Court summons Governor’s Secretary in contempt case

Legal Correspondent

CHENNAI, FEBRUARY 22, 2019 00:00 IST

Asks why employee was not reinstated despite orders

The Madras High Court has issued a statutory notice to Governor’s Secretary R. Rajagopal on a contempt of court petition. The notice requires his presence in the court next month to explain why a Raj Bhavan employee, forcibly relieved from service in 1996, was not reinstated despite a series of orders passed by the court since 2009.

Incumbent officer

A Division Bench of Justices S. Manikumar and M. Venugopal passed the order on the contempt petition filed by the employee S. Nagaraj in 2014. Though the petition was filed against Ramesh Chand Meena, the then Secretary to Governor, the judges impleaded the incumbent officer since he was well aware of the court orders on the issue.

The contemnor was directed to be present in the court with the relevant files relating to the case and explain why the judicial orders were not implemented.

The issue dates back to 1988 when Mr. Nagaraj, then a Stenotypist with the Animal Husbandry Department got appointed through transfer, as an Assistant in the Governor’s secretariat.

In November 1996, he was relieved from service on the ground that he was only on deputation and directed to report back to the Director of Animal Husbandry. The petitioner challenged the relieving order before the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in 1997 and his case got transferred to the High Court in 2008 after the tribunal was wound up.

A single judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition on September 30, 2009 and quashed the relieving order.

Subsequently, on April 18, 2012, a Division Bench of the High Court too dismissed a writ appeal preferred by the Governor’s secretariat. A special leave petition before the Supreme Court also got dismissed on October 25, 2013.

Final deadline ignored

In 2014, the official respondents filed a review petition before the High Court and the petitioner moved a contempt of court petition. The Division Bench of Justices Manikumar and Venugopal dismissed the review petition in October 2015 and kept the contempt proceedings pending with a direction to reinstate the petitioner within two weeks.

Though more than three years had passed since the order was passed, it was reported to the court that the petitioner was yet to be reinstated. Hence, they chose to issue a statutory notice, which requires the presence of a contemnor, to Mr. Rajagopal as it was not disputed that he was aware of the orders passed by the court on the present issue.

Kapil’s Devils demand more than ₹15 lakh for movie on ’83 WC win

K.ShriniwasRao@timesgroup.com

Mumbai:22.02.2019

The legendary Kapil’s Devils – members of the1983 World Cup winning team – who have a movie coming up on their historic achievement, are “unhappy” about the remuneration they will be drawing for sharing their ‘story of a lifetime’.

TOI has learnt that a majority of the former team members met in Mumbai on Thursday to share their concerns over the fact that the makers of the biopic are paying them a “paltry” ₹15 lakh each for their participation.

These former cricketers, sources say, had signed contracts to share their story on the World Cup win 36 years ago, a win that changed the face of Indian cricket forever. At ₹15 lakh per player, a total of 10 team members will collectively draw Rs 1.5 crore.

“That’s a pittance. A cricketer making his IPL debut takes twice of that or more. You’re talking about players who won the biggest trophy ever for Indian cricket. It is 1983 that changed everything for India,” say sources. It is further learnt that Kapil Dev, the captain of the 1983 team, has a separate contract with the filmmakers while another legend from that side, Sunil Gavaskar, is the only team member to have not signed the contract.

“Yes, we (rest of the team members) have been offered that amount (₹15 lac) and there’s no profit sharing either. We have decided to take this matter up with them (the filmmakers),” two members of the1983 squad said.

Under Kapil, Gavaskar, Mohinder Amarnath, Krishnamachari Srikkanth, Balwinder Sandhu, Syed Kirmani, Sunil Valson, Madan Lal, Sandeep Patil, Roger Binny, Kirti Azad, Yashpal Sharma and Ravi Shastri were part of the team that won the tournament.

Those speaking on behalf of these team members say 1983 win is their biggest achievement. “It is not fair if they are being made to undersell this legendary achievement. Biopics on sports legends overseas are not treated like this,” say sources. All other team members are learnt to have signed the contract.


GAME CHANGERS: Kapil Dev poses with the 1983 World Cup along with Mohinder Amarnath

It is further learnt that Kapil Dev has a separate contract with the filmmakers while another legend from that side, Sunil Gavaskar, is the only team member to have not signed the contract

Swiggy in talks to buy Uber’s India food delivery business

Uber Also Talking To Zomato For The Share Swap Deal

Madhav Chanchani & Sidhartha TNN

Bengaluru/New Delhi:22.02.2019

India’s online food delivery sector is headed for consolidation as ride-hailing major Uber is looking to sell its Ubereats business in the country in run-up to its public offering, according to three sources familiar with the development. The San Francisco-based company is in talks with Bengaluru-based Swiggy and has also been in discussions with Gurugram-based Zomato for the deal, as the two rivals are competing for market leadership in the space, said these sources.

The transaction will be structured as a share-swap deal, with Uber taking shares in the buyers for the agreed upon valuation. “Swiggy is currently leading the discussions but Zomato is also in contention as well,” said one of the sources mentioned above, adding that the valuation and share-swap ratios are being discussed.

Ubereats’ India business is currently doing about 1,50,000 to 2,50,000 deliveries a day with gross sales run rate of about $200-250 million, according to multiple industry executives.

Both Ola and Zomato do four-five times more deliveries than Ubereats, said these executives.

This makes Ubereats a contender for a distant third spot in the market again rival ridehailing company Ola-owned Foodpanda. “The Ubereats India business may get valued at about two-to-three times their gross sales,” said one of the sources mentioned above, pegging the valuation at over $500 million.

“We do not comment on rumour or speculation,” said an Uber India spokesperson. When contacted, Swiggy and Zomato spokespersons declined to comment.

The transaction will help Uber cut down loss from the India business as it heads for a public offering. Uber, which has already made a confidential filing with US regulators for an IPO, reported loss of $1.8 billion for 2018.

“Ubereats was losing about $15-20 million a month in India late last year,” said an investor tracking the space.

India is one of the markets where Uber still sees high loss even as it has sold off operations in China, Russia and Southeast Asia to rivals. While there have been rumours of a potential consolidation with Ola, as both companies share SoftBank as the largest shareholder, these talks have not progressed. This has forced Uber to look at other alternatives. Ubereats had said last year it is adding 4,500 delivery personnel a week and 100 restaurants a day in the country.

› TPG Growth in talks to invest $40m in Nykaa, P 20

Why French schools won’t use ‘mother’ & ‘father’

Likely To Be Replaced By ‘Parent 1’ & ‘Parent 2’ To Avoid Discrimination Against Same-Sex Parents

Olivia Petter  22.02.2019

France’s National Assembly has passed a law that will see the removal of the labels “mother” and “father” from forms used in the country’s schools.

The amendment made to the nation’s School of Trust Bill would see the terms be replaced with “parent 1” and “parent 2” in a move designed to avoid discriminating against same-sex parents.

The decision was widely supported by the majority La République en Marche Party, which was founded by French President Emmanuel Macron.

“This amendment aims to root in law children’s family diversity in administrative forms submitted in school,” said Valérie Petit, an MP who tabled the amendment, claiming that the previous law did not take into account the existence of same-sex parents.

“We have families who find themselves faced with tick boxes stuck in rather oldfashioned social and family models. For us, this article is a measurement of social equality,” she added.

However, some French conservative MPs disagree with the principle of the ruling.

MP Fabien Di Filippo, for example, who is deputy general secretary for The Republican party, described the amendment as a “frightening ideology,” reports ‘The Daily Telegraph’, “which in the name of limitless egalitarianism promotes removing points of reference, including those regarding the family”.

Meanwhile, MEP Nicolas Bay, member of France’s right-wing National Rally party expressed his views on Twitter, writing: “One father, one mother! Stop theis pseudo-‘progressive’ delirium! #Parent1Parent2”.

Right-wing Twitter users concurred, with one person writing that the concept of abolishing the labels of “mother” and “father” is “dehumanising”.

Others queried how parents would decide who was number one and who was number two.

The amendment says: “To prevent discrimination, school enrolment, class registers, parental authorisations and all other official forms involving children must mention only Parent 1 and Parent 2”.

It was first mentioned by French government officials in 2013, when same-sex marriage was legalised in the country.

The amendment could still be rejected by the French Senate, but would then go back to the National Assembly for a final reading. THE INDEPENDENT

GOING GENDER-NEUTRAL

Ex-Punjab SP gets 10 years RI for rape

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Gurdaspur:22.02.2019

Punjab Police’s former superintendent (SP) Salwinder Singh was sentenced to10 years’ rigorous imprisonment by a local court in a rape case on Thursday. The court also fined him ₹1.7 lakh. The court had pronounced him guilty in the case on February 15.

Salwinder was also quizzed in the 2016 Pathankot airbase terror attack, but the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had given him a clean chit.

Salwinder was on August 3, 2016, booked under Section 376 of the IPC for allegedly raping a woman. Salwinder was conducting an inquiry against the woman’s husband and allegedly took ₹50,000 from her for clearing her husband’s name and sexually exploited her as well. The then chief minister had ordered an inquiry in the case following a complaint by the woman’s husband. Salwinder also faces another case of sexual harassment filed by five policewomen.

In November 2017, the Punjab government had ordered his compulsory premature retirement in view of the two FIRs against him along with five pending charge sheets in various cases of indiscipline.

Earlier in 2017, NIA had given Salwinder a clean chit in the Pathankot airbase attack. Then Gurdaspur SP, Salwinder’s name had cropped up after he claimed he was abducted near the India-Pakistan border by Pakistani terrorists who later carried out an attack on the Pathankot Air Force station on January 2, 2016. He was interrogated by the NIA and subjected to polygraph test, but was later given clean chit by the premier agency.

After the sentence was handed out, Salwinder told mediapersons he would move the Punjab and Haryana high court to get justice.

Due to shortage of sub-registrars, offices are headed by clerical staff

Yogesh.Kabirdoss@timesgroup.com

Chennai:22.02.2019

A shortage of subregistrars has led to clerical staff heading at least seven sub-registrar offices in and around the city. The offices should be led by sub-registrars in the rank of district registrars.

Official sources with the registration department said 172 of the 767 sub-registrar posts or about one-fifth of them have not been filled. “This has resulted in staff below the rank of sub-registrars, such as assistants (in the grade of clerk), acting as officers at the registration offices,” an official said. Chennai zone, comprising 64 sub-registrar offices spread across the city, Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur districts, does not have sub-registrars heading seven offices. “Of these, a few include registration offices that should have officials designated as district registrars. But, they are headed by clerks,” the source added. These offices include the ones in Sowcarpet, Sembium, Chennai Central Joint I and II, sources said.

The posts are usually filled through direct recruitment or by promoting existing staff. While registration department sources said 20% of subregistrar posts are vacant, several clerical-level officials facing disciplinary action could not be promoted.

There are 575 sub-registrar offices functioning across the state and of those offices registering more than 5,000 documents annually must have a joint sub-registrar as well. Sub-registrars are also engaged in other wings of the registration department, such as guidelines and chits and societies at the district registrar offices.

The registration department is a key source of revenue for the state government. This fiscal, property registration has generated revenue of ₹5,750 crore from April 2018 to November 2018, of which Chennai zone contributed nearly 45%.

When contacted, a senior registration department official said as per rules clerical staff can serve as the registration officer.

Official sources with the registration department said 172 of the 767 sub-registrar posts or about one-fifth of them have not been filled

Guv’s secy summoned for contempt of court
Directed To Appear Before HC on Mar 19

Sureshkumar.K@timesgroup.com

Chennai:22.02.2019

R Rajagopal, senior bureaucrat and secretary to Tamil Nadu governor, is staring at contempt of court proceedings for his failure to implement a five-yearold Supreme Court order quashing ‘involuntary’ repatriation of a Raj Bhavan employee to his parent department.

The Madras high court summoned the officer to be personally present before a bench of Justice S Manikumar and Justice M Venugopal on March 19. Suspecting wilful disobedience of court orders, the bench has asked the officer to appear and explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him.

The bench passed the order while noting that though contempt was committed by his predecessor, it could be extended against the present officer who holds the post and has the knowledge of such contempt.

The matter relates to a case filed by S Nagaraj, an assistant section officer of the governor’s secretariat, challenging an order dated November 25, 1996, by the then secretary transferring him back to the department of animal husbandry.

After joining the department as a stenotypist on August 1, 1983, Nagaraj’s service was regularised in 1986. He was transferred to the governor’s secretariat and appointed as acting assistant on January 20, 1988.

Subsequently, he was promoted as personal clerk to deputy secretary to the governor and was also provided quarters on the vast Raj Bhavan campus.

On October 4, 1996, Nagaraj wrote to the then governor’s secretary to consider him for promotion to the post of private secretary or to upgrade his post as section officer. The then governor also made a note of endorsement on the representation. But, for reasons best known to the official concerned, within four days of sending the representation, Nagaraj was reverted to his parent department.

Assailing the order, Nagaraj moved the administrative tribunal. On January 24, 1997, the tribunal granted an interim stay against the transfer. Challenging the stay, the governor’s office moved the high court. On September 30, 2009, the high court dismissed the plea noting that once a person was regularly appointed to a post, in accordance with existing rules and in the absence of anything contrary to the rules, they cannot be involuntarily repatriated to their parent department.

A division bench for the court also confirmed the order on appeal. Aggrieved, the governor’s office moved the Supreme Court. On October 25, 2013 the apex court also confirmed the high court order and dismissed the appeal. Since the governor’s office had failed to implement the court order even after expiry to five years, Nagaraj moved the present contempt petition.

R Rajagopal, senior bureaucrat and secretary to Tamil Nadu governor, has been asked to appear before court and explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him