. When asked whether the Navy Act, 1957 under which· the Naval Ceremonial. Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous (Amendment) Regulations, 1973 were framed provided for giving of retrospective effect to the Regulations framed thereunder, the representative of the Ministry stated that the Act did not specifi- caUy provide for issue of Regulations with retrospectiv~ effect but that did not mean that they had no right under the law. The representative of the· Ministry of Law, however, conceded that there was no power to give retrospective e1fect under the Navy Act.

4. When enqUired why they had given retrospective effect to the 1979 amendment when they had no such power under the Act, the representative of the Ministry stated that they had to issue S.RO. 1979 for two reasons. One reason was to take note of the objection of the Committee on tbe earlier order havinK retrospective elfect and the second reason was to revise the age limit. He further added that when S.RO. 55 of 1973 was objected to by the Committee, they explained the circumstances under which they had been compelled to issue it because that the U.P.S.C. had already issued a notification in 1970 changing the ages for entry into N.D.A. The CommitteP. after considering the explanation of Ministry again objeeted to the giving of'retrospective effect. 'I'bey, therefore, thought of superseding the 1973 Regulations, by """ Regulations. In the meanwhile the age limit for entry ;nto N.D.A. was further changed from 16' years to 18 y.ears to 16 years to lSi years. They had to issue-SAO.. 1979. 84 5. When asked whether it would not be proper to amend the Navy Act, the representative of the Ministry stated that they were thinkine of amending the Act and they bad decided not to :ssue any Regulations in future with retrospective effect.

6. When aaked that certain persons might have· been recruited on the basis of impugned Regulations and how these recruitments could be considered, as legal, the representative of the Ministry of Law agreed that action under those Regulations was nullity. He further stated that it was also a fact that the U.P.S.C. had adver- tised the posta from 1970 taking jnto consideration the adv,ancing of age and certain persons might have been selected by advanCing the age. However, nobody had raised any objection so far. He further clarified that the remedy was by enacting legislation.

7. ~ regards regularcl· ng the action taken by the Government between uno and 1979, the representative of the Min~stry stated that they would make reference to the Ministry of Law and seek their advice about the content and need of a new legislation to validate all that had happened between 1970 and 1979. [The witnesses then withdrew].

8. After bear'ng the views of the representatives of the Ministry ot Defence on the matter and keeping in view, the practical difficulties. the Committee decided not to pursue their recommendation contained in paragraph 65 of their Twent'eth Report (Fifth Lok Sabha) any further. The Committee. however, desired the Ministry of Defence to amend the Navy Act SUitably in order to avoid recurrence of such a situation in future.

TM Comm.ittee then adjou,'"ned,

MINUTES OF THE 'I1URTIETH SITTING OF' THE COMMlTl'EE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (SEVENTH LOK SABHA) (1981-82)

The Committee met on Thursday. 22 October. 1981 from 15.00-to' 1'.00 bout'S. a Shri M. Ankineedu 3. Shri Xavier Arakal 4. Shri Ashiaq Hussain 5. Shri Eduardo Faleiro 6. Shri M. Kandaswamy 7. Shri K. Lakkappa 8. Shri M. Ramanna Rai 9. Shri Ratansinh Rajda 10. Shri Chandra Shekhar Singh

WITNESSES L· • • • • 11 REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS 1. Shri S. K. Ghose, Secretary (Communications). 2. Shri D. K. Singh, Deputy Director General (P) (P & T Board).

SEcRETARIAT Shri S. S. Chawla-Senior Legislative Committee Ofjicer. 2 to 8. • • • • 9. The Committee then heard oral evidence of the representatives of the Ministry of Communications with regard to non- implementation of the recommendations contained in paragraphi 13 to 1~ of the Sixth Report of the Committee on Subordinate Leglslation (Fifth Lok Sabha) relating to the Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Class IV Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1970 (G.S.R. 1932 of 19110). 10. The representatives stated that tbere were eertaia adminis.- trative orders, which were not part of the statutory rules, for appointment of Extra-Departmental Staff and the Casual Labourers to Class IV Posts in the Posts and Telegraphs Department. The representatives, however, conceded that constitutionally and legally speaking. they did not have authority to issue such Rdministrative instructions. The representatives further submitted that P and T Department decided several years back to make statutory rules U recommended by the Committee for the purpose. The draft rulell weN accordingly fonnulated and sent to the Department of Per-

*Omitted portions of tbe Minutes are not covered by this Report. 2835 LS-7. • 86 sonnel for concurrence. The Department of Personnel in turn for wardtd the rules to the Director-General of Employment and Train- Ing who suggested that .extra-ciepartmental agents should· 4irst be recruited through the employment exchanges only.. Thereafter: a di.:ullion wu held and a reviae

11. When pointed out that the matter had been hanging over for more than eight years, the representatives apologised for the avoidable delay and gave an assurance that they would try to do the need- . lui before the end of the year. The Chairman then urged the representatives of the Ministry that the assurance given to the Com- mittee should be fulfilled and the rules be framed within three ~nths even if more staff was to be employed to get the work done.

The Committee then adjourned.

MINUTES OF THE THIRTY-FIRST SI'ITING OF THE COMMITI'EE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (SEVENTH LOK SABHA) (1981-82)

The Committee met on Monday, 7 December, 1981 from 15.30 to 11.00 hours.

PusDIT Shrl Mool Chand Daga---Ch4innaft

2. Shri Xavier Arakal 3. Shri Ashfaq Hussain 4. Shri Eduardo Faleiro 5. Shri Ratanainh Rajda

1. Shri S. D. Kaura-Chief Legialatioe Committu Offlce'f'. 2. ~hri Ram Kishore-SeniOT Legislative Commfttf'e 'Officer.

2. The Comm;Uee considered their draft Ninth. Report aDd adopted it 87 3. The Committee authorised the Chairman and, in his atiltmce, Sbri Eduardo Faleiro, to present the Ninth Report to the House on their behalf 011 9- December, 1981. The Committee .then adjourned.

•

-The Report could not be presented to the House on 9 Deaember, 1981 as the House adjourned without tranncting any business for the day due to the death of a sitting Member of the House (Sbri Mubarak Shah). The Report was, therefore, presented on the next clay i.e. 10- December, 1981. GMGIPMRND-LS 11-283& LS-12-1-82-«X>.