Tuesday, April 29, 2014

25% Hike in Allowances – Dopt Orders on increase in certain allowances by further 25% Dearness Allowances w.e.f. 1.1.2014

Dopt Orders on clarification on increase in certain allowances by further 25% as a result of enhancement of Dearness Allowances w.e.f. 1.1.2014

No.A-27012/1/2014-Estt. (Allowance)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
Department of Personnel & Training
Block-IV, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi, 28th April, 2014.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
 
Subject: Clarification on increase in certain allowances by further 25% as a result of enhancement of Dearness Allowances w.e.f. 1.1.2014

The undersigned is directed to refer to para 1(j) of this Department’s OM. No.12011/03/2008-Estt. (Allowance) dated 2.9.2008. This provides that the limits of Children Education Allowance would be automatically raised by 25% every time the Dearness Allowance on the revised pay structure goes up by 50%. References are being received from various quarters with regard to the amount of Children Education Allowance admissible consequent upon enhancement of Dearness Allowance payable to Central Government employees @ 100% w.e.f. 1 January, 2014 announced vide Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure O.M. No.1/l/2014-E-1I (B) dated 27th March, 2014.
 
2. In accordance with the above, the following shall be the revised limits:

a) The annual ceiling limit for reimbursement of Children Education Allowance shall be Rs.18,000/- per child. Accordingly, the quarterly claim could be more than Rs.4500/- in one quarter. The Hostel Subsidy shall be Rs.4500/- per month per child;
b) The rates of Special Allowance for Child Care to women with disabilities stands revised to Rs. 1500/- per month; and
c) The annual ceiling for reimbursement of Children Education Allowance for disabled children of Government employees shall be treated as revised to Rs.36,000/- per annum per child and the rates of Hostel Subsidy for disabled children of Government employees shall be treated as revised to Rs.9000/- per child per month.
 
3. These revisions are applicable with effect from 1st January, 2014.
 
4. These revisions shall be subject to other terms and conditions mentioned in this Department’s O.M. No.12011/03/2008-Estt (Allowance) dated 2.9.2008, O.M. No.12011/04/2008 dated 11.9.2008 and 12011/07(i)12011-Estt.(AL) dated 21.2.2012.

sd/
(Mukul Ratra)
Director
Source:www.persmin.gov.in
[http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02est/A-27012_1_2014-Estt.Allowance-28042014.pdf]

Guidelines on treatment of effect of penalties on promotion — role of Departmental Promotion Committee

Guidelines on treatment of effect of penalties on promotion — role of Departmental Promotion Committee
No. 22011/4/2007-Estt. (D)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block, New Delhi,
Dated the 28th April, 2014
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Guidelines on treatment of effect of penalties on promotion — role of Departmental Promotion Committee

The Department of Personnel & Training had in its O.M. No.22011/5/86-Estt (D) dated 10.04.1989 issued consolidated instructions on Departmental Promotion Committee and matters related thereto. Para 6.2.3 of said O.M. provides that “before making the overall grading after considering the CRs for the relevant years, the DPC should take into account whether the officer has been awarded any major or minor penalty or whether any displeasure of any superior officer or authority has been conveyed to him as reflected in the ACRs.” These guidelines further provide that “the DPC should not be guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the ACRs (now APARs) but should also make its own assessment on the basis of entries in the CRs (now APARs) because it has been noticed that sometimes the overall grading in a ACR (now APAR) may be inconsistent with the grades under various parameters or attributes”.

2. It further provides that an officer whose increments have been withheld or who has been reduced to a lower stage in the time scale, cannot be considered on that account to be ineligible for promotion to the higher grade as the specific penalty of withholding promotion has not been imposed on him/her. The suitability of the officer for promotion should be assessed by the DPC as and when occasions arise for such assessment. In assessing the suitability, the DPC will take into account the circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty and decide whether in the light of the general service record of the officer and the fact of the imposition of the penalty he should be considered suitable for promotion. However, even where the DPC considers that despite the penalty, the officer is suitable for promotion, the officer should not be actually promoted during the currency of the penalty.

3. Further this Department’s O.M. No. No.22034/5/2004-Estt (D) dated 15.12.2004 provides that a Government servant, on whom a minor penalty of withholding of increment etc. has been imposed, should be considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee which meets after the imposition of the said penalty and after due consideration of full facts leading to imposition of the penalty, if he is still considered fit for promotion, the promotion may be given effect after the expiry of the currency of the penalty.

4. The procedure and guidelines to be followed for promotion of Government servants against whom disciplinary/court proceedings are pending or whose conduct is under investigation has been laid down in this Department’s O.M. No.22011/4/91-Estt(A) dated 14.9.92 and O.M. No.22034/4/2012-Estt (D) dated 02.11.2012 and 23.1.2014.

5. The role of Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC) in assessment of the officers being considered for promotion, including the officer(s) against whom a chargesheet has been issued or on whom a penalty has been imposed, has been examined by the Supreme Court in several judgments. The observations of Supreme Court in some of the important cases are summarized as under:
(a) In A.K. Narula case (AIR 2007 SC 2296), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed:
“the guidelines give a certain amount of play in the joints to the DPC by providing that it need not be guided by the overall grading recorded in the CRs, but may make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the CRs. The DPC is required to make an overall assessment of the performance of each candidate separately, but by adopting the same standards, yardsticks and norms. It is only when the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, malafide or arbitrariness, the selection calls for interference. Where the DPC has proceeded in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner, by applying the same yardstick and norms to all candidates and there is no arbitrariness in the process of assessment by the DPC, the court will not interfere”.

(b) In Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman case(AIR 1991 SC 2010), the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of role of DPC the case of an officer on whom a penalty has been imposed and has held that:

“An employee has no right to promotion. He has only right to be considered for promotion. The promotion to a post and more so, to a selection post, depends upon several circumstances. To qualify for promotion, the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record. That is the minimum expected to ensure a clean and efficient administration and to protect the public interest. An employee found guilty of misconduct cannot be placed on par with the other employees, and his case has to be treated differently……. In fact, while considering an employee for promotion his whole record has to be taken into consideration and if a promotion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such denial is not illegal and unjustified.”

(c) In UOI & Anr. Vs. S.K. Goel & Ors. (Appeal (Civil) 689/2007 -SLP(C)-2410/2007), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:
“DPC enjoyed full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of suitability and merit of the candidate being considered by it. Hence interference by High Court is not called for. ”
While delivering the above judgement, the Division Bench has observed that:
“…it is now more or less well settled that the evaluation made by an Expert Committee should not be easily interfered with by the Court which do not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose.”

6. It has been brought to the notice of this Department that DPCs have been adopting varying criteria in assessment of officials undergoing penalty that are not consistent with the extant instructions of the DOPT for e.g., downgradation of grading in ACR/APAR, denying promotion for specified number of years, etc.

7. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs. It is a settled position that the DPC, within its power to make its own assessment, has to assess every proposal for promotion, on case to case basis. In assessing the suitability, the DPC is to take into account the circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty and decide, whether in the light of general service record of the officer and the effect of imposition of penalty, he/she should be considered suitable for promotion and therefore, downgradation of APARs by one level in all such cases may not be legally sustainable. Following broad guidelines are laid down in respect of DPC:

a) DPCs enjoy full discretion to devise their own methods and procedures for objective assessment of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by them, including those officers on whom penalty has been imposed as provided in DoPT O.M. dated 10.4.89 and O.M. dated 15.12.2004.

b) The DPC should not be guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the ACRs/APARs but should make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the ACRs/APARs as it has been noticed that sometimes the overall grading in a ACR/APAR may be inconsistent with the grading under various parameters or attributes. Before making the overall recommendation after considering the APARs (earlier ACRs) for the relevant years, the DPC should take into account whether the officer has been awarded any major or minor penalty.
(Refer para 6.2.1(e) and para 6.2.3 of DoPT OM dated 10.04.89)

c) In case, the disciplinary/criminal prosecution is in the preliminary stage and the officer is not yet covered under any of the three conditions mentioned in para 2 of DoPT O.M. dated 14.09.1992, the DPC will assess the suitability of the officer and if found fit, the officer will be promoted along with other officers. As provided in this Department’s O.M. dated 02.11.2012, the onus to ensure that only person with unblemished records are considered for promotion and disciplinary proceedings, if any, against any person coming in the zone of consideration are expedited, is that of the administrative Ministry/Department.

d) If the official under consideration is covered under any of the three condition mentioned in para 2 of O.M. dated 14.09.1992, the DPC will assess the suitability of Government servant along with other eligible candidates without taking into consideration the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution pending. The assessment of the DPC including ‘unfit for promotion’ and the grading awarded are kept in a sealed cover. (Para 2.1 of DoPT OM dated 14.9.92).

e) Para 7 of DoPT OM dated 14.09.92 provides that a Government servant, who is recommended for promotion by the DPC, but in whose case, any of the three circumstances on denial of vigilance clearance mentioned in para 2 of ibid O.M. arises after the recommendations of the DPC are received but before he/she is actually promoted, will be considered as if his/her case had been placed in a sealed cover by the DPC. He/she shall not be promoted until he/she is completely exonerated of the charges against him/her.

f) If any penalty is imposed on the Government servant as a result of the disciplinary proceedings or if he/she is found guilty in the criminal prosecution against him/her, the findings of the sealed cover/covers shall not be acted upon. His/her case for promotion may be considered by the next DPC in the normal course and having regard to the penalty imposed on him/her (para 3.1 of DoPT OM dated 14.9.92).

g) In assessing the suitability of the officer on whom a penalty has been imposed, the DPC will take into account the circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty and decide whether in the light of general service record of the officer and the fact of imposition of penalty, the officer should be considered for promotion. The DPC, after due consideration, has authority to assess the officer as ‘unfit’ for promotion. However, where the DPC considers that despite the penalty the officer is suitable for promotion, the officer will be actually promoted only after the currency of the penalty is over (para 13 of DoPT OM dated 10.4.89).

h) Any proposal for promotion has to be assessed by the DPC, on case to case basis, and the practice of downgradation of APARs (earlier ACRs) by one level in all cases for one time, where a penalty has been imposed in a year included in the assessment matrix or till the date of DPC should be discontinued immediately, being legally non-sustainable.

i) While there is no illegality in denying promotion during the currency of the penalty, denying promotion in such cases after the period of penalty is over would be in violation of the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution

j) The appointing authorities concerned should review comprehensively the cases of Government servants, whose suitability for promotion to a higher grade has been kept in a sealed cover on the expiry of 6 months from the date of convening the first Departmental Promotion Committee which had adjudged his suitability and kept its findings in the sealed cover. Such a review should be done subsequently also every six months. The review should, inter alia, cover the progress made in the disciplinary proceedings/criminal prosecution and the further measures to be taken to expedite the completion. (Para 4 of O.M. dated 14.09.1992)

k) In cases where the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against the Government servant is not concluded even after the expiry of two years from the date of the meeting of the first DPC which kept its findings in respect of the Government servant in a sealed cover then subject to condition mentioned in Para 5 of this Department’s O.M. dated 14.09.1992, the appointing authority may consider desirability of giving him ad-hoc promotion (Para 5 of this Department’s O.M. dated 14.09.1992).

8. All the administrative authorities in the Ministries/Department are advised to place relevant records, including chargesheet, if any, issued to the officer concerned, penalty imposed, etc., before the DPC/ACC who will decide the suitability of officer for promotion keeping in view the general service records of the officer including the circumstances leading to the imposition of the chargesheet or penalty imposed. If such an officer is found suitable, promotion will be given effect after the currency of the penalty is over.

9. All Ministries/Departments are, therefore, requested to keep in view the above guidelines while convening DPC for promotion of the Government servants on whom either penalty has been imposed or where there are adverse remarks in the reckonable ACRs/APARs.
sd/-
(Mukta Goel)
Director
Source: www.persmin.nic.in
[http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02est/22011_4_2007-Estt.D-28042014.pdf]

Retention of Railway quarter in case of absorption following deputation in Railway PSUs

Retention of Railway quarter in case of absorption following deputation in Railway PSUs – Railway Board Order RBE No. 35/2014 dated 16.04.14
RBE NO: 35/2014
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA(BHARAT SARKAR)
MINISTRY OF RAI LWAYS( RAIL MANTRALAYA).
(RAILWAY BOARD)
NO:E(G) 2014 QR 1-2(PSU-Abspn.)
New Delhi, Dated: 16.04.14
The General Managers,
All Indian Railways & Production Units
(Others: As per standard list)

Sub: Retention of Railway quarter in case of absorption following deputation in Railway PSUs.

The question of house retention in case of absorption in Railway PSUs has been considered by the full board in its last meeting held on 13.01.2014. It has been decided as under:

“‘Retention permission was granted to the Officers as an Incentive for the officers to volunteer to go to some PSUs. It has been, however, observed that the officers continue to occupy the Railway houses even after getting absorbed in the PSUs. Henceforth, the officers allowed to retain the houses on deputation shall have to vacate the Railway accommodation as soon as they are absorbed”

2. The issues with the concurrence of the Finance Directorate of the Ministry of Railways.

3. Please knowledge receipt.
sd/-
(S.K. PANDA)
Deputy Director Estt.(Gen)
Source AIRF
[http://www.airfindia.com/Orders%202014/rbe-35_2014.pdf]

Cadre Restructuring of Group “C” Postal Employees: Agreement signed by union

Cadre Restructuring of Group “C” Postal Employees: Agreement signed by union

MEETING OF COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED ON CADRE RESTRUCTURING OF GROUP ‘C’ EMPLOYEES HELD ON 28th APRIL 2014 IN ROOM NO.347-D, DAK BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI.
RECORD OF DISCUSSIONS
The Committee constituted by the Department on cadre restructuring of Group ‘C’ employees vide No. 25-04/2012-PE I dated 23′ Oct 2013 held its final discussions on 28 April 2014 at 1100 hours under the Chairmanship of Shri V.P. Singh, DDG (Personnel). The following were present:-
OFFICIAL SIDE STAFF SIDE
1. Shri V.P. Singh, DDG (P) — Chairman 2. Shri Alok Saxena, Secretary PSB — Member
3. Ms. TrishaIA Sethi, DDG (E) — Member
4. Sh. Surender Kumar, ADO (PCC) — Member Secretary
1. General Secretary, AIPEU, Group ‘C’ 2. General Secretary, NAPE, Group ‘C’
3. General Secretary, AIRMS & MMS, Group ‘C’
4. General Secretary, NU RMS & MMS Group ‘C’
5. General Secretary, AIPEU, Postman & MTS
6. General Secretary, NUPE, Postman &
Multi-Tasking Employees

2. The Committee had earlier met on 27th Nov 2013, 04th & 05th Feb 2014 and had detailed discussions.

3. The representatives of the Staff side informed that Postal Assistant cadre officials are getting promotions in promotional hierarchy to Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- [PB-1] in Lower Selection Grade at a time when they are already placed in the Grade Pays’ of Rs. 4200/- [PB-2] or Rs. 4600/-[PB-2] on award of financial upgradation(s) under MACPS. Taking note of this factual position and detailed discussions, the following recommendations in respect to the cadre restructuring of Group ‘C’ employees were agreed to:-
(a) The post of SPMs in Single Handed Post Offices and Double Handed Post Offices will be placed in the Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- in the Pay Band PB-I.
(b) The post of Sub Postmasters in Triple Handed Post Offices and all other existing norm based HSG Posts in Post Offices will be placed in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- in the Pay Band PB-II.
(c) All existing posts in HSG-II will be placed in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in the Pay Band PB-II along with the existing HSG 1 Posts.
(d) After the implementation of the above restructuring/the officials in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-, who have completed 2 years of regular service, will be granted the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- in the Pay Band -II on non-functional basis after following the usual procedure of non-functional upgradation(s).
(e) Cadre ratio as per the agreed position mentioned at (a) to (d) above, will be worked out and the ratio so worked out will be replicated to the SA cadre of RMS, PA cadre of Circle & Administrative Offices as also to the PA cadre of SBCO.
(f) In respect of Postmaster Grade I, Grade II and Grade III Posts, once the recommendations of this Committee are implemented; the matter will be examined in the light of the same.
(g) In the light of peculiar situation of Postman/Mail Guard cadre where the work for bulk of the cadre continues to remain the same; as a special case the Committee recommends the ratios as worked out in pursuance of (e) above may be considered for implementation for these cadres as well and that the cadre so restructured may concurrently get the benefit of MACP also.
(h) MTS being a common cadre in all Central Government Ministries/Departments’ will be extended the same benefits as commonly decided for them.

(M. Krishnan) General Secretary
AIPEU Group ‘C’
(NFPE)
(Giri Raj Singh) General Secretary
All India RMS & MMS
Employee Union, Group ‘C’
(NFPE)
(R. Seethalakshmi) General Secretary
AIPEU Postmen &
Group D’/MTS
(NFPE)
(D. Theagarajan) General Secretary
National Union of RMS &
MMS, Group ‘C’
(FNPO)
(T.N. Rahate) General Secretary
National Union of Postal
Employees, Postmen &
Group D’/MTS (FNPO)
(D. Kishan Rao) General Secretary
National Association of Postal Employees,
Group ‘C’ (FNPO)
(Surender Kumar) ADG (GDS/PCC) &
Member Secretary
(Alok Saxena) Deputy Director General
(PMU)/Secretary PSB
(Trishaljit Sethi) Deputy Director General
(Establishment)

(V. P. Singh)
Deputy Director General (Personnel) &
Chairman

Message by Secretary General, NFPE & FNPO on National Federation of Postal Employees blog:-

NFPE- FNPO
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES
FEDERATION OF NATIONAL POSTAL ORGANISATION
CENTRAL HEAD QUARTERS, NEWDELHI
28/04/2014
* CADRE RESTRUCTURING AGREEMENT SIGNED *

At last after several round of protracted negotiations with the administration, JCM Staff side, Departmental council ( NFPE & FNPO) has signed the cadre restructuring proposal. The staff side has tried to the best of its ability to make maximum improvement in the proposal. In spite of our hard bargaining we could not achieve 100 percent success. Our demand for separate higher pay scale for PO& RMS Accountants, Creation of separate cadre for System Administrators or grant of special pay/allowance, bringing MTS also under cadre restructuring etc is not accepted by the administration. Regarding Postmaster Cadre after much bargaining, it is agreed to examine our claim for higher pay scale after the present proposal is approved by the government.
As Govt has already appointed 7th CPC and the Pay Commission has already published the questionnaire, any further delay in completing the cadre restructuring will adversely affect the interest of Postal employees. We will take up the remaining issues, which are not agreed by the administration in the cadre restructuring committee with the 7thCPC in our memorandum and make one more effort to get a favourable recommendation.

Taking into consideration all the above aspects and also keeping in mind the larger interest of the employees, we have decided to sign the agreement
Copy of the agreement is published below (**Text of agreement reproduced  - see above**)
The Salient features of the agreement are as follows :
1. Number of LSG posts will increase from 8 % to 22 %
2. Number of HSG II posts will increase from 2 % to 12 %
3. Number of HSG I posts will increase from 1.5 % to 4 %
4. After completion of 2 years in HSG I the official will be promoted to 4800 GP (Non-functional Basis)
5. The above proposal will be applicable to RMS, Circle Office and SBCO in the same ratio
6. Postman/Mail guard will get the same ratio of promotion.
The present proposal is to be approved by Postal Board, DoPT & Finance Ministry. We will make all out effort to get the proposal implemented at an early date.
Yours sincerely
D. Theagarajan Secretary
General
FNPO
M. Krishnan Secretary
General
NFPE
Source: NFPE
[http://nfpe.blogspot.in/2014/04/cadre-restructuring-agreement-unions.html]

Now Trending

Holidays to be observed in Central Government Offices during the year 2020

Holidays to be observed in Central Government Offices during the year 2020 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HOLIDAY LISTS 2020 F.No.12/1/20...

Disclaimer:

All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy of the content on this blog, the same should not be construed as a statement of law or used for any legal purposes. Our blog "Central Government Staff news" accepts no responsibility in relation to the accuracy, completeness, usefulness or otherwise, of the contents. Users are advised to verify/check any information with the relevant department(s) and/or other source(s), and to obtain any appropriate professional advice before acting on the information provided in the blog.

Links to other websites that have been included on this blog are provided for public convenience only.

The blog "Central Government Staff news" is not responsible for the contents or reliability of linked websites and does not necessarily endorse the view expressed within them. We cannot guarantee the availability of such linked pages at all times.

Any suggestions write to us
centralgovernmentnews@gmail.com