Panaji, 2nd February, 2017 (Magha 13, 1938)
SERIES II No. 44
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
1011
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Labour
__
Notification
No. 28/1/2016-LAB/Part-V/09
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II at Panaji-Goa on 14-10-2016 in reference
No. LC-II/IT/1/16 is hereby published as required
by Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 2nd January, 2017.
Note:-
There are six Extraordinary issues to the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 43 dated 27-01-2017
as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 27-01-2017 from pages
989 to 992 regarding Orders from Department
of Home.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 30-01-2017 from
pages 993 to 994 regarding Orders from
Department of Finance.
(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 30-01-2017 from
pages 995 to 996 regarding Order &
Notifications from Department of Elections &
Department of Panchayats.
(4) Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 31-01-2017 from
pages 997 to 1000 regarding Notifications,
Order & Corrigendum from Department of
Elections, Finance & Home respectively.
(5) Extraordinary (No. 5) dated 01-02-2017 from
pages 1001 to 1002 regarding Direction,
Notification & Orders from Department of
Elections, General Administration and Home
respectively.
(6) Extraordinary (No. 6) dated 01-02-2017 from
pages 1003 to 1010 regarding Order from
Department of General Administration.
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar,
Hon’ble Presiding Officer)
Case No. LC-II/IT/1/16
Shri Urmila V. Mardolkar,
r/o. Parijat Church Colony,
Mangueshi,
Mardol-Goa
… Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. Western India Service Centre,
105/30, Flat No. 3 and 4,
Gharge Residency,
Erandawana, Pune
… Employer/Party II
Party I/Workman represented by Adv. Shri S.
Bhangui.
Party II/Employer marked as Ex-parte.
Panaji, Dated: 14-10-2016.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government of Goa by Order dated 04-01-2016
bearing No. 28/56/2015-Lab/6 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Labour Court II,
Panaji-Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Western India Service Centre, Near
Sainath Hotel, Tisk, Ponda, Goa, in refusing
employment to Smt. Urmila Vikas Mardolkar,
Steno typist, with effect from September,
2014 is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief, the workperson is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/01/16 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
2ND FEBRUARY, 2017
1012
to the said notice, the Workperson/Party-I (for short,
‘the Workperson’) put in her appearance. The
Employer/Party-II (for short “the Employer”) was
duly served by registered A/D notice. The Employer
however, failed to appear on the scheduled date of
hearing on and from 11-03-2016, either in person or
through its duly authorized agent/representative,
without any justifiable cause. Hence, the Employer
was marked as Ex-parte.
3. The Workperson filed her Statement of Claim
on 15-04-2016 at Exb. 4. The facts of the case in
brief as pleaded by the Workperson are that
the Employer is a partnership firm of
Mr. Soumitra Wardekar and Smt. Manju A. Wardekar
and engaged in sales/service/spares of cumin’s
spares division, Ponda-Goa. She stated that she
was employed with the Employer as ‘Steno-typist’
since 14-01-1977. She stated that the Employer has
failed to pay her salary since May, 2012. She stated
that accordingly they had raised a dispute before
the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Ponda, Goa. She
stated that the said dispute was resulted into a
settlement u/s 12 (3) r/w Sec. 18 (3) of I.D. Act, 1947
between the management of the Employer and
their workmen represented by Gomantak Mazdoor
Sangh. She stated that as per the said terms of
settlement, it was agreed between the parties that
the wages of the workers will be paid up to
October, 2013 in four equal installments and post
dated cheques were issued to them. She stated
that the said cheques issued by the Employer were
dishonored. She stated that the Employer closed
its office premises without any intimation to its
employees since September, 2014, thereby refusing
employment to all its employees. She stated that
she therefore raised a dispute pertaining to refusal
of her employment before Asstt. Labour
Commissioner, Ponda, Goa, vide her representation
dated 02-02-2015, which ended in failure.
4. She submitted that the action of the Employer
in refusing employment to her without notice and
wages in lieu of notices is in contravention of
Section 25-F of the said Act and as such it is illegal,
unjustified and malafide. She stated that after
termination of her services she is unemployed. The
Workperson therefore, prayed that the action of
the Employer in refusing employment to her be
declared as illegal and unjust and she be reinstated
in service with full back wages, continuity in
service and other consequential benefits.
5. Based on the pleadings filed by the
Workperson, this Court framed the following issues
on 24-06-2016 at Exb. 6.
1. Whether the Workperson/Party-I proves that
she was working with the Employer/Party II
as a Steno Typist since 14-01-1977 till the
refusal of her employment w.e.f. September,
2014?
2. Whether the Workperson/Party-I proves that
she was refused employment by the
Employer w.e.f. September, 2014?
3. Whether the Workperson/Party-I proves that
the action of the Employer in refusing
employment to her w.e.f. September, 2014 is
illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Workperson/Party-I is entitled
to any relief?
5. What order? What award?
6. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1:
In the affirmative.
Issue No. 2:
In the affirmative.
Issue No. 3:
In the affirmative.
Issue No. 4& 5: As per final order.
REASONS
7. Issues Nos. 1 and 2:
Ld. Adv. Shri S. Bhangui, representing the
Workperson chose to file his synopsis of written
arguments on behalf of the Workperson. I have
carefully perused the entire records of the present
case including the synopsis of written arguments
filed on behalf of Workperson. I have carefully
considered the written submissions filed on behalf
of the Workperson.
8. To prove her case, the Workperson has
examined herself. The Workperson also produced
on record certain documentary evidence in support
of her oral evidence. The said oral as well as
documentary evidence adduced by the Workperson
on record remained unchallenged for want of
denial.
9. The Workperson has produced on record her
appointment letter dated 22-02-1977 (Exb. 8) issued
by the Employer, appointing her as ‘Steno-typist’
as well as her letter of confirmation dated
11-07-1977, in support of her oral evidence. The
Workperson has also produced on record a copy of
memorandum of settlement dated 24-07-2013
(Exb.10) signed u/s 12 (3) r/w Rule 18 (3) of the I.D.
Act, 1947. The evidence on record indicates that
the Employer suddenly closed its office premises
in the month of September, 2014 without any
intimation to its employees. The said oral as well
as documentary evidence on record clearly
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
2ND FEBRUARY, 2017
1013
indicates that the Workperson was employed with
the Employer continuously from 14-01-1977 till the
refusal of her employment w.e.f. September, 2014.
Hence, it is held that the Workperson succeeded
in proving that she was employed with the
Employer continuously from 14-01-1977 till the
refusal of her employment w.e.f. September, 2014.
The issue No. 1 and 2 is therefore answered in the
affirmative.
10. Issue No. 3:
While deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2 herein above,
I have come to the conclusion and held that the
Workperson was employed with the Employer as
Steno-typist continuously from 14-01-1977 till the
date of refusal of her employment w.e.f. September,
2014.
11. The evidence on record indicates that the
Employer closed its office premises without any
intimation to its employees or without complying
with the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947 since
September, 2014, thereby refusing employment to
all the employees including the Workperson. As
the said refusal of employment to the Workperson
was permanent in nature, it amounts to termination
of her services w.e.f. September, 2014. As the said
termination of the Workperson w.e.f. September,
2014 is otherwise than punishment inflicted by
way of disciplinary action, it amounts to
retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo)
of the I.D. Act, 1947.
12. Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 lays down
the pre-conditions for a valid retrenchment.
Similarly, Section 25-G of the I.D. Act, 1947 laid
down the procedure for valid retrenchment. The
Workperson also challenged her termination of
service w.e.f. September, 2014 by contending to be
illegal and unjust as it is in violation of Section
25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. It is therefore necessary
to go into the aforesaid relevant provisions of the
I.D. Act, 1947.
25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of
workmen. – No Workman employed in any
industry who has been in continuous service
for not less than one year under an employer
shall be retrenched by that employer until-
(a) the Workman has been given one month’s
notice in writing indicating the reasons
for retrenchment and the period of notice
has expired, or the Workman has been
paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the
period of the notice;
(b) the Workman has been paid, at the time of
retrenchment, compensation which shall
be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay
for every completed year of continuous
service or any part thereof in excess of six
months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served
on the appropriate Government (or such
authority as may be specified by the
appropriate Government by notification in
the Official Gazette.
13. 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment:— Where
any Workman in an industrial establishment, who
is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he
belongs to a particular category of workmen in
that establishment, in the absence of any
agreement between the employer and the Workman
in this behalf, the employee shall ordinarily
retrench the Workman who was the last person to
be employed in that category, unless for reasons to
be recorded the employer retrenches any other
workman.
14. In the case in hand, the Workperson was in
the employment of the Employer continuously from
14-01-1977 till September, 2014. The evidence on
record indicates that though the services of the
Workperson were retrenched w.e.f. September, 2014,
neither she was issued one months’ notice nor paid
one months’ pay in lieu of notice as well as
retrenchment compensation equivalent to 15 days
average pay of every completed years of continuous
service at the time of retrenchment of her services.
The evidence on record indicates that the Employer
has also failed to prepare a seniority list in the
category in which the Workperson was working at
the time of retrenchment of her services as required
under Rule 77 of the I.D. (Central) Rules, 1977. Thus,
it is crystal clear that the retrenchment of the
Workperson w.e.f. September, 2014 is in violation of
Section 25-F as well as 25-G of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Hence, it is held that the Workperson succeeded
in proving that the action of the Employer in
refusing employment to her w.e.f. September, 2014
is illegal and unjustified. The issue no.3 is therefore
answered in the affirmative.
15. Issue No. 4:
While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove,
I have come to the conclusion and held that the
action of the Employer in refusing employment to
her w.e.f. September, 2014 is illegal and unjustified.
16. The evidence on record indicates that the
Workperson was in the employment of the Employer
for more than 39 years. The evidence on record
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
2ND FEBRUARY, 2017
1014
indicates that age of the Workperson is more than
60 years. The evidence on record indicates that
the Employer has closed its office premises since
September, 2014. In the circumstances, the
Workperson cannot be ordered to be reinstated in
the service of the Employer. In my considered
opinion, taking in to consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, awarding a lump sum
monetary compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four
lakhs only) to the Workperson would be an
appropriate relief to meet the ends of justice.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is hereby held that the action of the
management of M/s. Western India Service
Centre, Near Sainath Hotel, Tisk, Ponda,
Goa, in refusing employment to Smt. Urmila
Vikas Mardolkar, Steno typist, with effect
from September, 2014, is illegal and
unjustified.
2. The Employer M/s. Western India Service
Centre, is hereby directed to pay to the
Workperson Smt. Urmila Vikas Mardolkar,
Steno typist, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees
four lakhs only).
3. No order as to cost.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II
________
Notification
No. 28/1/2016-LAB/Part-V/14
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II at Panaji-Goa on 14-10-2016 in reference
No. LC-II/IT/2/16 is hereby published as required
by Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 2nd January, 2017.
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar,
Hon’ble Presiding Officer)
Case No. LC-II/IT/2/16
Shri Sayed Akbar,
H. No. 56, Veling,
Mardol-Goa
… Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. Western India Service Centre,
105/30, Flat No. 3 and 4,
Gharge Residency,
Erandawana, Pune
… Employer/Party II
Party I/Workman represented by Adv. Shri S.
Bhangui.
Party II/Employer marked as Ex-parte.
Panaji, Dated: 14-10-2016.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 15-01-2016,
bearing No. 28/57/2015-Lab/28, referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this Labour
Court II, Panaji-Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Western India Service Centre, Near
Sainath Hotel, Tisk, Ponda, Goa, in refusing
employment to Shri Sayed Akbar,
Sr. Accountant, with effect from September,
2014, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief, the Workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/02/16 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the Workman/Party-I (for short,
‘the Workman’) put in his appearance. The
Employer/Party-II (for short “the Employer”) was
duly served by registered A/D notice. The Employer
however, failed to appear on the scheduled date of
hearing on and from 11-03-2016, either in person or
through its duly authorized agent/representative,
without any justifiable cause. Hence, the Employer
was marked as Ex-parte and an ex-parte
proceedings were conducted.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
2ND FEBRUARY, 2017
1015
3. The Workman filed his Statement of Claim on
15-04-2016 at Exb. 4. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that the Employer
is a partnership firm of Mr. Soumitra Wardekar and
Smt. Manju A. Wardekar and engaged in sales/
/service/spares of cumin’s spares division,
Ponda-Goa. He stated that he was employed with
the Employer as ‘Sr. Accountant’ since 01-08-1988.
He stated that the Employer has failed to pay his
salary since May, 2012. He stated that accordingly,
they had raised a dispute before the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner, Ponda, Goa. He stated that the said
dispute was resulted into a settlement u/s 12 (3)
r/w Sec. 18 (3) of I.D. Act, 1947 between the
management of the Employer and their workmen
represented by Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh. He
stated that as per the said terms of settlement, it
was agreed between the parties that the wages of
the workers will be paid up to October, 2013 in
four equal installments and post dated cheques
were issued to them. He stated that the said
cheques issued by the Employer were dishonored.
He stated that the Employer closed its office
premises, without any intimation to its employees,
since September, 2014, thereby refusing
employment to all its employees. He stated that he
therefore raised a dispute pertaining to refusal of
his employment before Asstt. Labour Commissioner,
Ponda, Goa, vide his representation dated
02-02-2015, which ended in failure.
4. He submitted that the action of the Employer
in refusing employment to his without notice and
wages in lieu of notices is in contravention of
Section 25-F of the said Act and as such it is illegal,
unjustified and malafide. He stated that after
termination of his services he is unemployed. The
Workman therefore prayed that the action of the
Employer in refusing him employment be declared
as illegal and unjust and he be reinstated in service
with full back wages, continuity in service and
other consequential benefits.
5. Based on the pleadings filed by the Workman,
this Court framed the following issues on
24-06-2016 at Exb. 5.
1. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that he
was working with the Employer/Party II as a
‘Sr. Accountant’ since 01-08-1988 till the
refusal of his employment w.e.f. September,
2014?
2. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that he
was refused employment by the Employer
w.e.f. September, 2014?
3. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that the
action of the Employer in refusing
employment to his w.e.f. September, 2014 is
illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to
any relief?
5. What order? What award?
6. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1:
In the affirmative.
Issue No. 2:
In the affirmative.
Issue No. 3:
In the affirmative.
Issue No. 4 & 5:
As per final order.
REASONS
7. Issue Nos. 1 and 2:
Ld. Adv. Shri S. Bhangui, representing the
Workman, chose to file his synopsis of written
arguments on behalf of the Workman. I have
carefully perused the entire records of the present
case including the synopsis of written arguments
filed on behalf of Workman. I have carefully
considered the written submissions filed on behalf
of the Workman.
8. To prove his case, the Workman has examined
herself. The Workman also produced on record
certain documentary evidence, in support of his
oral evidence. The said oral as well as documentary
evidence adduced by the Workman on record
remained unchallenged for want of denial.
9. The Workman has produced on record his
appointment letter dated 01-08-1988 (Exb.8) issued
by the Employer, appointing his as ‘Jr. Accountant’
in support of his oral evidence. The Workman has
also produced on record a copy of memorandum of
settlement dated 24-07-2013 (Exb.09) signed u/s 12
(3) r/w Rule 18 (3) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The evidence
on record indicates that the Employer suddenly
closed its office premises in the month of
September, 2014 without any intimation to its
employees. The said oral as well as documentary
evidence on record clearly proves that the
Workman was employed with the Employer
continuously from 01-08-1988 till the refusal of his
employment w.e.f. September, 2014. Hence, it is
held that the Workman succeeded in proving that
he was employed with the Employer continuously
from 01-08-1988 till the refusal of his employment
w.e.f. September, 2014. The issue No. 1 and 2 is
therefore answered in the affirmative.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
2ND FEBRUARY, 2017
1016
10. Issue No. 3:
While deciding issue No. 1 and 2 herein above,
I have come to the conclusion and held that the
Workman was employed with the Employer
continuously from 01-08-1988 till the date of refusal
of his employment w.e.f. September, 2014.
11. The evidence on record indicates that the
Employer closed its office premises without any
intimation to its employees or without complying
with the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947 since
September, 2014, thereby refusing employment to
all the employees including the Workman. As the
said refusal of employment to the Workman was
permanent in nature, it amounts to termination of
his services w.e.f. September, 2014. As the said
termination of the Workman w.e.f. September, 2014
is otherwise than punishment inflicted by way of
disciplinary action, it amounts to retrenchment
within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act,
1947.
12. Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 lays down
the pre-conditions for a valid retrenchment.
Similarly, Section 25-G of the I.D. Act, 1947 laid
down the procedure for valid retrenchment. The
Workman also challenged his termination of service
w.e.f. September, 2014 by contending to be illegal
and unjust as it is in violation of Section 25-F of the
I.D. Act, 1947. It is therefore necessary to go into
the aforesaid relevant provisions of the I.D. Act,
1947.
25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of
workmen.– No Workman employed in any
industry who has been in continuous service
for not less than one year under an employer
shall be retrenched by that employer until-
(a) the Workman has been given one month’s
notice in writing indicating the reasons
for retrenchment and the period of notice
has expired, or the Workman has been
paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the
period of the notice;
(b)
the Workman has been paid, at the time of
retrenchment, compensation which shall
be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay
for every completed year of continuous
service or any part thereof in excess of six
months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served
on the appropriate Government (or such
authority as may be specified by the
appropriate Government by notification in
the Official Gazette.
13. 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment:— Where
any Workman in an industrial establishment, who
is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he
belongs to a particular category of workmen in
that establishment, in the absence of any
agreement between the employer and the Workman
in this behalf, the employee shall ordinarily
retrench the Workman who was the last person to
be employed in that category, unless for reasons to
be recorded the employer retrenches any other
workman.
14. In the case in hand, the Workman was in the
employment of the Employer continuously from
01-08-1988 till September, 2014. The evidence on
record indicates that though the services of the
Workman were retrenched w.e.f. September, 2014,
neither he was issued one months’ notice nor paid
one months’ pay in lieu of notice as well as
retrenchment compensation equivalent to 15 days
average pay of every completed years of continuous
service at the time of retrenchment of his services.
The evidence on record indicates that the Employer
has also failed to prepare a seniority list in the
category in which the Workman was working at
the time of retrenchment of his services as required
under Rule 77 of the I.D. (Central) Rules, 1977. Thus,
it is crystal clear that the retrenchment of the
Workman w.e.f. September, 2014 is in violation of
Section 25-F as well as 25-G of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Hence, it is held that the Workman succeeded in
proving that the action of the Employer in refusing
employment to his w.e.f. September, 2014 is illegal
and unjustified. The issue No.3 is therefore
answered in the affirmative.
15. Issue No. 4:
While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I
have come to the conclusion and held that the
action of the Employer in refusing employment to
him w.e.f. September, 2014 is illegal and unjustified.
16. The evidence on record indicates that the
Workman was in the employment of the Employer
for more than 28 years. The evidence on record
indicates that age of the Workman is more than 55
years. The evidence on record indicates that the
Employer has closed its office premises since
September, 2014. In the circumstances, the
Workman cannot be ordered to be reinstated in
the service of the Employer. In my considered
opinion, taking in to consideration the facts and
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
2ND FEBRUARY, 2017
1017
circumstances of the case, awarding a lump sum
monetary compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five
lakhs only) to the Workman would be an
appropriate relief to meet the ends of justice.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is hereby held that the action the
management of M/s. Western India Service
Centre, Near Sainath Hotel, Tisk, Ponda,
Goa, in refusing employment to Shri Sayed
Akbar, Sr. Accountant with effect from
September, 2014, is illegal and unjustified.
2. The Employer M/s. Western India Service
Centre, is hereby directed to pay to the
Workman Shri Sayed Akbar, Sr. Accountant,
a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs
only).
3. No order as to cost.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II
———‹‹‹———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 22/2/2017-PER/232
The Governor of Goa is pleased to allocate the
following subjects to the following IPS Officers with
immediate effect, in public interest.
Sr.
Name of officer
Subject allocation
No.
1
2
3
1. Shri Vimal Anand
He will supervise functioning
Gupta, IPS
of SP/North, SP/South, SP/
(AGMUT: 2003)
/Crime (FCL, Cyber Cell, FPB),
DIGP, North
SP/Security, SP/Coastal
Security.
2. Shri Bhairon Singh He will supervise functioning
Gujar, IPS
of SP (HQ), SP. Legal &
(AGMUT: 2003)
Vigilance, PTS, Training,
DIGP, North
IRBn, Election Cell, Motor
Transport, SP Home Guard &
Civil Defence, SP/EOC.
3. Shri Rupinder
He will supervise functioning
Kumar, IPS
of SP/Traffic, Wireless &
(AGMUT: 2003)
Communication, SP/SB,
Superintendent of SPCR, he will also act as
Police
Head of SIT to investigate
mining related cases. FB
(FRRC), SP/ATS, SP/ANC.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Yetindra M. Maralkar, Addl. Secretary (Personnel).
Porvorim, 20th January, 2017.
________
Order
No. 22/2/2017-PER/233
In pursuance to the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, Order
No. 14020/04/2016-UTS-I(Part-I) dated 30-12-2016,
the Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint
Shri Bhairon Singh Gujar, IPS (AGMUT:2003) as DIGP
and Shri Rupinder Kumar, IPS (AGMUT:2003) as
Superintendent of Police with immediate effect.
Shri Bhairon Singh Gujar, IPS (AGMUT:2003) and
Shri Rupinder Kumar, IPS (AGMUT:2003) both have
joined in this Administration on 07-01-2017 and
were awaiting posting.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Yetindra M. Maralkar, Addl. Secretary (Personnel).
Porvorim, 20th January, 2017.
________
Order
No. 22/2/2017-PER/234
In pursuance to the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, Order
No. 14020/04/2016-UTS-I(Part-I) dated 30-12-2016,
the Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint
Dr. Vivek Gogia IPS:1991 of AGMU Cadre as
Inspector General of Police with immediate
effect.
Dr. Vivek Gogia, IPS (AGMUT:1991) has reported
for duty to this Administration on 11-01-2017 (a.n.)
and was awaiting posting.
Dr. Vivek Gogia, IPS should draw his pay and
allowance under the Budget Head against the post
of Inspector General of Police.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Yetindra M. Maralkar, Addl. Secretary (Personnel).
Porvorim, 20th January, 2017.
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
2ND FEBRUARY, 2017
1018
Order
No. 5/4/2010-PER/238
Read: Order No. 6/4/91-PER (Part IV) dated
6-10-2016.
Shri Vinayak Volvoikar, Director of Provedoria
shall draw his salary against the post of Leave
& Training Reserve, South for the period from
06-10-2016 to 10-10-2016.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Meghana Shetgaonkar, Under Secretary
(Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 23rd January, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Raj Bhavan
—
Order
No. GS/EST/PER/148/2016/262
Read: 1) Order No. GS/Estt/11/2016/2753 dated
23-11-2016.
2) Joining Report dated 16-12-2016 of
Smt. Vanessa D’Cunha e D’Souza.
3) Option dated 30-12-2016 for pay fixation
against the post of Section Officer on
deputation.
The Hon’ble Governor of Goa is pleased to
appoint Smt. Vanessa D’Cunha e D’Souza, Senior
Assistant from the Secretariat cadre, against the
post of Section Officer, Gazetted, Group ‘B’ in this
office, in the pay scale of PB-2 Rs. 9,300-
34,900+Grade Pay Rs. 4,600/- on deputation,
initially for a period of one year with effect from
16th December, 2016 (b.n.).
The deputation of Smt. Vanessa D’Cunha e
D’Souza shall be governed by the standard terms
and conditions contained in the O. M. No. 13/4/74-
-PER dated 12-02-1999 issued by the Department of
Personnel, Government of Goa and as amended
from time to time.
The expenditure towards pay and allowances
of Smt. Vanessa D’Cunha e D’Souza shall
be debited to Budget Head “2012—Governor;
03—Governor/Administratio/U.Ts; 090—Secretariat;
01—Secretariat of the Governor (charged);
01—Salaries”.
This issues in supersession of the earlier order
read above.
Rupesh Kumar Thakur, IAS, Secretary to the
Governor.
Dona Paula, 30th January, 2017.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 8.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–327/350–2/2017.