Wednesday, November 28, 2007

New Pension Scheme

Despite protest from Left parties, the New Pension scheme is set to roll from June 2008 with fund managers UTI Mutual Fund, State Bank of India and LIC having the option to invest up to 15% of the funds in equities.
The Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) appointed National Securities Deposiytoory Ltd., (NSDL) as the Central Recordkeeping Agency (CRA).
Except the three Left ruled States West Bengal, Tripura and Kerala which have opted out of New Pension Scheme, all the other 19 states have agreed for the interim arrangement.
Accordidng to NDSL Chairman, C.B.Bhave, the deepository has been appointed CRA for 10 years. Apart from setting up call centres to provid information to ccount holders,NSDL will issue "Permanent Retirement Account Number(PRAN) on the pattern of PAN card to ech pension account holder, priovide annual statements and act as an operational interface between the PFRDA and the fund managers.
The Govt. employees who joined the service since 1st January 2004 shall be covered under this scheme and they have to contribute 10% of the basic salary to the Pension fund.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Bonus (Amendment) Bill

The payment of Bonus (Amendment) bILL 2007 to replace an Ordnance was introduced on 22.11.07 in the Lok Sabha to increase the wage ceiling of the employees. The lelgislative will become effective from April, 2006.

As for as Central Governmentemployees are cocerned, theFinance Ministry should issue order raising the ceiling limit to Rs.3500/- and the same is awaited.

Pullout from Post schemes hits State

Deccan Chronicle Hyderabad Nov 23 : The real estate and share market boom has hit postal saving schemes badly in Andra Pradesh. in the last six months depositors with drew over Rs. 4500 crore from postal schemes and invested it in shares ,mutual funds and real estate.

Most of them felt that postal schemes which offer only nine percent interest annually were not attractive enough. The huge withdrawals will have an effect on State finances.The centre allows states to utilize 75 per cent of the postal savings under plan assistance. Last year,the state got Rs 3,447 crore out of the net deposit of Rs.4,596 crores (gross deposits amounted to Rs 10,171 crore)

Depositors withdrew the 4,596 crore and another Rs.198 crore deposited this year .The target for postal savings schemes for this year has been reduced to Rs.8,000 crore. The Govt.expects to get smaller deposits this year.
The Govt. is worried about this and has decided to ask the centre to make postal savings more attractive to retain investors. "We will raise the issue in the National Development council meeting to be held on December 9." said finance Minister K.Rosaiah .the minister is a member of the sub committee appointed by the centre to study small savings schemes.

"We will convince the Centre to extend income tax exemption to postal savings schemes so that people will come back to invest in them." Mr Rosaiah said.The Postal and small savings departments have not faced such crisis in the last three decades. In fact most of the depositors used to invest their funds.
: Nowadays people also prefer to invest in gold since it yields 30 percent returns within a year ," said Mr C.Kutumba Rao,Chief financial analyst of Prime India securities.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Payment of Bonus to C.G Employees

Letter from Sri. Umraomal Purohit, Secretary (Staff Side) J C M to Secretary DOP&T and Secretary, (Expenditure) Min. of Finance, Govt. of India
On raising the ceiling for calculation purpose from the salary or Rs.2500/- P.M to Rs.3, 500/- P.M for payment of Productivity Linked Bonus for the year 2006-07

Letter No. NC – JCM/2007/89/10-24 dated 31.10.2007
It has been learnt that on 27.10.2007 President has promulgated the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Ordinance 2007 according to which section 12 of the Payment of Bonus Act 1965 has been amended raising the ceiling for calculation purpose from salary of Rs.2500/- p.m to Rs.3, 500/- p.m w.e.f 1.4.2006.
It is, therefore, requested that for the payment of Productivity Linked Bonus/Adhoc Bonus for the year 2006-07 to Central Govt. employees, the ceiling for calculation purpose from salary also be raised from Rs.2500 p.m to Rs.3500 p.m and the revised orders issued for payment of Bonus for 2006-07 at the revised ceiling of Rs.3500 p.m.
Incidentally it may also be indicated that when the above ceiling was raised from Rs.1600/- p.m to Rs.2500/- p.m by amending Bonus Act in the past, the necessary change was also made in case of Central Govt. employees as well and the difference was paid. It is urged that amendment/correction may kindly be made without any undue delay so that Central Govt. employees are not unduly exercised.

Amendment to Bonus Act 1965

Amendment to the payment of Bonus act, 1965
The Cabinet in its meeting held on October, 1, 2007 has approved the Amendments to the payment of Bonus Act, 1965, which are as follows:
i) Amendment to Section 2 (13): To raise the eligibility limit for payment of bonus from the salary or wage of Rs.3500/- to Rs. 10,000 per month.
ii) Amendment to Section 12: To raise the ceiling for calculation purpose from the salary of wage of Rs.2500/- to Rs.3500/- per month, and:
iii) Deletion of Section 32 (vi): To cover the employees employed through contractors on building operations.
On 27th October 2007 the President has promulgated the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Ordininance, 2007 containing the following amendments: -
i) Amendment to clause (13) of Section 2 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 to raise the eligibility limit for payment of bonus from the salary or wage of Rs.3500/- per month to Rs.10, 000/- month.
ii) Amendment to Section 12 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 to raise the ceiling for calculation purpose from the salary or wage of Rs.2500/- per month to Rs.3500/- per month;
iii) Deletion of clause (vi) of section 32 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 so as to cover the employees employed through contractors on building operations.
Thus the employees, including those employed through contractors on building operations will be entitled to receive bonus as per the revised ceilings, for the year 2006-07 and onwards.
The Ordinance shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st April 2006.
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, Kartika 07, 1929 / October 29, 2007.

Review of the Franchising Scheme

A meeting to review of the Franchising Scheme was held with the Dept. of Posts on 19.11.2007 at Dak Bhawan. Sri. D.Theagarajan, Secretary General and Sri. Bhagawan, Financial Secretary, NUPE-C represented FNPO in the meeting along with leaders from NFPE side. The meeting was presided by the DDG Planning. Both the Federations opposed the franchising scheme. The FNPO opposed the scheme on the following grounds.
(a) During the discussion in the last meeting held on 3.11.2006, it was informed that these Franchising Post Offices would be provided in the extension areas of the city/town where the Post Offices are not available. But the promise of the Department was not kept up.
(b) According to information available, franchising did not bring any traffic to the Department as on date. The Secretary General furnished the information collected by him from the 10 franchisee outlets from Tamilnadu in support of his claim. The FNPO expressed the following apprehensions:
1. There is a possibility of mingling fake stamps into original stamps, as there is no cross check to see whether correspondingly functions done by franchisees, for example sale of postal statoneries (Stamps, inland letters, cover etc.,)decrease/increase in the post office concerned.
2. MO Commission is given as Rs. 3.50 per MO booked which will lead to unnecessary splits causing loss of commission earned by the Departrment. For example if Rs. 500 is sent as MO, normal commission is Rs. 25 (5 x 5). If the same amount is sent in 10 MOs of Rs.50/- each, commission to be given to franchise Rs. 3.50 x 10 = Rs. 35/- earning Rs. 25/- and paying Rs. 35 as commission.
3. If the franchise after collection of huge money from the public, absconded, then the Department will loose not only money but also the very image of the Department will go, causing damage to the Goodwill so far earned.
4. The most important point is that franchisees definitely will try to convert our customers into their customers by way of collection lf letters at their premises etc. This will lead to unnecessary payment of commission to the franchises.
5. As on date public is approaching post office only to send II class articles and parcels and Business Mails. Other personal communications are made only through electronic media such as cell phone, e-mail etc. The post is the last resort of personal communication. Therefore, franchising of Post Offices is not an alternative to bring the courier mails to the Department. Instead we can utilize our infrastructure properly. As on date we have 1,55,000 post offices unlike any other organization in the world. We can relocate the post offices wherever necessary.
6. Above all, the details of income which come from franchising outlets is very meager, a franchisee, paying Rs. 10,000/- as deposit getting commission of maximum Rs.2000/- per month, after employing a person in the shop. Therefore, this franchise willnot continue our job sincerely in due course. The scheme will become like 'PSSK', 'LSV' 'LPA' in near future. The scheme will not anyway to improve our business as well as the need of public. Hence, my Federation totally oppose the franchising of postal outlets.
{N.B: The abov note was given to the department by the FNPO on 19.11.07}
The department furnished the details of business transacted by the Franchisees in respect of sale of stamps/stgationery, No. of RLs booked, No of Speed Post articles booked, No. of Mos booked and retail services in Rupees.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Dept. Of Per & Trg O.K. 11012/6/2008-Estt/A 1.8.07
Sub: - Simultaneous action of prosecution in a court and initiation of departmental proceedings.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this M.H.A O.M.No. 39/30/54-Ests. Dated the 7th June 1955 and No. 39/8/64-Ests. dated the 4th Sept. 1964 on the above subject which state that prosecution should be the general rule in all cases which are found fit to be sent to Court and in which the offences are of bribery, corruption or other criminal misconduct involving loss of substantial public funds and that such cases departmental action should not precede prosecution. References are being received in this Department seeking the clarification as to whether departmental action can also be taken where the same matter has been taken up in a court of competent jurisdiction for prosecution of the Government servant concerned.
2. What may be deduced from the above instructions is that, in serious cases involving offences such as bribery/corruption, etc action should be launched for prosecution as a matter of course. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in their various judgments the important ones being State of Rajasthan v B.K.Meera and others {1996 6 SCC 417} Capt. M. Paul Anthony v Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1993 3 SCC 679), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v T. Srinivas (2004 (6) SCALE 467) and Noida Entrepreneurs’ Association v. Noida (JT 2007 (2) SC 620) that merely because a criminal trial is pending, a departmental inquiry involving the very same charges as is involved in the criminal proceedings is not barred. The approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences registered against the Government Servant are established and if, established, what sentence can be imposed on him. In serious nature of cases like acceptance of illegal gratification, the desirability of continuing the concerned Government servant in service in spite of the serious charges leveled against him may have to be considered by the Competent Authority to proceed with departmental action.
3. However if the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature which involves complicated questioned of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. This will depend upon the nature of offence and the evidence and material collected against the Government servant during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings even if they were kept pending on account of the pendency of the criminal case can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date so that if the employee is found not guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest if the case so warrants.
4. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Sarvesh Berry (2004 (10) SCALE Page 340), it has been held in Para 9 that “it is not desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental inquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. The Apex Court has referred to the conclusions given in Para 22 of Captain M. Paul Anthony’s case.
5. It is therefore, clarified that stay of disciplinary proceedings is not a must in every case where there is a criminal trial on the very same charges and the concerned authority may decide on proceeding with the departmental proceedings after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case and the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
6. All Ministries/Departments are therefore requested to keep in view the above guidelines while dealing with cases of criminal misconduct of Government servants.
Dept. of Per. & Trg. O.M No. 11012/4/2007-Estt. (A) 12.07.2007
Sub: - Amendment to the provisions of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 regarding review of suspension.
The undersigned is directed to refer to the provisions of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and to say that the provisions regarding deemed suspension have since been reviewed by this Department.
2. The provisions in Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules have been modified and amendment to the same have been notified in Notification No. GSR 105, dated 06-06-2007 published in the Gazette of India dated 16-06-2007.
3. As per the original provisions of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the provisions for review within ninety days was applicable to all types of suspensions. However, in cases of continued detention, the review becomes a mere formality with no consequences, as a Government servant in such a situation has to continue to be under deemed suspension. It has, therefore been decided that a review of suspension shall not be necessary in such cases. Accordingly, a provision has now been added to sub-rule (7) of the said Rule 10 as follows:
“Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under detention at the time of completion of ninety days’ of suspension and the ninety days period for review in such cases will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his Appointing Authority, whichever is later.”
4. In deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), the date of order of suspension may be much later than the deemed date of suspension. With a view to making these provisions explicit, sub rule (6) of the aforesaid Rule 10 has now been amended to substitute the words “ninety days from the date of order of suspension”. Consequent upon this amendment, it would henceforth be necessary to specifically indicate in the orders of suspension the effective date of suspension.
5. Sub-rule (7) of the aforesaid Rule 10 stipulates that” Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (5) (a), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub –rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.” “Sub-rule (5) (a) of the aforesaid Rule 10 has, therefore, now been amended to read as follows:
“Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (7), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so.”
Consequently, the words “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (5) (a)” stated in sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 have become redundant and have therefore been deleted.
6. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these amendments have been made in consultation with the Controller and Auditor General of India.
7. All Ministries/Departments are requested to please bring the aforementioned amendments of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to the notice of all Disciplinary Authorities under their control and ensure that review of the orders of suspension is conducted strictly in conformity with the amended provisions thereof.
No. 19-2/2001-ED & Trg. 14.6.07
Sub: - Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 143 of 2001 filed by Shri.Surinder Singh against Union of India and others against the judgment and order dated 27.09-2000 of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Write Petition No. 1328—CAT/2000.
I am directed to forward a copy of judgment dated the 30th March 2007 on the above subject delivered by the Apex Court. In this case, the following questions of law have been raised before the Supreme Court:
(i) Whether the selection to post of EDDA (now called GDS Mail Deliverer) can be quashed by the Tribunal when minimum qualification prescribed for a post is middle standard and merit list is prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the preferential qualification, i.e. matriculation, and
(ii) Whether the Tribunal is competent to lay down the procedure for selection of a candidate and further empowered to impose conditions and restricts the exercise of the power of the employer in making the appointment as per prescribed rules.
2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the following orders issued by the Department:
(a) Letter No. 17-366/91 – ED & Trg. Dated 12-3-1993.
(b) Letter No. 19-17/97-ED & Trg. Dated 21-11-1997
The Apex Court at P.10 of judgment has observed that “guidelines/norms/instructions clearly stipulate that if the candidates, who have passed matriculation examination, are available for selection to the posts of EDDA, the selection should be made by the Selection Committee on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in preferential qualification (i.e matriculation) and in the absence of matriculate candidates, the selection has to be made on the basis of essential qualification, viz., 8th standard. It appears that the CAT as well as the High Court, both have lost sight of the object and import of the Guidelines/Norms/instructions, dated 21.07.1998 laid down by a Competent Authority. The CAT is not competent to lay down criteria for the selection and appointment to the post of EDDA. It is the prerogative and authority of the employer to lay down suitable service conditions to the respective posts.In our view, in service jurisprudence, the prescription of preferential qualification not only refers to numeric superiority but is essentially related to better mental capacity, ability and maturity to shoulder the responsibilities, which are entrusted to the candidates after their selection to a particular post. All the more, it is important for efficient and effective administration. The basic object of prescribing a minimum qualification is to put a cut-off level for a particular job in accordance with the minimum competency required for the performance of that job. The object of prescribing preferential qualification is to select the best amongst the better candidates who possess more competence than the other. Sub-Clause (iv) of Clause 3, puts a limit with respect to preferential qualification by way of clear stipulation that no preference should be given to the qualification above matriculation. Hence, the preferential qualification was considered to be more effective and efficient and also it was a clear assumption that a candidate possessing the same is best suited for the post in question.

……………in Government of Andhra Pradesh v P.Dilip Kumar and another (}1993)2 SCC 310}, this court in paragraph 13 held as under:-,
“13………………There is nothing arbitrary of unreasonable in the employer preferring a candidate with higher qualification for service. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that classification on the basis of higher educational qualification to achieve higher administrative efficiently is permissible under our constitutional scheme.”
Further in Paragraph 15, it is observed as under:
“15……….it is true that notwithstanding the preference rule it is always open to the recruiting agency to prescribe a minimum eligibility qualification with a view to demarcating and narrowing down the field of choice with the ultimate objective of permitting candidate with higher qualifications to enter the zone of consideration.”

In view of above stated factual situation and settled position of law, the orders of CAT as well as High Court cannot be sustained.”
You are requested to bring the contents of this important judgment to the notice of all concerned for information, guidance and necessary action. If any such case is presently pending before CAT/High Court, the contents of this judgment may be brought to the notice of the concerned CAT/High Court, through CGSC.

Govt. Orders

Min.of Finance & Dep. Of Expenditure O.M.No. 2 (6)/2007-E-II (B) dated 21.09/07
Sub: - Upgradation of Bangalore as A-1 class city for the purpose of House Rent Allowance/Compensatory (City) Allowance – reg
The undersigned is directed to invite attention to this Ministry’s O.M.No. 2 (21)/E (B)/2004 dated 18.11.2004 regarding reclassification/upgradation of cities on the basis of the population figures of 2001 census for the purpose of House Rent Allowance/Compensatory (City) Allowance to the Central Government employees and to say that consequent upon reconstitut9on of the area of Bangalore Mahanagara Palika and re-naming it as Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palika with the addition of certain areas within its Municipal limits vide notification No. UDD 92 MNY 2006 dated 16.01.2007 of the Government of Karnataka the population of Brukat Bangalore Mahanagara Palika’ has increased and therefore, qualified for classification as “A-1” class city for the purpose of House Rent Allowance/Compensatory (City) Allowance to the Central Government employees.2. The President is, accordingly, pleased to decide that the city of Bangalore (including existing Urban Agglomeration) shall stand classified as ‘A-1’ class city for the purpose of grant of House Rent Allowance/Compensatory (city) Allowance to the Central Government employees posted there.
3. These orders shall be effective from 1st April 2007.
4. These orders will apply to all civilian employees of the Central Government. The orders will also be applicable to the civilian employees paid from the Defence Services Estimates. In respect of Armed Forces personnel and Railway employees, separate orders will be issued by the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Railways, respectively
5. In so far as the persons serving in the India Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders issue in consultation with the Comptroller & Auditor General of India.

Govt. Orders

No. 51 – 1/ 2004 – SPB – II 13.2.2004
Sub: - Non invalidation of a Govt. servant who has been permanently incapacitated from Govt. Service on account of mental or physical disability – Information regarding.
I am directed to forward herewith a copy of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training O.M.No. 13015/3/2002-Estt. (L) dated 19.01.2004 on the above subject for information and necessary action.
1) The Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment (Disabilities Div.) has amended Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 and under the amended provisions:
No establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during his service and the employee who has acquired disability if is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale & service benefits. In case it is not possible to adjust him against any post, he may be kept on supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability.
Provided that the appropriate govt. may having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by Notification and subject to such conditions, if any as may be specified in such Notification, exempt any establishment from the provision of this section.
In view of the aforesaid position, the position of Rule 20 (2) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 shall be as under:
a) If he is on duty, shall not be invalidated from service during his service period.
b) If he is already on leave, the period of leave or an extension thereafter to the extent permissible under sub-rule (1) of this rule and even beyond that may be granted as per relevant rule(s).
3., Amendment in Rule 20 (2) is being carried out on the above lines.
4. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders issue in consultation with the Comptroller & Auditor General of India.
(sd) R. Chattopadhyaya Under Secretary to the Govt. of India.

Review of the Franchise Scheme

Dept.of Posts Letter No.40-36/2006-Plg dated 13 11.2007

This is in continuation of this office letter dated 2.11.2007 regarding review of the Franchise Scheme. It is proposed to have further discussion with the representatives of the Unions/Associations who could not participate on 12.11.2007.

2. It has accofdidngly been decided to share the results of the review of the Frnchise Scheme with the Unions/Associations on 19.11.2007 at 11.45 a.m in the Committee Room, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi.

3. It is reuested to kindly make it convenient to participarte in the discussion on19.11.2007 at 11.45 a,m, as aforesaid.

Franchise Of Post Offices

The dept opened hundred post offices in India in private sector during 1996. There was an agreement in April 2007 to review the continuance of these post offices. The crucial meeting is scheduled to be held on 19th November 2007.The results of the meeting will be placed in the website tomorrow.

General Secretary.NUPE G-C.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Welcome To NUPE Group-C : D.Kishan Rao

Hi Friends,

Welcome to
National Union Of Postal Employees, Group-C Web Link

D.Kishan Rao,
General Secretary,NUPE G-C.