This story is from September 4, 2011

NCCL to file PIL against govt for accountability rules

The Nagpur Chamber of Commerce Limited has decided to file a public interest litigation against the Maharashtra government for early implementation of Maharashtra Govt Servants Transfer Act.
NCCL to file PIL against govt for accountability rules
NAGPUR: The Nagpur Chamber of Commerce Limited (NCCL) has decided to file a public interest litigation (PIL) against the Maharashtra government for early implementation of rules for Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005.
In a recently conducted board meeting of NCCL presided by JP Sharma, it was unanimously resolved to file a PIL demanding immediate enactment of rules as per act.
1x1 polls
Secretary Tejinder Singh Renu said that this legislation was enacted on June 1, 2006 and specifies deadlines for movement of files in a government office and final disposal of a citizen's matter.
"The legislation, also regulating transfers of government employees, states that an officer can no longer be moved out of his chair in just one week nor will a clerk remain glued to his chair for two decades," he added.
As per the act, normal tenure on any post is fixed for three years and this can be extended only under exceptional circumstances. The act deals with the regulation of transfer of government servants and prevention of delay in discharge of their official duties. As per the general administration department, a list of officials due for transfer is prepared in January every year.
Similarly, it also stipulates that a file must move from a table within seven days. It also prescribes a maximum of 45 days for a decision to be taken on a file, right from its journey from the lowest clerk to the time a decision is taken and the file is closed by the secretary.
Also, it is mentioned in the act that if any file requires to be referred to any other department then, decision and necessary action should be taken in three months. It is a known fact to all in common parlance that the act was mainly to regulate lethargic bureaucracy. Failure to comply is punishable with action like issuance of a warning and adverse remarks in the annual confidential report.
Renu claimed that though this act was passed, it could not be regulated for want of rules. He also informed that the chamber sent registered letters to chief minister Prithviraj Chavan, chief secretary Ratnakar Gaikwad and principal secretaries of general administration and law and judiciary departments demanding immediate enactment of rules. However, it did not receive any response from Mantralaya or the government.
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA