MACP EFFECTIVE DATE: CAG PROVED ITS INCAPABILITY TO DO CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY

My blog readers are already aware that recently the Hon’ble Bombay High Court set aside a judgement and order dated 16-04-2013 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench and allowed my request for treating the effective date of MACP of the 6^th Central Pay Commission as 01-01-2006 instead of 01-09-2008 as fixed by the DOPT under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. For details, go to blogs:- https://www.centralemployeesnews.manjaly.net/2018/10/macps_9.html &

https://www.centralemployeesnews.manjaly.net/2018/10/macp.html 

However, I would like to invite your attention to a much more important issue – i.e., the utter failure of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in its Constitutional obligations.

CAG is bestowed with some important duties under the Constitution of India. Under Article 149, read with Section 13 of the CAG’s DPC ACT, 1971, it is the duty of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India to audit all expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India and of each State and of each Union territory having a Legislative Assembly and to ascertain whether the expenditure conforms to the authority which governs it.

Now the question comes, how the CAG ascertained the expenditure related to MACP is conformed to the authority which governs it? It is very clear on the face of the record as already mentioned in my Representation dated 26-11-2010 routed through the CAG and now confirmed by the Supreme Court and the High Court that the implementation date of MACP is from 01-01-2006 and not from 01-09-2008 as implemented through the OM issued by DOPT. If the CAG audited it properly, this illegality could have been pointed out and such a complication could have been avoided. Instead of such real issues, CAG is after bogus, fictional, politically instigated audit objections as I already mentioned in my published book, “A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION”. (To read free part of e-Book, go to the link and click “Look inside” button:- www.amazon.in/FRAUD-IN-THE-INDIAN-CONSTITUTION-ebook/dp/B00SQKTADY/ )

Finally, what is the result of this irresponsible audit of the CAG? Now the work done after the 6^th Pay Commission Implementation including the 7^th Pay Commission Implementation has to be rewritten. Not only that of the currently  working employees, but that of the retired and died persons after the 6^th Pay Commission. Approximately there are 1 crore serving and retired employees together. So how many man-days are required to rectify the additional work caused by the said OM and by the irresponsible audit (in spite of my pointing it out in the year 2010 in writing)?

Apart from the Constitutional duty of audit, CAG is also entrusted with a consultation power under Article 148(5) before any service condition is made for those employees working under him. So if this consulting power is used properly, instead of giving it in a routine and mechanical manner without application of mind, this simple mistake with Himalayan effect could have been avoided. Again CAG exposed its inefficiency in doing its duty to the nation and as usual, going after bogus, fictional, unrealistic and fake audit objection (at the cost of genuine ones) mostly politically instigated as illustrated in my book. (Part II of the book is nearing completion covering many departments and entities involved in scams but hushed up).

NB:-

My published Books:-

1. “A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION” available as e-book and paperback at:- https://www.amazon.in/FRAUD-IN-THE-INDIAN-CONSTITUTIONebook/dp/B00SQKTADY/  
2. “LTC RULES MADE EASY” available as e-book at:- https://www.amazon.in/LTC-RULES-MADE-EASY-date-ebook/dp/B01JO66SLK 

My home page: https://www.manjaly.net 

GOI-DOPT HAS NOW PRESCRIBED THE FORMAT FOR GIVING INFORMATION TO THE APPLICANTS UNDER THE RTI ACT,2005

GOI/DOPT vide Office Memorandum No. 10/1/2013-IR dated 06-10-2015 has now prescribed the format for giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act,2005. Accordingly, the reply should contain the following details:

“(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.

(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.

(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting

the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.

(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is

transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to

whom the application is transferred should be given.

(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First

Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate

Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.

(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the

First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned.”

Additionally, wherever the applicant has requested for 'certified copies' of the

documents or records, the CPIO should endorse on the document "True copy of the

document/record supplied under RTI Act", sign the document with date, above a seal

containing name of the officer, CPIO and name of public authority; in the following format:

“True copy of the document/record supplied under RTI Act.

Sd/-

Date

(Name of the Officer)

CPIO

(Name of the Public Authority)”

It is also mentioned that, in case the documents to be certified and supplied is large in number, information on RTI application should be supplied by a designated PIO but the certification of the documents, if need be, could be done by another junior gazetted officer.