Tag Archives: Bombay High Court

Drdo

‘DRDO Chariot’ Donation Issue Reaches Parliament, Parrikar Says Probe Ongoing

By Pradip R Sagar Published: 09th May 2015 05:00 AM – The New Indian Express

Parrikar2-PTINEW DELHI: A probe is on into allegations that a Pune-based laboratory of the country’s premier defence research agency DRDO had developed and donated a hi-tech chariot to a temple, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar informed Parliament on Friday.

Express in its report dated November 23 had reported that the DRDO laboratory had spent `5 crore to develop a hi-tech chariot and donated it to Alandi Temple in Pune.

Responding to a` question raised in the Lok Sabha by TDP MP C H Malla Reddy on the matter, Parrikar said in a written reply that the matter is “under inquiry”.

“Further action would be taken thereafter,” he added.

This shocking piece of information came out after a scientist of the same laboratory moved the Bombay High Court over the absurd venture and filed a complaint with the CVC.

The scientist, was made to pay for raising his voice. The DRDO, in turn, not only stripped him off from ongoing projects, but also transferred him from the centre.

Dr S Guruprasad, Director of the laboratory Research and Development Establishment (engineers), Pune, had told Express that they had built the battery-operated chariot over a year’s time and the DRDO carried out the project under the head of corporate social responsibility (CSR).

The chariot can run for about 12 hours and the battery takes six hours to get fully charged. The chariot is made of carbon fibre, which has reduced its weight considerably to 1,900 kg from about 4,000 kg of the old chariot.

R&DE, Pune, has a mandate to design and develop combat engineering systems such as military bridging and mine warfare systems, development of field defence systems and, design and development of weapon launch systems such as Prithvi, Agni, Brahmos, Nirbhay, among others.

While numerous DRDO projects such as the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, Nag missile, long-range surface-to-air missile and the airborne early warning and control system have been delayed and have cost much higher than their original estimates, indulging in such an expensive “religious” project have raised many eyebrows.

Drdo

DRDO Refuses to Divulge Information on Hi-tech Chariot

7 Comments

By Pradip R Sagar Published: 29th December 2014 05:59 -Indian Express

NEW DELHI: The DRDO has refused to give out any information regarding making of a ‘chariot’ for a religious function.

The Express, in its report on dated 23 November, had exposed that a Pune-based DRDO laboratory Research and Development Establishment (Engineers) had developed and donated a hi-tech chariot to a temple.

DRDO-Chariot
DRDO’s Hi-Tech Chariot

This shocking piece of information came out after a young scientist of the same laboratory decided to rebel against this absurd venture and moved the Bombay high court and even the CVC. The DRDO developed the hi-tech chariot and ‘donated’ it to Alandi Temple, Pune.
The young scientist had to pay for raising his voice. The DRDO has not only stripped him off from the ongoing projects, but also transferred him out from the centre, where he is being left to waste.

A day after the Express report, a former DRDO scientist moved an RTI to the Ministry of Defence for seeking details of the government sanction to the DRDO for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and allocated budget for the same.

But on December 18, the R&DE (Engineers), in its reply to the RTI, had stated, “The DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 and exempted from disclosure of information under Section 24(1), except information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human right violations.”

The Section 24(1) of the RTI Act exempt security and intelligence agencies specified in the Second schedule to disclose such information. “This information, which I have asked for, has nothing to do with the national security and intelligence framework. But, the DRDO is using this as a shield to suppress information related to corruption in the organisation,” the scientist (identity withheld) told Express, who filed the RTI in the matter.

Dr. S Guruprasad, Director of the R&DE, Pune, had told Express that they had built this battery operated chariot in an year’s time and the DRDO had carried out the project under the head of the CSR. R&DE Pune has a mandate to design and develop Combat Engineering Systems, such as Military Bridging and Mine Warfare Systems, development of Field Defence Systems and NBC Collective protection Shelters, design and development of Weapon Launch System such as Prithvi, Agni, BrahMos, AD, MR-SAM and Nirbhay.

While numerous DRDO projects such as the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, Nag missile, long-range surface-to-air missile and Airborne Early Warning and Control System have been delayed, and have cost much higher than their original estimates, expenses on such a ‘religious’ project have raised many eyebrows.

Drdo

Incurring the DRDO’s rath

11 Comments

It should disturb us all gravely that a motorised battery-powered chariot is the level of “technology” the DRDO feels proud to pass on.
25-11-2014
SHIV AROOR @shivaroor

I love this story. Everything about it numbs the brain. What I love best about it is that nobody could have made this up: An Indian military laboratory tucked away in a leafy Pune neighbourhood, tasked with building combat support vehicles, has built and supplied a gleaming battery-powered rath to the grateful Alandi Temple nearby. Correct. A chariot. For a temple. You see what I mean? Can’t make this stuff up.

Details sometimes kill a great story. In this case, they really crank up the W-T-F value.

The story emerged on the front pages of the New Indian Express which reported that the rath was built at a cost of Rs five crore and “donated” to the temple. The laboratory reportedly explained that the work was done as “seva” and that a scientist who apparently blew the whistle on what he felt was a totally improper use of public money and laboratory resources, was shunted and buried in a lower profile role in Nashik. The clincher now, the NIE report says, is that the Bombay High Court has stepped in and ordered the DRDO and MoD to explain what this rath business is all about. I know nothing beyond what’s been reported, so I decided to poke around. When I called a DRDO spokesperson asking him what the fuss was about, he fobbed me off. “It was done as seva. What is wrong if some military research helps some civilian cause also?” he asked. Well, plenty, I thought, but decided to sit on it. Let’s see just how farcical this can get. Other than a little hilarity and outrage on Twitter, the story hasn’t turned too many people on. That may change if the DRDO decides to officially comment.

First off, only an idiot would hope to find any justification at all for a public-funded combat vehicle research lab spending any resources (money, man-hours that could be better spent, materials, electricity) on a rath. Second, excuses like “seva” etc don’t hold. If the rath project eats into laboratory time or resources even slightly, it’s unacceptable. Period. Three, inappropriate diversions of this kind are an insult to the hundreds of DRDO scientists actually doing stellar, quality military research, even at the same laboratory. Indulgences of this kind hurt the reputations of scientists who have to work harder just to make up for the incompetence, laziness and vacuous sahib culture of their colleagues. Finally (and this is my favourite reason) it should disturb us all gravely that a motorised battery-powered chariot is the level of “technology” the DRDO is dabbling with and feels proud to pass on. As someone on Twitter pointed out to me, a small group of engineering kids could have built the thing in two months or less. (Less. Definitely less. Have you seen the stuff engineering students make these days?)

The Bombay High Court has better things to do than intervene in preposterous issues of this kind, but I for one would love to know how this one plays out, especially since the DRDO chief himself has been asked to explain. The DRDO chief is a good man, a strong missile scientist, who I hope will send out the right message. Because for far too long, the DRDO has gotten away never having to explain itself, always shielding itself with a pretend-patriotic forcefield, crying foul at the slightest criticism and accusing its detractors of being anti-nationals.

“Not just high-altitude chikki”. That was the title of the final column I wrote for the Indian Express before I left in 2007. The column welcomed a rare formal awakening within the government about the need to completely overhaul and reinvent India’s doddering, plagued and villified Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO). The government’s decision to find ways to kick the DRDO into a shape was, if not directly a result of, at least catalysed by a relentless eight-part series that the Express had frontpaged just days earlier, carefully picking apart the breathtaking incompetence and sense of entitlement that had allowed the DRDO to balloon into a nightmarishly out-of-control and wasteful organisation. The title of my parting column was a reference to the mind-boggling products the DRDO found (sigh, and still finds) the need to expend its energies on, instead of focusing on giving India its basic weapons. (The DRDO’s Defence Food Research Laboratory in Mysore actually researches, among other things, stabilised chikki and cashewnut burfi for troops at high altitude). DRDO chief at the time M Natarajan had written an letter to all employees asking them not to be affected by the “malicious news columns” that seek “distract us from our goal of self-reliance”.

Comment Writing about DRDO for almost exactly ten years now, the one thing I’ve noticed is that hilarity about its misadventures always diffuses into anger. The truth is, the organisation has nobody but itself to blame. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Modi chastised the DRDO at a public event, informing it that the world wouldn’t wait for it, and that delays in crucial weapons projects was unacceptable. The DRDO has enjoyed “friendly” defence ministries in the past, notably under AK Antony. Modi has signalled that the time for fun and games is over. The message is simple: That’s public money you’re using. Soldiers need the stuff you make. You don’t have a moment or a rupee to waste. Get your shit together. Now.

Drdo

PIL-IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE CIVIL WRIT JURIDICTION

1 Comment

PUBLIC  INTEREST  LITIGATION  No.  142 /2011

DIST: PUNE

Ramshastri Justice Foundation, Pune
Through its Secretary
Dr. Rohidas G. Taware                                   :           Petitioner

V/s

Union of India & others                                 :           Respondents

I N D E X

SR. NO.

EXH. NO.

PARTICULARS

PAGE NOS.

1.

–

 Synopsis

A – D

2.

–

 Memo of  Writ Petition

01 – 12

3.

A

 O. M. issued by DoPT for grant of extension to Central Govt. servants beyond the age of superannuation.  Dated:  09.12.200223.02.200509.02.201116.05.2011

13 – 22

4.

B

 Attrition of scientists from the DRDO.Reply by Defence Minister in Lok Sabha.DRDO losses one scientist every second day.   During recession, fewer scientists left DRDO.Scientists Leaving DRDO- why called Attrition

Top Defence scientists Leave DRDO En Masse

23 – 30

5.

 

C

 Extension Applications alongwith Integrity Certificates issued by Dr. Arun Kumar, DoP, for   Shri. Agarwal R.C.      Dated: 18.05.2011Shri. Ikbal Singh         Dated: 18.05.2011

31 – 36

6.

D

 Frustration letters by scientists of DRDO to Shri A K Antony.Letter by K. Meera, Sc.’G’, GTRE, BangaloreLetter by S K Jindal, Sc.’G’, SPIC, New DelhiLetter by Dr. Rajesh Rampal, Sc.’G’, Jodhpur

37 – 42

7.

E

 Letters by Petitioner toMr. A K Antony,          Dated: 13.05.2011The Secretary, DoPT,   Dated: 01.06.2011The Secretary, DoPT,   Dated: 14.06.2011

43 – 50

8.

F

 Regular Criminal Complaint No. 0401198/11With Orders of JMFC, Court No.9, Pune.

51 – 61

                                                                                                   Last Page: 61

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE CIVIL WRIT JURIDICTION

 

PUBLIC  INTEREST  LITIGATION  No. 142 /2011

 

DIST: PUNE

Ramshastri Justice Foundation, Pune
Through its Secretary
Dr. Rohidas G. Taware                                   :           Petitioner

V/s

Union of India                                                :           Respondents

SYNOPSIS

 

SR. NO.

DATE/ EXHIBITS

PARTICULARS

1.

2002 – 11

Exh. –  A

 DoPT by its O.M. dated 09.12.2002 issued instructions regarding grant of extension to Central Govt. servants beyond the age of superannuation. It laid down procedure for consideration of cases for extension in scientific fields. Extensions in service to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances. The overriding consideration for the grant of extension is that it must be in the public interest. Instructions in this regard were timely issued by DoPT by its O.M. dated 23.02.2005, 09.02.2011 and 16.05.2011.

2.

2003 – 11

Exh. – B

 Defence Minister, Shri. A K Antony replied in Lok Sabha to Shri. Siddeshwara regarding attrition of scientists from DRDO. According to the Ministry, 1107 young scientists resigned from DRDO between 2003 and 2007. DRDO has miserably failed to arrest the exodus of young scientists from DRDO. 20 top scientists of DRDO quit their jobs in second half of year 2010.

3.

18.05.2011

Exh. – C

 Applications of Shri. Agarwal R C, Sc. ‘H’ and Shri. Ikbal Singh, Sc.’G’ for extensions along with Integrity Certificates issued by Dr. Arun Kumar.

4.

2011

Exh. – D

 Letters of frustrations by K. Meera, Sc.’G’ , GTRE, Bangalore, S.K. Jindal, Sc.’G’, SPIC, New Delhi and Dr. Rajesh  Rampal, Sc.’G’, D. L., Jodhpur addressed to Shri. A K Antony, found the vent for their suppressed resentment regarding malpractices in DRDO.

5.

2011

Exh. – E

 Ramshastri Justice Foundation, Pune, the Petitioner wrote to Shri. A K Antony on 13.05 2011 regarding lawlessness in the administration of DRDO. The Petitioner by its letter dated 01.06.2011 wrote to Secretary, DoPT regarding illegal extension in service and promotion of Dr. A Subhananda Rao. The Petitioner vide its letter dated 14.06.2011 wrote to Secretary, DoPT regarding growing Criminal activities of top scientists in DRDO.

6.

2011

Exh. – F

 Dr. R G Taware filed Criminal Complaint against Dr. Arun Kumar and his five sub-ordinates under sections 167 and 170 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Hon’ble JMFC Court No.9 issued process against all the six Accused under the same sections of I.P.C. Six top officers of the Directorate of Personnel, DRDO are the Accused before the Criminal Court of Pune.

 

POINTS TO BE URGED;

The age of retirement by superannuation of the Central Government employees is 60 years. As per the provisions in F.R. 56(d), the Estt. Division of DoPT has laid down the procedure for grant of extension to the scientists through its D.O. letter No. 28/19/2000-EO(SM-II) dated 10th July, 2000.

DRDO, by flouting the instructions of DoPT, has given unjustifiable extensions to many of its scientists. Not only the next men who have missed their promotions but several people have missed consequential promotions all along the hierarchy in DRDO.  This has caused frustration in senior scientists whose promotions have been blocked and has affected the morale of upcoming young scientists. A total of 1107 young entrants have resigned from DRDO between 2003 and 2007. In a severe blow to the already shrinking numbers of Researchers in DRDO, 20 top scientists have quit their jobs in the second half of the year 2010. All the efforts of DRDO to arrest the attrition rate, have miserably failed.

This is only because of the superannuating scientists who are clinging to their posts. The extended services of so-called distinguished scientists are required to be extinguished to arrest the exodus of dynamic young scientists from DRDO.  Some of the top scientists are enjoying extensions up to the age of 64-65 years. This is not only bad for DRDO; but it is the wastage of the national money on their salaries and other benefits. These malpractices are required to be stopped immediately in the national interest.

Hence, this Petition.

ACTS REFERRED TO & RELIED UPON:

  1. Constitution of India
  2. Fundamental Rules and Office Memoranda issued by DoPT, Union of India.
  3. CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964
  4. CCS (CCA) Rules 1965

AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO & RELIED UPON: Nil.

Mumbai                                               (Mr. B. R. Barge)
Date: 27/09/2011                    Advocate for the Petitioner
Sanad No.  MAH/1348/1992
Email: bargebhagwan@gmail.com
Cell No. 9881750682
Office: 16, Mata Chambers,
Anandnagar, Old Sangvi,
Pune – 411 027.
Phone: 020-27282647

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE CIVIL WRIT JURIDICTION

PUBLIC  INTEREST  LITIGATION  No.142 /2011

DIST: PUNE

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

In the matter of extension and promotion in extension in the service of scientists in DRDO, Ministry of Defence, beyond the age of superannuation.

In the matter of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

And

In the Fundamental Rules and Office Memoranda issued by DoPT, Union of India.

And

In the matter of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964;

And

In the matter of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965;

 

Ramshastri Justice Foundation,
Email: justicefoundationpune@gmail.com
Through its Secretary,
Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware
Email: rohidas.taware@yahoo.com
Cell No. 9423015022
Regd. Office:
16, Mata Chambers, Anandnagar,
Old Sangvi, Pune – 411 027.                   
Phone No. 020-27282647                   — Petitioner

 

Vs.

  1. Union of India

Through

The Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri and
Director General, Research & Development,
DOP, DRDO, Ministry of Defence,
Govt. of India,
DRDO Bhavan,
New Delhi- 110 105.

 

  1. Union of India

Through

Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Govt. of India,
South Block,
New Delhi-     110 105.
 
  1. Union of India

Through

Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),
Govt. of India,
North Block,
New Delhi- 110  011.                              — Defendants

(No.1 to 3)

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

The petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits as under:

1.         The Petitioner is a NGO registered under Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is based in Pune, Maharashtra and is fighting against social evils and injustice. It has developed enormous concern over the corruption in DRDO, Ministry of Defence.

2.         The petitioner is invoking the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India in public interest against the corrupt practices and irregularities in the working of DRDO.

3.         The cause of action for the filing of this Public Interest Litigation is the concern of the Petitioner which got accentuated over the grant of extension of service of scientists beyond the age of superannuation.

4.         The age of retirement by superannuation of the Central Government employees is 60 years. The procedure for grant of extension to the scientists is laid down in Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) D.O. letter No. 28/19/2000-EO (SM-II) dated 10th July 2000. Such extensions in service to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances. As per DoPT O.M. No.26012/6/2002-Estt.(A) dated 9.12.2002, whenever any specialist is considered for grant of extension, his character roll and personal file should be carefully scrutinized. He must have a good reputation for integrity and honesty. A certificate of integrity is required to be furnished by the appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry.

5.         While making proposals for extension of service in higher posts, it is all the more necessary to apply higher standards of efficiency to persons whose appointments to the higher posts are recommended for approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. The number of top posts is bound to be very limited and a few persons should not have them for too long. No Government servant who is on extension of service after the prescribed date of retirement should be promoted to another post during the period of extension of service.

6.   As per O.M. No. 26012/8/2011-Esst.(A) dated 16.05.2011, the criteria are laid down for considering cases of extension of service of scientists in terms of proviso to FR 56(d) and the guidelines for extension of service of eminent scientists of international stature beyond 62 years have been further reviewed as a need has been felt for a rigorous peer group screening by an inter disciplinary committee of experts.

7.         Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRCs) headed by the Secretary of the Scientific Departments are constituted by the DOP&T with the approval of Prime Minister for a term of 2 years to consider the cases of extension of service of scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years.

8.          It has now been decided with the approval of Prime Minister that the existing/reconstituted Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) shall also do the first stage screening of scientists for their extension beyond 62 years of age and thereafter the DPRCs’ recommendations will be placed before the committee under the Cabinet Secretary provided that the DPRCs have at least two outside experts apart from Secretary (Personnel & Training). The DPRCs must give detailed justification for such extension based on merits of the case; the international stature of the person recommended and shall also indicate whether this will block promotion opportunities of others in the Department. Such recommendations of the DPRCs for extension of service of scientists beyond 62 years will be sent to the Establishment Division of the DoPT for placing the cases before the committee under Cabinet Secretary. Only such cases recommended by the committee under Cabinet Secretary will be processed further for approval of Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) through the office of the Establishment Officer. Cases of extension of service of scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years recommended by DPRC will continue to be sent directly to the office of establishment officer in DOP&T as at present.

9.                        All proposals for extension of service of scientists beyond 62 years in terms of the 3rd proviso to FR 56(d) may, therefore, be processed keeping in view the above guidelines in addition to the criteria stipulated in the OM dated 09.12.2002 (Exh. – A)

10.                     But the Fundamental Rules (FR) and the timely instructions issued by DoPT through various Office Memoranda (O M) are not properly followed by DRDO. The present DGR&D,  11 CCR&Ds (Chief Controller, Research and Development), 52 Directors of various Laboratories / Organizations and hundreds of Scientists of ‘G’ and ‘H’ cadre have been given extension in their service. Most of these posts are having ‘Engineering’ as their basic qualification but they call themselves scientists and do the administrative duty. They are not performing any scientific duty. They are not at all engaged in any Research work. They are doing the administrative work only.

Engineering is not a Science. It is the application of Science. It is a Technical qualification. A scientist is basically a Researcher. But in DRDO persons having technical qualifications are recruited as scientists.

11.                  Thus, these so-called scientists who are basically engineers are performing administrative duty. And for administrative duty they are given extension in service. As if this is not enough, some of them are given promotions during the period of extension which is blatantly against the instructions of DoPT. At present more than 95% of scientists from DRDO are basically engineers. They don’t have any basic Science background. There is no research orientation. They are not doing any Scientific /Research work. Still, they get extension in service which is to be given exclusively to the scientists for completing the Research work in hand and such extensions are maximum for 2 years after superannuation.

12.   But, the present picture in DRDO is horrifying.

a.      Dr. A Sivathanu Pillai, CCR&D, born on 15th July 1947 has completed 64 years of his age. He is basically an Electrical Engineer and performing his Administrative duty as CCR&D since 13th Sep. 1999. For about 11 years he is enjoying the same post by blocking the promotions of many others in hierarchy.

b.      Dr. Prahlada, CCR&D, born on 5th Feb. 1947 is basically a Mechanical Engineer. He was given extension in service for doing his administrative duty as CCR&D. Up to his age 64 he enjoyed the extension. Now he is appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of Defence Institute of Advanced Technology (DIAT), Pune which is a Deemed University.

c.       Dr. Vasudeva SK, CCR&D, born on 26th Jan. 1947, took over the charge of his post on 1st July 2001. For more than 10 years he is on the same post. Though he has completed 64 years and 8 months of his age and is still enjoying the extensions. His services are extended for 5 years after superannuation just to look after the administrative post. His extension in service is not at all justifiable. This is definitely going to block the promotion opportunities of others in DRDO.

d.      Dr. Arun Kumar, the DoP, born on 4th Nov. 1950 has been given extension for looking after the Personnel matters. Director of Personnel is not a scientific post. He is not doing any Research work. He is doing only the Administrative work of Personnel. Still, he has been given extension.

He has committed offence under sections 167, 170 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.   He is an Accused in Criminal Complaint No. 1198/2011 in the Court of Hon’ble J.M.F.C., Court No.9, Pune (Exh. – F). The Sessions Court of Pune has confirmed the Criminal process issued against him. During the pendency of Criminal Complaint against him, his service was extended after superannuation. Actually, his service was required to be suspended as per Rule 10 (1) (b) of CCS (CCA) Rules.

To crown it all, he has issued ‘Integrity Certificates’ to Mr. Agarwal R C, Mr. Ikbal Singh and many others for their extensions in service after their superannuation and has forwarded their applications to DoPT (Exh. – C). Actually, as per DoPT instructions a Certificate of Integrity is to be issued by the appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry.

A person who is undergoing a Criminal trial cannot be the appropriate authority. He has skillfully extended his own service and is extending services of others by issuing Integrity Certificates. The DGR&D is quite aware of this. The indifferent behavior of present DGR&D and his attitude of neutrality have generated many such odd and illegal things in DRDO. He is wholly responsible for this lawless situation in DRDO.

e.       Dr. A Subhananda Rao, Director, HEMRL, Pune and Director, GTRE, Bangalore, born on 1st June 1950 has been given extension after superannuation. During this extension he is promoted to CCR&D.

He has committed offence under section 500 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. He is an Accused in Criminal Complaint STC No. 0437286/2009 in the Court of Hon’ble J.M.F.C., Pune. As per Rule 10 (1) (b) of CCS (CCA) Rules, he was required to be suspended immediately in August 2009 (Exh. – E). In spite of his Criminal status, the DGR&D has maintained him as Director, HEMRL, Pune. Recently, he has been given the additional charge of Director, GTRE, Bangalore. This additional charge of GTRE and promotion of CCR&D are given to the Accused person after his superannuation. Thus, one person is enjoying three posts at a time as if there are no other eligible candidates in the hierarchy of DRDO.  It is obvious that three deserving candidates have been discouraged and kept away from their promotions.

13.   The above five examples (a to e)   is the sample survey of the whole system of DRDO. It is just the tip of an iceberg. It is prevailing since long. It is not that the other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the job. It is not at all that they don’t have any other alternatives. In addition to the Fundamental Rules (FR), the DoPT has issued the timely Office Memoranda, but it lacks effective supervisory power as well as the willpower. Under the favour of DoPT, the DRDO is proceeding fast towards rampant extensions and promotions in extensions.  The top officers in DRDO are not ready to go home even after retirement. Like leeches they are clinging to the DRDO. Their extensions after superannuation are absolutely unjustifiable but nobody bothers about the side-effects and after effects of such illegal extensions. Unjustifiably extended scientists are the clots in the blood stream of DRDO. They are required to be removed instantly or else, one day, they will paralyze the whole system of DRDO. The DoPT very aptly formulates the provisions and makes rules in this regard but skillfully ignores the application of the same. Under the favour of DoPT, the top scientists of DRDO are enjoying extensions blatantly against the public interest and national interest.

14.   Such unjustifiable extensions after superannuation have resulted in discouraging the young scientists joining the DRDO. In the year 2006, about 322 junior scientists resigned from the DRDO and in 2007 the figure was 273. However, in 2008 the number came down to 150 and in 2009 only 61 scientists have put in their papers. According to the Defence Ministry a total of 1107 scientists, mostly young entrants have resigned from the DRDO between 2003 and 2007, implying that on an average one person leaves every two days. The attrition rate in DRDO, which has 7000 scientists, has been about 6.3 percent. And what was making the situation worse was that the organization was able to fill up only 60 -70 percent of its vacancies (Exh. – B).

In a severe blow to the already shrinking number of Researchers in Defence Laboratories across the Nation, 20 top scientists of the DRDO have quit their jobs in second half of year 2010.

15.   The rampant extensions in service after superannuation have discouraged the new generation of scientists as well as the old one. The old generation is fed up as their promotion opportunities have been blocked. K Meera, Sc. ’G’, GTRE, Bangalore, S.K. Jindal, Sc. ’G’, SPIC, New Delhi and Dr. Rajesh Rampal, Sc. ’G’, Defence Lab., Jodhpur have bitterly reacted and conveyed their strong protest to Mr. A K Antony (Exh. – D). It is not only the next man who misses promotion but often several people miss consequential promotions all along the hierarchy. Thus, too many cases of extension in service have caused frustration and affected the morale of the upcoming scientists who have exposure to latest technological developments in connecting fields. Extension in service to the superannuating scientists must be resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances. Such extensions must be in the public interest. Then only the health and the esteem of DRDO will be maintained.

16.   The Petitioner has not filed any other Petition in respect of the subject matter of this Petition in any other Court in India.

17.   It is therefore prayed that:-

For the specific reasons cited in the foregoing, the Petitioner prays for the issuance of appropriate Writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as under:

a.      The Respondents be directed to review and confirm the justifiability of all the extensions and the promotions in extensions in service in DRDO scientists beyond their age of superannuation.

b.      The Respondents be directed to cancel all the unjustifiable extensions and promotions in extensions in service of DRDO scientists beyond their age of superannuation.

c.       Any other suitable relief to which the Petitioner is deemed entitled to, be kindly granted in favour of the Petitioner.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

 

Mumbai                                                     (Mr. B R Barge)
Date: 27/09/2011                               Advocate for Petitioner

VERIFICATION

I, Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware, Age: 55 yrs., Secretary,     Ramshastri Justice Foundation, Regd. Office: 16, Mata Chambers, Anandnagar, Old Sangvi, Pune – 411 027, the Petitioner, do, hereby, verify that the contents of the Petition from Para No. 1 to 17 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I have not suppressed any material fact.

 

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai            )                         (Dr. R G Taware)
Dated     27th day of Sep. 2011           )                                   Petitioner

Identified by me,

Mr. B R Barge
Advocate for Petitioner