ET Bureau | Jul 19, 2016
DELHI: Cricketing icon Sachin Tendulkar had sought Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s help to rescue a plush holiday retreat he frequents in Landour, Mussoorie, from a security dispute with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
Such was the urgency of the matter that Tendulkar, a Rajya Sabha member, even cut short a trip to Australia last year just to meet Parrikar with this request, senior defence ministry officials familiar with the matter told ET.
The property in question is his famed summer den Dahlia Bank in the Landour cantonment area that has allegedly breached the 50-foot, no-construction zone next to the Institute of Technology Management, a sensitive DRDO establishment.
The home is partly owned by Tendulkar’s business partner Sanjay Narang. Parrikar is believed to have given a “patient hearing” to the Indian batting legend but desisted from making any intervention in the issue.
South Block officials told ET that the defence minister was unwilling to do so in a matter involving alleged illegal construction next to a sensitive DRDO laboratory complex.
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar didn’t intervene
“Tendulkar had been trying to meet the minister and an appointment was set up. He spoke at length about the property case, which was heard out. However, no action was taken on the request put forward,” a senior official told ET.
Tendulkar didn’t respond to ET’s questions on the matter. The defence ministry declined to issue a formal comment on the issue.
The institute’s version is that Narang had obtained permissions to build tennis courts in what is called the ‘restricted construction zone’ around the establishment but instead went on to construct full-fledged buildings.
Narang did not respond to questions sent by ET but his representative, who did not want to be named, claimed that the area in dispute fell outside the zone. She further alleged that the DRDO institute had taken a “faulty stand” and had made “wrong interpretations”.
The hotelier owns several properties in and around the Landour cantonment area that has emerged as a highend tourist destination near Mussoorie.
However, these building activities have attracted controversy with a complaint on “illegal high-investment commercial activities” reaching the Central Vigilance Commission and Central Bureau of Investigation last month
Tag Archives: request
Sachin Tendulkar sought Defence Minister’s help to rescue business ally’s resort in Mussoorie: Officials
By Manu Pubby, ET Bureau | Jul 19, 2016
NEW DELHI: Cricketing icon Sachin Tendulkar had sought Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s help to rescue a plush holiday retreat he frequents in Landour, Mussoorie, from a security dispute with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
Such was the urgency of the matter that Tendulkar, a Rajya Sabha member, even cut short a trip to Australia last year just to meet Parrikar with this request, senior defence ministry officials familiar with the matter told ET.
The property in question is his famed summer den Dahlia Bank in the Landour cantonment area that has allegedly breached the 50-foot, no-construction zone next to the Institute of Technology Management, a sensitive DRDO establishment.
The home is partly owned by Tendulkar’s business partner Sanjay Narang. Parrikar is believed to have given a “patient hearing” to the Indian batting legend but desisted from making any intervention in the issue.
South Block officials told ET that the defence minister was unwilling to do so in a matter involving alleged illegal construction next to a sensitive DRDO laboratory complex..
The nstituite’s version is that Narang had obtained permissions to build tennis courts in what is called the ‘restricted construction zone’ around the establishment but instead went on to construct full-fledged buildings.
Narang did not respond to questions sent by ET but his representative, who did not want to be named, claimed that the area in dispute fell outside the zone. She further alleged that the DRDO institute had taken a “faulty stand” and had made “wrong interpretations”.
The hotelier owns several properties in and around the Landour cantonment area that has emerged as a high end tourist destination near Mussoorie.
However, these building activities have attracted controversy with a complaint on “illegal high-investment commercial activities” reaching the Central Vigilance Commission and Central Bureau of Investigation last month.
CVO,MOD, RTI & Reply of CPIO,CVO,MOD
To 17th March 2015
Sh. Sekhar Ranjan Amin,
U/Secretary & CPIO,
Room No 340, Office of Director of Vigilance,
B- Wing Sena Bhawan,
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of corruption complaints against Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur & other officials. The period of complaints is from 29/11/2013 to 11/06/2014.
1.Provide the current status of my following complaints
I.Dated 29/11/2013 OM No 1323/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on 30/01/2014 for necessary action.
II.Dated 17/12/2013 OM No 2056/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on 19/02/2014 for necessary action
III.Dated 24/12/2013 OM No 5022/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on dated 27/03/2014 for necessary action
IV.Dated 26/12/2013 OM No 4979/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on dated 27/03/2014 for necessary action
V.Dated 22/1/2014 OM No 5387/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on dated 31/03/2014 for necessary action
VI.Dated 7/1/2014 OM No 3617/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on dated 14/03/2014 for necessary action
VII.Dated15/1/2014 OM No 3574/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on dated 10/03/2014 for necessary action
VIII.Dated 11/6/2014 OM No 13248/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on dated 24/06/2014 for necessary action
2.CVO, MoD forwarded to DRDO vigilance vide MoD ID note No. 63/DO/ (Vig)/CVC/2014 dated 17/06/2014 with request to submit consolidated report on the complaints against Dr A.K. Saxena and others of DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur at the earliest. Please provide the copy of reply of DRDO against your request.
3.Provide copies of replies received by CVO,MoD against above complaints.
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com website www.corruptionindrdo.com
Reply of CPIO, CVO, MOD received on 15th May 2015
Compliant against the deliberate misconduct of Dr. A K Maini voluntarily retired scientist ‘H’ & Director of LASTEC, Delhi, DRDO, MOD.
To 12th April 2015 Hon’ble Shri Manohar Parrikar, Defence Minister,Room No -104, South Block,New Delhi-110011
Subject: Compliant against the deliberate misconduct of Dr. A K Maini voluntarily retired scientist ‘H’ & Director of LASTEC, Delhi, DRDO, MOD.
Sir,
Please find following informations of deliberate misconducts committed by Dr. A K Maini voluntarily retired scientist ‘H’ & Director of LASTEC, Delhi, DRDO, MOD.
- A K Maini had been submitting false “Nil” immovable returns in his entire service of 36 years rendered in DRDO as Group ‘A’ Gazette officer with effect from 1978 to 09-06-2014.
- Didn’t submit his permanent home town declaration during his entire service still he illegally availed Home town LTCs to Jammu many times.
- Made entry in his own handwriting on 02-12-1999 on the 2nd page of the 2nd volume of his service book about his permanent home town after 21 years from the date of his initial joining in DRDO in 1978.
- Deliberately made another entry about his Permanent Home Town after some years during his tenure of Directorship of LASTEC, Delhi (changing his earlier entered Pmt. Home Town) on the same 2nd page of the 2nd volume of his service Book, without formal submission of a request for change of his Permanent Home Town, with a clear motive to create confusion in his initial entry made on 02-12-1999.
- Changed his name from Anil Kumar to Anil Kumar Maini in official records without submitting any formal request in this regard & without undergoing the prescribed procedure in vogue.
- Even gave Laboratory Awards to those Scientists of LASTEC, Delhi in 2011 who were members of the Award Selection Committee of LASTEC, Delhi
- Even nominated ineligible officer of LASTEC, Delhi i.e. Smt. Sangeeta Talwar, Accounts Officer of LASTEC Delhi to represent LASTEC Delhi in the interview board of the CEPTEM, Delhi for the interviews of the candidates of admin and allied cadre who passed written examination of CEPTEM 06 since minimum level of nomination was SAO-II of DRDO. Proposal of eligible SAO-II of LASTEC Delhi was formally moved but Dr. A K Maini not only did not approve it but he pressurized his sub-ordinate officers to initiate new proposal so that he could nominate the ineligible favorite officer thereby snatching a rightful opportunity of the rightful claimant.
- Deliberately did not make routine transfers of the officials and officers of LASTEC Delhi during his tenure of directorship of LASTEC Delhi who was holding sensitive posting/appointments thereby directly violated the standing policy of the DOP&T and CVC. He even did not comply the express orders of the DRDO HQ issued from time to time in this regard thereby created opportunities for corruption and nepotism.
- Even made undue favor to the Amity University, Noida, UP, for his personal gain in the form of obtaining PhD from same University, which includes inviting the students of Amity university & its Chairman Dr. Ashok Chauhan as Chief Guest in the annual raising day of LASTEC Delhi in 2010 & giving them lunch and other hospitalities from the funds of the state exchequer besides breaching the security of METCALFE House Complex of Civil Lines Delhi.
- Even availed leave for repair of his House in Delhi still he submitted false Nil immovable property return for the same calendar year.
- Never formally intimated administration division of LASTEC Delhi about his local tours during the entire period of his directorship of LASTEC Delhi thereby showed himself present on duty even on those dates when he remained at his home for personal work/reasons etc. he thereby blocked the opportunity of the DDO of LASTEC Delhi to make his salary only for those days when he was either on duty or on sanctioned leave. This is evident also from the number of the days leave availed by him in immediate 03 preceding years before his elevation to the post of Director LASDTEC Delhi and the leave taken by him during the tenure of his Directorship of LASTEC Delhi.
- Castigated the legitimate powers of the senior most officer of admin cadre of DRDO posted in LASTEC Delhi by depriving him from opening the official DAK received from outside by instructing verbally the officer in-charge of Diary & dispatch section of LASTEC Delhi to send the official DAK received from outside to his personal assistant thereby creating an opportunity for himself to not to bring some official DAK in the records of LASTEC Delhi. this illegal practice is still being continued in LASTEC Delhi in addition to many other laboratories of DRDO to serve the vested interest of the directors of the LABs of DRDO.
- Even tacitly got issued repeat supply orders many times in succession at very short intervals for purchase of stores in LASTEC Delhi through his sub-ordinate officers by splitting the supply order to avoid sanction of the higher authorities of DRDO HQ during his entire tenure of Director of LASTEC Delhi.
- Even tacitly got issued supply orders in favor of those firms who were either in collusion with other suppliers/firms or which were fake firms.
- Even deliberately delayed in according his approvals to the projects Dr M N Ready Scientist ‘G’ of LASTEC Delhi which attracted audit objections which are still pending.
- Gave outstanding comments in the APRS of Shri Ghai, the then scientist ‘F’ & present scientist ‘G’ of LASTEC Delhi on extraneous considerations/ grounds simply because Shri Ghai mentioned the research done by him & by other scientist of LASTEC as joint research of him & of Son of Shri A K Maini. The outstanding comments given by Dr. A K Maini in the APAR of Shri Ghai on the above mentioned extraneous grounds begged promotion to the post of Scientist ‘G’ to Shri Ghai & other deserving scientist ‘F’ of LASTEC felt let down.
- A K Maini was instrumental to select Shri Amit Kumar Chawla office Assistant to the post of STA-B in LASTEC through LDCE by putting illegal pressure on the concerned selection committee constituted in LASTEC in 2011 although the diploma in Engg. Discipline awarded by Janaradan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur (deemed to be university) & obtained through distance education mode from the off campus study center of Delhi is not valid Diploma to make him eligible to the post of STA-B in DRDO through LDCE exam.
- A K Maini even approved illegal permission to Shri Amit Kumar Chawla to attend classes for study of LLB up 09:00 AM even on working days in an education institution which is not less than 15 kms away from the office campus of LASTEC delhi disregarding the fact that the working hours of LASTEC are 09:00 AM to 05:30 PM. This favor was extended to Shri Amit Chawla just because he was working in the secretariat of Dr. A K Maini.
- The above mentioned deliberate misconducts of Dr. A K Maini were not only deliberately overlooked by the vigilance officer of LASTEC Delhi but also by the director of vigilance and security of DRDO HQ New Delhi which paved the way for acceptance of his voluntary retirement from service but also it made him immune from any vigilance/disciplinary inquiry against his deliberate misconducts and illegal acts.
I therefore request you to kindly ensure conducting of discreet inquiry on each and every issue raised in this complain from a independent authority specifically dis-associating any scientist & technical officer of DRDO to bring the prima-facie guilty Dr. A K Maini to the book before he goes scot free by getting his pension & other retirement benefits since his pension case is still under scrutiny containing one of the misconduct of Dr. A K Maini mentioned above.
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,Dehradun-248008, Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com website www.corruptionindrdo.com
RTI-CVO,MoD- Complaints Status – Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur
To 17th March 2015 Sh. Sekhar Ranjan Amin, U/Secretary & CPIO, Room No – 340, Office of Director of Vigilance, B- Wing Sena Bhawan,Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of corruption complaints against Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur & other officials. The period of complaints is from 29/11/2013 to 11/06/2014.
- Provide the current status of my following complaints
- Dated 29/11/2013 OM No 1323/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on 30/01/2014 for necessary action.
- Dated 17/12/2013 OM No 2056/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on 19/02/2014 for necessary action
- Dated 24/12/2013 OM No 5022/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on dated 27/03/2014 for necessary action
- Dated 26/12/2013 OM No 4979/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on dated 27/03/2014 for necessary action
- Dated 22/1/2014 OM No 5387/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on dated 31/03/2014 for necessary action
- Dated 7/1/2014 OM No 3617/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on dated 14/03/2014 for necessary action
- Dated15/1/2014 OM No 3574/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on dated 10/03/2014 for necessary action
- Dated 11/6/2014 OM No 13248/2014/vigilance 9, forwarded to CVO, MoD on dated 24/06/2014 for necessary action
- CVO, MoD forwarded to DRDO vigilance vide MoD ID note No. 63/DO/ (Vig)/CVC/2014 dated 17/06/2014 with request to submit consolidated report on the complaints against Dr A.K. Saxena and others of DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur at the earliest. Please provide the copy of reply of DRDO against your request.
- Provide copies of replies received by CVO,MoD against above complaints.
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com website www.corruptionindrdo.com
Registration Number MODEF/R/2015/60687
Dear Ravind Please don’t occupy DRDO chair or Consultant post after your retirement
One comment was submitted by one of our visitor with above Headline –
It is true picture of all DRDO lab, Government already asked one question from DRDO in its 25 question query as following and same was circulated to all Labs
” The best talent is going to multinational and not joining DRDO because of certain reasons. DRDO is going only left over. Please furnish data for last 3 years on talented people joining from esteemed institute . (CC R&D HR)”
The following comment is specially important to our DRDO top management for introspection.
Submitted on 2014/11/19 at 4:23 pm
Ravind is as bad as projected here.
He had no vision but he ran out of time to realise it.
He was having no clarity to drive program and make things moving
He was a task master and made everyone to work for his PPTs and visit arrangements only.
It’s fortunate for LRDE that he didn’t get his extension.
His bad quality is that he didn’t take every one with him. The position and power ruined him.
He neglected demotivated working class with his tongue
He started interacting only with LMC and his chela’s .
He treated everyone as untouchables.
If he had come down to lab alone and interacted with ground level
LRDE today may in better position.
He created bad name to LRDE with his egoism.
Spoiled relationship with CDA, DGs and posted out
All those who spoke against him to DG office or sidelined from active projects.
Sincere request to him that after his retirement he should not try to occupy some DRDO chair or
Consultant position at BEL or some company or NTRO consultancy.
He passed his productive professional innings long back
He can’t contribute further he should understand and live his retirement life quietly
He can’t bring harmony in work place where ever he goes.
He is just power hungry and egoistic. He can’t become a good leader who can take everybody with him and can listen wisely.
Request to all those agencies / organisations think thrice before appointing him for post retired roles. Keep all the comments in mind and give a chance to Ravind.
Extension plea of top scientists rejected, govt bats for younger directors
Manu Pubby New Delhi, November 4, 2014 | UPDATED 20:04 IST- Indiatodayin
The government has struck down a request by the DRDO to grant four of its top scientists a service extension with the Prime Minister stepping in personally to ensure that the organisation does not add to its massive bank of scientists who have been working well past their retirement age.
In a move that has brought cheer to the younger scientists of the organization, the PMO refused to entertain a request by the DRDO’s departmental peer review committee to extend the service of four of its lab directors beyond the age of 60 years.
In the past, recommendations of the peer review committee were routinely accepted by the government and in most cases scientists were given an extension of two years to four years. However, as reported by the India Today, the new government is keen to have a younger profile of scientists in the organization and has already expressed concern about the increasing age profile in a field that requires cutting edge technology and expertise.
Sources said that four scientists including Prof MP Kaushik (DRDE Director), Dr VC Padaki (DEBEL Director) and DS Sistla Ravind (LRDE Director) had been recommended by DRDO Chief Avinash Chander for an extension of service. While the file made it all the way through the appointments committee of cabinet, sources said that the request was turned at the Prime Minister’s desk. The DLRL Lab director is also not to get an extension of service.
Officials said that the decision not to grant an extension was taken as part of the government’s new policy to promote younger talent with PM Narendra Modi already instructing that at least five labs should have directors below the age of 35.
However, as things most top scientists at the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) who are tasked with creating weapons for future have passed the retirement age of 60 and are on service extensions.
The old age problem starts from the very head of the organization with DRDO chairman Avinash Chander already on two extensions. The previous government even approved a extraordinary contract to give Chander a 18-month contractual tenure from November when he turns 64, the maximum age till which service extensions can be given.
As reported by the India Today, most director generals at the headquarters and the heads of six of DRDO’s 54 labs and establishments are currently on extension. As many as 10 of the 16 top DRDO scientists are on extension. Internal surveys have found that nearly 87 per cent of the young scientists who join DRDO soon get disenchanted with the archaic, rigid structure of the research body that does not reward extraordinary performance with proportional career growth.
Supreme Court to examine DRDOs exclusion under section 24
17 Aug, 2014- RTI Foundation of India
On a petition filed by Dr. Neelam Bhalla, a scientist at DRDO, a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V. Gopala Gowda of the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre and the DRDO. The petitioner was transferred to a different unit and she filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking the reasons for her transfer.
Her application was turned down by the DRDO and her second appeal was rejected by the Central Information Commission. On failure to get any relief from the Delhi High Court, she moved the apex court contending that only that information which directly affected and correlated to “intelligence and security” could be exempted and the information which were general in nature should not be denied.
She has demanded that records relating to their services should be provided. Bhalla has challenged the interpretation of section 24 of the Right to Information Act in the context of the exclusion of exempted organisations listed in schedule II such as the DRDO.
The petition says that wilful disclosure of incorrect or false or misleading information relating to routine matters such as transfer not only to the petitioner but also to higher authorities, namely the Minister of Defence and the National Commission for Women, to justify their actions, was an offence under the newly enacted Whistle Blowers Protection Act.
Bhalla has alleged that she was a victim of gender discrimination and humiliation at the hands of senior scientists. When she filed a complaint before the NCW against the alleged nepotism and lapses in the policy of recruitment, the task for the recruitment of scientists ‘B’ was selectively taken away from her.
She has sought directions to disclose the reasons for her transfer through the Apex Court. Now the matter would be heard by the SC to decide whether the defence organisations such as the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) can withhold information regarding transfer of an employee, claiming exemption under section 24 of the Right to Information Act. Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 is reproduced below:
– 24. Act not to apply in certain organizations.-
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.
(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.
(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid before the State Legislature.
RTI Reply is mere formality for Ministry of HRD
My RTI Request for expose Fake Experience Certificate issued to Ms Geetha, Scientist ‘D’ , DIPAS, DRDO Daughter of Ex- CC R&D, DRDO Dr W Selvamurthy by Professor Vani Brahmachari, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Center for Biomedical Research, University of Delhi North campus.
RTI requested to know about action taken by honorable minister Smt. Smriti Zubin Irani.
Please the request and reply
Request
1. Certified Copy of remark/note by Minister Smt. Smriti Zubin Irani
2.Present status of representation/complaint
3.Certified Copy of reply received from Delhi University on subject matter.
4.Certified Copy of any other action by HRD on subject matter
Reply against these request by Sh R K Sinha, U/Secy & CPIO, HRD
Fresh RTI with hope that some one can rethink that his son or daughter can also deprive to get fare opportunity by these corrupt practices.
To, 9th September 2014 Sh R K Sinha, CPIO,Under Secretary, Room No. 503-B MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SHASTRI BHAWAN, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 001Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect my RTI application No. DOHED/R/2014/64019 dated 26.08.2014 and your reply vide F.No.63-6/2014- Desk (U).
- Provide the date of receipt of my RTI application No. DOHED/R/2014/64019 dated 26.08.2014
- Provide the copy of note sheet of initiated on RTI application no. DOHED/R/2014/64019
- Provide the copy of forwarding letter for appropriate action to Delhi University as mentioned in your above mentioned RTI reply.
- Provide the copy of if any reply received from Delhi University on subject matter.
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal,21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008 0135- 2787750, 9411114879, prabhudoon@gmail.com www.corruptionindrdo.com
Registration Number DOHED/R/2014/64230
Distributing Promotion on Platter to Dr A K Singh, Sc G, DOP,DRDO & Sh R K Jain, Sc ‘H’Director, RAC, DRDO
Hello Friends 11 June 2014
Today I have received this letter with request to publish it on the website. This is the harsh reality of DRDO, everyone in every Lab & Establishment of DRDO is witnessing the same scenario in DRDS from Sc ‘B’ to Sc ‘H’, in DRTC Technicians to TO ‘D’, Admin allied, Stores are standing nowhere in DRDO’s priority.