The Delhi High Court has pulled up the Centre for “not doing anything” on the proposal sent by the AAP government for revision of pay scales of public prosecutors of the district courts here.”You (Centre) are not doing anything on the proposal,” Justice J R Midha said, adding the revised salaries are to be paid by the Delhi government then why the central government was not giving its go ahead to it.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”The manner in which the file is moving, shows that the Centre is not interested in doing anything,” it said, adding the file was sent to the LG in September last year, after which it was sent to the President of India for his approval as the Delhi government does not have power to decide service related issues.”This is a minor thing, You resolve it,” the court advised Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, who appeared for the Centre.The Judge said he was “disturbed” after reading the file, as the Centre had put hundreds of objection in it, which was “not warranted”.The judge also asked why the Finance Ministry was sitting over the file since six months.Delhi government counsel Rahul Mehra submitted that they had sent the cabinet note in December last to the LG approving hike in the salary of the prosecutors.Mehra contended that the LG has put a stay on the proposal and sent it to the President on the ground that service matters do not lie in Delhi government’s domain.The court was hearing a petition filed through advocate Ashish Dixit seeking contempt action against Home Secretary for not complying with the court’s September 9, 2015 order.The court in its September 2015 order had directed the Delhi government that the decision to increase the pay scales of Delhi public prosecutors be implemented without any delay.The contempt petition filed by Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association alleged “deliberate and willful disobedience” on the part of the Centre and city government in complying with the court order.The association, in its petition, has said assurances to the court by Delhi government on providing Internet facilities to the prosecutors have also not been done.”It is submitted that despite there being explicit directions by this court for implementing the cabinet decision dated September 1, 2015 the respondents (Centre and Delhi government) have till date not complied with the directions.”The respondent 1 (Centre) and respondent 2 (Delhi government) have demonstrated an attitude which violates the majesty of this court. The respondents deliberately and willfully have not complied with the directions of this court,” the petition has said.
RK Pachauri has filed an injunction suit against Supreme Court advocate Vrinda Grover and sought damages of Rs 1 crore. Three media houses have also been served an injunction notice by Pachauri’s counsel.A former analyst from the institute has accused ex-TERI chief Pachauri of sexual harassment. The charge sheet in this matter is up for consideration on April 23 at the Saket District court. Following the first complaint, since July 2015, two other complainants have stepped forward accusing Pachauri of sexually harassing them though no official complaint or FIR has been filed in these matters.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”Vrinda Grover is prejudicing our case by strategically releasing damning and unsubstantiated statements to the media,” Ashish Dixit, Pachauri’s counsel stated. “Grover refused to accept the summons from a court official when it was sent to her,” Dixit added.Responding to these allegations, Grover stated that she did not refuse any summons. “I was in a conference for another matter and was not around to receive the summons. The court official was requested by the neighbouring office-bearers to come at a later time or the next day,” Grover said.”It is unfortunate that lawyers start spouting half-truths to the media now,” Grover said. “Allegations against Pachauri are very serious and need to be addressed on the points. Grover, knows for her cases dealing with women’s issues and rights, commented, “Instead of making me the story, perhaps the lawyers should speak about the harsh facts about the case. Why make a tamasha.”Sources close to the defence stated that Grover and her “clients” have been strategically releasing damning statements to the media before crucial court dates. This, a source close to the defence believes, may prejudice the case before the trial even beings.Rubbishing claims that the statements are prejudicial, Prashant Mendriatta, advocate for the first complainant said, “Who is getting influenced by these statements? The court has not yet taken cognizance of the charge sheet and the trial has not even gone past the first stage.” Mendriatta’s client, a former research associate at The Energy and Research Institute (TERI), filed an FIR against Pachauri in February 2015.
A second woman accuses the former head of the UN climate change panel, RK Pachauri, of sexual harassment, days after he was awarded a newly-created role at his think tank.
Trouble mounted for R K Pachauri, who is in the thick of a legal battle over sexual harassment allegations, when another woman, a former employee of TERI, came out in public making similar allegations while demands were made for putting on hold his fresh appointment as its Executive Vice Chairman.The woman, to whom he had made sexual advances more than 10 years ago, today also slammed TERI for appointing Pachauri to a higher position, Executive Vice Chairman, two days ago.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Giving details of the case, her lawyer, Vrinda Grover, said that they had first reported the complaint in February last year with police which did not do anything till date forcing her to come out in public with the charges.”Pachauri would use the excuse of work assignments to repeatedly call me to his office room, even though there was no real work that he needed to discuss.”This made me feel very uncomfortable and I used to try to dodge some meetings or ask my colleagues to go for the meetings”, the woman said during a telephonic interview with NDTV. When contacted, Pachauri’s lawyer Ashish Dixit said he has not seen the second complaint and he cannot comment. Pachauri is already facing a case in Delhi High Court filed by another former TERI employee of sexual harassment.Slamming Pachauri’s appointment, the second complainant said, “India s pathetic record on crime against women has touched an abyss. R K Pachauri, a serial sexual harasser, who should have been punished by now, has actually been rewarded with a new and higher position!” Grover also asserted that the woman wanted to appear as “material evidence” in the on-going case against Pachauri to show his “character and conduct” with female employees. The complaint, which originally made in February last year was circulated again today, alleged that “Soon after I joined TERI and began interacting with Pachauri, he had renamed me with a sexually suggestive nickname ‘xxxx’.He said that this was a derivative of my official name and suited me far better.”