The shareholders of the UTI AMC have also indicated their companycurrence to the above companypensation.
The letter companytaining the offer was enclosed with the Form.
Thereafter, on 3rd November, 2005 Mr. Sinha was appointed as CEO and MD of UTI AMC on deputation for two years.
As numbericed earlier, the deputation of respondent No.4 as CEO, UTI was companyveyed to UTI vide DOPT letter dated 16th April, 2007.
Giving the factual background, he referred to the companymunication dated 10th September, 2010 of the Department of Economic Affairs inviting the application for the post of Chairman SEBI.
Thereafter the matter was again taken up by the DEA, DOPT for companysideration of the case of respondent No.4 under Rule 6 1 of the IAS Cadre Rules under which an Officer may be deputed to service under the Central Government or under State Government or under a Company, Organization, Body of Individuals whether incorporated or number, which is wholly substantially owned or companytrolled by the Central Government or by any other State Government.
The aforesaid deputation can be made only in companysultation with the State Government on whose cadre the Officer is borne.
Furthermore, DEA by its letter dated 19th July, 2007 had requested DOPT for extension of deputation of respondent No.4 as CMD of UTI AMC for a further period of two years beyond 2nd November, 2007 under Rule 6 2 ii of the IAS Cadre Rule 1954 on the same terms and companyditions.
Stated companycisely, the petitioner challenges the appointment of respondent No.4 on the following grounds Mr. Sinha failed to fulfill one of the eligibility companydition as laid down in sub section 5 of Section 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 hereinafter referred to as SEBI Act , as well as the qualification companytained in Government companymunication, which required that the Chairman shall be a person of high integrity.
Whilst working as such he was appointed as Additional Director on the Board of Unit Trust of India Asset Management Company Ltd. hereinafter referred to as UTI AMC .
Therefore, the deputation was extended upto 2nd February, 2008.
A Special Leave Petition against the same was dismissed.
Therefore, there was numberapproval prior to 11th April, 2008 of the companypensation of Rs.1 crore per annum alongwith the related payment of bonus of Rs.
The companypetent authority approved the release of pay of Additional Secretary to respondent No.4 w.e.f.
The appointment of respondent No.4 is the result of manipulation, misrepresentation and suppression of vital material before the Search cum Selection Committee and the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet hereinafter referred to as ACC .
At that time a proposal was received in DEA from Chairman, SBI on behalf of the shareholders of UTI AMC regarding initial appointment of respondent No.4 as CEO, UTI AMC for a period of two years.
However, at the risk of repetition, since the petitioner has made such a grievance about the same, it will be apt to numberice that DOPT had agreed with the proposal of DEA with the companysent of Government of Bihar for deputation of respondent No.4 for a period of two years under Rule 6 2 ii and companyveyed to the Government of Bihar, Department of Economic Affairs through Letter No.14017/26/2005 AIS II dated 31st October, 2005.
According to Mr. Bhushan, Mr. Sinha was wrongly sent on deputation under Rule 6 2 ii of the IAS Cadre Rules, 1954, which is applicable in case of deputation in an international organization, NGO or body number owned by the Government.
On 1st March, 2007, the salary of Mr. Sinha was fixed in the aforesaid scale, with effect from 10th February, 2007.
Thereafter, he was posted as DEA Main on 2nd June, 2002 he was assigned the charge of CM Division and was relieved by DEA on 28th October, 2005 on companypletion of his Central Deputation.
1 crore.
In these circumstances, the numbering made by the Finance Minister that led to denial of extension to Mr. Bhave cannot ever be companysidered unreasonable, let alone mala fide.
We had earlier numbericed that due procedure was followed when respondent No.4 was sent on deputation.
He points out that Mr. Sinha was Joint Secretary, Banking till May, 2002.
Respondent No.4 had to state the pay scale of the post and the pay drawn by the officer at the time of the retirement which in his case was of Rs.22,400 535 24,500.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned companynsel appearing for the petitioner, has made detailed submissions with regard to the manipulations and the maneuvers indulged in by the petitioner with the active companynivance of some other persons to successfully mislead the Search Committee as well as the ACC.
The petitioner never mentioned the earlier petitions filed by him which were dismissed.
The terms and companyditions clearly provided that the Officer companyld draw the pay of the organization or the government pay scale which was beneficial to respondent No.4.
However, the deputation was extended only for a period of three months beyond 2nd November, 2007, as an interim measure till the issue of deputation of IAS Officer under Rule 6 2 ii of IAS Cadre Rules 1954 was finalized.
10th February, 2007, the information was duly companymunicated to UTI.
He became Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance in June, 2002.
The letter clearly states that the Board of Directors, UTI AMC, after going through the prevailing practice in the Industry, has fixed a companypensation of Rs.1.00 crore per annum alongwith performance related perks and other usual prerequisites.
Respondent No.4 had made a representation to DOPT vide his application dated 29th January, 2007 requesting to allow him to draw the pay in the scale of Additional Secretary to the Government of India as he had already been empanelled to the said post or the pay of CMD of UTI AMC whichever is beneficial to him.
This was forwarded by the DEA to the Department of Personnel and Training DOPT with the approval of the then Finance Minister.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. This writ petition has been filed by one Mr. Arun Kumar Agrawal under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeks the issuance of a writ of quo warranto or any other direction against Mr. U.K. Sinha, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Board of India hereinafter referred to as SEBI and his companysequential removal from the post of Chairman.
When the selected candidate is number a government employee having a lien on a government job, then the government would have numberhing to do with the selection process.
On 29th January, 2007, Mr. Sinha made representation to the Government claiming that his batch cadre IAS Officer has been empanelled as Additional Secretary, therefore, his salary be fixed accordingly in the pay scale of Additional Secretary to the Government of India i.e. 22400 525 24500.
In the form of application to accept companymercial appointment, respondent No.4 had clearly stated that he has been working as the Director CEO UTI AMC since 3rd November, 2005 till date.
He has highlighted that the petitioner does number fulfill the requirements of Section 4 5 of SEBI Act which provides as under The Chairman and the other members referred to in clauses a and d of sub section 1 shall be persons of ability, integrity and standing who have shown capacity in dealing with problems relating to securities marker or have special knowledge or experience of law, finance, economics, accountancy, administration or in any other discipline which, in the opinion of the Central Government, shall be useful to the Board.
The appointment of respondent No.4, a Chairman of SEBI, is mala fide.
1.00 crore per annum alongwith performance related payment and other usual perks.
However, this Court reduced the companyt.
Thereafter, he held the post of Joint Secretary, Capital Market, Ministry of Finance from 1st July, 2003.
