I often get “gels” feeling when I read commentaries on the blog giving me boost sometime and uninspiring attitude on the other. Not all this deter me from doing best out of the worst for the cadre man because all IPs are made to suffer in the department. Anyway let me begin by stating that--are we not posing threat to ourselves by reflecting different ideas at the same time?, having no faith in the leadership whom we have given a command. I am just writing this as I came across an address that really moved me in that way and I just wanted to share it.
In the just fragmentary meeting at Directorate, the attitude of the officers sitting at the helm of affairs was very positive. They agreed that Inspector posts is the Chief constituent of the executive arm of the Department and there must be better promotional avenues for IP cadre through cadre restructuring. I cannot make out for what we are afraid. My beloved ASP Mr. Rajan is disappointed, as his suggestions are not being pursued. His concern is acceptable but with due apology I may make it clear that complexity should not be created by mixing all the suggestions in one go. Rather matter should be taken one by one for better results. As regards workload issue, our Directorate has already called for Est. Review of the Sub Divisions to rationalize the workload. Association can pursue the creation of New Sub Divisions by linking this with the transfer of 141 HSG-I posts to Postmaster cadre. I may be wrong when I said that feeder cadre post cannot be more than promotional posts i.e PS Group “B” having higher responsibility I repeat higher responsibility, but at the same time I will request my Ld. IPs to quote one instance where posts having higher responsibility are more than the feeder cadre posts. The case of JAO & AAO can said to be similar to that of IP & ASP, both given one-step promotion to reduce stagnation in the cadre and PS Group “B” is comparable to A.O. Our problem is that IPs are Group-B (Non Gazetted) and ASPs are Group-B (Gazetted) both non-functional whereas JAO & AAOs though non-functional were conferred Gazetted status only after merger.
The answers to other comments posted on the blog are as under:
1. If Punjab CAT judgment implemented at once why not Ernakulam CAT.
Ans: Punjab case was entirely different to that of Ernakulam. In Punjab case, only DOP was involved whereas in the GP issue MOF is also involved. In our case, officers from Directorate admitted that vacancies were not calculated as per recruitment rules as such department was not having any other option except to revise the vacancies which were in fact calculated originally at branch level and were misrepresented at final stage but before announcement. OA has been allowed in GP case also so nothing to worry. As regards GP to ASP and SPOs is concerned, it is to be looked into how department moves in this case.
2.Since three years DPC for Gr-B not held. Where as LDCE result published an 23 General line already appointed. Whether officials from DPC will not be in the gradation list below the 23 general line officers. They may not get promotion of Gr-A. So why not DPC will considered on year wise basis so that they will not loose seniority.
Ans: Group B DPC is held every year without dispute. However, JTS DPC has been conducted after a gap of 3 years so the aggrieved/ effected officers can go to the Court for Justice. In such cases, they will definitely get benefit with all consequential benefits. Hitherto in many cases the department has to create supernumerary posts to adjust all the senior to that of irregularly promoted juniors.
3.All the 6% post of general line filled-up. Where dept will bring 29 posts for Sr.PM
Ans.The department will post (have to post) the junior as Sr. Postmaster within the share of 52 posts (29+23) else may create supernumerary posts. It is sure that we will not allow any effect on IP line posts.
4.To appear Sr.PM exam it reqires IP service of 6 years, whereas for Gr-B(HIGHSTATUS including Sr.PM) it requires 5 years IP. What is this?
Ans: Frankly speaking, the Postmaster recruitment rule-2010 seems to be formulated in a haste. How it can be justifiable that IPs in the GP of Rs. 4200/- having six years service are only eligible to appear in the said examination and the ASPs having 6 years entire service in both IP and ASP are not eligible. The department should take step to amend these rules as the rules have other problems also.This is the only way to avoid legal implications.
5.Service period to appear PM-I exam counted as on 18.05.11 that is last date of submission of application form where as for Sr.PM exam it is as on 01.01.11(both are in same cadre of PM). Why this?
5.Service period to appear PM-I exam counted as on 18.05.11 that is last date of submission of application form where as for Sr.PM exam it is as on 01.01.11(both are in same cadre of PM). Why this?
Ans: It should be 01.01.11 in both the cases. Rather cut of date should be 1st Jan of vacancy year. This is so because Postmaster recruitment rules-2010 are defective ones. In the case of Sr. Postmaster still the vacancies are to be notified so it is not clear from where these will arrive. At present, we have no alternative except to watch and wait.
6.General line officers with many years of service qualified in Gr-B accommodated in same circle, where as DPC approved senior Gr-B officer on the verge of retirement allotted to other circle. Whether this is the rule?
Ans: This is my concern also. I have already requested our GS to take up this case with Directorate. When IPs, under the rules, cannot be posted in their home division then how the General line official can be posted in the home circle.
7.LSG/HSG officials opted for PM cadre cannot withdraw their applications as per provio of rule of PM cadre. However some circles allowed to appear Gr-B exam and few passed and posted in Gr-B. Whether this is correct as some circles did not allow.
Ans: This is a clear cut case of discrimination thereby infringement to Article 14 and 21 of the constitution.
5 comments:
good evening sir,
thank you very much.
for the efforts taken by you to clarify me in best possible way.
but it is my request try to fight against the injustice done to us and highlight the issues in proper forum.
Dear harimohan sir?
I have once again disagree with your observations in the above article. Because at regular intervals Est review of sub division is taken by the authorities. But it is quite in the unrealistic way which is not at all touching the real work load of a sub division. That is what is we the SDHs are complaining about. They simply take the number of offices and number of officials working under the sub division only for work load calculation.
Here in the cadre restructuring process we have the ample chance to ask for a reorganisation of present setup of sub division. dumping of all sorts of work like inspection, investigation into fraud cases, recruitments, various types of enquiries, working as IO/PO, disciplinary actions, dealing with service matters of GD sevaks, Group D and postman staff, achieving business targets, writing of confidential reports of RPLI proposals after verifying the insurant's whereabouts (CR of around 3000 to 4000 of RPLI policies have to be written in a year where the insurants are residing in the nook and corners of 200 K.M vast sub division) , conducting melas/ meetings, supervision of mail overseers, on the head of SDH make him to be mentally tired and he has no time to spare for his personal life. I know many SDHs have so many types of illness like high or low BP, heart decease, falling unconscious during official duties etc. Yes the SDHs slowly turn to become permanent patients.
I am also suspicious that the man who prepared the inspection questionnaire of BO/SO has really conducted moke inspections whether the questions in the questionnaire can be answered by a SDH within the given time? Yes work load of an SDH is calculated by illusion.
BUT STILL YOU ARE SATISFIED ON THAT THE DIRECTORATE HAS ASKED FOR EST REVIEW WHICH WILL YIELD NOTHING.
Even the Nataraja Murthy commission (Though constituted for GDS matters) has criticized the method of calculation of work load of sub division and asked the Govt. for a reassessment.(Please see the chapter on sub divisional administration in the commission report). The commission proposed to post an Asst. Inspector in the sub division to help the SDHs. The commission also suggested examination for selection of Mail Overseers.
You please see para 28 of verdict of Ernakulam CAT on GP upgradation wherein the CAT has beautifully illustrated the awesome work load of a sub divisional ASP/IP.
So we demand that the present method of calculation of work load of sub division should be changed at any costs. for Est review of a Post office each and every piece of work is taken into account for an average of four months. In the same fashion work load of sub division also to be calculated.
if it not possible otherwise we have to pursue for following arrangements in the sub divisional adminstration
1. Annual inspection duty of post offices should be taken away from SDHs and should be entrusted to an inspection team. The SDH may be given a compulsary vist to 10 offices in a month like that of higher officers. this can be achieved by him during enquiries etc.
2. The SDH is to be relieved of from canvassing business, writing of CRs of RPLI proposals (It is impossible to verify the whereabouts of insurants who resides in the nook and corners of a vast sub divsion). He should also be releived from giving business targets
3. SDH must be given a clerical assistance in the office or an Asst. Inspector as proposed by Nataraja Murthy comission is to be posted in his office.
4. Mail Overseers are to be selected through competitive examination.
Putting the above demands before the cadre restructuring committee doesn't make any complications that I am sure. But the requirement is the WILL POWER TO PRESENT THE GRIEVANCES OF SDHS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.
So I once again request you to save us and permit us and our family to live happily hereafter. We still have a feeble hope on you sir.
With regards,
Rajan, ASP
Nice Logic, I fully agree with you.
SDI
NE Circle
Sir,
In my opinion the comments of Shri. Rajan ASP is worth in paper but in practical,it is very difficult to adapt due to the following reasons ;-
1) In many of the SDNs, the MO posts are either vacant (if not in the entire india but atleast in TN circle) or manned by the junior most PM(ie those GDS passed in the recent times) compelled to work as MO by the SPOs. Mostly these compelled PM turned MOs are passed the exam in their first attempt after completing the minimum period of service(ie. 5years or 6 years). Hence if the condition of exam is put into the selection of Mailoverseers, then these PMs are definitely pass the exam but will lack in "commandability"? How could they command those BPMs/GDSs having 20-30 year service in real life situation is to be attended before going for exam option for selection of MOs. Further if the condition of exam is imposed and there is no one willing to appear in the exam, then it is obvious that the MOs posts won't be filled which will affect the work at SDN. But, as per the existing system, there will be no hindrance to post any PM as MO if senior/Selection grade PM is not available/unwilling for posting as MO.
2) Regarding, delink of Inspection, BD work/filling of CR for RPLI proponents etc from the Sub Divisional IP/ASP, it is to be noted that if these item of works are delinked, then for what workload, we can expect the dept to provide a clerical assistance to the Sub Divisional Head???
3) If separate team for Inspection/BD work is formed, the output of this team will definitely be below par that of the regular SDH as it is common for those BPM/GDS to respect the regular IP/ASP of their Sub Division and will not give their ears to those officiating IP/ASP or other IP/ASP looking after the current duties of their subdivision.
4) Further in my opinion that if it is difficult for the regular incumbent of the sub division (who knows the "topography" of the sub division very well)to write 3000-4000 CRs for RPLI proposals, then how could we expect that IP/ASP working in BD team to write the same without any difficulty.
5) Also,in my opinion no IP/ASP would offer their willingness to be part of Inspection team(because of its "contributory" risk) and they will remained to be a Sub Divisional Head without any responsibility/challenging work.
Hence my humble suggestion is that we have to chalk out these practical difficulties before projecting out demands in the cadre restructuring.
ALL india seniority list upto 2010 batch to be publiched at earliest
Post a Comment