Thursday, December 23, 2010
Protest against the indifferent attitude of the Department towards upgradation of GP from Rs.4200/- to Rs. 4600/- for IPs
To
Ms. Radhika Doraiswamy
Director General
Department of Posts
Dak Bhawan
New Delhi 110001
No.CHQ/IPASP/SCPC dated 23-12-2010
Sub: Protest against the indifferent attitude of the Department towards upgradation of Grade Pay from Rs 4200/- to Rs 4600/- for Inspector, Posts.
Ref:- Postal Directorate No. 4-12/2009-PCC dated 22-03-2010
Respected Madam,
The Central Working Committee meeting of the Association was held at Ambaji (Gujarat) on 16th and 17th December 2010. During the meeting, the CWC registered its concern towards the inordinate delay in processing the demand of the Association for higher grade pay to IP on par with inspector cadre in other Central Government departments/ministries. While all other Departments/Ministries show positive action towards their inspectors, the DOP is alone showing a negative approach on our cadre. All Inspectors and Assistant Superintendents Posts are very much aggrieved and frustrated due to the inaction and indifferent attitude of the Department of Posts towards this cadre.
2. The department kept on telling the phrase “maintaining parity with other inspectorial cadre” whenever we demanded justified higher grade pay for IP & ASP. Now Inspectors and analogous cadres in other departments/ministries have been granted the higher grade pay of Rs 4600/- unilaterally after implementation of VI CPC. Such type of unilateral increase in pay scale was noticed in other departments/ministries in respect of their Inspectors after implementation of the past many CPCs. When we demand parity, the department in collusion with MOF is speaking entirely a different version. During discussion with DOP on this issue, we were informed that the cadre of ASP (Which is not in existence in other departments/ministries) is an impediment to implementing higher grade to IP. If that is the case, this Association is ready to go for merger of both the posts IP and ASP. The issue of merger of posts of IP and ASP with single Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- was discussed at a length during the course of General Body meeting in the All India Conference of the Association held at New Delhi on 03.04.2010 and 04.04.2010. The Association had come out with a proposal of merger of the posts IP and ASP and detailed discussions took place between the representatives of the Association and DDG (Estt.) on 05.04.2010. The department was convinced about the justified GP of Rs 4600/- on the merged post. Reminders were given to the DOP on 24-06-2010, 09-08-2010 & 07-09-2010 but no action has been taken by the Department till now and it has become the prime grievance of the Association. We also took up this issue in the agenda for periodical meeting on 27.08.2010 but DOP has not fixed date and time for holding of the same so far.
3. Association gave its proposal in writing for merger of the posts of Inspector, Posts & Assistant Superintendent, Posts and designating the merged posts as Inspector, Posts or Assistant Superintendent, Posts as may be decided by the Department but retaining the Gazetted status to the existing incumbents in Assistant Superintendent, Posts grade till their promotion / retirement..
4. If the DOP felt problem in merger of the posts IP and ASP, the CWC was agreed unanimously and came out with an alternative proposal of merger of the post ASP with PS Group B with a Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- with effect from 01.01.2006. As both the posts are Gazetted Group B & difference of Grade Pay is only Rs.200/-. This Association urges upon the DOP to consider merger of the post of ASP with the post of PS Group B with a Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- and in that case the senior will be holding the charge of Division/Office.
5. In case no positive action is forthcoming, the CWC of the Association after a detailed deliberations and discussions, has come out with the following proposal:
“It is unanimously resolved that the Department must meet out the above demand within one month time frame. The CWC with one voice decided that, if no decision is taken by the Department, the Association has no other option except to proceed on with a direct action (Trade Union action) after 31.01.2011. In such circumstances, the responsibility of any adverse effect on services will rest with the Department”
An early result oriented action is requested.
Yours sincerely,
Justification of Grade Pay 4600 to IPs
Before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
OA No. 381 of 2010
Permanand Kumar and another : Applicants
Vs
Union of India and others : Respondents
ADDITIONAL REJOINDER STATEMENT OF THE APPLICANTS TO THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS
1. The averments made and contentions raised in the Reply Statement filed on behalf of the respondents in so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the facts stated hereunder are incorrect, untrue and hence denied.
2. With reference to the averments in paragraph 2 it is submitted that it is not correct to say that the applicants made misleading statements in the rejoinder statement. It is submitted that the applicant stated only true and correct facts in the rejoinder statement and the averments to the contrary are emphatically denied. It is submitted that it is evident from Paragraph 10.43 of Annexure R-1 4th CPC recommendations, the higher pay scale for Inspector of Posts was considered on the basis of arduous nature of duties attached to the post of Inspector of Posts. However, the 4th CPC recommended the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300 for the reason that there was no direct recruitment in the cadre of Inspector of Post at that time. But the 4th CPC recommended that as and when the direct recruitment is introduced in the cadre of IPO, the Government may examine the pay scale which would then be suitable for these posts. The 4th CPC found parity of employment with the Inspectors of other Departments like Central Excise, Customs etc. Therefore, there is no question of recommending the scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900 by the 4th CPC as the same was left to the Department at the time of introducing direct recruitment to the cadre of Inspector Posts. The averments to the effect that the 4th CPC did not equate the Inspector Posts with analogous posts in other Central Organisation like CBDT/CBEC is opposed to facts and hence stoutly denied. It is submitted that on the basis of the recommendation of 4th & 5th CPC the direct recruitment element was introduced at the level of Inspector Posts. It is a fact that in Annexure A-4 Recruitment Rule the scale of pay is shown as Rs.5500–9000. However, it is worthy to note that as on the date of issuance of Annexure A-4 Recruitment Rules, the pay scales of Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS were also Rs.5500-9000.
3. With regard to the averments in paragraph 3, it is submitted that 6th CPC in Para 7.6.14 upgraded the pay scale of Inspector of Posts to Rs.6500-10500 to maintain parity among Inspectors in CBDT/ CBEC and Assistant in CSS, which was recognised by the 5th CPC. Since 6th CPC recommendations were implemented with effect from 01.01.2006, the scale of pay of Rs.6500-10500 was granted to Inspector of Posts with effect from 01.01.2006 only and not from an earlier date. The respondents have admitted that the 6th CPC had recommended the upgradation of the pay scale of Inspector Posts to Rs.6500-10500 to remove the disparity. Even after admitting the fact, the respondents are again trying to continue the disparity which was recommended to be set right by the 6th Central Pay Commission. The scale of pay prior to 01-01-2006 is immaterial for the reason that the pay revision was effected with effect from 01-01-2006 and as on 01-01-2006 the Inspector of Posts and other equated categories are in the same pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500. Therefore, the Inspector of Posts are entitled to the grade pay of Rs. 4600/- granted to other equated categories. It is not the case of the applicants that they are first to be equated with the other categories and to grant the Grade Pay of other category, but it is the specific case of the applicants that they are equated with the Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC and Assistants of Central Secretariat Service and therefore, they are entitled to the same Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- granted to the other equated categories.
4. With reference to the averments in paragraph 4 and 5, it is submitted that the respondents have admitted that the pay scales recommended by the 5th CPC & 6th CPC and accepted by the Government for Inspector Posts, Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS were the same. It is submitted that 6th Central Pay Commission in the
5. With regard to the averments in paragraph 6, it is submitted that 5th CPC had given equal scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 to Inspector Posts and Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC. Ministry of Finance as per Annexure A-5 OM dated 21.04.2004 had upgraded the pay scale of Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC to Rs.6500-10500, whereas no such upgradation was given to Inspector Posts. Against this disparity, some Inspector Posts of Karnataka Circle approached Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore Bench and filed OAs No. 424/2006 and 211/2007 and the above O.A’s were disposed of by Order dated 27-07-2007. In paragraph 4 of the above Order dated 27-07-2007 the Hon’ble Tribunal has categorically observed that
“ After hearing the counsel for the parties at length we note that the first respondent (Department of Posts) has not made any effort to ascertain the circumstances under which the pay scales of officers under CBDT and CBEC including the post of Inspectors has been revised. No reasons are also forthcoming in the Annexure A3 order for revising the pay scales of Inspector of Income Tax. It was for the first respondent(DOP), before taking the decision on the representations made by the Inspector of Posts seeking parity, to ascertain from the CBDT the circumstances under which the pay scales of Income Tax Inspectors were revised from Rs.5500-9000 recommended by V Pay commission and sanctioned by the Government, to Rs.6500-10500. This does not appear to have been done.”
It is submitted that as the 6th Central Pay commission was already constituted to set right the anomalies and had not given its report, Hon’ble CAT had directed the applicants/respondents to produce a copy of the Order along with the representation to be made before the 6th CPC for information. A true copy of the Order of the Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore Bench in O.A No. 424/2006 and connected case dated 27.07.2007 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-22. Accordingly the matter was taken up before the 6th CPC and the anomaly was set right by the 6th CPC by recommending pay parity to Inspector Posts with Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC. The fact that the pay scale of the Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC were upgraded to Rs. 6500-10500 with effect from 21-04-2004 is not all a ground for discriminating the Inspector of Posts after recognising parity with the other analogous posts. The averments to the contrary are emphatically denied.
6. With reference to the averments in paragraph 7 and 8, it is submitted that the role and responsibilities of the cadres of Inspector Posts, Inspector CBDT/CBEC and Assistant in CSS were considered by expert bodies namely the 5th & 6th CPC and recommended parity with Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC. In the reply given by the Ministry of Finance against the proposal of Department of Posts, it was stated that Inspector Posts were in the pay scale of Rs.5500-10500 prior to 01.01.2006 hiding the fact that as on 01.01.2006, the pay scale was upgraded to Rs.6500.10500, which has been accepted by the respondents in Para 8. The contention of the respondents that the granting of Grade pay of Rs.4600 to the inspector Posts would mean that the Inspectors and Assistant Superintendent have to be kept in the same Grade Pay Rs.4600 OR to revise the Grade pay of ASP, which would have a chain reaction on PS Group ‘B’, Junior Time Scale & Senior Time Scale and which tend to disturb the horizontal and vertical relativity is whimsical. Even if the Grade Pay of both Inspector of Posts and Assistant Superintendent of Posts Office are in the same Grade Pay that by itself would not create any difficulty for the reason that in other Departments also the grade pay of feeder category and promotion post are allowed as one and the same as given in the illustrations furnished by the applicants in the rejoinder statement. The respondents have admitted that the illustrations given with respect to two promotional posts in the same grade pay are correct. Hence, The Inspector Posts and ASPOs may be placed in the same grade pay of Rs.4600 and this will not have any cascading effect of any other cadre of the DOP and other Central Govt. Organisations. The All India Association has already given the consent to place Inspector Posts and ASPOs in the same grade pay Of Rs.4600 as per their letter dated 24-06-2010. A photocopy of the above letter dated 24.06.10 submitted to the 2nd respondent-Director General, Department of Posts by the General Secretary, All India Association of Inspectors and Assistant Superintendent Posts is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-23. Therefore, it will not lie on the mouth of the respondents to contend that since the ASPO’s are in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- that grade pay cannot be granted to the Inspector Posts and the said contention is entirely untenable.
7. With regard to the averments in paragraph 9, it is submitted that as per Annexure A-11, it was clarified by the Ministry of Finance that in case of upgradation of Posts as a result of recommendation of 6th CPC, the grade pay corresponding to the upgraded post should be given. Ministry of Finance as per Annexure A-9 OM dated 13.11.2009, revised the grade pay corresponding to pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 to Rs.4600. It is evident from the Para 7.6.14 of 6th CPC and as accepted by the respondents, that the pay scale of Inspector Posts was upgraded to pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f 01.01.2006. Therefore, the Inspector of Posts are entitled to the Grade pay of Rs.4600 with effect from 01-01-2006 as in the case of Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC. Annexure A-19 is attached with the rejoinder statement and the averments to the contrary are denied.
8. With reference to the averments in paragraph Para 10 and 11, it is submitted that the matter related to role, functional responsibilities, hierarchical structures and recruitment rules etc. have already been considered by the 5th & 6th CPC and recommended parity to Inspector Posts with Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS. Parity recommended by the pay commission cannot be ignored after accepting the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission. As far as the hierarchical structure is concerned, it is worthy to note that Inspector Posts are the feeder cadre for promotion to Superintendent of Posts, similar to those Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC and CSS. Inspectors and Assistants are the feeder cadre for promotion to the posts of Superintendent and Section Officer respectively. Even though an Inspector of Post is promoted as ASPOs based on his seniority in the cadre of Inspector, for promotion to the post of Superintendent the feeder post is Inspector of Post and the seniority is reckoned only from the date of promotion/appointment to the cadre of Inspector of Posts and not from the date of promotion as ASPOs. Therefore, the existence of the post ASPOs between the cadre of Inspector and Superintendent is irrelevant, immaterial and inconsequential for granting of the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to the Inspector. The same has been agreed to by the Association in Annexure A-23. Moreover, Inspector Posts coming under Group ‘B’ Non gazetted should not be given lesser grade pay than that of Group ’C’ posts which is lower in the hierarchical structure.
9. With regard to the averments in Paragraph 12 it is submitted that it is evident from Annexure A-21 that the combined proposal was sent by the Department Of Posts to Ministry of Finance, for Grade pay of Inspector Posts, Assistant Superintendent of Posts and Superintendents of Posts demanding Grade pay of Rs.4600, Rs.4800 and Rs.5400 respectively, whereas the justification was only for Inspector Posts. The reasons furnished by the Ministry of Finance for rejecting the proposal are also not correct. The respondents are stating that the Inspector Posts cannot be compared with the post of Assistant of CSS / Inspectors and analogous posts in CBDT and CBEC even after admitting the fact that the pay scales recommended by the 5th CPC & 6th CPC and accepted by the Government for Inspector Posts, Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS are the same and Pay scale of Inspector Posts was upgraded to Rs.6500-10500 by the 6th Central Pay Commission to remove the disparity. The respondents are trying to establish the parity among the Group ’B’ posts of the Department of Posts and CBDT/CBEC & CSS, which were at the different scale of pay before the 6th CPC. The pay scale of Section Officers of CSS before the 6th CPC was Rs.6500-10500 whereas the pay scale of Superintendent of Posts was Rs.7500-12000. Further, the averment of the respondents that only Group ’B’ posts in Department of posts are comparable to those of Group ‘B’ posts in CSS/CBEC/CBDT, is against the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission in Para 3.1.3 of Annexure A-20 and accepted by the Government, wherein it is stated that the parity would need to be absolute upto the grade of Assistant and beyond this it might not possible or even justified to grant complete parity. The respondents have admitted that only the expert body like Pay Commission and Nodal Department are competent to take decision on such matters. 5th and 6th CPC had already recommended parity to Inspector posts with Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS and therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to raise contentions against the recommendations of the Commission. The averment of the respondents that the above OA is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties is totally misconceived. The above averments is made by the deponent casually without any basis. The deponent failed to note the fact that the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure which is the nodal Ministry is arrayed as the first respondent in the O.A. It is submitted that the Pay Commission is not a necessary party in the O.A. As it is not involved in the lis.
All contentions raised in the Additional Reply Statement are devoid of any force or merit and are liable to be rejected out right. The applicant is entitled to all the reliefs prayed for in the Original Application and the above Original Application is only to be allowed with costs.
Conference
CONFERENCE -----
Conference ..................
Conference ...........................
Join one ... Join All ......................................................................................... Make it a grand sucess
on 13th Novemver 2010 at Guwahati
Conference ..................
Conference ...........................
Join one ... Join All ......................................................................................... Make it a grand sucess
on 13th Novemver 2010 at Guwahati
Problems of IP & ASPs
Sub: Request to convene emergent CWC meeting for discussing IP/ASP issues.
Respected Sir,
I am writing this letter with a great sense of dismay and incredulity as central body is not taking the IP/ASP issues to the expectation of our members. Resultantly there is resentment in the cadre. By some measures of activities, Secretary General NFPE and FNPO made goodwill amongst their members. In the first meeting of the reconstituted Postal Departmental Council that was held in August 2010, as many as 135 items were taken in the agenda and out of these 70 items were discussed on the day of meeting itself. Each and every cadre was given representation. The meeting was chaired by Secretary Post and attended by Postal Board Members, other officers of Directorate and staff side leaders. When other unions are paid attention, there is no reason for not taking notice of IP/ASP association. If there is any problem then it is ours, because we are not taking up issues in right perspective and approach in which these are required to be taken. Due to our weakness other unions are also targeting us.
The most disturbing aspect of above meeting for IP cadre is item no.63 that is directly distressing our cadre. You will agree that demand for transfer of all HSG-I posts presently held by ASP cadre officials to General line official is not only unjustified but also irrational and against ethics. This proposal is already under consideration in Directorate. The above point is having far reaching consequences in the promotion avenue of IPs. I request you to kindly take up the matter immediately with Directorate asking not to include any item in JCM meeting having direct or indirect effect on the prospectus of already depressed IP cadre without taking IPASP association into confidence.
Following other issues relating to the cadre of IP/ASP are required immediate attention of the Secretary post. It needs to be taken up convincingly making Directorate clear that in case these are not settled within stipulated time frame, the IP/ASP will leave with no other alternative except to follow the path of mass agitation.
Pay Scale Issue: This sensitive issue need to be take up more vigorously informing Directorate that it is the DOP who is responsible for this disparity as 5th pay commission had placed IPs in the pay scale of 5500 -9000 on par with the inspector in CBEC &CBDT. However Inspectors in CBEC & CBDT after negotiation, litigation and struggle get pay scale Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f 21.4.2004. Unfortunately the above grant of replacement in scale was not done in the cadre of Inspector Post and Govt. left the issue to be decided by 6th pay commission. This was done on the behest of DOP. The Sixth Central Pay Commission has recommended merger of pre-revised pay scales of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500 bringing Inspector Post at par with Inspectors in CBEC & CBDT as well as Assistants in CSS and this has also been accepted and implemented by the Govt. Accordingly Inspector Posts have been placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4200/- at par with Assistant in CSS/Inspectors and Analogous post in CBEC & CBDT. This was done with specific mention for IPs in para 7.6.14. The Grade Pay of inspectors in CBEC & CBDT has been revised from Rs.4200 to 4600 on 13th Nov.2009 leaving Inspector Post in stagger. The Grade Pay of many other categories has also been upgraded from Rs.4200 to 4600 by MOF but the file of Inspector Posts has been returned back simply because we do not have nuisance value that now needs to be created at our level. Is it not a clear case of discrimination? It is fit case for questioning in parliament. We have to fight for our rights without bearing in mind the consequences. Saying that there is one ASP gazetted cadre in hierarchy is not reasonable because this cadre was established only to give one financial upliftment to IP, keeping in view the stagnation in the cadre. No recruitment rules for this cadre are available (see vol IV).Now the sequence has changed owing to grand of time bound MACP. If the department intends to give justice to IPs than there are many option. Gazetted status should not have any hurdle as ASP does not bestow with any special privilege over it. Rather we have obtained it after losing bonus but without any financial powers. The IPs after 10 year of service and at the time of 1st MACP can be conferred Gazetted status under nomenclature of ASP. In case any functional disturbance occurs due to less/excess number of post in ASP cadre in any particular circle that may be interchanged with circles to bring uniformity. Please ask Directorate not to raise objection only to linger on the decision or with the only one motive of not providing relief to IPs.
Respected Sir,
I am writing this letter with a great sense of dismay and incredulity as central body is not taking the IP/ASP issues to the expectation of our members. Resultantly there is resentment in the cadre. By some measures of activities, Secretary General NFPE and FNPO made goodwill amongst their members. In the first meeting of the reconstituted Postal Departmental Council that was held in August 2010, as many as 135 items were taken in the agenda and out of these 70 items were discussed on the day of meeting itself. Each and every cadre was given representation. The meeting was chaired by Secretary Post and attended by Postal Board Members, other officers of Directorate and staff side leaders. When other unions are paid attention, there is no reason for not taking notice of IP/ASP association. If there is any problem then it is ours, because we are not taking up issues in right perspective and approach in which these are required to be taken. Due to our weakness other unions are also targeting us.
The most disturbing aspect of above meeting for IP cadre is item no.63 that is directly distressing our cadre. You will agree that demand for transfer of all HSG-I posts presently held by ASP cadre officials to General line official is not only unjustified but also irrational and against ethics. This proposal is already under consideration in Directorate. The above point is having far reaching consequences in the promotion avenue of IPs. I request you to kindly take up the matter immediately with Directorate asking not to include any item in JCM meeting having direct or indirect effect on the prospectus of already depressed IP cadre without taking IPASP association into confidence.
Following other issues relating to the cadre of IP/ASP are required immediate attention of the Secretary post. It needs to be taken up convincingly making Directorate clear that in case these are not settled within stipulated time frame, the IP/ASP will leave with no other alternative except to follow the path of mass agitation.
Pay Scale Issue: This sensitive issue need to be take up more vigorously informing Directorate that it is the DOP who is responsible for this disparity as 5th pay commission had placed IPs in the pay scale of 5500 -9000 on par with the inspector in CBEC &CBDT. However Inspectors in CBEC & CBDT after negotiation, litigation and struggle get pay scale Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f 21.4.2004. Unfortunately the above grant of replacement in scale was not done in the cadre of Inspector Post and Govt. left the issue to be decided by 6th pay commission. This was done on the behest of DOP. The Sixth Central Pay Commission has recommended merger of pre-revised pay scales of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500 bringing Inspector Post at par with Inspectors in CBEC & CBDT as well as Assistants in CSS and this has also been accepted and implemented by the Govt. Accordingly Inspector Posts have been placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4200/- at par with Assistant in CSS/Inspectors and Analogous post in CBEC & CBDT. This was done with specific mention for IPs in para 7.6.14. The Grade Pay of inspectors in CBEC & CBDT has been revised from Rs.4200 to 4600 on 13th Nov.2009 leaving Inspector Post in stagger. The Grade Pay of many other categories has also been upgraded from Rs.4200 to 4600 by MOF but the file of Inspector Posts has been returned back simply because we do not have nuisance value that now needs to be created at our level. Is it not a clear case of discrimination? It is fit case for questioning in parliament. We have to fight for our rights without bearing in mind the consequences. Saying that there is one ASP gazetted cadre in hierarchy is not reasonable because this cadre was established only to give one financial upliftment to IP, keeping in view the stagnation in the cadre. No recruitment rules for this cadre are available (see vol IV).Now the sequence has changed owing to grand of time bound MACP. If the department intends to give justice to IPs than there are many option. Gazetted status should not have any hurdle as ASP does not bestow with any special privilege over it. Rather we have obtained it after losing bonus but without any financial powers. The IPs after 10 year of service and at the time of 1st MACP can be conferred Gazetted status under nomenclature of ASP. In case any functional disturbance occurs due to less/excess number of post in ASP cadre in any particular circle that may be interchanged with circles to bring uniformity. Please ask Directorate not to raise objection only to linger on the decision or with the only one motive of not providing relief to IPs.
Implementation of Second Cadre Review: Second cadre review case of Inspectors and ASPs is pending since long in the files of our Directorate. The Second Cadre Review Committee for the cadre of Inspectors and ASPs was constituted in 1986 keeping in view the already decreasing promotional avenues of the cadre. You will agree that IP of 1983 is still awaiting elevation to PSS Group ’B’. Today DOP is the only organization where career progression Scheme particularly for Inspectors stand relegated to back seat. Action to further eradicate prospect of IP is underway when 63 type items is being considered. The implementation of second cadre review was finalized in 1990 and orders were issued for implementation after chalking out the modalities but no workable conclusion has arrived for the reasons well known to the department. The scheme envisaged of 245 posts of IP/ASP to Supdt. in PSS Group ‘B’ on matching saving basis. During the past two decade department has even failed to redefine the duties and responsibilities of IP and ASP instead of implementing it. Consequent upon introduction of new business benchers, the Department of Posts is on the verge of conversion into a dynamic organization with projects like changing ambience of the offices, providing good working environment to the staff, providing comfort to potential customers or visitors and various long lasting projects like Digitization of Records, Core Banking, Mail Optimization, Consumer Price Index, Aadhaar Technology, Biometric systems etc. All these projects are being implemented with the support and incessant hard work of IP cadre. Thus it will not be wrong to say that the total responsibility for successful implementing the various innovative schemes has virtually devolved on the IP and ASP. When there is such a surge of schemes burdening IP/ASP, then what is the hesitation to create 245 more posts?
On the other hand with the upgradation of 1772 posts of HSG II HSG I without any commensurate increase in responsibility, the promotion prospects of staff belonging to the General line have also largely improved. Still not satisfied and after grabbing 6% post of PSS Group ‘B’ they have started demanding conversion of all Postmaster (HSG-I) post held by IP to General line. The Deptt has also taken care of the interest of the IPoS and they have derived the benefits of 5 periodical cadre review all at the cost of IP/ASP prospects. Resultantly the promotion prospects of IP & ASP have further deteriorated with a span for promotion to PSS Gr B extending up to 27 years what to talk of promotion to JTS.
Supply of Laptops to IP/ASP : At the time of All India Conference Secretary(Post) has promised to supply Laptops to all IP/ASP beside Sub Divisions also. No such proposal has come out and even is not in the pipeline. This issue also needs to be taken up with Directorate. Laptops should be supplied to IP/ASP irrespect to position of posting.
Enhancement of honorarium for invigilator duties for IPs/ASPs: The IP/ASP put on invigilator duty (mostly on Sunday) is being paid Rs.20/- for one duty subject to maximum of Rs.40/- per day. Whereas the conveyance charges are always more than amount being paid left aside other issues like Sunday duty etc. I request you to take this issue with Directorate to enhance the honorarium equal to, as paid by Staff Selection Commission to the officials engaged for such duties. In case it cannot be enhanced, Directorate should do away with this honorarium as paying Rs.20-40 for invigilator duty is just a joke with IP/ASP.
On the other hand with the upgradation of 1772 posts of HSG II HSG I without any commensurate increase in responsibility, the promotion prospects of staff belonging to the General line have also largely improved. Still not satisfied and after grabbing 6% post of PSS Group ‘B’ they have started demanding conversion of all Postmaster (HSG-I) post held by IP to General line. The Deptt has also taken care of the interest of the IPoS and they have derived the benefits of 5 periodical cadre review all at the cost of IP/ASP prospects. Resultantly the promotion prospects of IP & ASP have further deteriorated with a span for promotion to PSS Gr B extending up to 27 years what to talk of promotion to JTS.
Supply of Laptops to IP/ASP : At the time of All India Conference Secretary(Post) has promised to supply Laptops to all IP/ASP beside Sub Divisions also. No such proposal has come out and even is not in the pipeline. This issue also needs to be taken up with Directorate. Laptops should be supplied to IP/ASP irrespect to position of posting.
Enhancement of honorarium for invigilator duties for IPs/ASPs: The IP/ASP put on invigilator duty (mostly on Sunday) is being paid Rs.20/- for one duty subject to maximum of Rs.40/- per day. Whereas the conveyance charges are always more than amount being paid left aside other issues like Sunday duty etc. I request you to take this issue with Directorate to enhance the honorarium equal to, as paid by Staff Selection Commission to the officials engaged for such duties. In case it cannot be enhanced, Directorate should do away with this honorarium as paying Rs.20-40 for invigilator duty is just a joke with IP/ASP.
In the last but not least I request you to convene emergent CWC meeting to discuss the matter in detail and to chalk out appropriate trade union action to press our demands. Punjab Circle is ready to make arrangements for CWC meeting even at short notice. In case you have any differences with Punjab people, I, alongwith my team, am ready to leave the stage and offer resignation of the present body including Sh .R.K Joshi AGS CHQ. Hoping and waiting for your positive response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)