The Bold Voice of J&K

LG Sinha surely targets cost effective delivery of public services but executive below too will have to go with him

0 25

Daya Sagar

No doubt so far LG of UT of J&K Manoj Sinha has repeatedly expressed in his public appearances and media talks that he means good, effective, responsive, cost effective, people centric and development centric governance for the people of UT of J&K. Ofcourse like all the people who had taken to the reins of democratic elected governments of the past or whenever the State of J&K had been under Governor rule or President rule he has also talked of zero tolerance on corruption. How far he can go with his targeting zero tolerance control over direct corruption in monetary form be assessed after some time but non performance of duty (for which retained) by government machinery too could be seen as corrupt practice as was also laid in terms of Section-2 and Section-3 of J&K State Accountability Commission Act of 2002. Common masses would always go with him.
So, as far as is the question of giving cost effective/time effective and people centric governance, the positive indicators of that could be sensed on day to day basis but that very much depends on how far the executive machinery/bureaucracy down below takes the affair with commitment so that whatever actions are taken/policies are made are with minimum possible deficiencies/ flaws there by reducing the time consumed in wasteful actions/ corrections at the level of government or unnecessary running around by the beneficiaries for getting their issues decided/for making representations against inadequate policies / orders concerning common masses.(i.e action taken by wag of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner and includes failure/ success to act and all other expressions connoting action).
To exemplify in brief the subject of Domicile of UT of J&K could be quoted here which remained an issue of conflict right from the day ( 31-03-2020) definition of Domicile was drawn {S.O.1229 (E ) Dated 31-03-2020 & S.O 1245 (E ) of 03-04-2020} and even after the rules made under S.O 166 of 18-05-2020 were amended vide S.O 263 of 25-08-2020 &S.O 294 of 19-09-2020.
When the definition of Domicile of UT of J&K was drawn on 31-03-2020 there was no reference of the Permanent Resident Certificate holders / State Subjects of erstwhile state of J&K in that , there was no any reference of the families displaced in 1947/48 from areas of Indian State of J&K occupied by Pakistan ( POJK DPs 1947) staying in states other than J&K . No doubt later on when the rules for issue of Domicile were drawn vide S.O 166 of date 18-05-2020 the reference of Permanent Resident Certificate of J&K holder was made a ‘part’ of that and the provision of registration of unregistered Displace Persons of J&K with the Relief Commissioner Migrants was also made in order 55 of 16-05-2020 but although in the rules for issue of DC ordered on 18-05-2020the reference of Migrants as category was made there was no reference of the 1947 POJK DPs. And ofcourse it was feared that some difficulties may still arise even in reference to the gender discrimination that existed in J&K as regards recognising someone as permanent resident of J&K and that did happen.
But even after clarifications have been issued by Commissioner / Secretary GAD UT of J&K vide Circular No: 27-JK ( GAD ) of 2020 Dated 20-10-2020 some questions / deficiencies are still left un attended even after 6 months of 31-03-2020. So keeping in view the manner in which Domicile related issues have been handled since 31-03-2020 it could be said that whatever deficiencies had / have remained in the orders/ amendments / clarifications issued by Government of India or by the Government of UT of J&K by order of Lt Governor have been due to incomplete / improper notes on the status of the requirement placed before the competent authority, say LG, by the bureaucratic support available to him.
It was 5th through 7th August 2019 that all those who participated in parliament debates from the treasury benches left no opportunity to name 5th August as the “End” of Gender Discrimination against the woman of JK with issuance of CO of 272 of 5th Aug 2019 by order of the President of India rescinding CO 48 of 14 May 1954 there by removing the shelter provided by Art 35A to all inhuman and irrational laws/ rules in JK, particularly referring to gender discrimination even against a Permanent Resident of J&K woman/ female..But it had been a real shock on 09-092010 to learn from Ankita, the mother of Aahana, that a Woman Permanent Resident (PR) of J&K still did not have rights equal to a male PR of J&K even in UT since Application DOM/0207/ 04Jul202/13012 1986 Dated 04-07-2020 of Aahana D/s Ankita submitted on line for issue of Domicile Certificate of UT of J&K as child of a Permanent Resident Certificate Holder under Rule 5(1b) of S.O 166 of 18-052020 was rejected vide an e mail on 4th September ( after 66 days of application) because ‘PRC of father not enclosed’. Any how the cases of children like Aahana have now been addressed favourably with the issue of clarification Commissioner / Secretary GAD UT of J&K on the rules contained in the S.O 166 of 18-05-2020 vide Circular No: 27-JK ( GAD ) of 2020 Dated 20-10-2020. But still the issues related to Permanent Resident Certificate holders of J&K have not been fully settled like that of non- PRC holder woman married to a PRC person and the non PRC Holder man married to a PRC holder woman of J&K.
Daya Sagar Sr Journalist / Analyst Jammu & Kashmir Affairs [email protected])
To be Continued

Leave a comment
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :