Petition- 5 days week in district offices like Secretariat

Today I filed a Petition in Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench as regards five days a week working scheme.

The petition says that the UP government introduced the five days working scheme on 30 October 2004 for “healthy work culture in administration, working efficiency and better productivity.” But this was limited only to Head of Department (HOD) offices and not to district offices. Thus Commandant PAC and SP offices work for six days while office of DG, PAC, DGP, UP and Home Department work for five days despite these offices having very similar job requirements, same nature of urgency and other job-profiles.

Hence the petition says that since 5 days week scheme was introduced for “healthy work culture in administration, working efficiency and better productivity”, hence it shall not be denied to anyone and division of offices for 5 day or 6 day working shall be based on functional requirements and not on whether an office is Head of Department office or not.

सचिवालय की तरह जिला कार्यालयों में 5 दिन कार्यदिवस हेतु याचिका

आज मैंने पांच दिवसीय कार्य सप्ताह के सम्बन्ध में इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट, लखनऊ बेंच में आज एक याचिका दायर किया है.

याचिका के अनुसार उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार ने 30 अक्टूबर 2004 को “प्रशासन में स्वस्थ कार्य संस्कृति के विकास, कार्य कुशलता एवं बेहतर उत्पादकता” हेतु पांच दिवसीय कार्य सप्ताह लागू किया था. लेकिन यह योजना मात्र विभागाध्यक्ष कार्यालयों के लिए था, जनपदीय कार्यालयों के लिए नहीं. अतः पीएसी कमांडेंट तथा एसपी के कार्यालय छः दिवस कार्य करते हैं जबकि समान कार्य आवश्यकता वाले डीजी पीएसी, डीजीपी यूपी तथा गृह विभाग के कार्यालय पांच दिवस कार्य करते हैं.

याचिका के अनुसार चूँकि पांच दिवसीय कार्य सप्ताह “प्रशासन में स्वस्थ कार्य संस्कृति के विकास, कार्य कुशलता एवं बेहतर उत्पादकता” हेतु लागू किया, अतः यह किसी भी कर्मी को बिना पर्याप्त कारण के मना नहीं होना चाहिए तथा 5 अथवा 6 दिनों का निर्धारण कार्य की आवश्यकता के आधार पर होना चाहिए, मात्र विभागाध्यक्ष कार्यालय होने अथवा नहीं होने के कारण नहीं.

Amitabh Thakur
# 094155-34526

Copy of the Petition---

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)

Amitabh Thakur and another Petitioners

Versus

State of UP and others Respondents

Index

S No	Description of documents relied upon		Page No
		From	To
1.	List of Dates and Events (separate)	Separate
2.	Memo of Writ Petition
3.	Annexure No 1 Copy of the Government order dated 30/10/2004 passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh
4.	Annexure No 2 Copy of Office Memorandum dated 21/05/1985 passed by Government of India
5.	Photo Identity of the Petitioner
6.	Affidavit
7.	Vakalatnama

Lucknow                                                                 Asok Pande
Dated-   19/12/2013                                         Counsel for Petitioner
                                                                                    # 94154-65438

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)

Amitabh Thakur and another Petitioners

Versus

State of UP and others Respondent

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

S No Date Event

1. 30/04/2004 Government Order as regards five-day

Week schedule passed

The respondent, State of Uttar Pradesh passed a Government Order (GO, for short) dated 30/10/2004 whereby Five-day work schedule per week was initiated in the State of Uttar Pradesh. But this GO extends only to the so-called Head of the Department offices (Vibhagadhyaksh Karyalaya) and not to other offices. Such a distinction as regards the number of working days per week by the respondent between the two kinds of the offices- Vibhagadhyaksh Karyalaya and others, comes as being not based of any proper application of mind and is hence improper and arbitrary. The petitioners are presently posted to an office which is not Head of the Department office (Vibhagadhyaksh Karyalaya) and are personally affected by this GO and hence they challenges this GO as affected parties. Hence this Writ Petition.

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)

1. Amitabh Thakur, aged about 45 years, son of Sri T N Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

2. Satish Kumar Singh aged about 35 years, son of Late Uday Bhan Singh r/o 2/4, PAC Colony, 20 Bn, PAC, Azamgarh------ Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Uttar Pradesh through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

2. State of Uttar Pradesh through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

3. Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow------ Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His other Hon’ble companion Judges of the aforesaid Court:

The humble petition of the above named petitioners most respectfully begs to submit as under

1. That by means of this petition being filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Hon’ble Court praying before this Hon’ble Court to kindly issue a writ of mandamus directing the appropriate respondents to incorporate the office of the Commandant, 20^th Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC, for short), Azamgarh and all other offices of the Police Department in Uttar Pradesh where the two petitioners can be and are generally posted, with such exceptions as it deems fit in the Five-days working per week scheme initiated in the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Government order (GO, for short) dated 20/10/2004 issued by the General Administration Department (GAD, for short) and to extend this provision to all such cases as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

The petitioners declare that they have not filed any other Writ petition before the Hon’ble Court either at Allahabad or its Lucknow bench pertaining to the subject matter and/ or for the relief prayed for in the instant writ petition and it is further declared that in respect of the same subject, no caveat notice has been received by the petitioners.

A copy of the GO dated 20/10/2004 issued by GAD is being attached as Annexure No 1.

2. That the petitioners are presently posted to 20^th Battalion, PAC, Azamgarh in various capacities. Petitioner No 1 is working as Commandant of the Battalion while petitioner No 2 is the Head Clerk of the Commandant office. They are personally affected by this matter and hence present this matter as an affected party.

3. That in India six-days per week working scheme had long been followed, including in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 5 days week was introduced for the first time by the Government of India through an Office Memorandum dated 21/05/1984 issued by Department of Personnel and Training. It said that the Government of India has considered the question of introduction of 5 days week in administrative offices “in the context of improving efficiency in administration” and “taking into consideration all aspects of the proposal”, it was pleased to introduce 5 days week in the civil administration offices of the Government of India. Accordingly the office timings were amended suitably to compensate for the loss of working hours due to one additional off-day. A copy of the OM dated 21/05/1984 is being attached as Annexure No 2.

4. That later the State of Uttar Pradesh also adopted this five-day week concept. A GO dated 30/10/2004 (Annexure No 1) was passed by GAD Department of the UP Government with subject- “उत्तर प्रदेश के विभागाध्यक्ष कार्यालयों में पांच दिवसीय कार्य सप्ताह लागू किया जाना”. It said-“प्रशासन में स्वस्थ कार्य संस्कृति के विकास, कार्य कुशलता एवं बेहतर उत्पादकता सुनिश्चित करने के उद्देश्य से सम्यक विचारोपरांत उत्तर प्रदेश के सभी विभागाध्यक्ष कार्यालयों में (शिक्षण, बैंकिंग संस्थाओं तथा उत्पादकता से जुड़े सरकारी विभाग, वाणिज्यिक उपक्रमों को छोड़कर) पांच दिवसीय कार्य सप्ताह लागू किये जाने का निर्णय लिया गया है”, that is, five-day week working scheme was being introduced in all Head of the Department offices, with exceptions like Educational and Banking institutions, production related government departments, commercial enterprises etc for the purpose of “healthy work culture in administration, working efficiency and better productivity.”

5. That with this GO, five-day week was introduced in certain offices of UP Government which come under the category of Head of the Department office (Vibhagadhyaksha office) while it remained the same in all other offices.

6. That the petitioners’ office, Commandant PAC Azamgarh office, which is not a Head of the Department office has six working days per week.

7. That this is the situation in many other places. When the petitioner No 1 was SP, Economic Offences Wing, Meerut before his appointment as SP, Rules and Manuals, UP, Lucknow he had a six-days week office. Similarly he had six days week office as SP, Intelligence Department, Faizabad. But as SP, Rules and Manuals, he had five-day week office.

8. That similarly the petitioner No 2 was posted in offices of SP Maharajganj and SP Deoria before getting posted here. At both these places there were six-day week.

9. That it is kindly prayed that this division of offices as five-day week and six-day week schedule, where five-day week is for Vibhagadhyaksha karyalaya (with a few exceptions) and six-day week for others, does not seem to stand on the test of logical and judicial scrutiny and seems to have been formulated without proper application of mind.

10. That in the case of petitioners, the Commandant PAC Azamgarh office has six-day schedule while that of the Director General of PAC (DG, PAC for short), has five-day schedule. It can be easily seen and appreciated that the office of the Commandant PAC and DG, PAC does not stand much different from each other as far as the nature of work, work requirement and job profile are concerned, except that the DG PAC office is Office of the Head of the Department while Commandant PAC, Azamgarh office is not. Whatever is the nature of work for the DG, PAC office holds true to quite some extent to the Commandant, PAC office as well. It cannot be denied that the work of PAC is of such a nature that there is inherent sense of urgency in it. It being a matter of law and order, no one can predict for sure, how and when the need for deployment of PAC will arise. Whenever the need comes for PAC deployment, it has to be done then and there.

11. That these facts are so apparent that they cannot and shall not be denied. But what is of importance to note is that this urgency and immediate responsiveness exists as much for the DG, PAC office as it exists for the Commandant, PAC office. On the contrary, in the current scheme of things, the responsibilities on the DG, PAC office are probably much more higher than that of Commandant, PAC office because the actual deployment schemes are prepared not by the Commandant, PAC office but by the DG, PAC office. Thus, not only the routine PAC deployments but even the sudden needs arising for PAC all over the State and outside are intimated by the Home Department, respondent No 2 and the DGP office, respondent No 3 not directly to the concerned PAC Commandant office but to the DG, PAC office which subsequently decides which PAC companies from which PAC Battalions are to be moved and in what manner. Thus, the first channel in this process and definitely much more important than the Commandant PAC office, which only has to get the order complied, is the DG PAC office which has to immediately decide over what to do whenever demand for PAC deployment is made.

12. That despite this fact the DG, PAC office is a five-day week office while the petitioners’ office is a six-day week office.

13. That here is kindly prayed that when the petitioners talk of the Commandant, PAC office they are not talking of the PAC personnel deployed in the fields or otherwise, they are only talking of the office of the Commandant, PAC Azamgarh which has with it the managerial work as regards the PAC personnel posted in the Battalion, including ensuring their deployment as per the directions of the DG PAC office, Human Resource management aspects like their service matters, welfare schemes, personnel grievances etc, monetary and financial aspects like budgetary expenditure and personnel pay and perks, infrastructural works like building construction, purchase of requisite paraphernalia etc. Almost the same work is done by the DG, PAC office as well, which in addition also has to undertake the immediate and urgent work of deciding about deployment of PAC companies to different places as per the needs and to intimate about this to the PAC Battalions, including PAC Azamgarh.

14. That if the matter is taken slightly further, PAC works under the command and control of the DGP, UP (respondent No 3) who is the head of the entire police force in the State. Thus DGP, UP office is the supervisory office of the petitioners, though it generally exercises its control through the DG, PAC office. DGP, UP office has not only the work of controlling the PAC, it also has the work of round-the-clock monitoring of the entire police force of UP. It is needless to say that other than such slightly static and less-urgent jobs like human resource management, long term planning, budgetary allotments, infrastructural measures and decisions, statistical analysis of crime etc, the DGP, UP office also has such assignments which need to be done on Real-time basis, where not a single minute can be wasted to react. This obviously includes crime and offence, particularly the serious and heinous crimes of State level and National importance, law and order disturbances like communal and caste conflicts and huge Bandobast duties like Kumbh Mela, VIP programs and so on. But other than this, there are also no less urgent works like public grievance redressal where people all over the State come with their problems associated with police and policing, many of which are extremely urgent in nature and need to be attended then and there.

15. That again the DGP, UP office works under the broader direction and supervision of the Home Department, respondent No 2, which has no less responsibilities, job-profile and job-assignments than the DGP, UP office. If at all, the Home Department has possibly even more urgent functioning because many times the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and other State Governments interact directly with the Home Department.

16. That but it is quite bewildering that while the Commandant, PAC office works for six days, the DG PAC office, the DGP, UP office and the Home Department work on five days week schedule as per the GO dated 30/10/2004 because they are Vibhagadhyaksha Karyalaya.

17. That from the facts presented above, it is quite obvious that this kind of differentiation/differential treatment between the petitioners’ office and the other above-mentioned office does not seem to have any logic and rationale and has been made on an arbitrary basis of an office being Head of the Department office or not, instead of the real, actual and truthful assessment based on the job requirement, job content and functional needs.

18. That it also does not seem to make sense that when the UP Government adopted five-day week for the purpose of “healthy work culture in administration, working efficiency and better productivity” just like the Government of India introducing it “in the context of improving efficiency in administration” after “taking into consideration all aspects of the proposal”, a distinction was made between the petitioners’ office and other offices like DG PAC, DGP UP and Home Department which have much greater importance and relevance as far as urgency, emergency and immediate response is concerned and thus the personnel working in the petitioners’ office including the petitioners were discriminated vis-à-vis personnel in the above-mentioned offices and thereby denied the “healthy work culture in administration, working efficiency and better productivity” intended for others placed in quite similar situations.

19. That it is also kindly prayed that the petitioners had to suffer such discrimination even in other places of posting. When Petitioner No 1 was posted as SP, Intelligence, Faizabad, his office worked on six-day week scheme while the State level Intelligence office worked on five-day week scheme, despite the fact that as explained in the above Para, the office of SP, Intelligence, Faizabad is definitely less critical and importance as compared to the State Intelligence Headquarters which deals with Intelligence inputs not only from one place like Faizabad but with Intelligence inputs from all over the State. Thus, there could be many opportunities where nothing of significance happens in Faizabad unit of Intelligence Department but very critical and urgent happenings take place in other units, say Allahabad or Meerut or Kanpur. Yet, it is surprising to note that while all these regional Intelligence units work on six-day basis, the State Intelligence Headquarters which collates all these information at a much larger scale and coordinates the activities of all these regional units needs to work for five-days week scheme. Similarly when the petitioner No 1 was posted as SP, Economic Offences Wing (EOW, for short), Meerut the same dichotomy existed between the regional units and the State Headquarters at Lucknow. The job-profile in EOW was quite different from that of PAC or Intelligence where the criticality and urgency was much lesser because the agency is assigned such enquiries and investigations where long-term serious planning is needed. The investigations are mostly document based and office-oriented where one has to obtain these documents from various offices and take oral evidence of government officials. It is very rare that any arrest is to be made on urgency basis and the investigations move on a routine and definite place, because the emphasis is not on speed but on accuracy and definitiveness. In serious cases of economic offences, no hurried act can be tolerated and hence the investigations are done in a very thorough manner where the investigating officer needs to get approval of senior officers of the State Headquarters at Lucknow for almost all the major policy measures. Here, the job-profile and job-urgency at the regional units like Meerut and Kanpur are almost exactly alike that in the EOW Headquarters and it is also quite different from the hurried and urgent job-profile of DG, PAC office, DGP, UP office or the Home Department. Yet, in this case also, a distinction has been made between the regional units like EOW office Meerut, EOW office Kanpur etc and the EOW Headquarters, Lucknow.

20. That what holds true for petitioner No 1 holds in equal measures for petitioner No 2. If he is posted as clerk in PAC office or district superintendent office, he has six-days a week schedule but if he gets posted at DGP, UP office, DG, PAC office, Police Headquarters, Allahabad and many other State Headquarters office, he has five days a week work scheme. As explained in details, this does seem improper and incorrect and needs to be corrected immediately.

21. That though none of the direct concern to the petitioners, it is also kindly brought before the notice of this Hon’ble Court that the same situation exists in almost all the other Government Departments, other than Police/Home Department, where one finds the district officers like District Sales Tax officer, District Excise Officer, District Transport officer, District Sports officer, District Education officer, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Chief Medical Officer and others having six days a week schedule but the offices of their Departmental Heads like the State Sales Tax Commissioner, State Excise Commissioner, State Transport Commissioner, State Sports Director, State Basic Shiksha Director and so on and so forth having five days week scheme. Similarly, all the Departments in the State government consisting of the Principal Secretaries, Secretaries and other subordinate staff also have five-days a week scheme. This does not seem to make sense for two reasons- (a) not all these departments are equal in their need and functioning particularly on the parameter of urgency and immediate reaction. While some district department officers like that of Transport, Excise, Revenue, Health etc might be needed on much urgent basis where not much response time could be given, in other departments like Statistical department, Sales Tax, Basic Shiksha, Sports etc the sense of urgency could be much lower (b) in many of these departments, whatever urgency there is in the districts, it is more or less the same, if not more, in the State headquarters as well as the concerned Government Departments. If at all, the situation in State headquarters is bound to be more demanding and urgent because here there is not only a need for coordination and control from all over the State, even the public complaints and grievances pour in not from a limited district but from the entire State. Thus though not always true, but the general rule is that the Departments which have hurried and urgent works at district levels have similar nature of works at the State headquarter levels and concerned departments as well and vice-versa the laid-back and relaxed departments in districts also have almost equally laid-back State headquarters.

22. That despite these ground realities, the situation is that while the concerned Departments in the State government and the Departmental State headquarters have five-day week, the district offices have six-days week schedule.

23. That for all the above facts and reasons mentioned above, this does not seem to make sense because if five-day week schedule is needed for the purpose of “healthy work culture in administration, working efficiency and better productivity”, it should have been the same policy for all such offices which have the same kind of work content and job profile. But as seen above, the present situation is that while district offices with similar work-content are six-day week, the State Headquarters are five-day week and in all such cases as well the decision seems to have been made on incorrect basic of an office being Head of Department office or not, instead of the real functional needs and job requirements.

24. That it seems obvious that if five-days week schedule helps build “healthy work culture in administration, working efficiency and better productivity”, the district level officers should also have been given the same as their counter-parts in the State headquarters, more so when their job-content and job-profile is not much different.

25. That similarly, the petitioners in their present assignment at Commandant, PAC, Azamgarh office shall be given the same 5 day schedule in the interest of “healthy work culture in administration, working efficiency and better productivity” if the same has been found suitable and appropriate for their superior offices like the DG PAC office, DGP UP office and the Home Department who have definitely much larger responsibilities of much urgent and immediate nature.

26. That this being a matter related with Human Rights, right to life with dignity under Article 21 and also a matter related with improper discrimination being people placed in identical conditions and hence being against Article 14 which demands “equality among equals” and having no any officious and effective alternative remedy in these circumstances, this writ petition is being filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the following amongst other grounds

27. That the petitioner’s photograph and Identity proof have been enclosed along with

GROUNDS

(1) Because the GO dated 20/10/2004 (Annexure No 1) introduced five-day week schedule for its personnel working in Head of the Department offices

(2) Because this scheme was adopted for the purpose of “healthy work culture in administration, working efficiency and better productivity”

(3) Because similarly like the Government of India introduced five-day week scheme “in the context of improving efficiency in administration” after “taking into consideration all aspects of the proposal”

(4) Because but this scheme has been limited not to Vibhagadhyaksha karyalaya

(5) Because distinction between the five day and six day week scheme has been made in various offices not on the basis of the functional requirement, actual job profile and nature of job but on artificial basis of an office being Head of the Department office or not and is hence arbitrary and thus in contravention to Article 14

(6) Because due to such arbitrary distinction of offices for five day and six day week schemes many anomalies have erupted including the one suffered by the petitioners where they are put in six day week scheme despite other rigorous, urgent and important offices like office of DG PAC, DGP UP and Home Department being put in five day week scheme

(7) Because it goes against the basic Human Rights of the petitioners and also infringes upon the right to life with dignity as enshrined under Article 21, because 5 day week was introduced exactly for having a more dignified living condition for the UP government employees

(8) Because it also goes against Article 14 which guarantees “equality among equals” because the petitioners placed in quite identical conditions as those working in DG PAC, DGP UP and Home Department offices and no less urgent and immediately needed work structure and job requirement are being treated differently

PRAYER

Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to-

(a) Kindly issue a writ of mandamus directing the appropriate respondents to incorporate/add the office of the Commandant, 20^th Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC, for short), Azamgarh and all other offices of the Police Department in Uttar Pradesh where the two petitioners can be and are generally posted, with such exceptions as it deems fit as per the functional requirements after proper application of mind, in the Five-days working per week scheme initiated in the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Government order dated 20/10/2004 issued by the General Administration Department (Annexure No 1)

(b) Kindly issue a writ of mandamus directing the appropriate respondents to incorporate such other offices of the State government and its instrumentalities, with such exceptions as it deems fit as per the functional requirements after proper application of mind, in the Five-days working per week scheme initiated in the above Government order dated 20/10/2004, while using its extraordinary power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, though the two petitioners not being personally affected in these cases

Lucknow Asok Pande

Dated- 19/11/2013 Counsel for Petitioners
# 94154-65438

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)

Amitabh Thakur and another Petitioners

Versus

State of UP and others Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Satish Kumar Singh, aged about 35 years, s/o Late Uday Bhan Singh, r/o 2/4, PAC Colony, 20 Bn, PAC, Azamgarh, religion- Hinduism, profession- Government service, Education- B A, the deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under-

1. That the deponent is petitioner No 2 in the above noted petition and as such he is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, deposed to hereunder. He states on oath that he is filing this Affidavit on behalf of respondent No 1 as well.

2. That the contents of the paragraphs 1

of the Writ petition are true to my personal knowledge,

based on documents and records and believed to be true and

are based on legal advice.

3. That all the Annexures No 1 to 2 attached with the Writ Petition are a true copy of their original ones

Place Lucknow (Satish Kumar Singh)

Date- 19 /11/2013 Deponent

VERIFICATION

I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 above this Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed. So, help me God

Signed and verified this the day of 2013 at Lucknow

Deponent

Identification

I identify the deponent, on the basis of records produced before me, who has signed before me.

Advocate

Solemnly affirmed me on at am/pm by the deponent Satish Kumar Singh, who has been identified by Sri clerk to Sri , Advocate, high court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that he understands the contents of this Affidavit which have been read over and explained to him by me

Oath Commissioner

Amitabh and Nutan's World

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Petition- 5 days week in district offices like Secretariat

Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)

Index

Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)

Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)

No comments:

Post a Comment