To 13th April 2015 Shri Syed Ekram Rizwi, Director & Central Public Information Officer, Prime Minister’s Office, South Block,New Delhi – 110011
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of news published in The Economic Times (Delhi) on March 13 2015 with headline – Prime Minister’s Office Marked Rao’s Mail as `Grievance’. Sh Pashupati Rao, Senior nuclear scientists of Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) send few suggestion to PMO in respect of ongoing NFC project at KOTA.
Provide the certified copy send to PMO by Sh Pashupati Rao.
Provide the copy of action taken by PMO, DAE and NFC till date on the suggestion of Sh Pashupati Rao.
Provide the copy of replies received by PMO on above subject matter from DAE & NFC respectively.
Provide the details if any corrective measures taken by PMO,DAE and NFC on the basis of suggestion given by Sh Pashupati Rao, Senior nuclear scientists of Nuclear Fuel Complex
India TV News Desk [ Updated 13 Mar 2015, 12:22:05 New Delhi: One of India’s senior nuclear scientists, Pashupati Rao, who works at Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) run by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) is now facing wrath for sending suggestions to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on a critical national project.
On 28 September, 2014, Rao had sent his suggestions including sensitive matters on the new nuclear complex to PM’s official portal (pmindia.gov.in), which PMO had further sent to Rao’s employer, DAE, marking them as ‘grievance’ and sent out another mail to Rao on January 21 this year, saying his ‘grievance’ has been disposed.
The PMO, in its communication to DAE, had revealed Rao’s name and designation, thus making his full identity known to his superiors.
Following this, DAE persistently started following up with Rao asking for explanations while the latter desperately continued to explain himself.
As published in Economic Times, some DAE officials on condition of anonymity even said that Rao may face serious consequences.
Prominent whistleblower Prabhu Dandriyal, who some years ago had claimed to have exposed corruption in Defence Research & Development Organization, filed a Right to Information application on January 27 this year with the PMO on Rao’s matter.
Dandriyal, in his RTI application demanded to know the guidelines followed by PMO while dealing with sensitive matters. He told that the PMO reply that came a month later, on February 27, said the request is being processed, and details are being collected.
In the Rao’s suggestions to the Prime Minister, he had proposed that an independent team be appointed to review the project and he also mentioned technical details on cutting costs in it.
However, the PMO having sent his suggestions as ‘grievance’ to DAE has put the top nuclear scientist in a bureaucratic nightmare.
The communication that happened with PMO was with NFC, Hyderabad, where Rao worked.
His matter was turned into a staff grievance. Although the scientist tried hard to explain his stand however, nothing worked in his favor.
In one of the communications to the Grievance Redressal Committee, Rao wrote, “I am a successful officer and I have been awarded with DAE group achievement award for indigenization associated work. My feedback given to the PMO which is converted as my grievance is not aimed at any individual.”
However, DAE has not relented and on February 10, it had sent out a letter to Rao reminding him that his job was limited to helping him in maintenance of NFC.
“As an organization, we will follow the process. As he is a staff member, it is being treated as a staff grievance and is being looked into,” S Goverdhan Rao, deputy chief executive of NFC, told ET.
Meanwhile, Dandriyal is still awaiting a full reply from the PMO. He says, “It will be very difficult for people from the system to come out and expose corruption and inefficiency if there is no mechanism to protect them.”
Lands in hot water with DAE bosses for writing to PM
He wrote to the prime minister, tried to do good for a critical national project, and now he’s in trouble.
One of India’s senior nuclear scientists, Pashupati Rao, who works at Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC), run by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), is now battling his employer for having written to the prime minister offering suggestions on streamlining the setting up of a new nuclear facility at Kota, Rajasthan. DAE comes under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).
ET has reviewed the relevant correspondence between the PMO, DAE and the scientist. The PMO didn’t respond to ET’s queries on this matter.Rao did not participate in this story.DAE responded to ET’s questions. On September 28, 2014, Rao sent his suggestions to PM’s official portal (pmindia.gov.in), which invites citizens to share ideas as well as to write to the Prime Minister.
But although Rao had communicated sensitive matters on the new nuclear complex, the PMO had sent them to Rao’s employer, DAE, marking them as `grievance’, and it sent a mail to Rao on January 21 this year, saying his `grievance’ has been disposed. The PMO’s communication to Rao’s employers had also given the name and designation of the scientist, thus making his full identity known to his superiors.
This started a process of DAE relentlessly asking for explanations from the scientist and the latter desperately seeking to explain himself. Some DAE officials who did not want to be identified told ET that Rao may face serious consequences.
Prominent whistleblower Prabhu Dandriyal, who some years ago had claimed to have exposed corruption in Defence Research & Development Organisation, filed a Right to Information application on January 27 this year with the PMO on Rao’s matter.
Dandriyal had asked what guidelines the PMO follows when dealing with `sensitive’ communication from government officials. He said the PMO reply that came a month later, on February 27, said the request is being processed, and de tails are being collected.
Rao’s suggestions sent to the prime minister on the Kota project contained, apart from technical details on cutting costs, a proposal that an independent team be appointed to review the project.
BUREAUCRATIC NIGHTMARE
But the PMO sending his suggestions as `grievance’ to DAE has put the top nuclear scientist in a bureaucratic nightmare.The PMO’s communications were sent to NFC, Hyderabad, where Rao worked, and his superiors have turned the matter into `staff grievance’ and have been seeking explanations from Rao.
In a series of communications, Rao tried to explain that he did not have any personal grievance.
“I am a successful officer and I have been awarded with DAE group achievement award for indigenisation associated work. My feedback given to the PMO which is converted as my grievance is not aimed at any individual,“ the scientist wrote in one of his attempts to explain himself. However, DAE has not relented and on February 10, Rao received a letter from the Grievance Redressal Committee that reminded him his job was limited to helping in the maintenance of NFC.
“As an organisation, we will follow the process. As he is a staff member, it is being treated as a staff grievance and is being looked into,“ S Goverdhan Rao, deputy chief executive of NFC, told ET.
Dandriyal, who’s still awaiting a full reply from PMO, said, “It will be very difficult for people from the system to come out and expose corruption and inefficiency if there is no mechanism to protect them.“
By ET Bureau | 13 Mar, 2015, 04.00AM IST By Manu Pubby
NEW DELHI: He wrote to the prime minister, tried to do good for a critical national project, and now he’s in trouble. One of India’s senior nuclear scientists, Pashupati Rao, who works at Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC), run by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), is now battling his employer for having written to the prime minister offering suggestions on streamlining the setting up of a new nuclear facility at Kota, Rajasthan. DAE comes under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).
ET has reviewed the relevant correspondence between the PMO, DAE and the scientist. The PMO didn’t respond to ET’s queries on this matter. Rao did not participate in this story. DAE responded to ET’s questions.
On September 28, 2014, Rao sent his suggestions to PM’s official portal (pmindia. gov.in), which invites citizens to share ideas as well as to write to the Prime Minister.
But although Rao had communicated sensitive matters on the new nuclear complex, the PMO had sent them to Rao’s employer, DAE, marking them as ‘grievance’, and it sent a mail to Rao on January 21 this year, saying his ‘grievance’ has been disposed.
The PMO’s communication to Rao’s employers had also given the name and designation of the scientist, thus making his full identity known to his superiors. This started a process of DAE relentlessly asking for explanations from the scientist and the latter desperately seeking to explain himself. Some DAE officials who did not want to be identified told ET that Rao may face serious consequences.
Prominent whistleblower Prabhu Dandriyal, who some years ago had claimed to have exposed corruption in Defence Research & Development Organisation, filed a Right to Information application on January 27 this year with the PMO on Rao’s matter.
Dandriyal had asked what guidelines the PMO follows when dealing with ‘sensitive’ communication from government officials. He said the PMO reply that came a month later, on February 27, said the request is being processed, and details are being collected. Rao’s suggestions sent to the prime minister on the Kota project contained, apart from technical details on cutting costs, a proposal that an independent team be appointed to review the project.
BUREAUCRATIC NIGHTMARE
But the PMO sending his suggestions as ‘grievance’ to DAE has put the top nuclear scientist in a bureaucratic nightmare.
The PMO’s communications were sent to NFC, Hyderabad, where Rao worked, and his superiors have turned the matter into staff grievance’ and have been seeking explanations from Rao. In a series of communications, Rao tried to explain that he did not have any personal grievance.
“I am a successful officer and I have been awarded with DAE group achievement award for indigenisation associated work. My feedback given to the PMO which is converted as my grievance is not aimed at any individual,” the scientist wrote in one of his attempts to explain himself. However, DAE has not relented and on February 10, Rao received a letter from the Grievance Redressal Committee that reminded him his job was limited to helping in the maintenance of NFC.
“As an organisation, we will follow the process. As he is a staff member, it is being treated as a staff grievance and is being looked into,” S Goverdhan Rao, deputy chief executive of NFC, told ET.
Dandriyal, who’s still awaiting a full reply from PMO, said, “It will be very difficult for people from the system to come out and expose corruption and inefficiency if there is no mechanism to protect them.”
To 10th November 2014Honorable Sh Narendra Modi,Prime Minister,Room No -152, PMO,South Block,New Delhi -110011
Subject: Extension of service after age of 60 years.
Sir,
Recently DOP&T published an OM F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II) 24th September, 2014 Sub: Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.
In Para 1 of above – The ACC has observed that in some of the cases, the Departments are not taking timely action to reconstitute the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) and are unilaterally extending the service of the officers beyond the age of superannuation without first obtaining approval of the ACC.
In Para 4 of above – It is also reiterated that in absence of specific approval of ACC towards extension of his services beyond the date of superannuation, an officer should stand retired on his date of superannuation and under no circumstances should the Ministry/Department concerned extend his services beyond superannuation unilaterally without the approval & ACC.
Sir, with reference to above OM it is clear that ACC has observed that in some cases officials/scientists got service extensions without first obtaining approval of the ACC, and after straight order no one is retired on his date of superannuation.
It shows that system is having still few strong manipulators who are protecting individuals and putting some weird excuses so that above order is not executed after 46 days. It is really very astonishing facts that after your strong message some of rotten minded officials are not working in the national interest.
On 31st October 2014 evening when DRDO & DAE people got message that you have not granted extensions to scientists after series of recommendations of their so called superiors, they welcomed your decision and distributed sweets and celebrated the closing of extension era.
To maintain their spirit and boosting their moral it is requested that weed out those few officials from your system who are the obstacle of our country’s development and execute the above DOP&T OM urgently.
The cases of extensions without approval of ACC should be cancelled immediately and these scientists should be superannuated with effect from the date they got extension.
To 25th September 2014
Shri Arun Srivastava,
Secretary, CPIO,
Atomic Energy Commission,
OYC Building, C.S.M. Marg,
Mumbai-400001
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of project- Nano Magneto-dielectric materials for high frequency applications -sanction to Dr Atul Thakur, Shoolini University Bajhol, Solan-Oachghat-Kumarhatti Highway, Solan, HP.. The project granted by DAE under BOARD OF RESEARCH IN NUCLEAR SCIENCES (BRNS) The project cost Rs 18.23 Lakh and Period 2012- 2014.
Provide the copy of Project Proposal Application Form for the project -Nano Magneto-dielectric materials for high frequency applications- by Dr Atul Thakur Shoolini University, Solan.
Provide the name and designation of DAE official who has sanctioned the project to Dr Atul Thakur.
Provide the date of sanction of the project –Nano Magneto-dielectric materials for high frequency applications to Dr Atul Thakur.
In May 1998, the DRDO and its chief Dr A P J Abdul Kalam became symbols of national pride thanks to the nuclear tests. DRDO’s expertise in explosives and related technologies, and in systems engineering and integration was the key to the five devices tested by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government.
Four months after the event, the government entrusted DRDO with a Rs 20 billion ballistic missile defence project. This is perhaps the most ambitious programme that DRDO has embarked upon. It would need to integrate the Russian-made anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic missile systems, which the army and air force are planning to induct, with an Israeli fire control radar.
The project, along with the Integrated Guided Missile Development programme and the nuclear submarine programme that DRDO has engaged in over the years, is meant to lay India’s foundation of strategic missile programme and security stability.
But given DRDO’s track record in the IGMD and nuclear submarine programme, not many believe the new ballistic project could come out with flying colours, that too in time.
It is not that DRDO’s missile mission has not taken India to the rarefied heights of missile power. “If there is one area in which DRDO has succeeded with a certain degree of success, it is in missiles,” says Prakash Nanda, a security expert in Bangalore who is currently writing a book on the subject.
“Agni, Prithvi, Akash, Trishul and Nag. All these missiles have made us proud. But the problem is that though a number of flight tests of these missiles have been successfully carried out, DRDO has been unable to induct some of them into the forces,” he says.
For instance, for the last 16 years, DRDO has been building two types of anti-aircraft missiles — Trishul and Akash. According to the government’s defence plans, these surface-to-air missiles were to have replaced the Russian-supplied OSA-AK and Kvadrat systems by early 1990s. But DRDO has been unable to meet the deadlines.
To be specific, the Trishul project began in 1983. The original deadline was 1992. DRDO has spent more than Rs 2.6 billion on the missile, but it is still undergoing trials. Official sources say the major problem with Trishul is that the missile’s command guidance does not work.
Hence, though the defence ministry has entrusted DRDO with the Rs 20 billion project, it is not confident that the agency will accomplish its task in time.
“The anti-ballistic missile programme will languish like the nuclear submarine project, which DRDO has been working on for years now,” a ministry official comments wryly.
Fifteen years ago, the nuclear submarine programme was billed as India’s key to second strike capability after enunciation of the no-first use policy. But after spending millions of rupees, the naval headquarters is now demanding a technical audit of the Advanced Technology Vehicle project, as it is formally known.
The design and development of the nuclear submarine is a joint project of DRDO, the Department of Atomic Energy and the Indian navy. The DRDO, DAE and navy together have spent a whopping total of Rs 20 billion on the ATV — on its design drawings from Russia, civilian construction work, establishing test beds and testing facilities on the east coast and procurement of related equipment.
DRDO sources say the land-based prototype testing facility of the submarine reactor has been completed successfully and a training facility to familiarise with the nuclear submarine’s power plant has also been set up. The submarine’s power plant would use enriched uranium as reactor fuel.
But years after the ATV project was mooted, the submarine’s keel is yet to be laid because DRDO has been unable to decide on its construction design.
Scientists install a DRDO-developed bio-toilet in the icy vastness of Siachen. File photo: DRDO
Nearly 700 scientists have resigned from India’s premier military research body DRDO in little less than six years from 2007, Defence Minister A K Antony said on Wednesday.
In a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha on resignation of scientists from Defence Research and Development Organisation(DRDO), Mr. Antony said a total of 637 scientists resigned during 2007-2011 and 50 scientists up to October 31 this year.
Scientists who had resigned have either cited personal or domestic reasons for leaving DRDO, Mr. Antony said.
However, it is assumed that increased opportunities or incentives available in other organisations and industries are the main reason of such resignation, he added.
On incentives taken as corrective measures to restrict resignation of scientists from DRDO, Mr. Antony said excellent infrastructure facilities have been created at work places and residential complexes and two additional increments have been given on promotion to each grade.
To another question, Mr. Antony said DRDO is a subordinate organisation under Defence Ministry and does not enjoy any special powers or autonomy because of its strategic nature of work.
Asked whether DRDO enjoys a huge amount of autonomy because of its strategic nature of work, he said, “DRDO is a subordinate organisation under the Department of Defence( R&D) in Defence Ministry and is governed by central government rules and regulations.
“Therefore, DRDO as an organisation does not enjoy any special powers or autonomy because of its strategic nature of work.”
Revised delegation of financial powers of Director General of DRDO was carried out in 2010 to address a long standing requirement and was done after due process and deliberation, he said.
“The process of exercise of these powers has been further rationalised and a corrigendum has been issued by Department of Defence (R&D) on November 21, 2012 as a partial modification to the earlier financial powers,” the minister added.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE RAJYA SABHA
QUESTION NO 1295 ANSWERED ON 05.12.2012
Resignation of scientists from DRDO
1295 SHRI DILIPBHAI PANDYA
Will the Minister of DEFENCE be pleased to satate :-
(a) whether it is a fact that about 650 scientists have resigned from their posts in Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) during the last five years;
(b) if so, the year-wise and post-wise details thereof;
(c) whether low emoluments in DRDO are the reasons for their resignation; and
(d) if so, what corrective steps are taken / proposed to be taken by Government to persuade the scientists not to resign?
ANSWER
MINISTER OF DEFENCE (SHRI A.K. ANTONY)
(a) A total of 637 scientists have resigned during 2007-2011 and 50 scientists upto 31st October 2012.
(b) Year-wise and post-wise details are given below:-
No Scientist ‘G’, Scientists ‘H’ and Distinguished Scientist have resigned during 2007-2012.
(c) Scientists who had resigned have indicated their personal / domestic grounds as the reasons for leaving DRDO. However, it is assumed that increased opportunities / incentives available in other organizations / industries is the main reason of such resignation.
(d) The following incentives have been granted as corrective measures to restrict resignation of scientists from DRDO:-
• Two additional increments on promotion to each Grade.
• Up to six variable increments on promotion granted on fast track.
• Professional update allowance to all scientists.
• Fast track promotions through assessments.
•Opportunity to acquire higher qualifications at reputed institutes viz. IIT’s / IISc, etc. as DRDO sponsored candidate.
•Young Scientists, Scientist of the Year and other DRDO Awards in recognition to their contributions, etc.
• Excellent infrastructure facilities have been created at work places and residential complexes.
Government is making all efforts to grant Performance Related Incentive Scheme (PRIS) to DRDO scientists at par with scientists of Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
