Tuesday 30 January 2018
Seventh Central Pay Commissions recommendations regarding revision of pay scales for amendment of Service Rules/Recruitment Rules : DoPT
Seventh Central Pay Commissions recommendations regarding revision of pay scales for amendment of Service Rules/Recruitment Rules : DoPT
F.No.AB-14017/13/2016-E.stt.(RR)
Government of India
Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of personnel and Training
Estt.-RR Division
Government of India
Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of personnel and Training
Estt.-RR Division
North Block, New Delhi
Dated: 29th January, 2018
Dated: 29th January, 2018
Office Memorandum
Sub: Seventh Central pay Commission’s recommendations — revision of pay scales amendment of Service Rules/Recruitment Rules
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s 0M of even number dated August, 2016 on the subject mentioned wherein it was requested that as per the CCS (Rcviscd pay) Rules, 2016 issued by Department of Expenditure vide Notification dated 25th July, 2016, consequential amendment in the existing Service Rules\Recruitment Rules shall be made by the by substituting the existing Pay Band and Grade Pay by the new pay structure i.e. “LEVEL in the PAY MATRIX” straightaway without making a reference to the Deportment of Personnel and Training Public Service Commission (UPSC).
2. Subsequently, this Department has held meetings in October/November, 2016 with the administrative Ministries/Departments to review the progress in the implementation of the O.M. An important suggestion made in the meetings with respect to facilitating the process of consultation with the Legislative Department for drafting notification for amendment of RRs in accordance with 0M dated 9th August, 2016 and its Hindi translation so as to expedite the issue or notification. In this regard, this Department in consultation with Legislative Department prepared a model notification in English and Hindi for use of the Administrative Ministries/Departments. The same was issued for the use Of Ministries/Departments vide this Department’s 0M dated 18.01.2017.
3. Further, DoP&T vide 0M of even number dated 16.02.2017 sought information with regard to implementation of OM dated 09.08.2016. However, no significant inputs on the issue were received from the despite repeated requests.
4. In view of the above, a meeting under the Chairmanship of JS(E) with all Ministries/Departments was held on 04.01.2018. The Ministries/Departments were requested to furnish the details on the issue urgently so as to enable this Department to furnish a status repot for information of PMO. The detail of the data received from various Ministries/Departments as on 24.01.2018 has been compiled and annexed. All Ministries/Departments are requested to scrutinize the data pertaining to them as the annexure. In case some additions/corrections are required, the same may be communicated to this Division before 09.02.2048. In case no inputs are received, the data as indicated in annexure shall be treated as final.
sd/-
(Shukdeo Sah)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
(Shukdeo Sah)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Authority: www.dopt.gov.in
Friday 26 January 2018
AIAPC Punjab Circle wishes "Happy Republic Day" to its viewers
AIAPC Punjab Circle wishes "Happy Republic Day" to its viewers
"Freedom in the mind,
Strength in the words,
Pureness in our blood,
Pride in our souls,
Zeal in our hearts,
Let's salute our India on Republic Day.
Happy Republic Day!"
Long live India Post Payments Bank
A June 2016 report in Mint described India Post Payments Bank (IPPB) as the “hottest game in town”. Some 50 entities, including International Finance Corp., Barclays Plc., Deutsche Bank AG, Citibank NA and several state-owned banks were jostling to form different kinds of partnerships with the department of posts, or DoP, the promoter of the payments bank. Apparently, commercial banks, insurance firms and asset management companies were making a beeline to form equity partnerships, joint ventures and many other mutually beneficial arrangements with IPPB.
It’s almost a year since its first two “pilot” branches at Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) were inaugurated by finance minister Arun Jaitley and minister of state for communications Manoj Sinha through video conferencing. Where are these banks, insurance firms and asset management companies? How has IPPB been doing? IPPB has a customer base of a few thousands and its deposit kitty is less than Rs1 crore.
The objective of this column is not to write an obituary of this initiative—something I had done not so long ago for Bharatiya Mahila Bank Ltd, a misadventure of the erstwhile United Progressive Alliance-led government. Of the 11 entities that had got the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI’s) in-principle approval to set up payments banks so far, only four—including IPPB—have gone live and three have opted out even as another four are busy sorting out regulatory, technical and business issues. There seems to be something inherently wrong with the business model itself. On top of that, IPPB, being government-owned, has unique challenges.
Going by the RBI guidelines for payments banks, there is a need for transactions and savings accounts for the underserved in the population. Also, remittances have both macroeconomic benefits for the region receiving them as well as microeconomic benefits for the recipients. Higher transaction costs of making remittances shrink these benefits. So, the primary objective of setting up payments banks is to “further financial inclusion by providing small savings accounts and payments/remittance services to migrant labour workforce, low-income households, small businesses, other unorganized sector entities and other users, by enabling high volume-low value transactions in deposits and payments/remittance services in a secured technology-driven environment.”
Most of these services are currently provided by India’s mainstream banks, albeit with a degree of reluctance as these activities are seen to be loss-making. The challenge is how to make profits out of these services. IPPB started operations with a borrowed information technology (IT) platform from Punjab National Bank (PNB). How will a bank with very different objectives move ahead on the IT platform of a conventional universal bank? Can banking by surrogacy succeed in the payments space? A large number of bankers coming on board from PNB on deputation hasn’t helped the cause either.
Most regulatory constraints that universal commercial banks face are applicable to the payment banks as well even though their product line is thin and so are the revenue streams. IPPB, like all other payment banks (and small finance banks), is required to maintain 15% minimum capital adequacy ratio and also the cash reserve ratio, or the mandatory deposits with RBI on which it does not earn any interest (currently, it is 4% of deposits). On top of this, a payments bank needs to invest 100% of its demand deposits (it cannot take fixed deposits and recurring deposits) in government securities and deposits of scheduled commercial banks in the ratio of 3:1.
So, how will a payments bank make money? It cannot make money from deposits as the return typically is less than the cost of deposits; it can make money from payments transactions only if it has a robust, secured and comprehensive technology platform that enables clients and service providers to come together seamlessly and transact at an extremely competitive cost. The regulatory capital of Rs100 crore seems to be too little to create such infrastructure. RBI’s operational guidelines and regulatory controls give one the feeling that it wants to create banking fair price shops in the guise of payment banks.
IPPB currently offers savings bank deposits with 5.50% interest and a debit card to its customers in the two state capitals but there aren’t too many takers. Clearly, the postal bureaucrats in charge of the project do not have the nuanced understanding and skill to put up such a massive life-changing and technology-driven bank for the masses.
After using the PNB technology platform at the initial stage, IPPB is now looking for its own platform. DXC Technology (a former Hewlett-Packard Co. enterprise) will create the IT backbone. I wonder why only two bidders (DXC Technology and FIS) responded to the request for proposal, or RFP, issued by the DoP, and that, too, after cancelling the first RFP? For any large, complex project, an RFP is considered to be the heart and soul of the procurement. There were thousands of queries by the initial bidders but only one entity, Polaris Financial Technology Ltd, made a bid in the first round which got cancelled. Do the technology providers lack confidence in the viability of the business proposition?
It might be worthwhile to take a look as to what IPPB can offer which India Post cannot. India Post has been providing deposit services to a large number of small customers across the country; it also has a limited remittance service. So, IPPB needs to provide its customers with a robust and efficient payments facility without much complexity of transaction formalities, and at a cheap price.
Would this product line generate adequate revenue to have a healthy enough profitability to attract investors, or would it perennially depend on budgetary support?
It is not yet clear as to what is the business model being adopted by IPPB and whether the IT system being implemented would be comprehensive and adaptive enough to meet all the objectives.
Minister of state for communication Sinha, in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha recently, said IPPB expects to roll out 650 branches in April.
That’s good news.
But will they be sufficient to ramp up the operations? And, what will these branches do?
My understanding is that these bank branches (housed in India Post office outlets) will be the control office or back office while India Post, with its 150,000 branches, will be the corporate business correspondent of IPPB. In that sense, IPPB will be a faceless bank without any direct contact with its customers.
There are many questions to ask:
— Why has there been undue delay in starting any meaningful operations?
— Is IPPB’s operational dependence on the DoP too heavy, making it a weak protégé of the government department?
— Is the level of operational and administrative autonomy being enjoyed by IPPB adequate to frame its own strategy?
— Who is driving the project—the CEO of IPPB or executives of India Post?
(The CEO joined in October 2017, eight months after the project took off. None can miss the overwhelming footprint of the DoP executives who do not have either accountability or the acumen in defining the business strategy.)
— Is the operational architecture capable of infusing the much-required agility and efficiency of connecting India’s 650,000 villages and delivering banking services to millions at a very cheap cost?
What is worrying is that IPPB’s dependence on DoP is understood to be continuing even after the bank will be fully operational. For example, the connectivity of the bank for all its operations (proposed 650 offices, other access points, ATMs and hand-held machines to be used for transactions) will be through the existing DoP network. One can only hope that the technology shortcomings of DoP do not get replicated in the bank.
Time will tell whether IPPB will succeed, but the confusion surrounding the payments bank arm of India Post is pretty high at the moment. If the government aims to achieve deeper banking inclusion, it would be wise to let the board of IPPB and its top management decide on its strategy. Piggy-backing DoP will create an inefficient animal always looking for the indulgent patronage of its parent—far removed from India’s digital banking dream.
Finally, it looks like the feasibility of IPPB’s business is leaning heavily on being the gateway for all direct benefit transfers, earning a commission from the government. Is that a sufficient justification for a bank to exist? Instead of setting up IPPB, the government could have gone for a common back office service provider for all its transactions.
Tamal Bandyopadhyay, consulting editor at Mint, is adviser to Bandhan Bank. His latest book, From Lehman to Demonetization: A Decade of Disruptions, Reforms and Misadventures has recently been released.
Sunday 21 January 2018
Caste decided by birth, can't be changed by marriage: SC
A person's caste is unalterable and can't change after marriage, the Supreme Court said on Thursday, setting aside the appointment of a woman teacher who joined Kendriya Vidyalaya 21 years ago taking benefit of reservation on the ground that she was married to a Scheduled Caste man.
A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and M M Shantanagoudar said the woman, who has now become vice-principal after serving two decades in the school, was not entitled to the benefits of reservation as she was born in an upper caste family and her caste remained so despite marrying into a Scheduled Caste family.
"There cannot be any dispute that the caste is determined by birth and the caste cannot be changed by marriage with a person of Scheduled Caste. Undoubtedly, she was born in 'Agarwal' family, which falls in general category and not in Scheduled Caste. Merely because her husband belongs to a Scheduled Caste category, she should not have been issued with a caste certificate showing her caste as Scheduled Caste," the bench said.
The woman was issued a caste certificate in 1991 by the district magistrate of Bulandshahr certifying her as of Scheduled Caste. Based on the academic qualifications and caste certificate, she was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher in 1993 at Kendriya Vidyalaya at Pathankot in Punjab. During the course of her service, she completed her M.Ed.
Two decades after her appointment, a complaint was filed against her seeking cancellation of her appointment, alleging she had illegally taken the benefit of reservation without belonging to Scheduled Caste category. After conducting an inquiry, authorities cancelled her caste certificate and Kendriya Vidalaya terminated her job in 2015. Challenging KV's decision, she approached the Allahabad HC which dismissed her plea, and upheld her termination. She then approached the apex court for relief.
Taking into account her unblemished service of over two decades, the SC modified the HC order and said the order of termination from service shall be treated as the order of compulsory retirement. "While exercising leniency, we have also kept in mind that she has neither played fraud nor misrepresented before authorities for getting the caste certificate... No questions were raised against her till the complaint ... came to be lodged, even when the authorities had seen the high school certificate, marksheet etc. showing her caste as Agarwal..." the bench said.
Source:-The Times of India
Thursday 18 January 2018
Monday 15 January 2018
Sunday 14 January 2018
Central Civil Services (Leave) Second Amendment Rules, 2017
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
(Department of Personnel and Training)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 1st January, 2018
G.S.R.08(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 read with clause (5) of article 148 of the Constitution and after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India in relation to the persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, the President hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Central Civil Services (Leave) Second Amendment Rules, 2017.-(2) They shall come into force on the dale of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules. 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in rule 54, in subrule (3), the words and subject to the other conditions laid down in rule 57 being satisfied, draw study allowance in respect thereof”‘ shall be omitted.
3. In the said rules, in rule 56,-
(a) in sub-rule (1) for the words "House Rent Allowanceand Study Allowance as admissible in accordance with the provisions of Rules 57 to 60. the words and House Rent Allowance" shall be substituted.(b) in sub-rule (4), the words "as envisaged in sub-rule (2) of Rule 57," shall be omitted;(c) sub-rule (5), shall be omitted.
4. In the said rules, rule 57, 58 and 59 shall be omitted.
5, In the said rules, in rule 60, in sub-rule (2), the words "and the Study Allowance" shall be omitted.
6. In the said rules, in rule 63, in sub-rule (1), in clause (i), the words "Study Allowance" shall he omitted.
[F.No.13023/1/2017-Estt.(L)]
GYANENDRA DEV TRIPATHI, Jt. Secy.
Note :GYANENDRA DEV TRIPATHI, Jt. Secy.
The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number S.O.940 dated the 8th April, 1972 and have been subsequently amended as follows :
Source: DoPT
Invitation of Applications for the Internship Scheme of the Department of Economic Affairs for the year 2018-2019
Invitation of Applications for the Internship Scheme of the Department of Economic Affairs for the year 2018-2019.
Monday 1 January 2018
Post Office Interest rates from 2003 to 2018
Post Office Interest rates from 2003 to 2018
1) Recurring Deposit(Qly Comp)
01.03.2003 7.50% Rs.728.90
01.12.2011 8.20% Rs.738.62
01.04.2012 8.40% Rs.746.51
01.04.2013 8.30% Rs.744.53
01.04.2014 8.40% Rs.746.53
01.04.2015 8.40 % Rs.746.53
01.04.2016 7.40% Rs.726.97
01.07.2016 7.40 % Rs.726.97
01.10.2016 7.30% Rs.725.05
01.04.2017 7.20% Rs.723.14
01.07.2017 7.10% Rs.721.23
01.01.2018 6.90%
2) Time Deposit (Qly Compd.)
1TD/2TD/3TD/5TD
01.03.2003 6.25/6.50/7.25/7.50%
01.12.2011 7.70/7.80/8.00/8.30%
01.04.2012 8.20/8.30/8.40/8.50%
01.04.2013 8.20/8.30/8.40/8.50%
01.04.2014 8.40/8.40/8.40/8.50%
01.04.2015 8.40/8.40/8.40/8.50%
01.04.2016 7.10/7.20/7.40/7.90%
01.07.2016 7.10/7.20/7.40/7.90%
01.10.2016 7.00/7.10/7.30/7.80%
01.04.2017. 6.90/7.00/7.20/7.70%
01.07.2017. 6.80/6.90/7.10/7.60%
01.01.2018. 6.60/6.70/6.90/7.40%
3) Monthly Income Scheme
01.03.2003 8.00% 6yrs
01.12.2011 8.20% 5yrs
01.04.2012 8.50% 5yrs
01.04.2013 8.40% 5yrs
01.04.2014 8.40% 5yrs
01.04.2015 8.40% 5yrs
01.04.2016 7.80% 5yrs
01.07.2016 7.80% 5yrs
01.10.2016 7.70% 5yrs Payable mly
01.04.2017 7.60% 5yrs
01.07.2017 7.50% 5yrs
01.01.2018 7.30% 5yrs
4) SCSS'2004
02.08.2004 9.00%
01.12.2011 9.00%
01.04.2012 9.30%
01.04.2013 9.20%
01.04.2014 9.20%
01.04.2015 9.30%
01.04.2016 8.60%
01.07.2016 8.60%
01.10.2016 8.50% Payable Qly
01.04.2017. 8.40%
01.07.2017. 8.30%
01.01.2018. 8.30%
5) PPF(Yly Comp)
01.12.2011 8.60%
01.04.2012 8.80%
01.04.2013 8.70%
01.04.2014 8.70%
01.04.2015 8.70%
01.04.2016 8.10%
01.07.2016 8.10%
01.10.2016 8.00%
01.04.2017 7.90%
01.07.2017. 7.80%
01.01.2018. 7.60%
6)NSC(VIIIth Issue)5yrs(Yly comp)
01.03.2003 8.00% Rs.160.10 6yrs
01.12.2011 8.40% Rs.150.90 5yrs
01.04.2012 8.60% Rs.152.35 5yrs
01.04.2013 8.50% Rs.151.62
01.04.2014 8.50% Rs.151.62
01.04.2015 8.50% Rs.151.62
01.04.2016 8.10% Rs.147.61
01.07.2016 8.10% Rs.147.61
01.10.2016. 8.00% Rs.146.93
01.04.2017. 7.90% Rs.146.25
01.07.2017. 7.80% Rs.145.58
01.01.2018. 7.60%
7)NSC(IXth Issue)10yrs(HYly comp)
01.12.2011 8.70% Rs.234.35 10yrs
01.04.2012 8.90% Rs.238.87 10yrs
01.04.2013 8.80% Rs.236.60
01.04.2014 8.80% Rs.236.60
01.04.2015 8.80% Rs.236.60
8) Kisan Vikas Patra(Yly Comp)
01.03.2003 8.40% 8yrs7mth
01.12.2011 8.70% 8yrs4mth
01.04.2016 7.80% 9yrs2mth
01.07.2016 7.80% 9yrs2mth
01.10.2016 7.70% 9yrs4mth
01.04.2017 7.60% 9yrs5mth
01.07.2017 7.50%. 9yrs7mth
01.01.2018 7.30%. 9yrs10 mth
9) Sukanya Samriddhi Account
01.04.2014 9.10% Yly Comp.
01.04.2015 9.20% Yly Comp.
01.04.2016 8.60% Yly Comp.
01.07.2016 8.60% Yly Comp.
01.10.2016 8.50% Yly Comp.
01.04.2017 8.40% Yly Comp
01.07.2017 8.30% Yly Comp
01.01.2018 8.10% Yly Comp
Postmaster Grade 1 officials from Kerala in the year 2013-2014 will get seniority from 2011 - CAT Ernakulam Judgement
Postmaster Grade 1 officials from Kerala in the year 2013-2014 will get seniority from 2011. CAT Ernakulam judgement issued on 02.02.2017. Please see the details of the case. (OA NUMBER - 426/2015)
Please visit http://judis.nic.in/Dist_Judis/CaseNo_Cat_Qry_Erna.asp for details.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.180/426/2015
Dated this Thursday the 2nd day of February , 2017.
CORAM
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Balakrishnan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mrs.P.Gopinath, Administrative Member
1. M.A.Suresh Kumar, S/o Late Appu, aged 43 years,
Postmaster Grade I, Tanur MBR P.O.,
Malappuram, Pin 676302, residing at
Moothery House, Erangalam P.O.,
Malappuram, Kerala Pin 679587.
2. R.Rudran, S/o M. Ramakrishnan, aged 44 years,
Postmaster Grade I, Katakada P.O. Pin 695572,
Permanently residing at Pioneer Villa,
Puthenveedu Elavaramkuzhy Ukakkupura P.O.,
Kollam, Kerala, Pin 691312, now residing at
Aramom Building,
Katakada P.O. Pin 695572.
3. Prasad T.K. S/o Swaminathan, aged 38 years, Postmaster
Grade I, Petta, Trivandrum, Pin 695024,
residing at Thamonamkunnathu, MP2/ 264B, KRA 53A
Thachottukavu, Malayankeezh P.O.,
Trivandrum, Pin 695571.
4. Prakash P. Bhaskaran S/o P.Bhaskaran, aged 41 years,
Postmaster Grade I, Ranny, Pazhavangady, Pin 689673,
residing at Panakal House, Mekozhoor P.O.,
Pathanamthitta, Pin 689645.
5. Preetha K.K. W/o Girishkumar, aged 41 years,
Post Master Grade I, Jubilee Mission, P.O.
Thrissur, Pin 680005,
residing at Haritham, Pipeline Road,
Thottappy, Mannuthy, P.O.
Thrissur, Pin 680651.
6. Faizal K.T. S/o Alavi K.T. Aged 31 years, Postmaster Grade I
Calicut University Pin 673 635, residing at Parayil House,
Melangady P.O. Kondotty, Pin 673 638.
7. Jayarajan A.C. S/o Kumaran K.C. Aged 36 years,
Postmaster Grade I, Manjeswar MDG., Pin 671 323,
residing at Gandhi Nagar,
Karudikka P.O.
Moliyar Pin 671 542.
8. Baiju Ambikesan, S/o Ambikesan P.R. Aged 43 years,
Postmaster Grade I, Thrissur City Pin 680020, residing at
Punnapully House, Kanjany P.O. Pin 680020.
9. Ramachandran P., S/o Raghavan Nair, aged 39 years,
Postmaster Gr.I., Angadipuram Pin 679321, residing at
Pakideeri House,
Anamangadu P.O.
Malappuram 679357. .... Applicants
By Advocate Mr. M.R.Hariraj,
Versus
1. Union of India, repesented by the Secretary,
Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication,
New Delhi.
2. Director General of Posts, Dak Bhavan,
New Delhhi.
3. Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram 695 033. .... Respondents
(By Mr.S. Ramesh ACGSC)
This application having been finally heard on 18.01.2017, the Tribunal on 02/02/2017
delivered the following:
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per: Mrs. P.Gopinath, Administrative Member:
The applicants are aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to grant them notional dates of promotion to the cadre of Postmaster Grade I and also the refusal to consider them for promotion to the cadre of Postmaster Grade II.
2. The cadre of Postmasters comprising of four grades, (Postmaster Grade I, II,III and Senior Postmaster) was created on 9 th September, 2010 and the recruitmentrules for the said cadres was promulgated. The applicants were all working as Postal Assistants at that point of time. They all had more than five years of service as on 1.1.2011. Applicants 1, 2 and 4 to 9 had been granted MACP I, and was already drawing pay in the pay band 5200-20200 plus grade pay of 2800 with effect from 2008. The third applicant was granted MACP I and given the grade pay of Rs. 2800 with effect from 2012 onwards. Being fully qualified for the post of Postmaster Grade I, notified by Annexure A3, the applicants applied to appear for the examination. Hall tickets were issued to all the applicants. It is contested that the respondent on the ground of pending litigation before the apex court involving employees from Kerala directed the examination contemplated under Annexure A3 to be adjourned sine die.
3. While the examination was not conducted in Kerala, the examinations were conducted in other circles. Based on results thereof, promotions were made to the cadre of Postmaster Grade I in all other circles except Kerala. The examination in Kerala was conducted in 2013. The applicants appeared for the test and were successful. Based on Annexure A7 results, the applicants were appointed as Postmaster Grade I, and they took charge on various dates in April-May, 2014. In other circles, successful candidates were appointed to the cadre of Postmaster Grade I in July- August, 2011 itself, while for no fault of the applicants, in Kerala the appointment was delayed to May 2014. When the question of consideration for promotion to Senior Post Master will arise, the applicants argue that they would be put to a disadvantage in the All India Seniority List as their date of entry into the initial cadre was delayed due to no fault of applicants. There will be none from Kerala for two years for being considered for promotion as Senior Postmaster due to the adjournment of the examination which ought to have been conducted in June, 2011.
4. Arguing the case of the third applicant it is argued that the third applicant is junior only to the sixth applicant based on his rank in the competitive examination for appointment to the cadre of Postmasters. Thus, he is senior to all other applicants. In such circumstances, the rule provides that b
qualifying/eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying service by more than half of such qualifying/eligibility service or two years, whichever is less.
The third applicant was granted MACP I, in the grade of Rs. 5200-20200 + Grade Pay 2800 with effect from 2011. He has already completed four years in the grade pay. But the respondents argue that applicant is not drawing the grade pay in the grade of Postmaster Grade I. He is drawing Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- only in the feeder grade of Postal Assistant and not in the grade of Postmaster Grade I as specified in the Recruitment Rule. The posts of Postmaster Grade II are being manned by personnel who are not qualified to be holding those posts as per Annexure A1 rules. In the other circumstances, the first applicant submitted a detailed representation. Similar representations were made by the other applicants also. A total of 34 posts of Postmaster Grade III and 36 posts of Postmaster Grade II are sanctioned in Kerala Circle. Of 36 posts of Postmaster Grade II and 35 posts Postmaster Grade III identified in the Kerala Circle, only 8 posts in Grade II and Postmaster Grade III have been filled up.
5. The applicants contest the refusal to grant the applicants notional promotions to the postmaster Grade I, with effect from 2011 considering the fact that the examination was adjourned only in Kerala, and in other circles it was conducted in a timely manner. Applicants also contest the refusal to consider them for promotion as Postmaster Grade II based on their experience in the grade of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay 2800 despite availability of vacancies.
The applicants sought the following reliefs:
(i) To direct the respondents to grant notional promotion for the applicants to the cadre of Postmaster Grade I, with effect from June 2011, or the dates on which such promotions were granted to personnel in other circles who appears for the examinations conducted in 2011.;
(ii) To direct the respondents to consider the applicants for promotion to the cadre of Postmaster Grade II with effect from the dates on which the applicants become qualified to be so promoted reckoning their regular service in the grade of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay 2800 as qualifying for promotion,
6. The respondent in the reply statement submits that all applicants joined the Postmaster Grade on various dates in April and May 2014.
7. The vacancies in Postmaster Grade II posts was requested to be filled up by promotion from amongst Postmaster Grade I with 6 years of regular service in the grade including regular service in LSG, if any. Thus, even if it is assumed, though not admitted by the respondents, that the applicants are granted notional promotion to the cadre of Postmaster Grade - I, they still are not eligible for promotion to Postmaster Grade II without fulfilling the mandatory service of 6 years of regular service in Postmaster in Postmaster Grade I.
8. In order to ensure that professionally qualified, trained and meritorious officials head important Post Offices, it was decided vide Annexure A.1 to introduce a separate cadre of Postmasters by carving out the posts from the existing General Line posts. New Recruitment Rules dated 9 Sept 2010, Annexure A.1, were framed and notified. As per notified Recruitment Rules initial constitution of various Grades of Postmasters had to be done by inviting options/applications from the existing incumbents of LSG, HSG II and HSG I Post Offices and PS Group B. In subsequent years all the vacancies in Postmaster Grade I were to be filled up through an LDCE from amongst the Postal Assistants with 5 years regular service in the grade and all the vacancies in Postmaster Grade II post had to be filled up by promotion from amongst Postmaster Grade I with 6 years regular service in the grade including regular service in LSG, if any. Out of the total 299 General Line LSG posts, 125 posts were identified for Postmaster Grade I and willingness was called for from amongst the LSG officials for completing the initial constitution process.
9. Respondent argues that a number of cases with respect to determination of the seniority of the officials for the purpose of promotion to LSG were pending before various courts in 2010. As such, there were only 39 LSG officials in position in the circle in 2010. Out of the 27 willing LSG officials, only 14 officials who were found fit were promoted to PM Grade I vide letter No. ST/3-1/PMC.2010/Dig dated 01.04.2011. Hence, the process of initial constitution could not be completed.
10. Third Respondent was advised by the first Respondent on 19.05.2011, that there was no other option other than to await the decision of the Apex Court before the vacancies in LSG were filled up by the Circle and as such, action for filling up the unfilled posts of Postmaster Grade I under initial constitution clause as well as Departmental Examination would have to be taken only after the decision of the Apex Court. First respondent also directed vide Annexure R.2 that Postmaster Grade I examination scheduled to be held on 12.06.2011 need not be held in Kerala Circle.
After settlement of various court cases, DPC was convened on 17.04.2013 for promotion of eligible Postal Assistants to the cadre of LSG in 2013 for the vacancies from 2009 and 150 officials were promoted to LSG cadre vide letter No.St/5-2/2012 dated 02.05.2013. Willingness was called for from these officials for Postmaster Grade I and out of the 24 willing officials, the eligible 23 officials were promoted to Postmaster Grade I vide letter dated 28.06.2013.
11. Respondent contends that before completing the initial constitution of Postmaster Grade I, the number of vacancies in the grade to be filled up through LDCE could not be assessed. Neither could the interests of the senior officials in the PA cadre who were awaiting promotion to LSG cadre to be settled by court case be ignored. Thus in the best interest of the employees, the decision was taken to
postpone the LDCE in Kerala Circle. Soon after the initial constitution process was completed, the examination was duly notified without any delay vide Annexure A-6.
All the applicants in the OA appeared in the examination held on 30.06.2013 and were declared successful. Respondent brings to notice judgements of the Apex Court wherein it had been held as follows:
- In Nirmal Chandra Sinha v. Union of India, C.A.No.8058 of 2001 decided on 31.03.2008 that a promotion takes effect from the date of being granted and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy or creation of the post.
- Respondent also quotes Tribunal's order in O.A. No. 145/2010 which held that it is settled law that the promotion takes effect from the date of being granted and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy or creation of posts.
12. We hold the view that the above orders are not applicable when the seniority of a select group similarly placed is depressed on account of date of examination being deferred and which had an impact on determining All Indian Seniority.
13. Respondent argues that such a situation did not exist in any other circle and the examination was conducted in all circles except Kerala. Respondent quotes Apex Court in State of Mysore v. G.N. Purohit, 1967 SLR (SC) 753, that it is said on behalf of the respondents that as their chances of promotion have been affected their conditions of service have been changed to their disadvantage. We see no force in this argument because chances of promotion are not conditions of service.
14. Annexure A.1 recruitment rules stipulate that the posts of Postmaster Grade II are to be filled up by promotion from the officials in Postmaster Grade I, in the pay band 1 of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs2800/- with six years of regular service in the Grade including regular service, if any, in Lower Selection Grade and applicants did not possess this prescribed qualification. The applicants become eligible for consideration only in April/May 2020 if May 2014 was taken as date of recruitment.
The applicants are attempting to substitute 'Grade Pay' with 'Grade' Postmaster Grade I in Pay Band Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs.2800 cited in the recruitment rules. Six years of regular service in the Grade mentioned in the latter part of the rule cited in para 3 above categorically means six years of regular service in Postmaster Grade I and not six years of service in the Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- as the rule has to be read in its entirety and not in parts.
15. It was clarified by the Directorate vide letter No.4-17/2008-SPB II dated 10.02.2011 (Para 2.4) that the posts will be deemed to have been designated as Postmaster Grade I, Postmaster Grade II and Postmaster Grade III with effect from the dates those are filled up and if for certain number of posts, the general line officials do not apply, those SOs/HOs would continue to be manned by General line officials till the posts are filled by promotion from the lower grade of postmasters as per Annexure
A 2. creation of cadre notification. In accordance with Annexure A2, 36 posts in General line HSG II and 35 posts in General line HSG I were identified for Postmaster Grade II and Grade III respectively. Out of the 36 posts in PM Grade II only 8 posts could be filled up from amongst the willing officials in the HSG II cadre under the initial constitution process. In accordance with Annexure A1, a DPC was convened on 05.06.2015 to consider 18 officials in PM Grade I who were eligible for promotion to PM Grade II since they had completed six years of service in PM Grade I cadre including regular service in the LSG cadre. 17 eligible officials were promoted to Postmaster Grade II vide Memo No. ST/3-1/PM Grade II/2013 dated 10.07.2015 and in the case of one official, the proceedings of the DPC is kept in a sealed cover in view of the currency of the penalty. The applicants in this O.A.will be duly considered for promotion when their turn comes, in accordance with the recruitment rules governing the field. The respondents argues that eligibility of being considered for promotion to the Grade of Postmaster Grade II is six years of regular service in Postmaster Grade I and not in the grade pay of Rs.2800/- as construed by the applicants.
16. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the records.
17. This case was argued with O.A. No.351/2016. The circumstances in this case are different as the delay was not on account of applicants but arose due to a case awaiting decision of the Apex Court for promotion of Postal Assistants to LSG cadre, the LSG cadre being the initiation feeder cadre for PM Grade I. The applicants however bring to our notice that as per Annexure A11 (1) and A11(2) NIC Supreme Court Case Status Report produced, which indicate that SLP (Civil)18876 of 2011 filed by UOI and Anr vs. M.P. Sudhakaran Nair and 18880 of 2011 filed by UOI and Ors. v. N.J.Tom Thomas & Ors was disposed of on 8.7.2011 one month after all India scheduled date of examination. The disposal of the cases by the Apex Court gave a quietus to the LSG seniority matter and the promotion to LSG and their subsequent fitness for initiation to Post Master Grade I could have been finalised immediately thereafter and exam for unfilled vacancies of Post Master Grade I followed, and initial constitution clause been completed. Or a second option would have been to hold the examination on schedule date in Kerala stating that the result will be finalised based on number of unfilled posts arising out of the final disposal of SLP's followed by initiation by option to PM Grade I, and resultant vacancies arising for filling up by examination. This would have established applicants rank in the examination, and date of entry based on their date of joining of immediate junior in the all India rank list after the initiation clause was operated. However in the absence of such a decision at the appropriate time, it is left to the Tribunal to find a solution to this matter which was not appropriately handled. Whereas we agree that had the exam results been declared, before obtaining the willingness of eligible LSG officials, it would have been injustice to them. But we also note that by delaying entry by examination for unfilled vacancies and determining their seniority along with others similarly placed by an All India Examination was also injustice to the applicants. For no fault attributable to them, their seniority was depressed. The circumstances could have been moulded to prevent such a depression.
18. Whereas we note that respondents cannot be solely held responsible for the litigation which caused the delay, they could have moulded their response to the creation of the cadre by examination. The examination could have been held as scheduled and the result kept as undeclared subject to the finalisation of the court case and finalization of the initiation process. Applicants prayer is for pre-dating the appointments made pursuant to LDCE in a manner as if the right thing was done at the right time. The claim is for appointment to be made to the Postmaster Grade I cadre from the date on which such appointment were made to those similarly placed in other circles based on a common examination. There was no judicial stay to hold examination in Kerala. However the determination of examination based vacancies, subsequent to following the initiation based filling up of posts, was an unknown factor due to pending litigation. Though this was a bottleneck, it was not an insurmountable one. The examination result of Kerala Circle could have been withheld, pending finalisation of LSG seniority and initiation to Postmaster Grade I entry cadre in the Circle which would define the number of vacancies to be filled by examination.
19. We also note that applicants have been recruited according to a notified recruitment rule and in their claim for seniority they have prayed for being treated at par with applicants to the cadre of Postmaster Grade I, Examination 2011 at par with others similarly placed with effect from June 2011. Hence we would not recommend a different treatment as far as first relief is concerned. We therefore, allow the first prayer of applicants to grant notional promotion to applicants with effect from dates on
which such promotions were granted to the last candidate for the examination conducted in 2011. Applicants will be treated as placed at the bottom of the all India seniority list of 2011 exam, as their interpolation in the list of actual entrants to PM Gr.I 2011 Exam would cause injustice, to those who actually appeared in the 2011 exam and whose seniority stands determined.
20. Applicants argue that there are a lot of vacancies of Postmaster Grade II, available in the Kerala Circle. As per Col 12 of the rules, 'Postmaster Grade I, in the pay band 1 of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade pay Rs.2800/- with six years of regular service in the Grade including regular service in Lower Selection Grade' is entitled to be considered for promotion. Based on the rule quoted applicants argue that they have more than six years of regular service as on date in the scale of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade pay 2800, on the ground that they are granted MACP I in 2008. [ Emphasis provided for understanding Recruitment Rule]. Applicants are taking advantage of absence of the designation Postmaster Grade I being mentioned in the latter part of the recruitment rule quoted above. Whereas in the former part of the rule it is clearly stated that Grade Pay Rs.2800/- should be drawn in the grade of Postmaster Grade I. Hence the hair splitting interpretation to read Grade Pay without the designation attached is not acceptable. Hence as regards the second prayer the applicants will also be treated at par with all the similarly placed persons of 2011 Examination as per provisions of Annexure A1`Recruitment Rules, and the manner in which qualifying service of similarly placed persons of 2011 Examination for promotion to PM Grade II was determined. Accordingly the second prayer is dismissed.
21. O.A. is disposed of accordingly allowing the first prayer only. No order as to costs.
(Mrs. P. Gopinath) (N.K. Balakrishnan)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)