SHILLONG: The Meghalaya Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC) has clarified on various allegations levelled against it, including those of nepotism and corruption.
In a statement, MTDC said as far as monetary benefits are concerned, the 5th Pay Commission was implemented.
For contractual and daily wage employees, the 155th board meeting decided to provide various benefits to those who are “between 0-5 years of service”.
There is 10 per cent increase in consolidated pay or daily wage, 20 per cent increase in the consolidated pay or daily wage for those who are more than 5 to 10 years of service, 30 per cent increase in consolidated pay or daily wage for those employees who are more than 10 years in service, the statement said.
A petition by MTDC employees had alleged that there was no increase in the wages of contract workers.
On service rules, MTDC said the same have been drafted by a retired government servant of the rank of secretary who had been working with the Personnel Department. The service rules are in the final stages of approval by the board.
It said the incumbent had joined service in 1988 as assistant engineer through an open advertisement. “The incumbent had remained as assistant engineer till 2010 and the promotion to executive engineer was made in 2010 by the board. Subsequently, he was sent on deputation to the government and was placed back to the corporation in 2014,” it stated.
After a span of seven years, the incumbent has been promoted to superintendent engineer (SE) by the Board considering all factors of work volume and span of service. Further, the MTDC said the other employee of the Corporation who has joined later has been promoted to general manager level in a shorter span than the SE.
The employees in their petition had demanded inquiry into the promotion of the executive engineer to SE. MTDC also said the units of transport, Ward’s Lake and water sports have shown great improvements under the supervision of the SE as the units require technical knowhow for operations since items involved are vehicles, out boat motors etc.
The units of transport yield an amount of Rs 69.60 lakh in 2017-18 and Rs 43.28 lakhs in 2016-17, Ward’s Lake Boating is Rs 56.15 lakh in 2017-18 and Rs 51.32 lakhs in 2016-17, the yield in water sports is Rs 144.48 lakhs in 2017-18 and Rs 116.87 lakh in 2016-17.
Again, MTDC said there were two retaining walls in the State Convention Center area built by MGCC which had collapsed in different years. The retaining wall at State Convention Centre for the amount of Rs 47 lakh was sanctioned by the state government on estimates based on the PWD schedule of rates for the reconstruction of the collapsed retaining wall and also for extension and development of existing parking area of the state convention center to cater to outdoor facilities during weddings. MTDC said the amount of Rs 14 lakh was the amount estimated and executed for the 2nd collapsed retaining wall at the centre based on the PWD schedule of rates.
With regard to the CGI sheet replaced from Pinewood Hotel tender for disposal of the scrap material was invited and the highest bidder was selected.
The total amount of Rs 2, 25, 555 had been deposited to MTDC account.
MTDC said the matter relating to Crowborough Hotel was settled before the arbitral dated September 13, 2017 and as per the terms of final settlement between the parties to the arbitration proceeding the lessee is schedule to complete the hotel within 36 months and if the lessee failed to complete the same the amount of Rs 424.945 lakh will be secured by MTDC which the lessee has given in the form of post-dated cheque.
There were allegations that despite fund crunch MTDC spent Rs 2 crore on legal fees and the lessee of Crowborough Hotel had not paid over Rs 800 crore.
Reacting to the report that the employees had written several petitions to higher authorities, MTDC said the representation submitted did not authenticate the employees as only short signatures without name and designation was submitted to the managing director.
Further, the MTDC said that the signatures were not made on the contents of the representation but were made on a separate sheet which warrants doubts on the authenticity of the representation contents and signatories to it.
Further the Managing Director on wanting to verify the authenticity of the representation requested the signatories to identify the same to which no signatory came forward.
