Saturday, April 30, 2011


I could not understand why Uma Maheswaran has reacted so late against the members of ADASA who sabotaged agitations during last 12 years. How National Council can claim to achieve demands of members when National could not dare to take action against so called defectors.

He cannot deny that I (G.K.Acharya) was nominated as advisor in the year 1999 and he was also present in the meeting held at Banglore. I was continued as Advisor till 2006 as Uma realized that without the support of majority Zones it is not possible for him to oppose my nomination as advisor and ultimately he has decided that National Council does not need advice of any one to run the affairs of ADASA.

In the year 1997 when he was failed to give reply to the query raised by the then CEO and it was again me and Mr S K Pandey who tackled the situation on his behalf. He should be very honest while giving the facts to members. Which he never did and he can never. In the year 1999 he was the president and given call for agitation and came to Delhi and met me for support and now whom he is blaming for his failure? Because of my extended supporty only he could have gone for 26 days strike in Delhi. And I was very much with ADASA in spite the fact that there was difference of opinion. Can he explain under what circumstances he has deferred agitation?

Friday, April 29, 2011


After so many agitations and so many efforts, the Pay Parity issue of left over categories was referred to a Joint Secretaries committee. All the associations were present before the committee and presented their arguments. But the argument of NFADE in Pay Parity issue is biased . When certain staff got pay hike on some grounds, they should extend their support to others to get the same scales. Its a fact that they never demanded for higher scales to left over cadres from the common platform of NFADE, rather they have issued a strike notice if administrative staff are granted higher scales they will go on strike which is biased and immoral. When all the left over cadres have jointly pressurized the government for Pay Parity, government had come down and decided to settle the issue. Now there are two options before the government, one is to grant higher scales to left over cadres as given to certain cadres as per the 1999 order, if it is not found possible or the higher scales granted to certain cadres will have to be brought back to normal scales according to VI Pay Commission which are above the Pay commission's recommendations. When the Pay Parity issue of administrative staff was dropped by GOM, NC of ADASA made all efforts to draw the attention of government. But the efforts of the members from Andhra Pradesh are really noteworthy. A team has lead to Delhi and met so many Hon'ble Members of Parliament and Central Ministers and drawn the attention on the issue, which has yielded results and made the government to reconsider the issue of Administrative Staff. But our National Council is not clear on the issue of Pay Parity even now. It was told a long back that the issue of Pay Parity is settled in our favour. Now their version is changed, for the reasons best known to our members. Certain cadres should realise at least now, the need of unity in the same organization.


After getting through Departmental Examination in 1999 what effort NC has made to conduct Departmental Exams?

Why did NC sleep for seven years till 2006. Is it not a fact that NC is part of the team to cancel 2006 Departmental Exam without valid reasons?

Why did NC keep quite till 2011 on the issue of Departmental Exams? What moral right NC has to talk about Departmental Competitive exam? As NC has done nothing either for conducting the exams on time or for release of results?

How NC can claim that grant of 5500 scale to Accountants is its achievement? Is it not a fact that Assts/Accts all over India contributed financially for fighting the case?

Do the NC think Accts/HCs are alone in the association? what NC has done for the upliftment of LDCs/UDCs? Did NC ever feel that the office bearers are also an LDCs once?

Wednesday, April 27, 2011



Sunday, April 24, 2011


Saturday, April 16, 2011


The Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, has issued notice to the Centre on an application challenging the March 21 revised recommendations of the selection committee for the posts of Director-General of All India Radio and Doordarshan. The Principal Bench, comprising Chairman Justice V.K. Bali and Vice-Chairman L.K. Joshi, issued notice also to the other respondents — the Chairman of Prasar Bharati, the CEO (nominated member) of Prasar Bharati and L.D. Mandloi, Director-General in-charge, AIR and DD, New Delhi — on the application filed by G. Jayalal, who was affected by the revised recommendation. He also challenged the March 30 order by which Mr. Mandloi was given charge as DG of AIR, in addition to DG, Doordarshan.

The notice is returnable on April 18. “The appointment to the post of Director-General of AIR shall be subject to the decision of the application,” the Bench said. According to the applicant, the selection committee met on March 15 and chose three candidates for DG, Doordarshan, in the order of merit: Mr. Mandloi, Tripurari Sharan and Ram Subhag Singh. For DG, AIR, the names of Mr. Jayalal and Mr. Mandloi were recommended in the order of merit. However, even before the panel of names could be sent to the government for appointment, the recommendations were arbitrarily revised on March 21. For DG, AIR, Mr. Mandloi was put in the first rank and the applicant in the second rank. For DG, Doordarshan, the panel was revised in the order of merit as Mr. Sharan; Mr. Singh and Mr. Mandloi. Within a few days Mr. Mandloi was made DG in charge of AIR and Doordarshan.

The applicant alleged that the March 21 revision was done with a mala fide intent to change the serial numbers of the selected candidates to help one or the other of them. Once proper recommendations were made after an interview on the basis of merit, these could not be altered without any justifiable reason or for extraneous considerations. Contending that the revised selection violated the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution, the applicant sought a direction to quash the March 21 recommendations and a direction to the Centre act as per the March 15 recommendations for appointments to both posts and to appoint him DG, AIR. He also sought an interim order to maintain status quo on processing regular appointments.

Source: The Hindu

Friday, April 1, 2011