‘Jain mounted pressure on IAS officials over pay revision’
Communication between city home minister Satyendar Jain and two special secretaries Yashpal Garg and Subhash Chandra, who were suspended by the AAP government for not following the Cabinet decision on payscale revision of the ex-cadre staff in Delhi prisons and prosecuting officers working under the directorate of prosecution, clearly show that the officers had refused to follow the directions of the minister as these were in contradiction to the orders of lieutenant-governor Najeeb Jung.
A copy of a document, detailing the movement of the files related to the payscale revision issue, accessed by this newspaper, clearly shows that Mr Jain had been mounting pressure on the officers to issue the orders of pay revision despite Mr Jung’s strong reservations on the matter.
It was at 10.30 am on Monday that a copy of the decision of the council of ministers issued through letter dated December 26 was received by the general administration department. An hour later, the special secretary (home-1) submitted the file to the principal secretary (home) suggesting that in view of earlier directions of the L-G, before issuance of orders in accordance with the decision dated December 23 of the council of ministers, the L-G may kindly be apprised.
The document said that at 3.50 pm, the principal secretary (home) submitted the file to the minister that the decision of the Cabinet in two paras did not appear to be in conformity with one another. It said that in one para, the Cabinet decision was clear that should the L-G not be in agreement, the decision cannot be implemented under the provision of Article 239 AA(4) of the Constitution. The document specified that the only situation in which the home department “may (and not shall)” implement the decision is when the L-G agrees with the council of ministers. It said, “In view of the above, since the word ‘may’ in para (iv) and words ‘in case L-G is not in agreement’ in para (v) have been used, it needs clarification as whether the home department has to await the decision of the L-G regarding his agreement with the Cabinet decision.”
Within 25 minutes, according to the document, the minister marked the file to the special secretary (home) with the directions that the Cabinet decision was very clear on implementing orders immediately and said orders must be issued immediately and put up. At 4.20 pm, it said, “Since the file was received directly to the special secretary (home-1) with above observations of the minister (home), the file was re-submitted to the principal secretary (home) for appropriate further directions.”
Again, the principal secretary (home) send the file back mentioning that as the minister has not agreed with his views and also the direction of the L-G as communicated by his secretary on December 18 has only kept the decision of the Cabinet in abeyance until the reconsideration of the Cabinet, there was no recourse but to abide by the existing orders of the council of ministers and reiterated by the minister.
After the office was closed, Mr Jain reportedly inquired telephonically from the special secretary (home) as to why the order was not issued. The minister is said to have been informed that since the file was directly marked by him without agreeing with the views of the principal secretary (home), it had been submitted to the latter. Mr Jain was informed that since the file was not received back, the orders would be issued in the first half of the next day.
On Tuesday, the file was sent to the deputy secretary (home-1) for compliance of the directions.
At 10.20 am, the principal secretary (home) is said to have telephonically informed the special secretary (home-1) about the decision of the L-G conveyed by his secretary that Raj Niwas had decided to refer the issue to the President of India. He said that the L-G had accordingly directed that no order should be issued on the issue. The secretary to the L-G also said that written communication to this effect was being sent shortly. At this point, the principal secretary (home) directed that the L-G’s directions be brought on file to apprise the minister.
The document said that since the deputy secretary (home) was on leave, the superintendent (Home-1) at 10.45 am submitted a draft order for approval of the principal secretary (home) about the revision of pay scales of prosecuting officers. Within 15 minutes, the draft was submitted to the principal secretary (home) along with telephonic directions of the L-G to apprise the minister. The file was immediately sent to Mr Jain’s office by the principal secretary. The minister is said to have called the special secretary (home-1) and special secretary (home general). The document said that the minister asked the special secretary (home-1) either to sign the orders or his suspension orders would be issued. It said: “When the special secretary (home-1) politely expressed his inability to issue the orders at that juncture, the minister called superintendent (home), and directed him to issue the orders. At 11.30 am, the superintendent (home-1) issued the orders about revision of pay scales of public prosecutors.”
