The extraordinary love and trust for contractual peons is being exhibited by the BJP government in Maharashtra. The acceptance by the MMRDA in a reply to RTI activist Anil Galgali, it has revealed that two peons employed on contract by the organisation have been on deployment at the CM’s office. One of the appointed peon Jagannath Acharya had retired from the CMO as Jamadar, but continues to function there and surprisingly there is no approval of the CM taken for the appointment.
Galgali had sought information from the MMRDA about its staff deployed at the CM’s office. In a reply the MMRDA administration informed Galgali that, Vishwas Dadasaheb Bansode and Jagannath Tungvel Acharya are employed on contract as peons have been deployed at the CM’s office. The salaries of the two peons are being paid by MMRDA. Bansode has been appointed from 1st November 2014 onward and Acharya has been appointed from 1st July 2015 onwards.
Both the peons have not even worked for a single day at the MMRDA. Right from the day of their appointment on contract they have been working at the CMO. Acharya who had retired from the CMO as Jamadar submitted his application for the job on 1st July 2015. On the very same day, the Dy Metropolitan Commissioner and the Additional Metropolitan Commissioner Sanjay Sethi sanctioned his approval and issued internal order for appointment and Acharya resumed work at the CMO. The other Ideal (Adarsh) peon Vishwas Bansode has been working since 1st November 2014, but his approval was taken on 19th November 2014, with the CMO’s Under Secretary Kiran Hadkar writing to the Dy Metropolitan Commissioner seeking Bansode’s services on loan basis. The MMRDA paid Bansode Rs 12000 per month from 1st November 2014 to 30th December 2015 and thereafter Rs 13200. Acharya is being paid Rs 17500 per month since his appointment.
Galgali sought the copy of the order of the CM, but MMRDA provided the copy of the request letter issued by Under Secretary Hadkar. In actuality it is binding to take the Government’s approval for appointment of retired person’s on contract basis, but the rules seems to have been ignored in both the cases.
