Kcsr Rules Book

0 views

Skip to first unread message

In Libman

unread,

Aug 3, 2024, 6:07:30 PM8/3/24

to evertabsu

1[Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the order of the disciplinary authority, no penalty other than those specified in clauses (vi) to (viii) shall be imposed for an established charge of corruption.]1

2[Explanation 2.-The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule:

(i) Withholding of increments of a Government servant for failure to pass a departmental examination in accordance with the rules or orders governing the Service or post or the terms of his appointment;
(ii) Stoppage of a Government servant at the efficiency bar in the time scale on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar;
(iii) Non-promotion, whether in a substantive or officiating capacity, of a Government servant, after consideration of his case, to a Service, grade or post for promotion to which he is eligible;
(iv) Reversion to a lower Service, grade or post of a Government servant officiating in a higher Service, grade or post on the ground that he is considered, after trial to be unsuitable for such higher Service, grade or post or on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct (such as the return of the permanent incumbent from leave or deputation, availability of a more suitable officer and the like);
(v) Reversion to his permanent Service, grade or post of a Government servant appointed on probation to another Service, grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing probation:
(vi) Compulsory retirement of a Government servant in accordance with the provision relating to his superannuation or retirement;
(vii) Termination of services:
- (a) Of a person employed under an agreement, in accordance with the terms of such agreement; or
- 1A[(b) Of a Government servant appointed in probation, during or at the end of the period of his probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing such probation; or
- (c) Of a temporary Government servant in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of theKarnataka State Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1967]1A

The Controller of State Accounts and the Legislative Secretariat authorize the pension claims of employees of Local Bodies and Members of Legislative Assembly and Council respectively. Old Age Pension, Physically Handicapped/Mentally Retarded Pensions, Destitute/Widow pension are sanctioned by concerned Deputy Commissioner. Adhoc pension to Pre-primary school staff (Grants-in-Aid) etc., are sanctioned and authorized by the respective Departments.

Training - Government may at its discretion, decide, in the case of a Government servant who is selected to undergo a course of training whether the period shall count as qualifying service for pension. (Rule 246 of KCSR)

Suspension - The period of suspension does not count unless the competent authority passes an order under Rule 99. Time passed under suspension pending enquiry into the conduct counts in full where, on conclusion of the enquiry, the Government servant has been fully exonerated or the suspension is held to be wholly unjustified. (Rule 250 of KCSR).

Employees of educational Institutions recognized by government and subsequently getting into Government Service as a result of either the school being taken over by Government or his securing an appointment according to the rules of recruitment are entitled for additions to qualifying service in accordance with the provisions of the Rule 248 of KCSR.

Retirement Gratuity Retirement gratuity is paid to a government servant who retires and has completed more than ten six monthly periods of qualifying service.
It is equal to 1/4th of the emoluments for each completed six monthly period of qualifying service, subject to a maximum of 16.5 times the emoluments.
The amount of retirement gratuity thus calculated shall be subject to a maximum of Rs. 6 lakhs wef 31/3/2010 as per GO No. FD (Spl) PEN 2009 dated: 3/06/2010.

DCRG is payable to a retired government servant immediately after his retirement.
If the Government servant dies before receiving the payments, gratuity will be paid to the nominee in whose favour the nomination has been filed and accepted. If the nomination has not been filed/nomination filed does not subsist, DCRG is payable according to the provisions under Rule 292 of KCSRS.

It is payable to the nominee or nominees as the case may be on whom the Government servant has conferred the right to receive DCRG in the nomination form. If there is no nomination/nomination filed does not subsist, it is paid to family members eligible under the rules in equal shares. Gratuity to a minor is paid through the guardian.

DCRG= (LPD/4) * QS
Where LPD= Pay drawn on the last day of duty
QS = Qualifying Service expressed in completed six monthly periods. Commuted Value of Pension The Government servant has to opt for commutation of pension. Commuted Value is calculated based on commutation table with reference to age on next birthday. The percentage of pension commutable has been restricted to a maximum of 1/3rd of pension. The amount of monthly pension is reduced by the amount commuted. The commuted portion of pension shall be restored after 15 years from the date of drawal of commutation value.

There is little disagreement among lawmakers, frontline workers, government agencies, and even rail carriers themselves that freight rail in this country must be held to the highest safety standards and oversight rules. Yet, as we speak, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is allowing foreign crews, originating in Mexico, to operate in the U.S. without assurances that U.S. safety rules are being followed.

In July, without any hearing or opportunity for public input, the FRA gave KCSR the green light to operate trains in the U.S. with Mexican-domiciled crews. This decision allowed KCSR to be the first and only cross-border rail carrier to operate trains in the U.S. with crews that have originated in Mexico.

In addition to not facing drug tests, there is concern that Mexican-based crews do not have to meet the same training and certification requirements of U.S. crews. When it comes to crews originating in Mexico, KCSR seems intent on imposing less rigorous skills testing for engineers, no certification for conductors, and no standards for English proficiency, which is necessary to communicate with U.S.-based personnel.

Plaintiff Jocelyn Thompson filed suit against defendant United Transportation Union alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. Specifically, plaintiff claimed that she was subjected to sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation by union representatives. In addition, plaintiff claimed that union representatives failed to assist her in connection with her complaints concerning alleged discriminatory and retaliatory conduct by her employer. Finally, plaintiff asserted that the union's conduct led to her constructive discharge.

Plaintiff began her employment with Kansas City Southern Railroad ("KCSR") in April 1995 at KCSR's Pittsburg, Kansas depot. During the first several years of her employment with KCSR, plaintiff worked as a conductor. As a conductor, plaintiff was represented for collective bargaining purposes by the United Transportation Union ("UTU"). The UTU was the certified collective bargaining representative for the conductors at KCSR during the entire period of plaintiff's employment. From June 1995 through the time she resigned her employment in May 1999, plaintiff was the only female member of the UTU at the Pittsburg, Kansas depot.

On October 16, 1998, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC against both KCSR and the UTU based on allegations of sex discrimination and sexual harassment. In May 1999, plaintiff settled her claims against KCSR. In exchange for $350,000, plaintiff agreed to release "any and all persons" from all claims "arising in any manner out of, relating to, or connected with [plaintiff's] KCSR employment or the relinquishment of her KCSR employment rights." She also agreed to resign her employment with KCSR, effective May *1257 21, 1999. Plaintiff then filed this suit against the UTU. In December 2000, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the UTU on all claims.

In its motion, defendant asserts that Rule 11 sanctions (in the form of reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses incurred as a result of plaintiff's suit) are warranted against plaintiff's counsel because plaintiff's counsel filed suit against defendant despite the existence of a release agreement barring plaintiff's claims against defendant and because plaintiff's counsel pursued a constructive discharge claim when in fact plaintiff voluntarily resigned her position in exchange for $350,000 from her employer. For these same reasons, defendant seeks an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to section 706(k) of Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k) (allowing the "prevailing party" in a Title VII action to recover reasonable attorneys' fees). For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion is denied.

Plaintiff initially challenges defendant's motion on a variety of procedural grounds. First, plaintiff points out that defendant's motion fails to comply with the local rules of this Court in that the motion is not signed by local counsel. See D.Kan. R. 83.5.4(c) ("All pleadings or other papers signed by an attorney admitted pro hac vice shall also be signed by a member of the bar of this court in good standing. ...").[2] Plaintiff asks the court to strike defendant's motion on this basis. In response to plaintiff's argument, defendant states only that "[i]t has not been the practice of this Court to apply such a harsh sanction in these circumstances." Defendant does not explain its failure to have local counsel sign the motion for sanctions (or previous pleadings in the case) and does not ask to be excused for its conduct. Worse yet, defendant has not bothered to correct the defect by filing an amended motion signed by local counsel. Cf. Biocore Med. Tech., Inc. v. Khosrowshahi, 181 F.R.D. 660, 668 (D.Kan.1998) (declining to disqualify counsel for violation of Local Rule 83.5.4(c) where counsel took action to remedy violation including having local counsel sign all challenged documents). In any event, regardless of what the "practice" of the judges in this District has been, defendant's failure to have local counsel sign the motion is clearly a basis on which the court could deny defendant's motion. See FDIC v. Fleischer, No. 93-2062-JWL, 1996 WL 707030, at *3 n. 2 (D.Kan. Oct.16, 1996). As Judge Vratil of this District has stated, "[t]he rule is not merely a technical requirement, but an attempt to keep local counsel abreast of the proceedings to which her name and reputation are attached." See Biocore, 181 F.R.D. at 669. Defendant's pro hac vice counsel is strongly cautioned that future violations of this rule in this case or any other case before the court will result in counsel's disqualification or the court's rejection of counsel's pleadings.