Nation
State's ministers extravagant flight plans: Dr Patangrao Kadam leads the march, annual expenses on flight expenses touches Rs2.10 crore

Maharashtra has been facing an acute water shortage due to drought on one end and the Government advised its staff to keep a check on expenses, but, on the other end its own Ministers have indulged in extravagant flight travel in the past, an average of Rs2.10 crore annually

The Forest Minister Dr Patangrao Kadam has outshone others and has emerged as a torch-bearer in this flight plan. He has grossed only Rs43 lakh in air travel expenses in the past three years. This information was provided to RTI activist Anil Galgali, who had sought the details from the Pay & Accounts Department, Government of Maharashtra.
 

Anil Galgali, chairman of Athak Seva Sangh & RTI activist had raised a query to the Pay & Accounts Department, Government of Maharashtra, whereby he sought information on travel expenditure incurred by all the ministers of the state government. The Department provided Anil Galgali with information of approved expenses from November 2009 to January 2013. The details contain travel expenses incurred by the chief minister and his council of ministers.
 

In the past three year the 43 Ministers have spent Rs6.30 crore which means annually Rs2.10 crore. The table below shows the top 10 highest expenses by ministers on air travel.
 

No

Name of Minister

Amount in

 Rs (lakh)

1

Dr Patangrao Kadam

43.00

2

Anil Deshmukh

39.54

3

Radhakrishna Vikhe Patil

36.00

4

Fauziya Khan

32.48

5

Narayan Rane

31.29

6

Dr Nitin Raut

28.93

7

Sunil Tatkare

26.88

8

Balasaheb Thorat

24.95

9

Jayant Patil

21.70

10

Jaydutt Kshirsagar

20.83


Ex chief minister Ashok Chavan spent Rs1.46 lakh between 8 November 2009 and10 November 2010. However chief minister (CM), Prithviraj Chavan (Rs6.32 lakh), deputy CM Ajit Pawar (Rs10.28 lakh), home minster R R Patil (Rs14.35 lakh), public works department(PWD) minister Chaggan Bhujbal (Rs18 lakh), Naseem Khan (Rs18.76 lakh), Rajendra Darda (Rs19.29 lakh) spent on air travel.
 

It is important to note here that the Government has its own plane and helicopters to facilitate the travel of its ministers. These expenses are over and above the expenses that they must have incurred there. It is also important to note that, apart from the ministers, the CM's personal secretaries Sanjay Yadav and Abhijit Ghorpade have spent Rs79,642 and Rs61,138 respectively in the past eight months only. The other ministers’ staff expenses were not provided by the department.
 

“It needs to be mentioned here that though there is no ceiling to the expenses to be incurred on this account, it is a Moral duty of the Ministers to observe self restraint on issues like these specially when the state is facing its worst crisis,” said Galgali. Anil Galgali in a letter written to the CM has appealed that the Ministers should voluntarily reduce these expenses by opting to travel by trains and state transport (ST) buses, as it can be seen that they have used flight mode to destinations which are connected to the ST and train route. 
 

The other ministers also spent huge amounts on air travel. It is given below:

No

Name of Minister

Amount in

Rs (lakh)

1

Shivajirao Moghe

19.73

2

Padmakar Valvi

15.83

3

Sanjay Devtale

15.41

4

Ranjeet Kamble

14.79

5

Suresh Shetty

13.81

6

Rajendra Mulak

13.71

7

DP Sawant

13.60

8

Varsha Gaikwad

12.59

9

Vijay Vaddetivar

10.35

10

Hasan Musarif

09.75

11

Prakash Solankhe

09.57

12

Prof Laxman Dhoble

09.43

13

Babanrao Pachpute

09.20

14

Rajesh Tope

09.01

15

Harshwardhan Patil

08.62

16

Gulabrao Devkar

08.24

17

Subhash Zanak

07.66

18

Bhaskar Jadhav

07.57

19

Abdul Sattar

06.95

20

Dr Vijay Kumar Gavit

05.69

21

Ramraje Naik-Nimbalkar

04.66

22

Rajendra Gavit

02.50

23

Sachin Ahir

01.88

24

Manohar Naik

01.35

25

Ganesh Naik

00.39

 

User

COMMENTS

Dr Anantha K Ramdas

3 years ago

It would be educative to know what was the purpose of these travels?

Were these undertaken in order to carry out some job assigned to them? If so, what was the result?

If you take further study of the helicopter (chopper) rides,
many would be for short distances and for doing odd jobs, even like "opening ceremonies", which could have been done by using cars allotted to them!

on the whole, these people are irresponsible and do not care for public money being spent in such reckless manner, because no body questions, and nothing happens after such questions are raised in public. Some meaningless explantion is given and soon, the matter simply "dies" and gets buried in the files!

Nifty, Sensex just shy of all-time hit weekly highs: Friday closing report

The upward momentum is strong and FIIs are pouring in money but they have a habit of being very bullish near market tops

On Friday, the indices put on a massive rally after two days of weakness. Markets open strongly and sustained the upward trend, stabilized mid-session rallying again towards the close. The S&P BSE Sensex opened at 20,487 to touch intraday high of 20,932 before closing at 20,883 (up 467 points or 2.29%). Similarly, Nifty opened at 6,071 hit a high of 6,201 before closing at 6,189 (up 144 points or 2.37%). The National Stock Exchange (NSE) recorded a higher volume of 64.90 crore shares.
 

We expect this fresh rally that has started today to last for a couple of days more, at least.

The number of advances outpaced the number of declines by nearly 2:1. Out of 1,229 stocks, 727 were up, 437 were down and 65 were unchanged.
 

All the sectoral indices finished in the green. The strongest movers were CNX Finance (3.54%), CNX Metal (3.34%), Bank Nifty (3.95%) and CNX Realty (3.04%).
 

Of the 50 stocks in the Nifty, only Bajaj Auto finished in the red (down 0.02%); rest finished in the green. The top five gainers were IndusInd Bank (6.39%); Tata Steel (6.09%); Sesa Sterlite (5.97%); Axis Bank (5.55%) and Jaiprakash Associates (5.14%).
 

In the other interesting bit of news, SpiceJet shot up over 6% on rumours that Qatar Airways has evinced interest in the company. However, the company issued a press release stating that it was just “speculation”.
 

The positive sentiment was driven by good economic growth in China and the record set by the US markets. The S&P 500 hit its intraday record of 1733 and closed at the same level, an all-time high. Indian markets were also buoyed by positive sentiment in the US post-shutdown, better data from China and a sense that taper is a long way off, meaning that is this a risk-on period for the emerging markets.
 

The Chinese government reported robust economic growth, with gross domestic product (GDP) growing at 7.8%, its quickest this year, when compared to the June-September quarter last year. However, analysts have predicted that despite the positive data, they expect the Chinese economy to slow down in the months ahead. They expect inflation to go up and exports to soften.
 

Meanwhile, as the meeting of Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) nears, the pushback on the consensus of the debt ceiling to February only strengthened the case for no ‘tapering’ by the US Federal Reserve. This expectation has a positive effect on emerging markets.
 

Asian markets were all up as well, except for Japan and New Zealand, which were down 0.17% and 0.36% respectively. Hong Kong markets moved up strongly by 1.06%.

At the time of writing this piece, almost all European indices were trading in the green. The US Stock Futures were marginally up.

User

Bizarre clean chit to Indian corporates by Transparency International

Transparency International has come up with an absurd report on corruption and transparency. The report ranks companies like Reliance Industries and Bharti Airtel ahead of Infosys and Wipro! Even Vedanta is supposedly more “transparent” than Infosys! Among the clean companies is Hindalco and Suzlon! What were Transparency International researchers smoking?

Transparency International (TI), a reputed organisation that measures the levels of corruption around the world, has come up with a report titled ‘Transparency in Corporate Reporting: Assessing Emerging Market Multinationals’, on corporate reporting in emerging markets. Its conclusions based on a ranking of three parameters—corporate anti-corruption programmes , organisational transparency and country-by-country reporting—will come as a shock to anyone who knows anything about corporate governance in India including disclosure and transparency. Tainted companies like the Vedanta come ahead of Infosys. Other dubious entries in the elite list include Reliance Industries and Suzlon! Reliance is ahead of even Wipro. TI calls companies like these “rising stars of the world economy”.
 

Of the 20 Indian companies featured, as many as six Tata companies were rated as paragons of transparency in corporate reporting. They are (in order): Tata Communications, Tata Global Beverages, Tata Steel, Tata Chemicals, Tata Motors, Tata Consultancy Services. How is it possible that TCS ranks below Tata Communications? At the bottom of the list, far below Vedanta, Reliance and Suzlon is Bajaj Auto, an excellent company as  far as ashareholders, creditors, customers and other stakeholders are concerned.
 

This exceptional clean chit to the Tatas comes at a time when the Supreme Court has asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate 14 specific issues based on the controversial Niira Radia tapes and various parties, of which Tata is one of them. The Tata Group, then led by Ratan Tata, was embroiled in the Niira Radia affair, where evidence of corporate lobbying was spilled out to the public and revealed that he was trying to influence the Telecom Ministry. Similarly, Bharti Airtel is also embroiled in the 2G mess. And there is Vedanta Group, which were trying hard to get permits to dislocate tribals of Odisha to build a bauxite mine in the environmentally sensitive area. Environmental activists protested and held a campaign titled ‘Foil Vedanta’ outside the company’s headquarters in London. Reliance Industries led by Mukesh Ambani, too has been embroiled in the Niira Radia affair.
 

Also figuring in the list is Hindalco, an Aditya Birla Group company which is now embroiled in the coal scam. The CBI filed a first information report (FIR) against coal secretary PC Parakh and also named Kumar Mangalam Birla, for alleged corruption for allotment of coal blocks in Odisha. More shockingly, as much as Rs25 crore of unaccounted cash was discovered in the office premises in Delhi. The company officials pretend to are clueless about this.
 

One must wonder if this was a sponsored report. TI put a note on the fourth page that read: “Companies covered in this report may support Transparency International chapters worldwide”. Is it paid research?
 

The three metrics used in the in this report were:
 

# Reporting on anti-corruption programmes (ACP): covering inter alia bribery, facilitation payments, whistleblower protection and political contributions
 

# Organisational transparency (OT): including information about corporate holdings
 

# Country-by-country reporting (CBC): including revenues, capital expenditure and tax payments
 

There was an interesting side note disclosed by TI which read: “Transparency International has not undertaken to verify whether information disclosed on (company) websites or in (company) reports is complete or correct. In other words, if a company publishes what it refers to as ‘a full list of its fully consolidated material subsidiaries’ this has been accepted at face value and scored accordingly. In addition, it is beyond the scope of this research to judge levels of integrity in company practices.”
 

What is remarkable is that TI has succeeded in blurring the definition of ‘transparency’ (or corporate governance, if you will). Because, the next statement reads: “Rather, the research focuses solely on reporting on transparency and anti-corruption in corporate policies and procedures, which Transparency International believes are crucial elements in ensuring good corporate governance and mitigating the risk of corruption.”
 

So, since TI cannot rate companies’ integrity practices it focuses only on reporting and disclosure, and uses the last two as proxy for transparency.
 

Therefore, it would seem that TI has no clue whether companies like Vedanta or Tata Communications are unethical or have shady corporate governance practices. TI probably has no idea about the Niira Radia scandal or the concerns Vedanta generates about its environmental practices. It has rated on the premise that companies like these simply disclosed something, say in company’s documentations such as annual reports and have simply ticked off boxes in their questionnaire.
 

It is well known in India that regulation is abysmal as is corporate governance general. In fact, in a disclosure-based regime, SEBI has failed abysmally to get companies to toe its line or protect investors. Many Indian savers and investors are still groping in the dark when it comes to investment matters due wrong practices on the ground, never mind disclosures on paper.
 

Even corporate auditing has gone for a toss as evidenced in the recent Gujarat NRE coke case as well as Financial Technologies, where auditing irregularities were found. Yet, TI says, “Companies from India performed the best overall among the BRICS with a score of 54% on the strength of their performance on country-by-country reporting.”
 

TI picked only 100 companies from 16 countries worldwide, all from BRICs region, of which 20 Indian companies were featured in the list. Interestingly, it did not select these companies on its own. It used Boston Consulting Group list of Global Challengers 2011. The TI report said that it hopes that these companies will set benchmark in transparency. It said, “In view of the growing economic and political clout of emerging markets and the rapid advances of emerging market companies both domestically and across borders, the hope is that these Global Challengers will adhere not only to applicable legal and regulatory standards but that they will go above and beyond them to achieve the highest standards of ethics and transparency.” Multinational companies like ITC and Hindustan Unilever—both high on corporate governance—have been left out.
 

Interestingly, Chinese companies were the worst of all. TI found that nine out of the 11 worst performers are incorporated in China.

 

Transparency International has been at the forefront of promoting transparency around the world but its own actions has been often suspect. According to top investigative journalist Chitra Subramaniam, TI was silent on the Bofors scam when the bribe giver was Sweden. Yet, year after year, Sweden has been rated one of the corrupt-free nations in Transparency International reports. Switzerland, which helps rogues stash wealth secretly, also routinely figures high on their list.
 

A full summary of only Indian companies is disclosed below, with their scores:

 

COMPANY

ACP

OT

CBC

INDEX

Tata Communications

92%

88%

34%

7.1

Tata Global Beverages

92%

75%

31%

6.6

Tata Steel

92%

75%

30%

6.6

Bharti Airtel

85%

75%

34%

6.4

Tata Chemicals

81%

75%

30%

6.2

Mahindra & Mahindra

73%

81%

30%

6.1

Tata Motors

77%

75%

29%

6.0

Tata Consultancy Services

85%

75%

17%

5.9

Reliance Industries

65%

75%

30%

5.7

Wipro

77%

63%

30%

5.7

Lupin Limited

42%

75%

38%

5.2

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories

50%

75%

25%

5.0

Vedanta Resources

92%

44%

10%

4.9

Infosys Technologies

77%

38%

30%

4.8

Suzlon Energy

54%

56%

32%

4.7

Hindalco Industries

35%

75%

30%

4.7

Larsen & Toubro

19%

81%

26%

4.2

Crompton Greaves

23%

75%

26%

4.1

Bharat Forge

15%

75%

33%

4.1

Bajaj Auto

31%

38%

30%

3.3

ACP: anti-corruption practices  ; OT: organisation transparency  ; CBC: country-by-country reporting

 

The overall list of all 100 companies can be found here:
 

User

COMMENTS

darshan singh

3 years ago

You have brought out real facts about Tata.I have servered in es Tata teleservices for 13 yrs.I have taken up with the Minority Commissioner below issues which are self explanatory.

To,
The Minorities Commissioner,
Behind JJ School of Arts,
Near CST Railway Stn.
BadruddinTayabji Marg,
Fort, Mumbai 400001

Discharge from employment by the employer-
Tata teleservices ( Maharashtra) Ltd
Sir,
The petitioner , Commander Darshan Singh Randhawa(Retd), Age 58 yrs. s/o Bhagwan Singh , a keshdhari sikh ,residing at K-41 Jal Vayu Vihar, Hirananadani Gardens, Powai Mumbai.The petitioner is domiciled in state of Maharashtra, copy of the certificate attached.The petitioner was employed in the Tata Teleservices having employee no. 1831,was working as an Internal Auditor, at their office at D-26/2 TTC Industrial Area MIDC Sanpada PO Turbhe Navi Mumbai 400703, having their registered office at Voltas Premises, TB Kadam Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400033,herein after mentioned as respondent.
The services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect by the respondent company vide there impugned letter dated 02 December 2013, copy attached. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as a Senior Manager Security by M/S Hughes Telecom on 2nd,January 2001. That company was taken over by the respondent company namely Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd, which is a public limited company in 2003 and the petitioner continued to work in various capacities doing the supervisory tasks for which he was recruited for till January 2013.There was no contract signed between the petitioner and the respondents after the petitioner became its employee when the petitioner’s company namely M/S Hughes Telecom was taken over by the respondent company.
The petitioner during his 13 yrs of service in M/S Hughes Telecom and Tata Teleservices ( Maharashtra) Ltd was Head of Business Ethics, Chief Vigilance officer, Head Security, Chief Nodal officer etc. He along with his team of about 10 employees inquired into many incidents of fraud and exposed company officials who were involved in fake telephone bookings on forged documents, billing frauds, employing ghost employees, misappropriating company property and cash, cheating company whilst acquiring sites for cellular towers, fake bill collections etc. The petitioner was applauded for exposing various scams in the company and was awarded for significant contributions to the company in May 2011, certificate attached. However various changes in the management took place and people with vested and selfish interest started yielding power who were adverse to getting exposed in various frauds/scams. To achieve their nefarious designs they slowly started dismantling appellant’s team by transferring the petitioner’s team members to various departments, who were totally dedicated and trained by the petitioner. The petitioner himself was transferred to internal audit department without any formal training in February 2013, without any of his subordinates reporting to him.
The petitioner was asked to report to a supervisor, in the internal audit department who was much younger in age and had spent less time in the company as compared with the petitioner. It is very evident from the job assigned to the petitioner that he was doing a clerical work in the company w.e.f. February 2013. He did not have any administrative/ managerial or supervisory powers over any body. He as an internal auditor had no independent right or authority to take any decision .The petitioner was not given any training for the new assignment as an internal auditor. All this was done to degrade the petitioner and harass him so that he voluntarily resigns and leaves the company. The petitioner is now 58 years age, it is not possible to search for a new job at this age, the market conditions are not suitable to find a suitable job at this age by the petitioner. Inspite of the humiliation meted out to the petitioner, he did not resign from the company although there was lot of pressure on him to resign. The petitioner craves leave to produce the required proof, if desired.
As the petitioner did not resign, the respondents found an ingenious method to terminate him by surreptitiously declaring him as a poor performer. To achieve the same, the petitioner was appraised by his supervisor; Head of the Internal audit department on 31 March 2013, i.e. within one months of joining as an Internal Auditor. The petitioner was given a low rating as G3 by his supervisor. The petitioner was not happy with the low rating and informed his supervisor that he does not agree with the rating given by him in a short period of one month of his joining in the Internal Audit department. In such a situation as per the procedure laid down by the company, the Human resources department should have intervened to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and his supervisor. However nothing was done as there was a tacit understanding between them to terminate the petitioner by fraudulently declaring him as a poor performer . To add insult to the injury, the petitioner’s appraisal was moderated by HR department and further reduced. The petitioner was finally given low rating as G2P2, the same is attached.
Due to a low rating in the appraisal, the petitioner was put on the Performance Enhancement programme in short PEP, as per the procedure laid down by the company for poor performers. The petitioner wrote a detailed e-mail to his supervisor recording his apprehensions for the PEP, the same is attached. No action was taken by the company on the same as the same was according to their pre-plan. On the hind side, it is now apparent to the petitioner that the PEP was a sham exercise lasting for about 12 weeks to declare the him as a non performer. The petitioner worked hard and put in lot of efforts and submitted his performance of 12 weeks to his supervisor. The supervisor without any application of mind declared the petitioner as poor performer.
As per the procedure laid down by the company for in the PEP, the supervisor alone can not declare the petitioner as poor performer. He can only recommend to the Head of the Department who is authorised to declare the petitioner as poor-performer after he interviews him and hears him and is satisfied that the petitioner was really a poor-performer. After all the formalities a document is signed by , the supervisor , the Head of the Department and the petitioner declaring him as a poor-performer.This procedure was not followed by the respondents. The petitioner has not signed the final PEP report along with his supervisor and Head of department. Further the PEP procedure also lays down that all the reports of the PEP would be audited including the document signed by the petitioner, his supervisor and the Head of the Department. Hence to declare an employee as a poor-performer the procedure as laid by the company was not been followed, the petitioner has been declared as a poor-performer unilaterally by his supervisor , who had little experience in the company as compared to the petitioner. Hence , declaring the petitioner as poor performance is void ab initio. From the above narrative it is quite apparent that the petitioner’s transfer to the internal audit department was with a mala-fide intend to declare him a poor performer and terminate him. The petitioner in this petition is challenging his termination being discriminatory ,arbitrary, mala-fide and based upon extraneous reasons as stated above.
The petitioner submits that prior to joining the present company he served for 23 yrs. in the Indian Navy as a commissioned officer and retired as a commander. In this company the petitioner worked in the supervisory capacity for 12 years but was forced to work as a clerk from February 2013 in the internal audit of the company under a totally inexperienced supervisor. It was a totally new job as an internal auditor without any training. The petitioner was never recruited to perform internal audit duties but to do jobs like Head physical security, Chief vigilance officer, Head Business Ethics, Chief Nodal officer , these are the supervisory jobs which he performed after he retired from the Indian Navy in the company for 12 years and his performance was above average. It is pertinent to mention that the jobs which the petitioner was recruited to perform are still being performed by different employees in the company. It was with total mala-fide intend that the petitioner was asked to perform a totally new job of an internal auditor without any formal training so as to declared him as a poor-performer. The contract signed by the petitioner and Hughes Telecom became a nullity after he was removed from a supervisor job and transferred to work as an internal auditor as the terms of his employment were changed unilaterally without any notice to the petitioner .
As per the company policy an employee can work up to superannuation age of 60 years. The petitioner would have superannuated in January 2016 ( in about 2 years time ), however the company mala-fidely terminated the services of the petitioner as a poor-performer immediately vide their impugned letter ibid. It is submitted that there is no provision under any laws to terminate an employee for poor-performance after 13 years of service. Such a termination is a colourable exercise, victimization of the petitioner and violation of his fundamental rights . An employee can be terminated on disciplinary grounds or discharged due to continue ill heath, an inquiry is held for the same. There is no provision to discharge/ dismiss an employee for poor-performance. Depriving an employee his livelihood without following the procedures as laid down in various laws is termed as unfair labour practices. The petitioner above mentioned was discharged/terminated/retrenched by the respondent industry without following any procedure as laid down in various laws of the land.
The petitioner was verbally informed the Circle HR Head on 7 November 2013 that he would be discharged from the Company for poor-performance with three months notice period payment. The petitioner has written to the Circle HR Head about his illegal discharge vide his e-mail dated 11 November 2013 the same is attached.The respondent have not answered to any of the petitioner’s contentions in their impugned letter ibid.
Depriving the petitioner the right to work and live with dignity by the respondents is violation his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have been sacking their employees since last two years but have been given severance packages depending upon their length of service, however the petitioner has been denied the same which is discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The respondent’s vengeful and discriminatory attitude is further apparent from the below illegal actions. The appellant during his employment was given mobile no. 9223405305 and photon no.9223765458 for official use and the company paid for their usage. The appellant took mobile no.9223419894 for usage by his family members and he paid for its usage himself. All the above telephones were disconnected on 20 January 2014 suddenly, without any intimation to the petitioner. The appellant had given his official e-mail for getting the bills for the above telephones. The appellant’s official e-mail was blocked on 3 December 2013 and he stopped getting the bills for the above telephones as the same were being received on his official e-mail. Even when the appellant did not receive the bills for the telephones he has paid Rs1500/- on 11 Jan14 vide cheque no.151583 of Punjab National Bank although the bill amount was about Rs600/-.To prevent any disturbance in the telephone services for mobile no.9223419894.
As stated above the petitioner is on notice period from 3 December 2013, during the said period he is fully entitled to all the perks, pay, allowances, privileges etc. as an employee. The notice period duration is deemed to be employment for all practical purposes. The notice period payments have not been credited by the company till date, none payment of his dues and denying the appellant use of his official mobile no.9223405305 and photon no.9223765458 smacks of total vengeful and high handedness on part of the company in which the appellant served for about 13 yrs. Disconnecting the above telephones without any intimation is against the rules of natural justice , DOT policy and the company policy. All employees are entitled to retain their mobile nos. even on separation provided they fill up fresh CAFs ( customer application forms) and are willing to pay for the usage.The appellant went to the Company store at Vashi for activating the illegally disconnected telephone nos. And filled new CAFs( customer application forms) He was informed that telephone no. 9223405305 can not be given to him as the same has been removed from the system. The appellant has been using the said mobile no. since last 10 years and all his relatives, friends, banking transactions etc.are done using the said mobile. Mobile no.9223419894 which was being used by the appellant’s family on a Black Berry hand set could not be activated on the Blackberry hand set as the hand set is non reum, he was given a fresh sim card and charged Rs400/- for reactivation and cost of the sim card for telephone no. 9223419894.The fresh sim card is not at all useful to the appellant as the same can not be used in the blackberry hand set. Hence both the mobile nos. are not available to the appellant from 20 January 2014. The photon has been activated under a new no. 9223106244.
Due to illegal disconnection of the appellant’s telephones as stated above, during the notice period has caused him lot of agony and pain, he is unable to communicate with his relatives and friends. All his financial transactions have stopped. None payments of the dues to the appellant is causing him further distress.
The above illegal acts by the respondents smacks of total arbitrariness, highhandedness on their part, total prejudice and discriminatory behaviour against the petitioner. The petitioner being a keshdhari sikh, a person belonging to minority community and a veteran from the Indian Navy was singled out for a special ill-treatment. The respondent as per their corporate social responsibility are to employee members of minority community and diverse back grounds so that they have employees from varied backgrounds. However in the case of the petitioner the respondents have shown irresponsible corporate behaviour by terminating the services of the petitioner who servered them for 13 years and was illegally terminated at a ripe age of 58years.
In view of the above the petitioner prays that the respondent’s irresponsible corporate and illegal behaviour against a minority community and veteran petitioner be inquired into and relief as deemed suitable be provided.
Yours Sincerely

Commander Darshan Singh Randhawa(Retd)
The petitioner above named

Encl: As above

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)