3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURSDICTION

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

(With Prayer for Interim Relief)

W.P. (C) No. … of 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:-.

1. Sri. Shri Gopal SoniSon of Late Johri Lal JiR/o. C-231, Panchsheel NagarAjmer 305 004

…. Petitioner Workman

Vs.

1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd (NIACL)Through the then chairman Sri. A. R. SekarEx-officio, seniormost G.M.87,M. G. Road, Fort,Mumbai 400 001

…. Contesting Respondent

2. General Insurers Public Sector Association (GIPSA)Through Sri. A. K. Singhal,the then vice president

Jeevan Vihar Buidling, 3rd Floor, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001.

… Contesting Respondent3. By Name Sri. G Srinivasan

Ex-chairman respondent No.2Present chairman respondent No.1

… Contesting Respondent

4. Divisional ManagerThe New India Assurance Co. LtdKotwali Scheme, Khailand Market,Ajmer-305001

…. Contesting Respondent5. Rajbhasha Sansadeey Samiti,(Parliamentary Committee)

11, Teen Moorti Marg,New Delhi.

4

6. Hon”ble High Court of RajasthanJaipur benchJaipur (Rajasthan).

7. Hon'ble presiding officerCentral Govt. Industrial Tribunal

Distt. & Session court compoundJaipur Road,Ajmer, Rajasthan

____________

A Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of

India for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other writ order

or direction.

To

The Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India

And His Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India

The humble petition of the petitioner above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. Petitioner , a workman in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act-

1947 is a citizen of India. His life has not been same again ever

since he paid the price of writing RTI

applications,admittedly,since April 2007 against denial of proper

pay scale to Hindi Translators,petitioner being one of the Hindi

Translators,appointed since 24th February 1988 in the office of

respondent No.4 and also seeking information about systematic

corruption supported by callous administration,where the well

known employee(s) charge sheeted under anti corruption

5

law,enjoy opprtuities of promotion,given priority over more

qualified,more experienced honest employees ;the petitioner

himself being one of them. The humble petitioner knocked the

doors of justice praying to a competent court of law,respondent

No. 6 and 7 respectively, that he cannot be transferred as

assistant because he is not one of the clerks called assistant(s)

in the office of respondent No.1 and 4 but he is a Hindi

Translator , Usual qualification required for a clerk/assistant is

higher secondary,which is further relaxed to provide promotion of

non- secondary candidates as assistants; whereas the petitioner

was appointed about 24 years ago on minimum qualification of

graduation with second class. The contesting respondents, in

mutual collusion, destroyed the livelihood of petitioner in a

whimsical,deliberate and systematically ruthless manner. The

victimization of petitioner,formally started since February 2008

continues unabated.

However,the following declaration of respondents themselves

makes abundantly clear that the post of Assistant (mentioned as

S. No.2 ,Clerk) ,the post of Record Clerk (mentioned as S. No.3

below) and the post of a Translator are separate and that the

post of petitioner (hindi) translator,is common only in respect of

belonging to class III, cadre wise, translator is not clerk.

circular dated 13.04.2007: Jaipur Regional Office-330000(A)Outstation Transfer Seniority List of All Class IIIEmployees including Record Clerks Working for More ThanTen Years at one station as on 31.12.2006

S.No.

Name S.R.No. CADRE1 SHRIGOPAL SONI 24001 TRANSLATOR2 SANJAY KUMAR VERMA 21545 ASSTT. (C)3 KAILASH CHAND KHINCHI 30477 RC

6

Issued by Chief Regional Manager

A sample list of non-secondary employees serving on thepost of “Assistant” , during December 2010 within Rajasthanregion is the following:

Name ofemployee

Salary RollNo.

Gross Pay

Bansi Lal 22137 48689Gulab Singh 24275 33238Mehandi Lal 26707 25407

2. That the background of dispute, as conveyed by respondent

No.1 to respondent No. 2 vide letter of 27 February 2007, full text

enclosed herewith in annexure-1 admittedly, pertains to act of

prolonged pending matter of injustice against the employees

appointed to the post of Hindi Translators in the offices of

respondent No.1 and 4 including the petitioner . The text of said

letter spells out in clear terms that assurance has been given by

Company of respondent No.1 to Parliamentary committee on

Official Language (Rajbhasha Sansadeeya Samiti) regarding

pending justice to Hindi Translator, a techncial post, the

employees appointed to as Hindi Translators, are admittedly,

placed un-justifiably in the lower grade compared to their

counterparts working in government offices,even the said hindi

translators ,who were appointed on a new post during 1980’s

including the petitioner , are, admittedly, not assigned any pay

scale of their own,are placed in lower pay scale to stenographers

(despite superior qualification) in the insurance company of

respondet No.1

7

The said letter was issued from respondent No.1 to respondent

No.2 an association in the nature of employer’s association

which,according to ministry of finance information given to

petitioner, consists of CEO’s of the following 4 insurance

companies:

(a) . National Insurance Company Ltd, registered office Kolkata

(b) . New India Assurance Co. Ltd, registered office Mumbai

(c) . Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, registered office New Delhi

(d) . United India Insurance Co. Ltd, registered office Chennai

That the petitioner ,one of those affected due to injustice of Hindi

Translator, due to non-compliance of the written commitment of

respondent No.1 admitted before respondent No.2 wrote time-to-

time representations, sought information of implementation of

assurance under RTI act.

The contesting respondents ,who have no complaint redressal

mechanism of individual employees, despite amendment in the

Industrial Disputes Act-1947 to the said effect, are adamant to

ensure that petitioner never gets justice and even if he gets any

order in his favour from any labour authority, any tribunal or any

high court, the order in favour of petitioner shall be challenged

,with public money at the disposal of respondents, upto this

Hon’ble apex court.

That S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 4007/2012 titled, New India

Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Union of India and Ors pending with

respondent No.6 High Court of Rajasthan, registered dated

22.03.2012 , forestalling the Industrial Dispute proceedings

8

pending with respondent No. 7 is a clear example of the nasty

intention of contesting respondents No. 1 and 4.

that petitioner is main party , observed by respondent high

court,the text is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure- P-7.

3. That subsequent to so called liberalization of economy, the

offices of contesting respondents are, in fact and in substance,

run as authorities without responsibility. Instead of considering

the admitted fact of injustice to hindi translator’s case

sympathetically, who admittedly face injustice as there has not

been a specific pay scale for them, though there has been pay

scale for post of drivers etc. Even there has not been proper

opportunity to timely promotion of employees appointed as Hindi

Translator to Hindi Officer,the same glaring discrepancy has

been a recorded matter pending since long within bureaucracy of

contesting respondents,as per the text annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure-P 1.

4. That the petitioner , a law abiding person, who did not ever

sue or was sued by anyone else, upto his age of about 42 years

was forced,by compelling circumstances to file two separate writ

petitions under different circumstances praying for justice from

respondent No. 6. They were S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.

4575/2007 (disposed with directions to claim relief from second

writ petition) and 14838/2010 (presently pending with respondent

No.6) respectively. In respect of first writ petition the respondent

No. 6 granted stay orders against transfer of workman which

9

remained effective upto 21st October 2011. When the wage

revision was due to be notified, without any specific pay scale to

Hindi Translators,the second petition was hurriedly filed and as

such typographical errors left therein require amendment .The

same is pending for arguments presently.

Both writ petition’s main parties were respondent No. 1 and 2

respectively.

That advocate on behalf of respondent No.2 GIPSA defended

its inaction by arguing of non supply of any specific order issued

by GIPSA, (presently respondent No.2) against the petitioner.

The petitioner,denied of any means of livelihood since long,was

unable to be personally present before respondent High Court .In

such peculiar circumstance ,vide interim order dated

12…October 2008 in respect of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.

14838/2012 titled Sri Gopal Soni Vs. The CEO,GIPSA & Ors the

High Court pronounced that “petitioner is otherwise an

employee” of respondent insurance company.

The full Text of the said order is enclosed herewith marked as

Annexure- P 2

5. That despite the un ambiguous declaration ofthe respondent High Court ,which has notbeen challenged by the contestingrespondents,in any legal forum,the saidrespondents are discriminately, refusing thepetitioner,inter alia, opportunity ofpromotion that they accord to otheremployees.

10

That vide reference No. CORP.HRM. CL-1:Cell;RPJ;2012 the respondent No.1 companydeclared vacancies for promotion to thecadre of A.O.(Hindi officer) 2012 andinvited applications. This circular was notcommunicated officially to the petitioner.However, the petitioner somehow was , unofficially, provided a copy of applicationform. So he applied on 12-05-2012 andsubmitted his application duly filled inalong with all required documents mentionedtherein to the Regional office Jaipur of thecompany. The Jaipur office controlsadministration of divisional office Ajmerwhich was in order . The application inprescribed format was duly forwarded as performal information communicated topetitioner and he fulfilled the eligibilitycriteria as to be reckoned eligible forrecruitment/promotion of A.O. (Hindiofficer) exercise 2012

6. That petitioner has been shocked later onto know through reliable sources that thoseemployees who have,in fact, no properexperience of translation have been calledfor written examination for fulfilling theposts of A. O. (Hindi officer) 2012 in thefirst week of December 2012 at Mumbai .Onthe other hand the petitioner HindiTranslator alone ,with experience of twodecades of translation,who is the only nonpromoted Hindi Translator in the region ofRajasthan has not been called for the same

11

written examination. This discrimination isgross injustice as it attracts unjustifiedand arbitrary violation of article 14,Rightto Equality. The text of petitioner’sapplication dated 12-5-2012 is filedherewith and marked as Annexure- P-3.

7. That in view of the aforesaid facts,supported by relevant

Annexures, it would be just and proper of this Hon’ble apex court

to direct contesting respondents stop immediately the gross

discriminatory process of exercise of promotion/recruitment of

A. O. ( Hindi officer )

8. That contesting respondents No.1 and 4 consipired to

abolish the petitioner’s lawful post of Hindi

Translator,accordingly,without any vacancy of Hindi Translator,

in the garb of what they called Transfer Mobility Policy, they

issued an order dated 5.06.2007,the same was being challenged

by petitioner before respondent No.6 which was registered as S.

B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4575/2007 and by way of interim

order,dated 30th July 2007,the respondent High Court prevented

the respondent No.1 from transferring the petitioner.

That even when the interim order dated 30th July 2007 against

transfer of petitioner Hindi Translator dated 5.06.2007 to a post

of assistant , was in legal force the contesting respondents,No.1

and 4 in mutual collusion, drafted yet another transfer order

dated 6.09.2011, in the garb of re-instatement of the

12

petitioner,when the controversial dismissal was in the process of

being legally challenged and was before the competent labour

commissioner. The second transfer, which the competent labour

authoritiy included as part of reference of industrial dispute,has

been ,inter alia, pending for adjudication of dispute in terms of

Industrial Disputes Act-1947 before respondent No.7 tribunal.

The due process of law has been forestalled presently.

9. The contesting respondents,No. 1 and 4 conspired to inject

poisonous stigma to illustrious services of petitioner.

Accordingly,the respondent No.4 deliberately denied extension

of leave granted to the petitioner (after the petitioner started

asking information that would have exposed his welfare

association leader ,identified with salary no. 26019 a well known

alleged bribe taker),most regular employee in his

workplace,despite full balance of every kind of leave in the

account of petitioner. Thereafter,since last about 5 years, a

repressive campaign of deliberate defamation has been

unleashed against the petitioner marked by manipulations and

distortions of established “rule of law” as laid down by this

Hon’ble court , perpetrated by contesting respondents No. 1 and

4 ,none of whom have any intention to meanigfully reinstate a

workman whom they instigated to be subjected to painful

process of enquiries on whimsical charges,without any cross

examination, deducted his 6 increments and thereafter

dismissed him and are thereafter ,presently subjecting him to

face denial not only about 4 lakh rupees of his own provident

13

fund ,his gratuity etc. as blackmail tactics to teach him a lesson

for making them respondents in a process of law ,that is, a

reference of industrial dispute pending for adjudication with

respondent No.7 since 3.11.2011,(translated), as per the

following:

(1).Whether penalty of dismissal orders dated 16.11.2009

against Mr. Shri Gopal Soni by managment New India Assurance Co.

Ltd,Ajmer are justified and lawful?

(2). Whether the transfer orders dated 9/6/2011 from Ajmer to

Ahmedabad issued to workman Shri Gopal Soni by management New

India Assurance while reinstating him are justified and lawful?

(3). Whether in consequence of the said two orders of

managment dated 16./11/2009 and 9/6/2011 demial of arrears of pay

w.e.f. 1/8/2007,denial of increment of pay to workman during years

2009,2010,2011 and denial of back wages from 10/4/2009 till date are

justified and lawful,if not workman is entitled to what relief .

10. The petitioner,whose wages were reduced to less than half

since April 2008 on account of arbitrary suspension without any

grave charge mentioned therein , has no income since

November 2009 has to face contesting respondents who have

depleted all his resources . That despite about two decades of

working on the post of Hindi Translator, out of about 8 Hindi

Translators serving Rajasthan region of respondents the

petitioner alone has never been promoted despite being the

most qualified of all. Instead on behalf of insurance company

14

whose public money is abused by contesting respondents, he

has repeatedly been issued transfers to a lower post which are

malafide as the petitioner was never appointed to the post of

clerk /assistant.

A list of Hindi Translators,junior to petitioner, those who have

joined services later than petitioner,despite that promoted and

either not transferred or transferred within a radius of 50-150 Km

is the following:

Name Salary Roll

No

Designation as

on December

2010

Gross Pay in

Rs. December

2010

Sanjot Vyas 24929 Sr. Asstt 42935

Nasrullah

Khan

23734 Admn. Officer 48486

11. That subsequent to petitioner approaching the respondent

No.6,during June 2007, respondent no. 1 and 4 infuriated, found

excuses to instigate dicriminating the honest petitioner

because of his commitment to cause of transparency and

accountability in public life,who has filed scores of applications

under the right to information act against systematic corruption in

the insurance sector,in keeping with the following pledge,” WE,

THE PUBLIC SERVANTS OF INDIA, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY

PLEDGE THAT WE SHALL CONTINUOUSLY STRIVE TO

BRING ABOUT INTEGRITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN ALL

15

SPHERES OF OUR ACTIVITIES. WE ALSO PLEDGE THAT

WE SHALL WORK UNSTINTINGLY FOR ERADICATION OF

CORRUPTION IN ALL SPHERES OF LIFE. WE SHALL

REMAIN VIGILANT “…

Few of the facts that emerged due to petitioner’s seeking

information are the following:

(a) Respondent No. 2 association,being not registered as an

association, cannot legally sue and be sued yet it spends

public money of at least Rs. Twenty thousand per month to

an advocate.

(b) No law permits paying and receiving millions worth of public

money in the account of un registered association,yet the

respondent No. 1 G.M. namely A. R. Sekar continues to

sanction public money of about Rs. Forty lakh earch year to

respondent No.2 GIPSA.

(C ). There is such a sharp polarization between honest and the

bribe takers employees that on the one hand the petitioner

continues to face consequences of arbitrary dismissal on the

other hand a bribe taker who was caught about a decade ago

red-handed demanding gratification gets paid public money with

salary No. 26019 Due to his personal clout he not only escapes

suspension but also recently on 3rd December 2012 at Jaipur,he

was awarded opportunity of promotion.His photo handing over

bouquet to respondent No.1 exhibits the unholy nexus between

corrupt association leaders and the top management.

.

16

12. In retaliation , the said respondents subjected petitioner to

prolonged mental anxieties in the garb of what they called

“jaanch” in respect of so called “gyapan” (literally translated as

memorandum) in Hindi only. The said "Gyapan" were clarified as

neither been document(s) of legal nor that of technical nature,

by manager S. K. Kundra to deny the workman even a

translation in English,keeping with principles of natural justice..

Finally the said respondents pretending themselves working in

the interests of a company (an artificial legal person)

manipulated and distorted the norms of ethics in public life to

such an extent that petitioner was forced into dismissal with

effect from 16th November 2009 on the basis of a gyapan

wherein the only “ grave “ charge ever alleged was:

13.

The petitioner being never supplied with any official translation in

English has still been unable to interpret how Mr. Kundra who

issued dismissal of workman stated that petitioner violated the

rules called New India assurance CDA rules 2003 whereas he

was never formally accused of any such violation.

Then ,one Ashok Samaria , a member of the same welfare

association which has been led in the Rajasthan region by a

17

well known bribe taker of salary No. 26019, conducted so called

“jaanch” (literally translated as investigation) without a single

opportunity to cross examine any delclared or un declared

witness, without any iota of compliance of principles of natural

justice,submitted a controversial report (the report has till

date,been denied to the petitioner) clarified in his concluding

para that “ulterior motive” (he called doorasth prayojan) was that

the petitioner had obtained stay order against “transfer” .

The conclusion of report, thus suggests that authority of

insurance company supersedes that of high court.

14. That deliberately forgetting the basic rules of ethics that no public

servant can be punished for approaching the court of law

seeking justice the respondent No.1,himself a public servant, not

only issued order(s) stating that everything was OK despite two

different conduct rules of company (the petitioner was alleged of

violating 1975 rule however they invoked petitioner’s dismissal

and then transferred petitioner on so called re-instatement in

terms of rule of 2003) but also he instigated one or more of his

subordinate officials to get the petitioner dismissed from

insurance company. Pertinent to quote here the relevant para of

one of his “orders under the RTI act”:

Appeal No. 029/2009 Dated 25th June 2009 regarding RTI

application dt.16.03.2009

“On perusal of the Appeals (numbering 74 as on date) filed

by the Appellant to the undersigned, against his 109 no. of

18

applications under RTI submitted by him to his Employer/Committee

of Parliament on Official Language/Ministry of Finance,Central

Vigilance Commission etc.,it is noted that the appellant is not

interested in any genuine information but is merely making an attempt

to subvert the mechanism of the Act for no public gain.

His umpteen applications are repetitive in nature relating to domestic

enquiry proceedings against him and are designed not to elicit

information as defined in section 2(f) of the Act but to cause

discomfort to the authorities concerned for having initiated disciplinary

proceedings against him which are pending decisions by the

Competent authority.”

15. It is most pertinent to mention here that S.K. Kundra ,merely a

manager, pretended himself being competent authority was not

competent to dismiss the workman, a Hindi Translator,the

appointment letter of workman (translated) enclosed as P-4

herewith states “regional manager” as the appointing authority

of workman .

16. Though public servant(s) framing false or incorrect document

,with intent to cause injury is punishable in terms of section 128

of the CrPC, the respondents are mixing facts with deliberate

falsehood since last several years, two glaring examples of

crossing the boundary are:

(a) . Mr Harichand, respondent No. 4 ,made deliberate obscene

remarks ,on the official letter head of the company,against the

working wife of the petitioner ,he wrote in his own handwriting

19

that wife of the applicant,according to Mr. Harichand, was happy

living far away from her husband. Thus he intended to caste

stigma upon character of a lady .

(b) One Mr Khangarot who reports to respondent No.3, a

subodinate of aforesaid Mr. Hartichand stated that petitioner is

involved in what he described as “hera pheri” worth millions.

17. That honest petitioner has not been deliberately issued any

document specifying any reason not to allow him the opportunity

of promotion that has been accorded to other employees,e.g. a

well known bribe taker caught demanding gratification,salary No.

26019,despite being booked under prevention of corruption act

with effect from first week of January 2003 ,he has been

declared eligible and recently allowed participation in the written

exam for promotion to class 1 officer at Jaipur on 3rd December

2012

Accordingly together the said respondents filed a writ petition No.

4007/2012 in the High Court of Rajasthan and secretly got ex-

parte stay orders. On the other hand, a so called caveat stated to

be application under Rule 159 of Rajasthan High Court for

entering into Caveat was filed on behaf of contesting

respondents with the same High Court to deny the petitioner

workman filing any fresh writ petition.

20

18. The on behalf of respondent No.1 one S. K. Kundra who filed

affidavit in the High court in respect of S.B. civil writ petition No.

4575/2007 as on 15th February 2008 that petitioner was fully eligible

for promotion, and he could in future become an officer of the

company the same Mr Kundra was instigated to issue dismissal

orders against workman with effect from November 2009 for what Mr.

Kundra alleged as misconduct during 2007

19. Respondent No. 2 GIPSA is not registered with any statutory

authority. The legal liability is ,therefore shifted in person to

Respondent No.3 ,the then chairman of GIPSA,who is

incidentally, the present chairman of the insurance company,

namely Mr. G Srinivasan . The said Mr Srinivasan was issued

written instructions from Director of Insurance,Govt of India

,Ministry of Finance,the only competent authority empowered in

respect of service conditions of insurance employees of public

sector,in terms of General Insurance...Act-1972 ,not to transfer

employees belonging to Class of workman petitioner beyond 150

Km in ordinary circumstances and not beyond 200 Km by

authority of chairman ,of its member insurance company. A

copy of the aforesaid letter is annexed with this petition and

marked as Annexure P-6.

20. It is submitted that there cannot be a re-instatment of an

experienced and qualified Hindi translator to a post that was

specifically deleted in the appointment letter itself. Annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P-4 is a copy of the

21

appointment letter of workman as Hindi Translator in the office of

respondent No.4 with effect from 24th February 1988. Annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P-7 is a copy of the interim

stay orders issued by Respondent 6 upon the writ petition

moved by respondent No.1 and 4.

21. Had the respondent No.1 and 4 not abused authority to

file a frivolous writ petition S. B. civil 4007/2012 filed without any

courtesy/formality of notice to workman, stay orders obtained

without any knowledge of petitioner, the workman would have

been reinstated by now,which is not acceptable to respondent

No.1,who is adamant that honest Petitioner is denied of any

means of livelihood so as to teach him a lesson . On the other

hand the respondent No.1 himself was seen in the company of

official of salary No. 26019 a well known bribe taker as on 20

th July 2012 while visiting Jaipur as ex-officio chairman of the

insurance company. Evidence follows:

Grounds:1. Enforcement of Assurance given: As per the

admitted position of respondent No.1

company to respondent No.2 regarding

22

assurance about justice to the proper pay

scale and promotional opportunities to Hindi

translators explained in Para 1 and 2 the

same is required to be enforced with the

directions of this Hon’ble apex court.

2. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF petitioner

It is submitted that the fundamental rights of a citizen of

India as enshrined in article 21 of constitution of India

have been sought to be taken away by deliberate acts of

artificial legal persons, respondent’s 1 and 4, the

petitioner in such peculiar circumstances deserves

protection of his right to life,that is right to earn a

livelihood with human dignity.

It is submitted that this Hon’ble court in D.P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi

Admn. Vs. Ors 1983 3 SCR 949 has laid down rule of law

“ We think it is better that tribunals, particularly those entrusted

with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may

lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace, should decide all

issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them

as preliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in the exercise of

their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution stop

proceedings before a tribunal”…

The act of High court stopping proceedings vide orders dated

9.04.2012 and confirming the stay orders dated 30.07.2012 as

per Annexure- 7 enclosed herewith violates clearly the rule of

law laid down in aforesaid case law of D. P. Maheshwari.

23

Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the process of law before a tribunal

was stayed by respondent No. 6 High Court without genuine or

reasonable ground.

.

3.THE IMPUGNED Conduct RULES, 2003

It is submitted that the present Writ Petition pertains toillegality of petitioners invoking and framing Conduct rulesof 2009 which imposes certain new regulations, betweencommencement of so called enquiry and completion ofsame;particularly,the title of conduct rules itself has beenaltered. It is submitted that the said rules of 2003 cannot beinvoked by contesting respondents against the petitioner asthe contesting respondents do not posses any powers,interms of General Insurance Business Nationalisation Act-1972, to frame any fresh rules of conduct applicable toemployees The power (to frame conduct rules) has beenvested in the Ministry of Finance only. The InsuranceDivision of Govt of India have clarified the petitioner thatthey have not delegated any such powers to respondentinsurance company or GIPSA vide reply dated 23.08.2012,relevant para is enclosed herewith and marked as AnnexureP-5

Averment:No other identical matter is pendingwith/disposed of at this Hon’ble apexcourt.

The challenge to the reference in terms of a legislative act,that is, Industrial Disputes Act can be raised on verylimited grounds and certainly not to deny right tolivelihood of petitioner.

A workman dismissed, a woman burnt, exploited childlabourer, a displaced tribal, tortured dalit are not simplelaw cases but living, suffering human beings seekingjustice from the courts.

Artificial person’s rights cannot be given priority toforestall process of justice of a humble workman’sreference for adjudication of industrial dispute.

24

PRAYER

IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE

PLEASED TO:

a. The modus operandi of contesting respondents is to enjoy their

advantage and put the workman to disadvantage by exploiting

the extremely slow process of law. Therefore an appropriate

WRIT or order calling for records of and thereafter striking

down S. B. Civil writ petition 4007/2012 filed by contesting

respondents No. 1 and 4 in Rajasthan High court including stay

orders passed therein by respondent No.6

b. Interim relief of directions to contesting respondents No. 1 and 4

to allow petitioner resume his duties at lawful workplace ajmer till

the legality of impugned transfer is determined in terms of

industrial dispute act at Ajmer with the respondent No.7 labour

tribunal.

c. Pass such other and further orders as this Court may deem fit

and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case,

particularly,in the matter of pending justice to Hindi Translators

including discriminatory denial of promotion.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY Drawn and filed by:

PETITIONER- IN -PERSON

DATED 12.12.2012

25

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAS.B.Civil Writ Petition No… /2012

Shri Gopal Soni Vs.New India Assurance Co. Ltd &

Ors. Affidavit in support of Writ PetitionI Shri Gopal soni aged about 48 years, residing at

C-231,Panchsheel Nagar,Ajmer do hereby solemnly

affirm and state as follows:-

1. That I say that that I am the petitioner in

the above mentioned matter and I am well

conversant with the facts, proceedings and

circumstances of the case and hence competent

to swear to this affidavit.

2. That I say that that I have read and understood

the contents of the accompanying Writ Petition

para 1 to para 21 and I say that the facts

stated therein are true to my knowledge.

3. That I say that the annexure along with

the Writ Petition are true copies of text of

its respective originals.

4. That I say that the averments of facts

stated herein above are true to my knowledge,

no part of it is false and nothing material has

been concealed therefrom.

Verified at Ajmer on this the 12th day of

December 2012

Deponent

26

Annexure- P 1 of writ petition under article 32 of Shri Gopal Soni

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD.,MUMBAI (H.O.)

CORP.HRM/CL III-IV CELL/2007

February 27,2007

Mr. A.K.Singhal ,Vice President ,GIPSA

Jeevan Vihar, 3rd Floor (Rear Portion)Parliament Street , Sansad Marg,New Delhi 110 001.

Dear Sir,

Re: Representation against the recategorisation ofTranslator as Assistant and anomaly of pay scale oftranslators Vis-a-vis qualification requirement

We have received representations from Hindi Translators workingunder our Delhi R.O. I and II on the above subject matter.Copies of the same alongwith the enclosures are enclosed foryour perusal.

Employees have mentioned in their representation that as perDepartment of Official Language, Ministry of HomeAffairs,post of Hindi Officers, Hindi Stenographers,HindiTranslators,Hindi Typists were created in the year 1985 in ourIndustry.

Hindi Translator was a new post in our industry with educationalqualification of Graduation,they were appointed in the grade ofAssistant with six additional increments (four plus twograduation increments). Employees further represented thatthis additional four increments clearly shows that Managementrecognized the Hindi Translator not only a separate cadre butalso a higher cadre than Assistant.

After Wage Revision of 2005 various Sr. Assitant grade and Assitantgrade posts were recategorised as Sr. Assistant and Assistantrespectively. Due to redesignation as Assistant employeesfeel that they have been downgraded and it is also a clear,blatant and unconstitutional violation of terms of appointmentas they were appointed as Hindi Translator.

During the visit of Parliamentary Committee on Official Language toour Srinagar DO on 19/6/2006 it was pointed out by theCommittee that the post is treated as technical post requiringeducational qualification of post graduation. The translator isplaced at the level of Assistant whose minimum requirededucational Qualification is 12th passed. Not only this evenstenographers who are placed one post ahead of thetranslator required minimum educational qualification of 12thstandard.

Pof. Ramdev Bhandari,Dy Chairman asked us to get resolvedgrievances of the translator and see that justice is mad to all

27

Hindi Translators working in New India Assurance. Committeehas also reminded of action to be taken on pending matter ofcreation of /up gradation of separate cadre for Hindi Staff andthe officers and see that translator working in our Companyare duly promoted as Hindi Officer and not divertedelsewhere. They have also advised to upgrade the cadre uptoDy General Manager level. We have also assured theCommittee that the issue will be taken up with GIPSA toresolve the grievances of these translators as well as creationof separate cadre of Hindi Staff.

We now request you to discuss this issue in ensuing GM (P) meetingand let us have your advice in this regard.

Thanking you.

Yours faithfully,

(N.TOPPO)

DY GENERAL MANAGER

Text verified as true

28

Annexure-P2 Shri Gopal Soni V/s Chief Executive Officer & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH ,JAIPUR.

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No…14838/2010Date of Order: 12.10.2011

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI

Mr. Chandra Mohan Sharma for the petitioner,

Mr. V.S. Yadav for the respondents.

The matter has come up on an application

with the prayer to delete the respondent No.1 from

the array of party respondents.

Learned councel for the respondents submit that

neither any order passed by respondent No.1 nor any

of its action is under challenge. Even no prayer

has been made against respondent No.1. All the

reliefs have been prayed against the respondent

No.2 & 3. Thus,petitioner unnecessarily impleaded

respondent No.1 as party to the writ petition,thus

liable to be deleted.

I have considered the submissions made and

after going through the record, I find that no

order or action of respondent No.1 has been

challenged or any prayer is made therein against

it. Only Para 2 of the writ petition make a mention

29

about status of respondent No.1 without indicating

as to how it is necessary party to the litigation.

..2..

In the light of the facts given below,the

application for deletion of name of respondent No.1

is allowed. The notification under challenge has

not been issued by respondent No.1 and the

petitioner is otherwise an employee of respondent

No.2, thus he can be claim relief prayed for

against other respondents.

Amended cause title be filed within two weeks.

(M.N. Bhandari)J.

Text verified as true