SAIL Ex-Employees Association

2009-02-18T17:33:00.000-08:00

Web: http://canvas.nowpos.com/sailex e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com
Fax:011-23061477
SEEA/P/0814
Nov. 19, 2008
To
Sri Ram Vilas Paswan,
Union Minister of Steel, Chemicals and Fertilisers,
Govt. of India, Udyog Bhawan,
NEW DELHI-110001

Sub: Withholding the payment of Revenue Surplus earned by Hindustan Steel Provident Fund (H.O.) Trust, Ranchi during the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 to P.F. Members including Ex-Employees.
Ref.:Our letter No. SEEA/P/0805 dt.19th June 2008 addressed to you and reminder letter No. SEEA/P/0806 dated 24th Sept. 2008- Without action as yet.
Hon’ble Ram Vilas Ji,
I would like to draw your kind attention to the above referred letters. This has remained without action for over five months now. I repeat our request to you to get our Revenue Surplus earnings held illegally by SAIL/RDCIS, Ranchi for over 11 years now. The details of the case was supplied with our above letter in June this year alongwith 7 enclosures in 26 pages.
I request you to please advise SAIL to order for release of this money without further delay so that Ex-Employees can get a relief when they need it most .
With kind regards,
Yours faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)
President

Web: http://canvas.nowpos.com/sailex e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com
REGISTERED
UNDER RTI ACT 2005
appellate.authority@sailex.com
No. SEEA/P/0813
Nov.17, 2008
Executive Director (P&A),
(Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005)
SAIL Corporate Office,
3rd Floor, Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road,
New Delhi-110003

Sub: Unsatisfactory reply from Sri G.G.Gautam, AGM (Pers) & PIO
Ref.: Letter Nos. PER/RTI/B-425(A)(3)/08/119 and 127 dated 29th Sept. and 29th Oct. 2008 respectively
Dear Sir,

This has reference to our letter Nos.SEEA/P/0710 and 0711 dtd 28.11. 2007 and SEEA/P/0803 dtd May 21, 2008 addressed to SAIL Chairman for redressal of our grievances. We are sure that our letters and reminders to SAIL Chairman must have been dealt with by him and there must be some record of his order, advice, directive or queries in the form of noting on the file. In stead of providing us with the desired information your PIO forwarded the same to PIO, RDCIS, Ranchi taking shelter u/s 6(3) of RTI Act. Thus an attempt was made by your PIO to derail the process of redressal of our grievances by wrongly invoking section 6(3) of RTI Act. SAIL is a Corporate Authority and all the Policies and Rules for the Company and its Units are made by them and their implementation ensured. RDCIS is a Unit and a subordinate Authority under SAIL and functions mostly on the basis of delegated powers. He should have known that RDCIS, not PIO, RDCIS has jurisdiction over redressing our grievances and issuing orders or implementing an order. We have enough evidence in the documents referred to show that issues like withholding the payment of Revenue Surplus by HSPF/ RDCIS, delay in ordering medical treatment to non-Ranchi SAIL employees at Ispat Hospital, Ranchi and fixing the Electricity tariff for the leased houses in SAIL Township illegally are all being carried out explicitly or implicitly by an order of SAIL. This has further resulted in negative and inefficient functioning of present RDCIS Management.

It must be clear from the above argument that we desired to have exact information as to what was done by SAIL Chairman on our requests. We hope it is clear now that replies by PIO, RDCIS, Ranchi will not meet the desired objective.
In view of the facts stated above I request you to provide us with the information desired under the Act vide our letter No. SEEA/P/0807 dated 24th Sept. 2008 addressed to PIO, SAIL.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)

Web: http://canvas.nowpos.com/sailex e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com
REGISTERED
UNDER RTI ACT 2005
e-mail: cpfc-epfo@nic.in
SEEA/P/PF/0812
Nov 17, 2008
To
Assistant Central Commissioner (CSD)
& Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhika Ji Kama Place, New Delhi-110066.

Ref.: Unsatisfactory reply from Sri Uttam Prakash, PIO & Asstt PF Commissioner (PID) vide his letter No. PID/EZ/30/08/57184 dated 29th Oct 2008
Dear Sir,
This has reference to our letter No. SEEA/P/cpfc/0709 dated Nov. 20, 2007 addressed to CPFC with 26 pages of enclosures and two reminders by e-mail on the issue of withholding the payment of PF Revenue Surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03 by HSPF of SAIL/RDCIS, Ranchi to our members. Since the issue is hanging for a total of over 11 years and for about one year with the CPFC we desired to have the following information from your PIO under RTI Act 2005 vide our letter No. SEEA/P/PF/0808 dt Sept.26, 2008 and SEEA/P/PF/0810 dt.Oct.21, 2008
1. Complete details of the action taken by your office in this regard including the reasons of delay for the aforesaid payment to our members. Please provide documents including noting on the file, if any.
2. The reasons for not issuing directive to RPFC, Ranchi/RDCIS Management/ HSPF Trust in spite of a clear advice issued by your Central Office on 21st Nov. 2003 with regard to this payment?
3. Whether necessary action has been initiated against RPFC, Ranchi for not enforcing their order dated 14th June 2006.
4. Whether necessary action has been initiated against HSPF/ RDCIS for the unlawful act of not honoring your order dated 21st Nov. 2003 and the order of RPFC, Ranchi dated 14th June 2006.
I am sure our letter to CPFC must have been dealt with by him and there must be some record of his order, directive, advice or queries in the form of noting on the file. In stead of providing us with the desired information your PIO forwarded the same to RPFC, Ranchi who failed to implement the order/ guidelines of the CPFC of Nov. 21, 2003 and his own order dtd. 14th June 2006 and against whose inaction the letter to CPFC was written. It must be clear from the above argument that we desired to have exact information on what was done by CPFC. This cannot be replied or answered by RPFC, Ranchi. Hence the approach of the PIO is derailed from the objective and spirit of the RTI Act 2005 and thus unsatisfactory.
In view of the above we request you to provide us with the desired information under the Act.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)

Web: http://canvas.nowpos.com/sailex e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com
REGISTERED

No. SEEA/P/0811
Oct. 21, 2008

Sri G.G.Gautam,
AGM (Personnel) & PIO,
Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
18th Floor, Scope Minar,
North Tower, Core-1,
Laxmi Nagar Distt. Centre,
Laxmi Nagar,
NEW DELHI- 110092.

Ref: Request for Information under RTI Act 2005 vide our letter No. SEEA/P/0807 dated Sept. 24, 2008 and your reply letter No. PER/RTI/B-425(A)(3)/08/119 dated 29th Sept. 2008

Dear Sri Gautam,

This has reference to your above letter according to which my subject letter seeking information under RTI Act 2005 has been forwarded to DGM (P&A), RDCIS for “Future correspondence in this regard.” I have to say the following.
1. That, RDCIS did not take appropriate action for more than 2-4 years on different issues mentioned in the subject letter. Hence we approached Chairman SAIL for redressal of the grievances.
2. That, no action and no response made by SAIL Chairman for about 11 months now even after several reminders indicate that SAIL has become insensitive and incommunicable on the issues of Ex-Employees pending with SAIL including on monetary matters.
3. That, the contents of your letter point out that SAIL has no responsibility towards the Ex-Employees and no authority to mend the functioning of the RDCIS Management whereas SAIL is equally responsible for (1) withholding of payment of Revenue Surplus, (2) Issuance of Medical Cards to SAIL Ex-Employees from other Plants/Units at Ranchi in Ispat Hospital,.Ranchi (3) violation of the Electricity Act in fixinig electricity tariff and other issues raised in our letter.
In view of the above I request you to kindly provide us with the information sought for in our above reffered letter under RTI Act 2005. The application fee of Rs. 10/-has already been deposited with the earlier letter.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,

(V.N.Sharma)
President

Web: http://canvas.nowpos.com/sailex e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com
REGISTERED
UNDER RTI ACT 2005
SEEA/P/PF/0810
Oct.21, 2008
To
Sri Uttam Prakash,
Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner (PID),
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhika Ji Kama Place,
New Delhi-110066.

Sub: Delay in payment of P.F. Revenue surplus by HSPF for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03 to our members.
Ref.: Our letter No. SEEA/P/cpfc/0709 dated Nov. 20, 2007 (copy enclosed) with 26 pages of enclosures and two reminders by e-mail
Dear Sir,
Please refer to our above letter on the issue of non- payment of PF Revenue Surplus by HSPF of SAIL/RDCIS, Ranchi. Since the issue is hanging for a total of over 10 years we would like to have the following information from you under RTI Act 2005.
5. Complete details of the action taken by your office in this regard including the reasons of delay for the aforesaid payment to our members. Please provide documents including notings on the file, if any.
6. The reasons for not issuing directive to RPFC, Ranchi/RDCIS Management/ HSPF Trust in spite of a clear advice issued by your Central Office on 21st Nov. 2003 with regard to this payment?
7. Whether necessary action has been initiated against RPFC, Ranchi for not enforcing their order dated 14th June 2006.
8. Whether necessary action has been initiated against HSPF/ RDCIS for the unlawful act of not honouring your order dated 21st Nov. 2003 and the order of RPFC, Ranchi dated 14th June 2006.
A crossed Indian Postal Order (No. 75E 643454) for Rs. 10/- is enclosed herewith against the required fee for the Information sought.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)
President

UNDER RTI ACT 2005
SEEA/P/PF/0809
Sept.27, 2008
To
CPIO (Under RTI Act 2005)
Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhika Ji Kama Place,
New Delhi-110066.

Sub: Delay in payment of P.F. Revenue surplus by HSPF for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03 to our members.
Ref.: Our letter No. SEEA/P/PF/0808 dated Sept. 26, 2008
Dear Sir,
By mistake the fee of Rs. 10/- could not be attached to the above referred letter sent by SPEEDPOST yesterday while asking for information about the non- payment of PF Revenue Surplus by HSPF of SAIL/RDCIS, Ranchi. A Crossed IPO No.75E 643453 for Rs. 10/- is enclosed herewith for the purpose.
Thanking you,

Yours Faithfully,
Encl. Crossed IPO for Rs.10/-

(V.N.Sharma)

SPEEDPOST
UNDER RTI ACT 2005
SEEA/P/PF/0808
Sept.26, 2008
To
CPIO (Under RTI Act 2005)
Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhika Ji Kama Place,
New Delhi-110066.

Sub: Delay in payment of P.F. Revenue surplus by HSPF for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03 to our members.
Ref.: Our letter No. SEEA/P/cpfc/0709 dated Nov. 20, 2007 (copy enclosed) with 26 pages of enclosures and two reminders by e-mail
Dear Sir,
Please refer to our above letter on the issue of non- payment of PF Revenue Surplus by HSPF of SAIL/RDCIS, Ranchi. Since the issue is hanging for a total of over 10 years we would like to have the following information from you under RTI Act 2005.
1. Complete details of the action taken by your office in this regard including the reasons of delay for the aforesaid payment to our members. Please provide documents including notings on the file, if any.
2. The reasons for not issuing directive to RPFC, Ranchi/RDCIS Management/ HSPF Trust in spite of a clear advice issued by your Central Office on 21st Nov. 2003 with regard to this payment?
3. Whether necessary action has been initiated against RPFC, Ranchi for not enforcing their order dated 14th June 2006.
4. Whether necessary action has been initiated against HSPF/ RDCIS for the unlawful act of not honouring the order of RPFC, Ranchi dated 14th June 2006.
Thanking you,
Yours Faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)

weblog: http://canvas.nowpos.com/sailex
e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com

Web: http://canvas.nowpos.com/sailex e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com
SPEEDPOST
UNDER RTI ACT 2005

No. SEEA/P/0807
Sept. 24, 2008

Sri G.G.Gautam,
AGM (Personnel) & PIO,
Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road,
NEW DELHI- 110003.

Sub: Request for Information on our letter Nos.SEEA/P/0710 and 0711 dated 28.11. 2007, SEEA/P/0803 dt May 21, 2008 (copy attached) addressed to SAIL Chairman.
Dear Sir,

Please furnish complete detailed information about the action taken on the issues raised in our two letters addressed to Chairman, SAIL on Nov 28 2007, followed by a reminder summary letter on May 21, 2008. The following are only the points raised in the letter (except para 6). The letter addressed to SAIL Chairman contained all the enclosures needed to examine the issues.
1. Implementation of the order of CPFC and RPFC, Ranchi for payment of P.F. Revenue Surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03.
2. Illegal and unauthorised charging tariff for electricity for domestic consumption to our leased houses - Payment of Annual Lease Rent etc.
3. Issuance of Medical Cards to SAIL Ex-Employees from other Plants/Units at Ranchi in Ispat Hospital.Ranchi.(Copy of letter attached)
4. Providing Holding No. of the SAIL satellite Township for Registration of the “Agreement to Lease” for House No. A-100.
5. My letter No. VNS/A100/e-bill/ 0704 dated 17th July 2007 to General Manager (P&A), RDCIS & Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005 on the subject of incomplete & unsatisfactory information by your PIO in Para 6 of his letter No. RD/RI(05)/16 dated 14/06/2007.
6. Please also let me know why SAIL and its Ranchi Unit RDCIS are becoming incommunicable and holding our money and facilities illegally. Also please tell me how to proceed to get our grievances heard and responded by SAIL and its Ranchi Units.

Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,

Encl: A crossed IPO No. 75E 643451 for Rs. 10/- as fees
(V.N.Sharma)
President

Web: http://canvas.nowpos.com/sailex e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com
REGISTERED
SEEA/P/0806
Sept. 24, 2008
To
Sri Ram Vilas Paswan,
Union Minister of Steel, Chemicals and Fertilisers,
Govt. of India, Udyog Bhawan,
NEW DELHI-110001

Sub: Withholding the payment of Revenue Surplus earned by Hindustan Steel Provident Fund (H.O.) Trust, Ranchi during the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 to P.F. Members including Ex-Employees.
Ref.:Our letter No. SEEA/P/0805 dt.19th June 2008 addressed to you- Without action as yet. (Copy attached)
Hon’ble Ram Vilas Ji,
I would like to draw your kind attention to the above referred letter. This has remained without action for over three months now. I repeat our request to you to get our Revenue Surplus earnings held illegally by SAIL/RDCIS, Ranchi for over 11 years now. The details of the case was supplied with our above letter in June this year alongwith 7 enclosures in 26 pages.
I request you to please advise SAIL to order for release of this money by this Puja Festival so that Ex-Employees can get a sum and meaning to celebrate.
With kind regards,
Yours faithfully,
Encl: A/A

(V.N.Sharma)
President

Web: http://canvas.nowpos.com/sailex e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com
REGISTERED
SEEA/P/0805
June 19, 2008
To
Sri Ram Vilas Paswan,
Union Minister of Steel, Chemicals and Fertilisers,
Govt. of India, Udyog Bhawan,
NEW DELHI-110001

Sub: Withholding the payment of Revenue Surplus earned by Hindustan Steel Provident Fund (H.O.) Trust, Ranchi during the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 to P.F. Members including Ex-Employees.
Ref.: Guidance/ clarification letter from CPFC New Delhi No. E III 3(1)2000-BR Genl./6269 dated 21.11.2003 and RPFC, Ranchi order No. JH/RO/RNC/ EXM/ 935/06/1369 dated 14th June 2006.
Hon’ble Ram Vilas Ji,
We would like to draw your kind attention to the fact that Hindustan Steel Provident Fund Trust (HSPF) for SAIL employees at Ranchi accumulated Surplus Revenue of Rs. 254 lakhs earned by them during the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001(Annexure I). Half of this amount was distributed to the members in employment between April 01, 2002 and January 10, 2003. Employees retired before Jan 10, 2003 was not considered for payment. The issue was taken up by us with HSPF and SAIL/RDCIS who refused to oblige the Ex-Employees. Ultimately the payment of half of the amount was released to us after Central Provident Fund Commissioner issued a clear guidelines and advice vide their above referred letter (Annexure II) on the recommendation of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi.
Following this, we took up the issue of payment of remaining part (about 1/3rd) of the total Revenue Surplus but by the middle of 2005 it became clear to us that SAIL/RDCIS and HSPF Trust have no inclination to pay the remaining Revenue Surplus. The objective of writing this request letter to you is to please guide and advise SAIL/ RDCIS to gracefully follow the order of the CPFC and release the payment at the earliest as they do not have appropriate justification for withholding the payment. The details of the case are as follows.
1. That, the matter was formally taken up with Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi in September 2005.
2. That, we met RPFC and the concerned officers of his office several times which resulted in their order to the Trust for payment vide letter dated 14th June 2006 (copy in Annexure III).
3. That, HSPF submitted in reply a meaningless private auditor’s statement to RPFC, Ranchi as the basis for their refusal to pay (copy in Annexure IV)
4. That, we approached SAIL/RDCIS under Right to Information Act 2005 to provide complete information on the subject. Their reply alongwith 13 enclosures are enclosed herewith (as part of Annexure V).
5. That, we studied their reply and found no justification for withholding the payment of Revenue Surplus. We communicated our comments and observations of the facts supplied by them to SAIL/RDCIS Management vide our letter No. SEEA/P/PF/0611 dated Oct 26, 2006 and requested them several times to make early payment (Annexure VI). Both RDCIS Mgt. & HSPF Trust remained silent.
6. That, we approached SAIL Chairman vide our letter No. SEEA/P/0711 dated Nov. 28, 2007 for issuing an appropriate advice on this and several other issues related to Ex-Employees followed by a reminder vide letter No. SEEA/P/0803 dated May 21, 2008 Annexure VII). Nothing happenned.
7. That, this attitude of the HSPF Trust and SAIL and RDCIS Managements has really pained the SAIL Ex-Employees as all of them are retired and need their rightful share of money of the Revenue Surplus illegally held by the Trust and need that soon.
In view of the facts presented above we feel that all the vital information provided now by SAIL/ RDCIS under RTI Act 2005 were taken into account by CPFC and RPFC, Ranchi at the time the clarification was provided in favour of payment of total Revenue Surplus in Nov 2003 (Annexure II). There is nothing substantially different now. I am sure this must have been the basis for RPFC Ranchi also for issuing their order dated 14th June 2006 (Annexure III). In spite of this we have provided our comments and observations on the information provided by SAIL/ RDCIS under RTI Act 2005 which may be examined, if needed. We do not find any reason for withholding the payment of the Revenue Surplus kept with the HSPF Trust. The payment need to be done fast as our members are Sr. Citizens and such tactics of keeping silent for so long is not matching with the policy of your Govt. with respect to Sr. Citizens.
In view of this, we request you, Sir, to kindly issue an appropriate advice to SAIL and RDCIS, Ranchi to make the payments of the total amount of Revenue Surplus remaining with the Trust for such long years, alongwith the interest earned during this period, to all the members. We are ready to provide necessary assistance, if and when asked for on the issue of early payment of the Revenue Surplus.
With kind regards,
Yours faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)
President
Encl: All 7 Annexure with enclosures (Annex 5 as complete set)

Web: http://canvas.nowpos.com/sailex e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com
REGISTERED
SEEA/P/0804
May 22, 2008
Sri S.K. Roongta,
Chairman,
Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
NEW DELHI-10003
Sub: Suggestions to improve communication and usefulness of Ex-Employees.
Ref: Our letter No.SEEA/P/0803 dated 21st May 2008 (posted with this letter)
Dear Sir,
Our members, in a recent meeting, felt that Ex-Employees and their families are not treated well by the Company or its Units in their post retirement existence. Their legal and moral claims as perceived in their service condition and as part of the country’s laws are not respected. The above referred letter presents itself as an example as the issues are pending for years and years together. It is to the extent that laws related to
• fixing Electricity tariff,
• registration of agreement of leased houses,
• payment of PF Revenue Surplus withheld for more than 10 years and
• proper replies under RTI Act 2005 have been totally ignored.
It is unfair for SAIL or its Units not to meet their legal obligations under the law. In view of this our General Body decided to request you to do the following to improve level of interaction with Ex-Employees and establish meaningful relationship with the Ex-Employees.
a) Creation of a separate office/ post for handling cases and grievances of Ex-Employees (as done under RTI Act 2005).
b) Involve Ex-Employees in the conduct of peripheral development activities/ programmes of the Unit where they are settled.
c) Fix common facility charges like booking community halls, Clubs etc for marriage or other social obligations at par with regular employees.
d) Provide office space in the Township on the same terms and conditions as it is given to Association/Union of regular employees.
e) Fix guest house charges at par with those for regular employees
f) Enhance the amount of limit of OPD charges in Mediclaim policy from present Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per head per year and permit combining them for Ex-Employee and the spouse.
g) Treat the Ex-Employees and their spouse as Sr. Citizens and provide concessions to the extent the Government does.
We request you, therefore, to kindly issue necessary orders for implementation of the above. We feel that your positive decision on the aforesaid suggestions will help establish a good workable and useful relationship in the post retirement period for both the Company and the Ex-Employees.
With thanks and best regards,
Yours sincerely,

(V.N.Sharma)

Web: http://canvas.nowpos.com/sailex e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com
REGISTERED
(Reminder I)
COPY SEEA/P/0803
May 21, 2008
Sri S.K. Roongta,
Chairman,
Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
NEW DELHI-10003
Sub:1.Issues – Pending for long without action by RDCIS Management.
2.Extension of Medical facilities to SAIL Ex-Employees from other Plants/Units at Ranchi in Ispat Hospital. Ranchi.
Ref: Our letter Nos.SEEA/P/0710 and 0711 dated 28.11. 2007 addressed to you
Dear Sir,
We are sorry to inform you that all the five issues raised in the above referred letters remain where they were without a reply or positive action. We would like to clarify at this stage that the issues mentioned in the letters are not demands. They are legally and morally justified claims of the Ex-Employees as part of their service condition or as part of the country’s law. As you must feel Ex-Employees need settlement of their dues and grievances at an early date as they have limitations of time before popping off without notice. Therefore, inaction and inefficient approach by Management is really painful. RDCIS, Ranchi under the stewardship of the present ED & I/c have failed to meet their obligations so far on any of the issues. This does not auger well for the company’s Ranchi Units or its present and Ex-Employees. It is unfair for SAIL or its Units not to meet their legal obligations under the law. The issues are listed below for your quick reference.
7. Implementation of the order of CPFC and RPFC, Ranchi for payment of P.F. Revenue Surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03.
8. Illegal and unauthorised charging tariff for electricity for domestic consumption to our leased houses - Payment of Annual Lease Rent etc.
9. Issuance of Medical Cards to SAIL Ex-Employees from other Plants/Units at Ranchi in Ispat Hospital.Ranchi.
10. Providing Holding No. of the SAIL satellite Township for Registration of the “Agreement to Lease” for House No. A-100.
11. My letter No. VNS/A100/e-bill/ 0704 dated 17th July 2007 to your General Manager (P&A) & Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005 on the subject of incomplete & unsatisfactory information by your PIO in Para 6 of his letter No. RD/RI(05)/16 dated 14/06/2007.
We, therefore, request you to kindly intervene in the matter and get the issues resolved at an early date. We hope and believe that SAIL would look into it dispassionately and do the needful. Alternatively, please let us know where to go and who to approach to get the legally and morally justified claims of the Ex-Employees.
With thanks and best regards,
Yours sincerely,

(V.N.Sharma)

Blog: http://canvas.nowpos.com/sailex e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com
REGISTERED
(Reminder II)
SEEA/P/cpfc/0802
May 20, 2008
To
Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhika Ji Kama Place,
New Delhi-110066.

Sub: Non-Distribution of remaining 1/3rd Revenue Surplus earned by Hindustan Steel Provident Fund (H.O.) Trust, Ranchi during the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 to P.F. Members
Ref.: Our Speedpost letter No. SEEA/P/cpfc/0709 dt. 20.11.2007 followed by e-mail Reminder dated 20.01.08 for implementation of your order.
Dear Sir,
This has reference to our above letters. A copy of each is enclosed (w/o enclosures) herewith for your kind perusal and necessary favourable decision without further delay on your guidance/ clarification letter No. E III 3(1)2000-BR Genl./6269 dated 21.11.2003 and RPFC, Ranchi order No. JH/RO/RNC/ EXM/ 935/06/1369 dated 14th June 2006. We would like to draw your kind attention to the fact that the issue is more than ten years old and this request is only to advise implementation of your previous order given more than 4 years ago.
I once again request you to please expedite implementation of your decision and release payment to the members of HSPF, Ranchi. Alternatively, please let us know the reasons that stop you from issuing a favourable repeat order.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)
President
Encl. As above

e-mail: cpfc-epfo@nic.in
REMINDER I
Dear Sir,

This is to remind you that a letter was sent to you alongwith all the necessary enclosures by Speedpost on 21 st Nov. 2007. This is about non-implementation of your clarification made over 4 years ago regarding payment of Revenue Surplus. We have heard nothing so far even after two months of the despatch of this letter.
I request you to please expedite implementation of your decision and releasing payment to the members.

Dr.V.N.Sharma,
President
for SAIL Ex-Employees Association

SPEEDPOST
SEEA/P/0711
Nov. 28, 2007
Sri S.K. Roongta,
Chairman,
Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
NEW DELHI-10003

Sub: Issues – Pending for long without action by RDCIS Management

Dear Sir,

Please find enclosed herewith a copy of my letter No. VNS/P/ 0708 dated 30th October 2007 addressed to Sri Jagdish Singh, ED & I/c RDCIS. It refers to a total of five issues pending for long without action by the RDCIS Management. The issues are of individual as well as collective nature and affect all categories of present and Ex- Employees now or later. The communications made to ED & I/c RDCIS during the tenure of the present incumbent on all the five issues remained without an action or a reply. This is causing uncalled for delay directly affecting me and other Ex-Employees, who also happen to be Sr. Citizen of the Society. It looks like that the RDCIS Management has become non-functional. The net result is that matter is becoming complex day by day, increasing the conflict interface and becoming difficult to resolve. This is also leading to violation of laws and legal provisions and forcing individuals to do unlawful activities which in our opinion are a serious matter.
In view of the aforesaid facts I request you to kindly intervene and advise the RDCIS Management to go for a definite, positive and legally foolproof action and to communicate a positive reply to these letters.

With thanks and best regards,
Yours sincerely,

(V.N.Sharma)

2007-12-15T06:30:00.000-08:00

Dear Members,

Further to my Picnic message it has been decided to have the Picnic as per details given below or in the Attachment. Our volunteers will get in touch with you soon. I hope this is fair enough to pl. hand over your contribution promptly in next few days (by 20th Dec.) so that fool- proof arrangements can be made. Pl. note that last year over Rs. 500/- were paid by individual office bearer/ volunteer just because somebody promised and after payments were made to the caterer this somebody did not turn up and did not pay up. As you are all aware there is no rolling fund with us. It is a hand to mouth organisation.

Alternatively, pl. send a msg if you are not participating.

Wishing you a Happy Picnic with added enjoyment.

**************

PICNIC (9.00 AM to 4.30 PM ) cum A G M

alongwith

Sports and Party Games for Ladies & Children

:Programme Details:

Venue: Shyamali Nursary (Mecon)
Date: 30th Dec 2007 (Sunday)
Time: 9.00 AM

Agenda (AGM): 12.00 Noon to 1.00 PM

1. Welcome by President

2. Secretary's Report

3. Approval of Accounts

4. Any other Point

5. Vote of Thanks

Contribution :

Member/ Spouse/ Guest (each) :Rs. 100/-

Children above 12 years (each) :Rs. 100/-

Children upto 12 years :Free

(V.N. Sharma)
President

2007-11-27T22:37:00.000-08:00

SPEEDPOST

SEEA/P/0711
Nov. 28, 2007

Sri S.K. Roongta,
Chairman,
Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
NEW DELHI-10003

Sub: Issues – Pending for long without action by RDCIS Management

Dear Sir,

Please find enclosed herewith a copy of my letter No. VNS/P/ 0708 dated 30th October 2007 addressed to Sri Jagdish Singh, ED & I/c RDCIS. It refers to a total of five issues pending for long without action by the RDCIS Management. The issues are of individual as well as collective nature and affect all categories of present and Ex- Employees now or later. The communications made to ED & I/c RDCIS during the tenure of the present incumbent on all the five issues remained without an action or a reply. This is causing uncalled for delay directly affecting me and other Ex-Employees, who also happen to be Sr. Citizen of the Society. It looks like that the RDCIS Management has become non-functional. The net result is that matter is becoming complex day by day, increasing the conflict interface and becoming difficult to resolve. This is also leading to violation of laws and legal provisions and forcing individuals to do unlawful activities which in our opinion are a serious matter.

In view of the aforesaid facts I request you to kindly intervene and advise the RDCIS Management to go for a definite, positive and legally foolproof action and to communicate a positive reply to these letters.

With thanks and best regards,
Yours sincerely,

(V.N.Sharma)

*******************************
Blog: http://canvas.nowpos.com/sailex e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com

SPEEDPOST

SEEA/P/0710
Nov. 28, 2007

Sri S.K. Roongta,
Chairman,
Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
NEW DELHI-10003

Sub: Extension of Medical facilities to SAIL Ex-Employees from other Plants/Units at Ranchi in Ispat Hospital. Ranchi.

Dear Sir,

We have a few SAIL Ex-Employees from the Plants/ Units other than Ranchi settled in this city after their retirement from service. We are sorry to inform you that they are not being allowed medical facilities in Ispat Hospital, Ranchi which is administered by MECON Ltd. We took up the issue with ED & I/c RDCIS followed by those with CMD, MECON. Reply from RDCIS is non - committal and MECON’s reply is in negative. We request you for your kind intervention to get SAIL Ex-Employees from the Plants/ Units other than Ranchi the medical facilities in Ispat Hospital, Ranchi at par with the Ex-Employees from Ranchi Units.
That, the Ispat Hospital is under the administrative control of MECON Ltd. but provides Health care to both SAIL and MECON employees including Ex-Employees without discrimination and for all practical purposes it is a SAIL Hospital for Health Care purposes. The health care facilities are extended to both Ex- and Current employees of SAIL as per SAIL Rules and for those of MECON as per MECON Rules. As per SAIL Medical Policy SAIL Ex-Employees are entitled to get the medical facilities either in their Plant/Unit Hospitals from where they retired or where they settle after retirement for which necessary formalities are required to be completed if such recognized Hospitals exist in those places. Since SAIL Ranchi Units did not establish a Health care Unit/ Hospital of its own in Ranchi and depended all these years on Ispat Hospital, Ranchi it is clear that SAIL Ex-Employees from other Units settled in Ranchi are entitled to get Medical facilities in Ispat Hospital at par with what is applicable to SAIL Ex-Employees of Ranchi Units.
We would also like to add that the SAIL Ex-Employees are Sr. Citizens who need more social support for Health care due to their age and physical condition. The present Government of India and those in States have shown their commitment to further improve the life and living conditions of the Sr. Citizens. MECON have revised their Medical Policy and Rules recently in favour of MECON Ex-Employees but we fail to understand why they refuse the same to SAIL Ex-Employees of non-Ranchi Units when they are entitled for it.

I request you, Sir, to use your kind influence to help SAIL Ex-Employees of non-Ranchi Units in getting Medical facilities in Ispat Hospital at par with those retired from Ranchi Units. We shall be obliged to you for this.

With thanks and best regards,

Yours sincerely,

(V.N.Sharma)

2007-11-20T23:31:00.000-08:00

SPEEDPOST

SEEA/P/cpfc/0709
Nov. 20, 2007

To
Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhika Ji Kama Place,
New Delhi-110066.

Sub: Non-Distribution of remaining 1/3rd Revenue Surplus earned by Hindustan Steel Provident Fund (H.O.) Trust, Ranchi during the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 to P.F. Members

Ref.: Your guidance/ clarification letter No. E III 3(1)2000-BR Genl./6269 dated 21.11.2003 and RPFC, Ranchi order No. JH/RO/RNC/ EXM/ 935/06/1369 dated 14th June 2006.

Dear Sir,

This is to bring to your kind attention that the HSPF Trust has failed to distribute the total Revenue Surplus earned by them during the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 in spite of your clarification vide your letter referred above (Annexure I). The details of the case are as follows.

1. That, following your above clarification forwarded by RPFC Ranchi to SAIL/RDCIS vide their letter No. JH/RO/RNC/ EXM/ 935/2003/7297 dated 8th Dec. 2003 half of the Revenue Surplus was paid to all the eligible members of the Trust.

2. That, further discussions were held several times between SAIL Ex-Employees Association and the SAIL/RDCIS and HSPF Trust representatives for payment of remaining 1/3rd Revenue Surplus.

3. That, by the middle of 2005 it became clear to us that SAIL/RDCIS and HSPF Trust have no inclination to pay the remaining Revenue Surplus. We made a formal appeal to Chairman HSPF Trust vide our letter dated 10th Sept 2005 (Annexure II).

4. That, the individual members approached RPFC, Ranchi in the later part of Sept.2005 with a formal representation (sample copy in Annexure III) requesting him to order for the payment of the remaining amount in Revenue Surplus on the basis of your clarification.

5. That, we met RPFC and the concerned officers of his office several times which resulted in their order to the Trust for payment vide letter dated 14th June 2006 (copy in Annexure IV).

6. That, HSPF refused to honour the order and submitted a private auditor’s statement to RPFC, Ranchi as the basis for their refusal (copy in Annexure V)

7. That, we approached SAIL/RDCIS under Right to Information Act 2005 to provide complete information on the subject. Their reply alongwith 13 enclosures is enclosed herewith (as a part of Annexure VI).

8. That, we studied their reply and found no justification for withholding the payment of Revenue Surplus. We communicated our comments and observations of the facts supplied by them to SAIL/RDCIS Management and requested them to make early payment.

9. That, after waiting for some time we sent complete set of information obtained from SAIL/RDCIS to RPFC Ranchi alongwith our comments and observations on 01st Nov 2006 (Annexure VI) justifying our stand for early payment and for implementation of your clarification and their own order referred to above without further delay.

10. That, we waited for over four months and submitted a letter on 19th March 2007 to PIO, RPFC Ranchi under Right to Information Act 2005 seeking information on this issue.. Though satisfactory answer was not provided yet a letter was issued by APFC, Ranchi to Secretary HSPF Trust to hold a meeting with us (Annexure VII). Secretary HSPF did not arrange the desired meeting.

11. That, although this lack of interest in holding the meeting or making payment by HSPF Trust was pointed out to RPFC, Ranchi vide letters dated 11th May and 17th July 2007 (Annexures VIII & IX), preceded and followed by telephonic discussions no further action was initiated by them. No order for payment of the Revenue Surplus has been made by RPFC Ranchi till this date.

12. That, this attitude of the HSPF Trust and indifference of the RPFC, Ranchi has really pained the SAIL Ex-Employees as all of them are retired and need their rightful share of money of the Revenue Surplus illegally held by the Trust and need that soon.

In view of the facts presented above we feel that all the vital information provided now by SAIL/ RDCIS under RTI Act 2005 were taken into account by you at the time the clarification was provided in favour of payment of total Revenue Surplus in Nov 2003 (Annexure I). There is nothing substantially different. I am sure this must have been the basis for RPFC Ranchi also for issuing their order dated 14th June 2006 (Annexure IV). In spite of this we have provided our comments and observations on the information provided by SAIL/ RDCIS under RTI Act 2005 in our letter to RPFC Ranchi (Annexure VI) which may be examined, if needed. We do not find any reason for withholding the payment of the Revenue Surplus kept with the HSPF Trust.

We request you, therefore to kindly issue an appropriate advice to RPFC, Ranchi to issue final order/ directive to SAIL/RDCIS & HSPF Trust, Ranchi to make the payments of the total amount remaining with the Trust for such long years, alongwith the interest earned during this period, to all the members. We are ready to provide necessary assistance, if and when asked for for making a final order/ directive on the issue for early payment.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)
President
Encl: All 9 Annexure with enclosures in the SPEEDPOST (Consignment No. EE876342191IN)

2007-11-05T03:09:00.000-08:00

Not on the Letter Pad

SPEEDPOST
No. VNS/P/ 0708
05th Nov. 2007

Sri Jagdish Singh,
Executive Director & I/c,
RDCIS/ SAIL,
Ranchi-834002.

Sub: Issues – Pending for long without action

Dear Sri Singh,

I addressed the following communications to you and your colleagues. Even those of them written on individual basis have a collective connotation for the benefits of all categories of Employees – Ex as well as current ones. Very surprisingly all of them – posted during your stewardship of SAIL/RDCIS - remained unanswered and without action till this day. I have added ‘Implication’ of inaction on your part - some of them being serious ones have been added to each para for your kind perusal.

1. Our letter No. SEEA/P/PF/0611 dated Oct 26, 2006 to implement the order of CPFC and RPFC, Ranchi for payment of P.F. Revenue surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03 to members of HSPF Trust followed by a reminder letter No. SEEA/P/PF/0705 dated July 17, 2007.
Action: Nil/ Absolute Silence
Implication: Holding illegally of Employees money without justification.

2. My letter Nos. VNS/A100/0609 dtd. 07th Dec 2006 and VNS/A100/0610 dated 29th Dec 2006 regarding illegal and unauthorised charging tariff for electricity for domestic consumption to my leased house - Payment of Annual Lease Rent etc.
Action: Nil/ Absolute Silence
Implication: That the electricity bill has been raised again for this year in the same manner.

3. Our letter No. SEEA/P/0706 dated May 14, 2007 Issuance of Medical Cards to SAIL Ex-Employees from other Plants/Units at Ranchi in Ispat Hospital.Ranchi.
Action: A negative reply with no further effort made
Implication: Lack of serious positive action to get the extension of Health care facilities in Ispat Hospital, Ranchi to such Ex-Employees (Sr. Citizens) mentioned above

4. My request vide my letter No.VNS/A100/Regn/ 0701 dated 26th July 2007 to provide Holding No. of the SAIL satellite Township for Registration of the “Agreement to Lease” for House No. A-100.
Action: Nil/ Absolute Silence
Implication: Registration getting delayed which is obligatory on your part to extend all help

5. My letter No. VNS/A100/e-bill/ 0704 dated 17th July 2007 to your General Manager (P&A) & Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005 on the subject of incomplete & unsatisfactory information by your PIO in Para 6 of his letter No. RD/RI(05)/16 dated 14/06/2007.
Action: Nil/ Absolute Silence
Implication: An obligation on Appellate Authority to provide correct and complete information under RTI Act 2005 stands violated.

In view of the uncalled for delay directly affecting me and other Ex-Employees, who also happen to be Sr. Citizen of the Society I request you to kindly let me know how long this will take to go for a definite and positive action and to communicate a positive reply to these letters. This will help in taking the issues to different forums for redressal of my/our grievances.

Thanking You,
Yours faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)
A-100, SAIL Satellite Township
Ranchi 834004 Jharkhand India
e-mail:vnsh44@gmail.com
Ph:9431102680/0651-2441524
***************
Blog: http://canvas.nowpos.com/sailex e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com

SPEEDPOST

SEEA/P/0708
Nov. 05, 2007

Sri Drone Rath,
Chairman-cum-M.D.,
MECON Ltd.,
Ranchi-834002.

Ref: Letter No. 11.73 dated Aug. 30, 2007 from your DGM & I/c (P) refusing our request vide our letter No. SEEA/P/0707 dated 26th July 2007

Dear Sri Rath,

We are in receipt of your refusal to extend Medical facilities in Ispat Hospital to SAIL Ex-Employees from non – Ranchi Plants/ Units settled in Ranchi after retirement. We would like to request you once again to kindly reconsider your decision and help SAIL Ex-Employees of non-Ranchi Units.

That, the Ispat Hospital is under the administrative control of MECON Ltd. but provides Health care to both SAIL and MECON employees including Ex-Employees without discrimination.. The health care facilities are extended to both Ex- and Current employees of the SAIL as per SAIL Rules and MECON as per MECON Rules. For the purposes of Health care, SAIL Ex-Employees are entitled to get the medical facilities either in their Plant/Unit Hospitals from where they retired or where they settle after retirement if such recognized Hospitals exist in those places provide they make a request to this effect. It is clear from this that SAIL Ex-Employees from other Units settled in Ranchi are entitled to get Medical facilities in Ispat Hospital at par with what is applicable to SAIL Ex-Employees of Ranchi Units.

We would also like to add that the SAIL Ex-Employees are Sr. Citizens who need more social support for Health care due to their age and physical condition. The present Government of India and those in States have shown their commitment to further improve the life and living conditions of the Sr. Citizens. You have also done it for MECON Ex-Employees but we fail to understand why you refuse the same to SAIL Ex-Employees of non-Ranchi Units when they are entitled to it.

I request you once again, Sir, to use your kind influence and a positive approach to help SAIL Ex-Employees of non-Ranchi Units, who also happen to be the Sr. Citizens, in getting Medical facilities in Ispat Hospital at par with those retired from Ranchi Units.

Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,

(V.N.Sharma)

President

******************

MECON LIMITED
A Government of India Enterprise
Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand, India
Phone : 0651-2480002/2480216
Fax : 0651-2482189/2482214
E-Mail : mecon-rnch@mecon.co.in
Web site : http:/www.meconlimited.com

11.73. August 30, 2007

Sri VN Sharma,
President,
SAIL Ex-Employees Association,
A-100 SAIL Satellite Townshiip,
Ranchi 834 004
seearanchi@gmail.com

Ref : Your letter No.SEEA/P/0707 dtd. 26th July ‘07

Dear Sir,

This has reference to your letter dated 26th July ’07 referred to above, addressed to our Chairman-cum-Managing Director requesting medical facilities in Ispat Hospital to all SAIL Ex-employees settled in Ranchi after retirement from other SAIL Plants/Units. Your request has been considered by the Competent Authority and we regret to inform you that it is not possible to accede to your request.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,
For MECON LIMITED,

( M TIRKEY )
DY. GENERAL MANAGER I/c (P)

ISO 9001 Company
************************

2007-07-25T23:15:00.000-07:00

Photolink: http://picasaweb.google.com/seearanchi e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com

SEEA/P/0707
July 26, 2007

Sri Drone Rath,
Chairman-cum-M.D.,
MECON Ltd.,
Ranchi-834002.

Sub: Request to extend Medical facilities to SAIL Ex-Employees from non – Ranchi Plants/ Units settled in Ranchi after retirement in Ispat Hospital.

Dear Sri Rath,

This has reference to the discussion Sri Jagdish Singh, ED & I/c, SAIL/ RDCIS had with you sometime ago on the subject issue. The present number of such SAIL Ex-Employees is less than a dozen and not much is expected to be added later. We thankfully acknowledge your positive stand on the issue during the discussion.

As you must be aware health care becomes a critical requirement in the post retirement phase of life. We also feel happy to know that you took personal interest in extending the medical facilities to MECON Ex-Employees in Ispat Hospital.

In view of these I request you to kindly issue necessary advice to concerned authorities to extend the Medical facilities in Ispat Hospital to all SAIL Ex-Employees settled in Ranchi after retirement from other SAIL Plants/Units. We shall be obliged to you for this.

With thanks and best regards,

Yours sincerely,

(V.N.Sharma)
President

Copy to

Sri Jagdish Singh
Executive Director & I/c,
SAIL/ RDCIS,
Ranchi-834002.

---With a request to please get this expedited

2007-07-17T05:58:00.000-07:00

SPEEDPOST

SEEA/P/PF/0705
July 17, 2007

Executive Director & I/c
RDCIS/ SAIL,
Ranchi-834002.

Sub: Failure to implement the order of CPFC and RPFC, Ranchi to HSPF Trust for payment of P.F. Revenue surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03 to its members.

Ref.: Our letter No. SEEA/P/PF/0611 dated Oct 26, 2006

Dear Sir,

We are sorry to inform you that our above referred communication failed to elicit a favourable order from you for implementing the orders made by CPFC as per their letter dated 21.11.2003 and order by RPFC Ranchi vide their letter No. JH/RO/RNC/ EXM/ 935/06/1369 dated 14th June 2006 for payment of Revenue Surplus by HSPF, Ranchi to its members. Our above referred letter is a critique of the details provided by SAIL/RDCIS in letter No. RD/RI(05)/12 dated 28/09/2006 (along with the 13 enclosures) from GM (P&A) & Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005. In our above referred letter we have established beyond doubt that both HSPF Trust and SAIL/RDCIS Management are wrong in withholding our hard earned money for over a decade now. Yet RDCIS and HSPF Trust have decided to ignore such a major issue in highly illegal manner.

We request you, once again, to kindly issue a directive to HSPF Trust for releasing our Revenue Surplus payments which is already held up now for over a decade. We are available to see you or your authorized representative to explain the doubts, if any. We hope to hear favourably from you by the end of this month.

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)
***********************************
SPEEDPOST

SEEA/P/PF/0704
July 17, 2007

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees P. F. Organisation Regional Office,

Bhagirathi Complex, Near Circuit House,Karamtoli, Ranchi –834001 (Jharkhand)

Sub: Failure to implement the directive of your Central Office letter dated 21.11.2003 and your own order No. JH/RO/RNC/ EXM/ 935/06/1369 dated 14th June 2006 by HSPF Trust for payment of P.F. Revenue surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03 to its members.

Ref.: Our letters SEEA/P/PF/0612 dated Nov.01, 2006, SEEA/P/PF/0701 dated March 19, 2007, SEEA/P/PF/0702 dated May 11, 2007, SEEA/P/PF/0703 dated May 11, 2007.

Dear Sir,

We are sorry to inform you that all the above referred communications, including the ones under RTI Act 2005, failed to elicit a favourable response from you for implementing the orders made by your Higher Authority, the CPFC in late 2003 and your own order dated 14th June 2006 (referred to in the Subject) for payment of Revenue Surplus by HSPF, Ranchi to its members.

We also fail to understand the reason for your encouraging the wrong doers, i.e. the Chairman and Secretary of the HSPF Trust by opening these orders for negotiation by HSPF vide your letter No. JH/RO/RNC/935/07/6915 dated 30th March 2007 from your APFC (Sri S.K.Gupta). We are sure that conducting negotiation on final orders by the authorities are wrong both in law and in practice. As we have communicated vide our letter dated Nov. 01 2006 alongwith all the information provided by SAIL/RDCIS and HSPF Trust there is no justification for withholding the Revenue Surplus any more.

Under the circumstances we have repeatedly requested you in the past and we are doing it once again to issue directive to SAIL/RDCIS and HSPF Trust to release the payment to its members within a certain time frame. In case they fail to obey you can proceed ahead for derecognizing the Trust as per the provisions of law.

We request you, once again, to kindly issue a directive to HSPF Trust for releasing our Revenue Surplus payments which is held up now for over a decade. Keeping the long delay and silence on your part we hope to receive a copy of your favourable response positively by the end of this month.

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)

2007-05-18T06:31:00.000-07:00

Dear Members,

As informed earlier the Presentation on New Schemes under SB A/c and Mediclaim Policy for Sr. Citizens (60-75) by UTI Bank was made yesterday. The Presentation Slides have been sent to e-mail addresses of the members. The Bank representative has taken the e-mail addresses and Phone/ Mobile Nos of our members and may contact you soon. Pl. do as you like for SB A/c. Non Ranchi members may contact UTI Bank Sr. Citizen Manager and get the service.

It was decided to look for other schemes in the meantime from other Banks/ Insurance Companies and prefer a Group Mediclaim for our members.

The Meeting also discussed the long pending issue of PF Arrear payment issue and Issuance of Medical cards for CET, MTI and Non Ranchi Unit Members settled in Ranchi. It was decided to pursue them vigorously.

(Dr.V.N.Sharma)

2007-05-14T00:23:00.000-07:00

SEEA/P/0706
May 14, 2007

Sri Jagdish Singh
Executive Director & I/c,
SAIL/ RDCIS,
Ranchi-834002.

Sub: Issuance of Medical Cards to SAIL Ex-Employees from other Plants/Units at Ranchi in Ispat Hospital.Ranchi.

Dear Sir,

Please find enclosed herewith copies of letters from Salem, Bhilai and Rourkela Steel Plants obtained under Right to Information Act 2005 by us. They are with reference to extending Medical facilities and issuance of Medical Card to SAIL Ex-Employees in Ispat Hospital, Ranchi including to those settled in ‘other locations’ (Ranchi in our case) than from where they superannuated or took VRS. Answers to Q.8 & 9 by BSP & SSP categorically state that the facilities are extended to such Ex-Employees after completing the formalities. As you can see these are all SAIL Plants/Units governed by the same Rules and Regulations with respect to Medical and Health Care facilities for the Ex-Employees including those who have taken Mediclaim Insurance available with the Company.

In view of these I request you to kindly issue Medical Cards to all SAIL Ex-Employees settled in Ranchi after retirement from other Plants/Units after completing the necessary formalities for use in Ispat Hospital Ranchi. We shall be obliged to you for this.

With thanks and best regards,
Yours sincerely,

(V.N.Sharma)
Encl: Letters from Salem, Bhilai
and Rourkela Steel Plants

2007-05-10T19:36:00.000-07:00

SEEA/P/0704
May 11, 2007

Sri A.S.Mathur,
Executive Director & I/c,
SAIL/CET,
Ranchi-834004.

Sub: Issuing of Medical Card to Ex-Employees

Dear Sri Mathur,

Please find enclosed herewith copies of letters from Salem, Bhilai and Rourkela Steel Plants obtained under Right to Information Act 2005 by us. They are with reference to issuance of Medical Card to Ex-Employees. You are already aware of the practices prevalent in RDCIS Ranchi in this regard. As you can see these are all SAIL Plants/Units governed by the same Rules and Regulations with respect to Medical and Health Care facilities for the Ex-Employees including those who have taken Mediclaim Insurance available with the Company.

In view of these I request you to kindly issue either the old Medical Cards with yearly renewal seal and signature or new cards for use in Ispat Hospital Ranchi to all the EX-Employees of CET who desire to avail the medical facilities. In case it is decided to issue new cards the old cards also must be returned after cancellation as a Medical record for the Ex-Employees.

I request you once again to kindly do the needful and issue an appropriate medical card to all the Ex-Employees of CET who opt for availing medical facilities at Ispat Hospital Ranchi. We shall be obliged to you for this.

With thanks and best regards,

Yours sincerely,

(Dr.V.N.Sharma)

Encl: Letters from Salem, Bhilai
and Rourkela Steel PlantsWeb:

Similar letter has also been sent seperately to ED & I/c MTI.

***************

SEEA/P/PF/0703
May 11, 2007

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees P. F. Organisation Regional Office,Bhagirathi Complex,
Near Circuit House,Karamtoli, Ranchi –834001 (Jharkhand)

Sub: Non-implementation of the directive of your Central Office letter dated 21.11.2003 and your order JH/RO/RNC/ EXM/ 935/06/1369 dated 14th June 2006 by HSPF Trust for payment of P.F. Revenue surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03 to its members.

Ref.: Letter No. JH/RO/RNC/935/07/6915 dated 30th March 2007 from your APFC (Sri S.K.Gupta).

Dear Sir,

e are sorry to inform you that the HSPF Trust failed to conduct a joint meeting with us as advised by you in your above referred letter. By this they have achieved newer heights of disobedience against their controlling officer, that is, RPFC Ranchi. I hope that this is enough of an indication of the level of indiscipline and disorder in the Trust and needs action at your end sooner than later.

In view of this I suggest that the issue may please be examined in the light of our letter dated 1st Nov 2006 which contains 26 pages of reply which includes 13 documents supplied by HSPF Trust to us and 3 pages of our critique and observation on the same. Their documents and argument have strengthened our case as you can see from our letter.

I may mention here that before writing to you on 1st Nov 2006 we approached SAIL/RDCIS and HSPF Trust authorities vide our letter SEEA/ P/PF/0611 dated 26th Oct 2006 similar to the one written to you on 1st Nov 2006 but failed to get a response.

We request you, therefore, to kindly issue a directive to HSPF Trust for releasing our payments which is held up now for about a decade.

Thanking You,
Yours Faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)
*************************
UNDER RTI ACT 2005

SEEA/P/PF/0702
May 11, 2007

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
& Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005,Employees P. F. Organisation Regional Office,Bhagirathi Complex, Near Circuit House,Karamtoli, Ranchi –834001 (Jharkhand)

Sub: Unsatisfactory reply by your PIO

Ref.: Our letter No. SEEA/P/PF/0701 dated March 19, 2007 and his reply No. JH/RO/RTI-05/64 dated 3rd April 2007.

Dear Sir,

We are sorry to point out that the above quoted reply by your PIO is highly unsatisfactory and irrelevant which is causing unnecessary further delay and adding to our woes. The information was desired as to why actions were not taken (in the past i.e. before the receipt of our letter on 20.03.2007) and an exact estimation of further time, for obvious reasons, to be taken at your end for final decision in the matter. Your PIO has written a letter 10 days after receipt of our letter and referred this in his reply as action taken. This is not what we asked for.
In view of this we would like to have the information from you under the RTI Act 2005 on the same points which are given below.

1. That, why no action has been taken against SAIL/RDCIS and HSPF Trust for refusing to honour the order made by CPFC dated 23th Nov. 2003 and your order dated 14th June 2006.

2. That, you being the sole controlling officer of the Trust please let us know by what time the payments will be made by the Trust to its members including the Ex-Employees.

I request you to please include all relevant file notings, latest communications with HSPF Trust and SAIL/RDCIS and any other paper concerning this issue while providing information asked for.

Thanking You,
Yours Faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)

******************

PF Matters

2007-03-20T09:25:00.000-07:00

UNDER RTI ACT 2005

SEEA/P/PF/0701
March 19, 2007

Principal Information Officer,

Employees P. F. Organisation Regional Office,

Bhagirathi Complex, Near Circuit House,

Karamtoli, Ranchi –834001 (Jharkhand)

Sub: Non-implementation of the directive of your Central Office letter dated 21.11.2003 and your order JH/RO/RNC/ EXM/ 935/06/1369 dated 14th June 2006 by HSPF Trust for payment of P.F. Revenue surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03 to its members.

Ref.: Our letter No. SEEA/P/PF/0612 dated 01st Nov. 2006 and e-mail msg date 18th Dec 2006 and 7th March 2007.

Dear Sir,

We are sorry to point out that in spite of our above referred letter along with 26 page enclosures and two e-mail messages no appropriate action has been taken by RPFC to implement their subject orders by HSPF Trust & SAIL/ RDCIS. Our above referred letter contains full facts and analyses based on the detailed information provided by SAIL /RDCIS.

As I wrote to RPFC and explained to him in our meeting on 08th March 2006 we are senior citizens in addition to being Ex-Employees. The Govt. of India has adopted a policy of helping the Sr. citizens as much as possible and has standing instructions to concerned Depts and offices to avoid any harassment to them. As you can see that this case is ten years old and some of our members have already expired without getting their due from this payment.

In view of this delay we would like to have the information from you under the RTI Act 2005 on the following points. I request you to please include all relevant file notings, communications with HSPF Trust and SAIL/RDCIS and any other paper concerning this issue while providing information asked for.

That, why no action has been taken against SAIL/RDCIS and HSPF Trust for refusing to honour the order made by CPFC dated 23th Nov. 2003 and your order dated 14th June 2006.
That, you being the sole controlling officer of the Trust please let us know by what time the payments will be made by the Trust to its members including the Ex-Employees.

Thanking You,

Yours Faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)

PF Issue-Reminder by e-mail

2007-03-07T16:31:00.000-08:00

March 07, 2007

Sri S. Bhattacharjee,
RPFC I, Ranchi

Dear Sir,

Pl. refer to my several comunications with you on the subject incl. a detailed letter and 26 page Annexures dated 1st Nov. 2006 followed by a telephonic conversation on 7th of Dec 2006 with the then RPFC II. The contents of our letter and Annexures are so clearly in our favour that silence on the subject and so much delay in issuing the order for payment can only be construed to be intentional or inefficient particularly when CPFC has already made a clarification and RPFC II made an advice to RDCIS on 14th June 2006 for payment and RDCIS collected courage to refuse to honour the said order.

Since this payment is pending for long years and many of our members are retired and need such monies very badly for various reasons I request you to do the needful and issue a Directive to RDCIS Mgt. and HSPF Trust for Payment, if possible, by this month end.

In case the decision is delayed beyond this pl let me know the modus operandi for submitting an Application under RTI Act 2005 alongwith how to deposit Rs. 10/- as Application fees

Thanking you, --
Dr.V.N.Sharma
President, SAIL Ex-Employees Association

2007-02-08T23:34:00.000-08:00

Photo Link: http://picasaweb.google.com/seearanchi/

PICNIC 2006

2006-12-31T07:26:00.000-08:00

The Picnic-cum-AGM was held today as per the following details.

Place : Swami Sahajanand School (Near Sudha Dairy, HEC Sec II)
Date : 31st Dec. 2006
Start: 10.00 AM

Contribution:
Member/ Guest : Rs. 80/- per head
Children: Free

M.O. M.

1. Pl. see the photographs incl. Videos in the following URL
http://picasaweb.google.com/seearanchi/

2. In the AGM the Accounts were read out and approved by voice vote.

3. Discussion was held on the issue of creating a Health Care Fund for the members to take care of immediate needs of Hospitalisation and Treatment. A committee was constituted with Dr. C.B. Choudhary, S/Sri N.K Singh and BNP Singh to study and prepare a Report. The committee may co-opt members and may present irs recommendations in two months time for consideration by the G.B.

*******************

PFIssue-Reminder

2006-12-24T05:38:00.000-08:00

Sent by e-mail on Dec. 18, 2006

Sri P. B. Verma,
RPFC II, Ranchi

Dear Sir,

Pl. refer to my several comunications with you on the subject incl. a detailed letter and 26 page Annexures dated 1st Nov. 2006 followed by a telephonic conversation on 7th of this month.

Since this payment is jammed for long years and many of our members are retired and need such monies very badly for various reasons I request you to do the needful and issue a Directive to RDCIS Mgt. and HSPF Trust for Payment, if possible, by this year end as NEW YEAR Gift.

Thanking you,

Dr.V.N.Sharma
President, SAIL Ex-Employees Association

2006-11-21T01:05:00.000-08:00

SEEA/P/PF/0612
Nov.01, 2006

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees P. F. Organisation Regional Office,
Bhagirathi Complex, Near Circuit House,
Karamtoli, Ranchi –834001 (Jharkhand)

(Attn: Sri P.B.Verma, RPFC II)

Sub: Non-implementation of the directive of your Central Office by HSPF Trust for payment of P.F. Revenue surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03 to its members.

Ref.: Your letter Nos. JH/RO/RNC/ EXM/ 935/ 2003/7297 dated 8th Dec 2003 and JH/RO/RNC/ EXM/ 935/06/1369 dated 14th June 2006 and our recent meeting with you.

Dear Sir,

1. Further to our above referred meeting with you we obtained detailed information alongwith enclosures of relevant documents from SAIL/ RDCIS under RTI Act 2005. The same is enclosed herewith. Produced below is the summary of the contents of the RDCIS letter and the enclosures which indicate the following basic points:
(i) Amended Rule 24 of HSPF Trust Rules deals with statutory rate of interest only and does not deal with crediting of additional interest beyond statutory rate. Payment of additional interest to PF members is the prerogative of Trustees (Para 2,3,4,5(4) & 6(2) of RDCIS letter)
(ii) SAIL Corporate Office issued guidelines to release part of additional interest and to hold back the balance part as Reserve and Trust has followed Corporate Guidelines and released payments accordingly for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-2003.
(iii) CPFC in his letter dated 21.11.2003 has not given direction to pay entire interest rather they have given clarification and hence the same is not statutorily binding (Page 4 of RDCIS letter).
(iv) A private Auditor was hired who certified that everything is correctly done by HSPF Trust managers on the issue.

2. Our observation to the aforesaid Para 1 is that there appears to be acute misunderstanding with SAIL as well as HSPF Trust about the legal position of HSPF Trust. The Company seems to be treating the Trust as one of its departments and taking decision as per its convenience. The Trustees appear to be more interested in following Company’s guidelines than the provisions of HSPF Trust Rules and EPF & MP Act 1952. We are giving below our stand and opinion on the legal PF provisions.
a) HSPF trust enjoys the statutory protection accorded under EPF & MP Act 1952. CPFC has also confirmed this fact in their letter No. E-III(3)(1) 2000/BR/70438 dated 17.01.2002 (Annexure 4 of RDCIS letter).
b) The company may as per Rule 3(b) of HSPF Trust Rules amend the HSPF Rules in consultation with the Trust, PF and Income Tax Departments. Without amendment Company can not interfere in Trust functions. The Fund shall be governed by HSPF Rules (Rule 3(9)).
c) As per Rule 17 of HSPF Trust Rules the Functions and Responsibilities of Trustees is to manage the Fund as per these Rules. Neither the Trustees nor SAIL Board have any prerogative to decide anything against these Rules.
d) HSPF Rules do not provide for creation of any Reserve out of Revenue Surplus of the Trust.
e) As per provision of Rule 3(a) of HSPF Rules PF Department’s clarification on disputes between the Trust and the PF members about interpretation of any PF Rules will be final and binding on both. As such CPFC clarifications vide their letter No. E III 3(1)2000/BR-GEN/6269 dated 21.11.2003 (Annexure 11 of RDCIS letter) about distribution of entire surplus to member is binding on HSPF Trust. Your above referred advice also contains ‘as directed by our Central Office’.
Rule 24 of HSPF Rules provides for distribution to members of entire net balances in the Revenue Account of the Trust. Holding back any sum out of the net balance is against Rule 24. CPFC vide their letter No. 6269 dated 21.11.2003 addressed to RPFC Ranchi also upheld this view. This will naturally be extended to distribution of Surplus Revenue in 2002-03. Para 2 of CPFC’s above letter is given below for your ready reference:
“As per Rule 24 of the HSPF Trust Rules the entire surplus earned by the Trust in a year is to be distributed among the members of the Trust on pro-rata basis in the same year which implies that surplus available with the Trust is to be distributed among all members of the Trust existing between 96-97 to the date of declaration of surplus interest”.
f) The 1990 amendment of Rule 24 has not withdrawn any existing benefits rather it has added one more benefit to the members. Before amendment the methodology to be adopted for distribution of interest was on the basis of Annual opening balance in case of insufficient revenue surplus and progressive monthly opening balance basis in case of sufficient revenue generation by Trust. Amendment has improved this. Methodology of Progressive monthly balance basis is to be adopted even in case of insufficient Surplus Revenue. This means the members will get more benefit and Company will make good the shortage in Revenue. There is no other change in Rule 24 due to this Amendment. Statutory rate at minimum was available earlier also as well as after amendments. Hence it is incorrect on part of RDCIS to say that Amended Rule 24 deals with statutory rate only.
g) In view of the aforesaid facts the engagement and report of private Auditors has no locus standi in the matter (Annexure 13 of RDCIS letter). It has been included only to confuse the issue and, somehow or the other, delay the payment. Therefore, this needs to be ignored at your end.

3. From the facts stated above it would be very clear that non-distribution of the entire Revenue Surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03 tantamount to violation of PF Rules. Company’s directives and Trustees actions in holding back part of Revenue Surplus undistributed even after directions given by CPFC and repeated requests by various PF members may be treated as willful disobedience of PF Rules.

4. The PF Act puts liability on Employer for proper functioning of PF Trust. It seems to us that the Trust is failing in its duties and needs speedy corrective measures.
In view of the facts stated above we request you to kindly order for payment of the entire Revenue Surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03 to the PF members in the form of a directive, which should be final and binding, without further delay. Please note that the issue is already nine years old and three years after CPFC finally clarified the issue in no uncertain terms. The delay becomes painful to those who are retired and who are very much dependent on such returns.

Thanking You,

Yours Faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)

Encl: 26 pages of documents

Revenue Surplus - SEEA/P/PF/0611

2006-10-26T01:24:00.000-07:00

Executive Director & I/c
RDCIS/ SAIL,
Ranchi-834002.

Sub: Non-Payment of P.F. Revenue surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03 by HSPF Trust to its members.

Ref.: Letter No. RD/RI(05)/12 dated 28/09/2006 (and the enclosures) from GM (P&A) & Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005.

Dear Sir,

1. We hope and believe that the above referred letter along with the enclosures attached therein is complete in all respects on the issue of non-payment of PF Revenue Surplus and nothing more is hidden or kept away as expected under RTI Act 2005. Assuming this to be the correct position we observe that the above referred letter indicated the basic following points:

(i) Amended Rule 24 of HSPF Trust Rules deals with statutory rate of interest only and does not deal with crediting of additional interest beyond statutory rate. Payment of additional interest to PF members is the prerogative of Trustees (Para 2,3,4,5(4) & 6(2) of your letter)

(ii) SAIL Corporate Office issued guidelines to release part of additional interest and to hold back the balance part as Reserve and Trust has followed Corporate Guidelines and released payments accordingly for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-2003.

(iii) CPFC in his letter dated 21.11.2003 has not given direction to pay entire interest rather they have given clarification and hence the same is not statutorily binding (Page 4).

(iv) A private Auditor said that everything is correctly done by our HSPF Trust managers on the issue.

2. Our observation to the aforesaid Para 1 is that there appears to be acute misunderstanding with SAIL as well as HSPF Trust about the legal position of HSPF Trust. The Company seems to be treating the Trust as one of its departments and taking decision as per its convenience. The Trustees appear to be more interested in following Company’s guidelines than the provisions of HSPF Trust Rules and EPF & MP Act 1952. We are giving below our clarification about the legal PF provisions.

a) HSPF trust enjoys the statutory protection accorded under EPF & MP Act 1952. CPFC has also confirmed this fact in their letter No. E-III(3)(1) 2000/BR/70438 dated 17.01.20029 (Annexure 4 of your letter).

b) The company may as per Rule 3(b) of HSPF Trust Rules amend the HSPF Rules in consultation with the Trust, PF and Income Tax Departments. Without amendment Company can not interfere in Trust functions. The Fund shall be governed by HSPF Rules (Rule 3(9)).

c) As per Rule 17 of HSPF Trust Rules the Functions and Responsibilities of Trustees is to manage the Fund as per these Rules. Neither the Trustees nor SAIL Board have any prerogative to decide anything against these Rules.

d) HSPF Rules do not provide for creation of any Reserve out of Revenue Surplus of the Trust.

e) As per provision of Rule 3(a) of HSPF Rules PF Department’s clarification on disputes between Trust PF members about interpretation of any PF Rules will be final and binding on both. As such CPFC clarifications vide their letter No. E III 3(1)2000/BR-GEN/6269 dated 21.11.2003 (Annexure 11 of your letter) about distribution of entire surplus to member is binding on HSPF Trust.

Rule 24 of HSPF Rules provides for distribution to members of entire net balances in the Revenue Account of the Trust. Holding back any sum out of the net balance is against Rule 24. CPFC vide their letter No. 6269 dated 21.11.2003 addressed to RPFC Ranchi and forwarded to you has also upheld this view. This will naturally be extended to distribution of Surplus Revenue in 2002-03. Abstract of Para 2 of CPFC’s above letter is given below once again for your quick reference:

“As per Rule 24 of the HSPF Trust Rules the entire surplus earned by the Trust in a year is to be distributed among the members of the Trust on pro-rata basis in the same year which implies that surplus available with the Trust is to be distributed among all members of the Trust existing between 96-97 to the date of declaration of surplus interest”.

f) The 1990 amendment of Rule 24 has not withdrawn any existing benefits rather it has added one more benefit to the members. Before amendment the methodology to be adopted for distribution of interest was on the basis of Annual opening balance in case of insufficient revenue surplus and progressive monthly opening balance basis in case of sufficient revenue generation by Trust. Amendment has improved this. Methodology of Progressive monthly balance basis is to be adopted even in case of insufficient Surplus Revenue. This means the members will get more benefit and Company will make good the shortage in Revenue. There is no other change in Rule 24 due to this Amendment. Statutory rate at minimum was available earlier also as well as after amendments. Hence it is incorrect to say that Amended Rule 24 deals with statutory rate only.

g) In view of the aforesaid facts the engagement and report of private Auditors has no locus standi in the matter (Annexure 13 of GM’s letter). Though we propose to take up this issue with appropriate authorities and agencies separately yet you may consider suitable action against those responsible in your organization for misuse of Company’s money followed by recovery of the uncalled for wasteful expenditure from Company fund done in this regard.

3. From the facts stated above it would be very clear that non-distribution of the entire Revenue Surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and 2002-03 tantamount to violation of PF Rules. Company’s directives and Trustees actions in holding back part of Revenue Surplus undistributed even after clarifications given by CPFC and repeated requests by various PF members may be treated as willful disobedience of PF Rules. In case the Trust does not agree to rectify the mistakes there may be danger of withdrawal of Exemptions under section 17 of EPF Act which will put all existing PF members in uncalled for trouble.

4. The PF Act puts liability on Employer for proper functioning of PF Trust. We would, therefore, request you to kindly review your earlier decision, look into the above discrepancies and arrange to take remedial action at an early date so that PF members are paid their due amount without further harassment. The issue is already nine years old.

Thanking You,

Yours Faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)

Late B.N.Sinha

2006-10-06T20:38:00.000-07:00

We deeply mourn the sad and sudden demise of B.N.Sinha, our honourable member and ex-Chief of RDCIS Library & Information services on 5th Oct 2006 evening. May his soul rest in peace. We remember him as a nice gentleman always with a smile on his face.

We pray to Almighty to give fortitude to his family to bear the loss and move on in life with courage and prayer in their hearts.

Reply obtained

2006-09-29T00:52:00.000-07:00

Dear friends & colleagues,

I am in receipt of a long reply today from SAIL RDCIS on the issues raised in my Appeal against PIO as per the RTI Act 2005 (see below). It has good no. of documents associated with the case. I will revert back to the subject after reviewing them.

Thanx and Best wishes for a Happy Durga Puja and Dussehra celebrations.

SEEA

APPEAL against PIO's Reply

2006-09-02T06:37:00.000-07:00

UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

SEEA/P/PF/0610
Sept. 02, 2006

Executive Director & I/c
RDCIS/ SAIL,
& Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005,
Ranchi-834002.

Sub: Incomplete, unsatisfactory & incorrect information on Payment of P.F. Revenue surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 by HSPF Trust to its members.

Ref.: Your PIO letter No. RD/RI(05)/12 dated 29/08/2006

Dear Sir,

This has reference to our letter No. SEEA/P/PF/0609 dated August 05, 2006 and above mentioned reply by your PIO (copies enclosed.). I would like to state that the reply contains no valuable or meaningful information with respect to the issues raised. Therefore, it amounts to violation of the RTI Act 2005 in both letter and spirit. In view of this I request you to kindly provide us with the correct and detailed (understandable) information with Xerox copies of the following documents.

1. Copies of correspondence with Finance Directorate of SAIL’s Corporate Office and their Directive (as mentioned in Para 1 of your PIO’s reply).

2. Copies of the Minutes of the meeting amending Rule 24 of HSPF Trust and its date of implementation.

3. Copies of records showing the status and compliance of ‘modified’ Rule 24 during distribution of surplus revenue on 10th January 2003 and December 2003 when the entire decision of CPFC depended on that.

4. Copies of records to show why total Surplus Revenue was not distributed to the members even after CPFC’s categorical order citing Rule 24.

5. A copy of the information alongwith enclosures, if any, furnished to RPFC, Ranchi (as mentioned in Para 2 of your PIO’s letter).

I would also like to point out that your PIO’s reply wrongly claims that the order of the CPFC in Para 2 of his letter dated 21st Nov 2003 have been adhered to. To clarify the same I quote the relevant Para of his order below for your ready reference.

”As per Rule 24 of the HSPF Trust Rules the entire surplus earned by the Trust in a year is to be distributed among the members of the Trust on pro-rata basis in the same year which implies that surplus available with the Trust is to be distributed among all members of the Trust existing between 96-97 to the date of declaration of surplus interest”.
The reply carries wrong information on the following counts:

* The entire surplus was never ever distributed. In spite of CPFC’s aforesaid order for full payment only half of the Surplus Revenue accumulated between 1996-97 and 2000-2001 was distributed.

* It was never ever distributed after the completion of each financial year between 1996-97 and 2000-2001 but only in 2003.

* ‘Modified’ Rule 24 was non-existent till 2003 as CPFC has referred to this for making his order favourable to the members of the Trust and HSPF accepted it for paying half of the Surplus Revenue to Ex-Employees. The issue is why full payment was not made to all current and Ex-employees after that order.

It is clear by now that the reply carries wrong information with respect to the observance of CPFC’s order, relevant provisions of the PF Act and thus violates the PF Act as well as HSPF Rules 1966.

Based on the aforesaid facts I request you, therefore, to kindly furnish us with the detailed and correct information including copies of documents as mentioned above as also the copies of relevant notings on the files.

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)

2006-08-31T20:42:00.000-07:00

Dear colleagues,

I submitted a letter under RTI Act 2005 to PIO, RDCIS. It is posted below.

Now I have got a reply from PIO in two paras. I am quoting them here word by word.

******************

With reference to the above subject & reference, the desired information is given below:

1. In the absence of any specific provision in the EPF & MP Act, 1952 as to distribution of additional interest, the Trust has followed the directive of Finance Directorate of its Corporate Office in this regard.

2. Trust has adhered to the order of RPFC-1(C) EPFO Bhavisya Nidhi Bhavan, 14 Bhika ji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 vide letter No. EIII/3(1)2000/BR/Genl/6269 dated 21/11/2003 complying to amended rule 24.This information has been furnished to RPFC, Ranchi.

Thanking You,

************************

Members may pl. advise the next action to be taken in this regard.

Spl. bulletin

Prabhat Khaber (Edition 31st August) p2 (5th col.) carries a news Artcle 'Neelima Sahay ko Samman' It is related to success of our ex-GM K.P. Verma ji

2006-08-06T21:34:00.000-07:00

UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

SEEA/P/PF/0609
August 05, 2006

Chief Information Officer,
SAIL/RDCIS,
Ranchi-834004.

Sub: Payment of P.F. Revenue surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 by HSPF Trust to its members.

Ref. Copies of letter Nos.(1)SEEA/P/PF/0608 dated 17th June 2006, (2)JH/RO/RNC/EXM/935/06/1369 dated 14th June 2006 from RPFC, Ranchi and (3)SEEA/P/PF/0503 dated 10th Sept. 2005 on the subject enclosed.

Dear Sir,

We request you to kindly provide us with the detailed information including the Notings from the file under the Right to Information Act 2005.
1. Why the Payment of P.F. Revenue surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 by HSPF Trust has not been made yet to its members even after several reminders.
2. Why and how the express orders from the statutory authorities, that is, the Central (New Delhi) and Regional (Ranchi) Provident Fund Commissioners have not been complied with till date. Please note that the surplus revenue is illegally held for the last ten years and for three years after the above office order was made by the CPFC.

I hope that a week from now will be a reasonable period for reply.

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)

2006-06-21T02:07:00.000-07:00

2006-06-21T01:23:00.000-07:00

Blog: http://www.saileea.blogspot.com e-mail: seearanchi@gmail.com

SEEA/P/PF/0608
June 17, 2006

Executive Director & I/c,
SAIL/RDCIS,
Ranchi-834004.

Sub: Payment of P.F. Revenue surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 by HSPF Trust to its members.

Ref. Copy of letter No.JH/RO/RNC/EXM/935/06/1369 dated 14th June 2006 from RPFC, Ranchi to you on the subject.

Dear Sir,

Please find enclosed herewith a copy of the above referred letter which advises you to distribute the surplus interest earned by the BOT of HSPF Trust as directed by their central office vide their letter No. JH/RO/RNC/EXM/935/03/7297 dated 8th Dec 2003.

Please note that the surplus revenue is illegally held for the last ten years and for three years after the above office order was made by the CPFC. We reminded you in formal communications since September 2005 after the first distribution was made in 2003. We hope and believe that the distribution will be completed in about a fortnight from now.

You may like to note please that not complying with the above order of RPFC is a criminal act and concerned officials will invite punishment under the criminal jurisdiction.

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully,

(V.N.Sharma)

2006-06-16T09:41:00.000-07:00

Information:

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Ranchi has issued an advice to ED & I/c RDCIS "to distribute the surplus interest earned by the BOT HSPF as directed by our Central Office." A copy of this letter has been endorsed to me a scanned copy of which will reach the members later.
I shall formally inform RDCIS Mgt to act on this advice in a day or so and distribute the money to each retired and current employee who are entitled.