Breaking News
Nagaland Post Logo
You are here:  Skip Navigation LinksHome » Show story
Govt responds to CANSSEA
Published on 25 May. 2010 1:38 AM IST
Print  Text Size

State government has reiterated the enforcement of the policy of “no work, no pay” on its “erring” employees who were participating in the CANSSEA mass casual leave. An office memorandum issued by the commissioner and secretary to the government of Nagaland, Temjen Toy notified all departments and employees that as per Rule 7 of CCS (Leave) rules, leave “cannot be claimed as a matter of right” and was granted subject to exigencies of service. It was stated that leave can be refused or revoked by the sanctioning authority and further clarified that the mass casual leave amounted to mass abstention from work without permission.
The government has directed all heads of administrative department and heads of departments to submit the casual leave applied by the employees and number of absentees in the departments to the chief secretary on May 25 by 12 noon positively.
Govt. stand on RoP
Taking note of the recent debates on Revision of Pay (RoP) and CANSSEA’s decision to go on a mass casual leave as part of its agitation over the 6th ROP, the state government issued another reiteration of its points.
In a communiqué, additional chief secretary & finance commissioner Toshi Aier reminded that earlier, the 5th ROP was accepted from June 1,1998 following an agreement with CANSSEA but owing to lack of funds, it was only implemented with effect from April 1,2000.
Aier said when CANSSEA took the matter to court, the judgment went in favour of the government’s stand over lack of funds for implementation of the 5th ROP.
He said CANSSEA then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court over the High Court judgment and as the apex court had yet to decide, the matter was currently subjudice.
Further, Aier asserted that since the state government’s decision to implement 5th RoP w.e.f. April 1, 2000 was upheld by High Court and since CANSSEA itself had filed appeal before the Supreme Court, where the matter was yet to be decided; the question of CANSSEA raising any demand with reference to date of implementation before the apex court passed an order on the matter, did not appear to be appropriate.
“For the same reasons, it would be improper for the Government to take any substantial decision at this juncture,” it said.
(Full text in page-4)

Comments:(0) Login or Register to post your Comment
(Available for registered users only)
More News