Latest news with #All-IndiaServices
Time of India
21-06-2025
- General
- Time of India
Uttarakhand forest chief opts for early retirement citing personal reasons
Dehradun: The Uttarakhand govt on Saturday accepted the request for voluntary retirement of the state's head of forest force (HoFF) and principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF), Dhananjai Mohan, within 24 hours of its submission. Mohan, a 1988-batch IFS officer, had cited personal reasons for seeking early retirement. He had taken charge as HoFF on May 1 last year and was due to superannuate in Aug. According to an official communication issued by the office of RK Sudhanshu, principal secretary of the forest department, the VRS was granted by invoking a relaxation of section 16(2) of the All-India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. Sources in the department said the "request came as a surprise". Meanwhile, principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF) Samir Sinha, who is also the CEO of the state's Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), has been given the additional charge of Uttarakhand's head of forest force.
Time of India
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court strikes down Madhya Pradesh order on forest officers' performance appraisal
Supreme Court BHOPAL: The Supreme Court of India has struck down a Madhya Pradesh government order dated 29 June 2024 regarding the Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR) of Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers. The Court ruled that the order violated established judicial precedents and the autonomy of the Forest Department under the All-India Services framework. The Supreme Court held that the Madhya Pradesh government's directive, which required Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers such as District Collectors and Divisional Commissioners to provide inputs into the appraisal of IFS officers, was illegal. The bench, comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, stated that this practice undermines both administrative propriety and judicial authority. The Court reiterated that performance evaluations of IFS officers up to the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (APCCF) must be conducted solely by their immediate superiors within the Forest Department, as per earlier Court rulings. Delivering the judgment in a set of applications filed under the long-running T N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India case, the Court noted that the Madhya Pradesh order blatantly disregarded its own directions passed in 2000 and reiterated in 2004. These directions, further clarified by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), have been consistently followed by all other Indian states — with Madhya Pradesh standing out as the lone violator. The judgment pointedly declared that allowing officers from a different service — particularly those of equal or lower rank — to assess IFS officers was not just procedurally flawed but also contemptuous in nature. 'We have no hesitation to hold that the impugned G.O. is rather contemptuous in nature... issued without even seeking clarification or modification of this Court's orders,' the bench stated. It noted that such orders ignored long-established principles of public administration that require performance reviews to be conducted by officers with real supervisory engagement and departmental familiarity. The Court conducted an exhaustive analysis of the legal framework governing All India Services, including the All-India Services Act, 1951, and the Confidential Rolls and Performance Appraisal Rules of 1970 and 2007 respectively. It emphasised that these laws and associated judicial interpretations mandate that the reporting, reviewing, and accepting authorities for IFS officers must be individuals of higher rank within the same service — ensuring both accountability and subject-matter understanding. Revisiting the 2000 Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh ruling, the court reaffirmed that officers such as the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Divisional Forest Officer, Conservator of Forests, Chief Conservator, and APCCF must be appraised strictly within the Forest hierarchy — with the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) being the only exception, as there is no higher-ranking IFS officer above them. Even in such cases, the reporting authority must be someone familiar with the officer's work and higher in rank. Further strengthening its position, the bench cited landmark rulings such as State of Haryana Vs P C Wadhwa and State of Assam Vs Binod Kumar, which reinforced the requirement that reporting authorities must be from within the same department and of higher rank. These principles, the Court said, remain valid despite changes in rules and are fundamental to a fair and objective appraisal system. The judgment also acknowledged that while IAS officers may oversee certain development schemes — such as MGNREGA, land acquisition, and tourism projects — forest officers remain primarily responsible for conservation, enforcement of environmental law, and forestry operations. Accordingly, inputs from District Collectors or Divisional Commissioners, if any, may be submitted on a separate sheet and considered as supplementary remarks — but cannot form the basis of the formal PAR process. The Court issued clear directives: the impugned 29 June 2024 government order was quashed, and the state was directed to reframe its rules within one month in strict compliance with the 2000 judgment and clarifications issued by MoEF and DoPT. While the court observed that the state's actions were close to contempt, it refrained from initiating proceedings due to the fair conduct of the State's legal representatives. Forest officers have welcomed the ruling, seeing it as a vital affirmation of institutional independence and professionalism in environmental governance.
Time of India
14-05-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Gujarat government approves health security scheme for employees, pensioners
Gandhinagar: The Gujarat cabinet on Wednesday approved the ' Gujarat Karmayogi Health Security Scheme ' for all state govt officers, employees, and pensioners. State health minister Rushikesh Patel said that under the PMJAY-MA scheme , cashless treatment up to Rs 10 lakh per family will be available with a "G" category card to govt employees and 6.40 lakh officers, employees, and pensioners in the state will benefit from this scheme, the minister said. For expenses exceeding Rs 10 lakh and procedures not covered under AB-PMJAY-MAA, medical reimbursement will be provided as per rules, he minister detailed that similar to the benefits currently available under the PMJAY-MA scheme, all employees will be covered under this new scheme. All state employees and pensioners will receive a "G" series AB-PMJAY-MAA card, with processing handled by the PMJAY nodal agency, Patel will provide cashless treatment up to Rs 10 lakh per family annually at govt, equivalent govt, and PMJAY-empanelled hospitals for specified procedures. Outpatient (OPD) treatment will not be included in the scheme. The current monthly medical allowance of Rs 1,000 will continue as is, he 2,658 hospitals (904 private and 1,754 govt) are associated with the PMJAY-MA scheme in the state, covering 2,471 specified procedures. All-India Services (AIS) officers, pensioners, state govt officers, employees, pensioners, their dependent family members, and those eligible for medical reimbursement under the Gujarat State Service (Medical Treatment) Rules, 2015, will benefit from this scheme, the govt employees currently receive benefits under the Karmayogi card. Pensioners aged 70 and above already benefiting from the recently launched Vayvandana scheme will not be eligible under this scheme, the govt state govt will bear a premium burden of Rs 303.3 crore under this scheme, paying an annual premium of Rs 3,708 per family for treatment under the 'G' category card.
New Indian Express
05-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Double-engine pressure in the capital
With the BJP now in charge at the Centre and in Delhi, some major city development projects might finally get moving. These include fixing Delhi's messy waste management system and rolling out the much-talked-about land pooling policy. Earlier, when the AAP ran Delhi, many of these projects hit roadblocks—primarily because of constant clashes with the Centre. Issues like the slow progress on cleaning up the city's landfills or delays in expanding the Metro were often blamed on the AAP by the BJP. But now that the BJP is running both the national and Delhi governments — a setup they like to call the 'double-engine' model — there's a growing sense that the time for blame games is over. People expect results, especially from the Centre, which handles many projects through the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. Recently, Union Minister Manohar Lal sat down with well-known Delhiites, including business leaders, to hear what's bothering residents. Sources say the top concerns were better managing the overflowing landfill sites, making the land pooling policy a reality, and clearing up land acquisition issues—especially in northwest Delhi. Jharkhand DGP fate hangs in balance The letter war between the Centre and the Jharkhand government over the appointment of incumbent DGP Anurag Gupta has caught the eyeballs of the country's police establishment. There's also the angle of a pending Supreme Court ruling in a case filed by BJP state unit chief Babulal Marandi in the matter. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs communicated to the Jharkhand Chief Secretary that DGP Gupta could not continue in office beyond April 30, 2025 – his date of superannuation. The Jharkhand government reportedly responded by saying Gupta was appointed to the post for two years under the 'appointments rules' formulated by the state. It also said that Jharkhand is not alone in doing so, as several other states have done the same. The Supreme Court will now decide Gupta's fate next week when it hears Babulal Marandi's case challenging the appointment. The MHA communique read: 'Government of Jharkhand is directed to retire Shri Anurag Gupta, IPS, on 30.04.2025 from the post of the DGP (HoPF) Jharkhand, as continuing him in service beyond the age of superannuation violates Rule 16(1) of the All-India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958, which mandates retirement at the age of 60 for IPS officers.' It also contended that Gupta's appointment process does not align with existing national rules or the Supreme Court judgment in a case filed by Prakash Singh over Police reforms.
