Friday, November 23, 2012


                                                                                                             MEETING NOTICE

Government of India
Ministry of Communications & IT
Department of Posts
(SR Section)
                                                                                     Dak Bhawan, Parliament Street
                                                                                                               New Delhi 110001
No. 8/15/2011-SR (ATR)                                                                  Dated: 21st November, 2012
Sub:   Meeting notice of next periodical meeting with National Federation of Postal Employees (NFPE) and Federation of National Postal Organisations (FNPO) affiliated Unions.
Secretary (P) will take next periodical meeting with NFPE and FNPO affiliated Unions on 29th November, 2012 in Committee Room, Dak Bhawan as per the following timings:
National Federation of Postal Employees affiliated Unions.
1000 hrs to 1300 hrs.
Federation of National Postal Organisations and its affiliated Unions.
1400 hrs to 1700 hrs.
2.         Please make it convenient to attend the meeting.
        (Arun Malik)

Sunday, November 18, 2012




                       ONWARD TO GUNTUR
  Guntur Nagarjuna University entices you. Representative Delegates and the Active corps of the Postal national union movement will converge at Nagarjuna university premises in the month of January 2013 in a mammoth gathering to review the activities of the union in the last two years, analyse the present situation, take a peep in to the future and resolve upon the further steps to be taken to realize our objectives in the 20th All India conference of National Association of Postal Employees Group C Scheduled to be held from 10th to 12th January 2013. We shall be conferring when the USO is under threat, Euro is melting down and this has affected the world economy.Many European countries are facing poverty. As a result, the Indian economy was shaking ever before involving unbelievable price rise. The whole workers community in India is under threat. Indian Government is decided to invite FDI in retail markets whereas demonstrations are organized in Wall Street by the job seekers and middle class.
  The Ministry of communications, India has formulated National Postal Policy 2012 with ultimate aim of making the postal Department as a Public sector Unit. New developments rapidly taking place in the Department. Project Arrow was introduced and core banking is introduced as a first step, the Department is introducing anywhere/anytime/any branch banking through core banking solution. Business Development plans are expanding. The department signed agreements with Accenture Services for modernization of Postal functions. In order to grow organizationally the Department is mooting towards setting up of Post bank of India.
  The much awaited Postal Bill amending the Indian post office Act is yet to be tabled in the Parliament. But the new postal Policy is announced without the amended postal Bill. The staff is suffocated with the changes in the system. The job mobility, change in the atmosphere around us is a matter of concern. The defective HRD solutions and inadequate training, non availability of adequate infrastructure, resultant victimization of the staff is resulted in frustration. Management is not providing solutions and the old attitude of master servant relation instead of leadership role is creating uproar at the field level. The unilateral recovery from the lower level staff for the failures of the system is creating a sense of insecurity. The anomalies in implementation of MACP and denial of promotion to the staff, inordinate delay in restructuring of cadres is the concern of Group C employees. These are only illustrative not exhaustive. We have to, discuss, deliberate and decide future course of action and formulate demands.
Trek to Guntur in large numbers. We are looking forward to a return with hands laden with destiny.
             Let us make the 20th AIC a historic one, and, again, on to Guntur

D.Kishan Rao
General Secretary

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Min of Per, Public Grievances and Pensions
No. 22034/4/2012-Estt.(D) dated 02-11-2012

Subject: Comprehensive review of instructions pertaining to vigilance clearance for promotion – regarding

Instructions issued vide O.M. No. 22012/1/99-Estt.(D) dated 25.10.2004 based o the O.M. No. 22011/4/1991-Estt. (A) dated 14.09.1992 (issued on the basis of procedure laid down by Supreme Court in K.V., Jankiraman case AIR 1991 SC 2010) makes it clear that vigilance clearance for promotion may be denied only in the following three circumstances:-

            (i)         Government servants under suspension;
            (ii)         Government servants in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued
                          and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and
            (iii)        Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge
                          is pending.

            Withholding of vigilance clearance to a Government servant who is not under suspension or who has not been issued a charge sheet and the disciplinary proceedings are pending or against whom prosecution for criminal charge is not pending may not be legally tenable in view of the procedure laid down in the aforesaid O.Ms.

2.         Existing instructions provide for processing the cases of disciplinary proceedings in a time bound manner. A number of cases have however, come to notice where initiation of disciplinary proceedings/issue of charge sheet/processing of the case is considerably delayed by the administrative Ministries/ Departments. Such delays allow an officer whose conduct is under cloud, to be considered for promotion. It becomes essential in respect of officer(s) in whose case disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending and are included in consideration zone form promotion, necessary action be taken for placing the proposal before the DPC so that vigilance clearance is not allowed as per conditions mentioned in para 1 above.

3.         The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 27.08.1991 in Union of India Vs K.V. Jankiraman etc. (AIR SC 2010) has held;

            “5.        An employee has no right to promotion. He has only a 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
             interests. An employee found guilty of misconduct cannot be placed on par with
             the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. There is therefore,
             no discrimination when in the matter of promotion, he is treated differently”

4.         The issue of promotion of an officer who may be technically cleared from vigilance angle but in whose case it may not be appropriate to promote him/her in view of doubtful integrity or where a charge-sheet is under consideration etc. has been under examination in this Department.

5.         The O.M. No. 22012/1/99-Estt. (D) dated 25th October, 2004 further provides that a DPC shall asses the suitability of the Government servant coming within the purview of the circumstances mentioned in para 2 of the Office memorandum No. 22011/4/91-Estt.(A) date 14.09.1992, along with other eligible candidates, without taking into consideration the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution pending. No promotion can be withheld merely on the basis of suspicion or doubt or where the matter is under preliminary investigation and has not reached the stage of issue of charge sheet etc. if in the matter of corruption/dereliction of duty etc., there is a serious complaint and the matter is still under investigation, the Government is within its right to suspend the official. In that case, the officer’s case for promotion would automatically be required to be placed in the sealed cover.

6.         When a Government servant comes under a cloud, he may pass through three stages, namely, investigation, issue of charge sheet in Departmental Proceedings and/or prosecution for a criminal charge followed by either penalty/conviction or exoneration/acquittal. During the stage of investigation prior to issue of charge sheet in disciplinary proceedings or prosecution, if the Government is of the view that he charges are serious and the officer should not be promoted , it is open to the Government to suspend the officer which will lead to the DPC recommendation to be kept in sealed cover. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo/charge sheet is issued or the officer is placed under suspension. The tendency of preliminary investigations prior to that stage is not sufficient to adopt the sealed cover procedure.

7.         The law on sealed cover based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. K.V. Janakiraman etc. (AIR 1991 SC 2010), is by now well settled. The O.M. dated 14.9.92 confined the circumstances for adopting sealed cover to the three situations mentioned in para 2 of the said O.M. Even after recommendation of the DPC, but before appointment of the officer if any of the three situations arise, the case is deemed to have been kept in sealed cover by virtue of para 7 of the O.M. dated 14.9.92.

8.         As regards the stage when prosecution for  criminal charge can be stated to be pending, the said O.M. dated 14.9.92 does not specify the same and hence the definition of pendency of judicial proceedings in criminal cases given in Rule 9 (6)(b)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is adopted for the purpose. The Rule 9 (6)(b)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides as under:-

            “(b)       Judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted –
                        (i)         In the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the
                          complaint or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes
                          Cognizance, is made”.

9.         For the purpose of vigilance clearance for review DPC, instructions exist in O.M. No. 22011/2/99-Estt.(A) dated 21.11.2002 that review DPC will take into consideration the circumstances obtaining at the time of original DPC and any subsequent situation arising thereafter will not stand in the way of vigilance clearance for review DPC. However, before the officer is actually promoted it needs to be ensured that he/she is clear from vigilance angle and the provision of para 7 of O.M. No. 22011/4/91-Estt.(A)( dated 14.09.1992 are not attracted.

10.        Opening of sealed cover on conclusion of proceedings, is covered in the instructions in para 3 of the O.M. dated 14.9.92. In cases where by the time the Departmental proceedings are concluded and the officer is fully exonerated bnt another charge sheet has been issued, the second charge sheet will not come in the way of opening 0f sealed cover and granting promotion notionally from the date of promotion of the junior and para 7 of O.M. dated 14.9.92 will not apply as clarified in the O.M. No. 22011/2/2002-Estt.(A) dated 24.2.2003. After the disciplinary proceedings are concluded and penalty is imposed, vigilance clearance will not be denied. The details of the penalty imposed are to be conveyed to the DPC.

11.        This Department has issued separate instructions for accordance of vigilance clearance to a member of Central Civil Services/holder of Central Civil post with respect to (a) empanelment (b) deputation (c) appointments to sensitive posts and assignments to training programmers (except mandatory training) vide O.M. No. 11012/11/2007-(Estt. A) dated 14.12.2007. It has been further clarified in the O.M. No. 11012/6/2008-(Estt. A) dated 07.07.2008 that these instructions do not apply to promotions. While consideration for promotion is a right of an employee but empanelment, deputation, posting and assignment for training (except mandatory training) is not a right of an employee and is decided keeping in view the suitability of the officer and administrative exigencies.

12.        It may thus be noted that vigilance clearance cannot be denied on the grounds of pending disciplinary / criminal / court case against a Government servant, if the three conditions mentioned in para 2 of this Department’s O.M. dated 14.09.1992 are not satisfied. The legally tenable and objective procedure in such cases would be to strengthen the administrative vigilance in each Department and to provide for processing the disciplinary cases in a time bound manner. If the chares against a Government servant are grave enough and whom Government does not wish to promote, it is open to the Government to suspend such an officer and expedite the disciplinary proceedings.

13.        All Ministries/Departments are, therefore, requested to keep in view the above guidelines while dealing with cases of vigilance clearance for promotion of the Government servants.

(Virender Singh)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

Thursday, November 1, 2012

DG Posts No. 100-13/2012-Pen. Dated 11-10-2012

Subject: Follow-up Action on the proceedings of 21st Meeting of Standing Committee of Voluntary Agencies (SCOVA) held on 27.9.2012 – Circular for giving effect to the OM of DoP&PW posted in the Pensioners Portal Website for enhancement of Dearness relief for Pensioners / Family Pensioners – regarding.

The undersigned is directed to convey the decision of the Competent Authority that the OM of Department of Pension & PW posted in the Pensioners Portal for enhancement of Dearness Relief from time to time for Pensioners /Family Pensioners, may be given effect to by all the authorities concerned in the Department of posts, without waiting for any separate Circular of this Directorate for the purpose.

2.         All the Heads of the Circles etc. may issue suitable instructions to all the Offices under their respective jurisdiction to ensure compliance in this regard.

(P. Ahilan)

Dg Posts No. 14-1/2012-PAP dated 18-10-2012

Subject: Losses being suffered by the Department due to negligence of individuals instructions regarding

This is regarding losses being suffered by the Department on account of lack of awareness of rules and instructions / negligence’s on the part of individual’s officials in various matters.

2.         A number of cases have come to the notice of this Directorate where the department has been put to huge losses due to lack of awareness and / negligence on the part of individual officers/officials. Negligence on the part of individual officers/officials is not only causing financial losses to the Department, but also leading to grievances, litigation and embarrassment to the department by inviting untoward remarks from the nodal ministries/departments/courts.  A few examples of such type of cases seen in the recent past are given hereunder:

(i).        In one case, the duty hours of GDS delivery establishment were calculated on the basis of norms fixed for ‘foot beats’ instead of ‘cycle beats’ without going into details of the relevant instructions carefully. This resulted in calculation of more than justified work hours and thereby fixation of higher TRCA of the GDS concerned. By the time the mistake was noticed and corrected, overpayments to the tune of Rs 10.20 lakh had already been made. On receipt of the orders effecting recoveries of the overpaid amount, the GDS concerned approached Hon’ble CAT, which ordered that the recoveries be immediately stopped and amounts already recovered be refunded to the GDS concerned, since the error was not on the part of the GDS. The Department could not find relief upto Supreme Court and had to implement the Order of the CAT.

(ii)        In another case,  while implementing the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission wef 1.1.1996, and up gradation of the pay scale of postmen w.e.f. 1.10.1997,the pay of a number of postmen in several cases was fixed allowing two advance increments at each time of fixation, thereby causing heavy losses to the Exchequer. Here also, the Government could not find relief upto the Apex Court for the same reason that the mistake had been committed by the Department not by the Government servants concerned. The loss could not be recovered.

(iii)       Due to strong interpretation of the extant instructions a Hindi Translator (Group ‘C’ official) was allowed to avail LTC to North-Eastern Region by air from her headquarter itself, by tre ating her as ‘Group ‘B’ employee. She was allowed LTC advance accordingly. Before passing the bill, the matter was brought to the notice of this Directorate, at which stage the position was clarified. The affected official approached CAT and the matter is still under litigation.

(iv)       A particular field unit started payment of Transport Allowance at higher rates than those admissible to its staff for no apparent reasons and without any instructions/ orders on the subject. This caused huge financial loss to the Department. The matter was brought to the notice of the Directorate by the DA(P) concerned, whereupon the position  was clarified and the unit was ordered to make payments of the Transport Allowance to its staff at the applicable rates. The affected  employee  went to CAT, the orders have been stayed and the matter is still under litigation.

3.         The above few examples are illustrative in nature. There are many more such cases in which had the officials concerned gone through orders carefully, the instances of loss to the Exchequer could have been avoided. Such negligence on the part of the Department and its employees does also not find favour with Courts. As such, the department has lost a number of cases where the Courts have ruled in favour of the individuals on the grounds that they were not at fault for overpayments etc.  

4.         It is therefore, enjoyed upon all concerned to ensure that the officers / officials posted to perform various functions are well aware of rules and instructions pertaining to the subject and that they should perform their duties with due diligence. Negligence on the part of the employees should be viewed seriously. Responsibility for the lapses should invariably be fixed and the amount of losses recovered from the employees at fault.

5.         These instructions may please be brought to the notice of all concerned.

(Alok Saxena)