NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES
1st Floor, North Avenue Post Office Building, New Delhi 110001
PF- 14 /2008 Dated 17th April 2008
To
The Secretary
Department of Posts
Dak Bhawan
New Delhi – 110001
Sub: Views of NFPE on certain recommendations of 6th CPC and request for modification / improvements sought thereon – reg.
Sir,
As a follow up to the informal discussions the Staff Side had with the DDG [Estt] on 4.4.2008, we place the following views of our Federation with a request for modification or improvement on certain recommendations of the Pay Commission with regard to Department of Posts.
Upgradation of Group ‘D’: All the non-matriculate Group ‘D’ officials including non-test category officials should be imparted with the proposed retraining and placed without any restriction in upgraded PB-1 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. We also request the department of posts to consider upgradation to the pre-revised 3050-4590 scale since 2750-4400 is not in existence in our department.
Ensuring promotional avenues of GDS and Casual labourers: We request that the present system of promotional avenues available to Gramin Dak Sevaks to Group D and C posts shall continue in the present format of seniority as well as examinations and all vacant posts of Group ‘D’ also to be upgraded and allotted for GDS on seniority basis, who should also be imparted with the same retraining like Group ‘D’ and placed in PB-1.
TBOP / LSG, BCR / HSG-II: The recommendation placing TBOP PAs/SAs as well as the LSG Supervisors in the same pay band of PB-1 along with the upgraded Group D has caused a lot of resentment. This will de-motivate the entire PA/SA and TBOP/LSG work force. The Department may consider the fact that the TBOP / BCR introduced for both Postal and Telecom under the same orders but subsequently after the recommendations of V CPC implemented, the Telecom Department [before conversion as BSNL itself] got these two scales upgraded into 5000-8000 for TBOP and 5500-9000 for BCR. Thus there exists discrimination between the two wings of the same Ministry of Communications. If the Department of Posts could consider this and TBOP and BCR are upgraded in the Department of Posts also to the same level, then by virtue of that the TBOP / LSG Supervisors also would be placed in the pay band of PB-2. This may be considered.
Supervisory Allowance: The stand of the Department is that LSG and HSG are norm based supervisor posts and TBOP / BCR are non-functional posts. The recommendations of the pay commission have not made any distinction between the supervisors and the supervised. It is a fact that supervisors are holding higher responsibilities and therefore it is suggested that element of supervisory allowance may be reintroduced. The matching savings element is now no more valid since the TBOP and BCR are no more considered as promotions but only financial upgradations. Re-introduction of graded supervisory allowance for LSG, HSG-II and HSG-I to match the supervisory responsibilities are therefore most justified to motivate the officials who shoulder extra responsibilities and needs to be considered by the Department afresh in the background of distinction now being made as supervisors and non-functional officials. The Pay Commission has failed to consider this aspect altogether. The same may be considered now and 10% Pay + Grade Pay may be fixed as Supervisory Allowance as in the case of the recommendation to the Caretakers vide Para 3.8.8 of 6th CPC Report.
Supervisory Allowance to Selection Grade Postmen: The Selection Grade Postmen like Sorting Postmen, Head Postmen, Mail Overseer, Cash Overseer and allied cadres like Head Mail Guard / Head Mail Peon etc are ignored by the Pay Commission. We request the Department to consider reintroduction of Supervisory Allowance at the rate of 10% of Pay + Grade Pay as recommended to the Caretakers by the Pay Commission.
System Administrators: The technical knowledge acquired by the System Administrators and the role being played by them in computerizing the offices all over the country as well as ensuring the smooth running of the net work is unfortunately overlooked by the Pay commission. In no other department such a massive computerization could have taken place without employing outside knowledge. It is known that these category of staff work beyond 8 Hours daily as well as called to assist by field offices at odd hours also. We request the department may consider grant of 10% of Pay + Grade Pay as recommended in the case of caretakers vide Para 3.8.8 of CPC Report to distinguish them from the other operative staff as an interim measure. We also request to consider the issue of formation of a separate technology wing like civil wing and make the System Administrators a separate establishment.
Marketing Executives: The Pay Commission has not considered the issue of marketing executive also. These are the staff that actually performs by procuring mails for the department with their higher skill and knowledge. In order to compete the couriers it is essential that such category of staff are properly recognised with financial package. The Department may consider grant of 10% of Pay + Grade Pay as recommended in the case of caretakers vide Para 3.8.8 of CPC Report to distinguish them from the other operative staff as an interim measure pending consideration for a separate establishment.
PO & RMS Accountants: Unfortunately the 6th CPC has not considered granting higher scale favourably. It has recommended only doubling of Special Allowance for this category. This will take away the charm in aspiring Accountants who had to undergo a tuff examination. This issue is pending from the time of V CPC itself. We request the Department to reconsider and grant higher scale to Accountants. We request the Department to consider that at least this Special Allowance may be taken for pay fixation benefit similar to that of the JAO qualified hands in Postal Accountants granted vide DG Posts Order No.8 (1) 2004/PA-Admn/501 dated 29.10.2006.
Cash Handling Allowance to PO Treasurers: The Pay Commission has unfortunately not considered the case of Treasurers properly. In most cases the PO Treasurers are handling more cash than the RMS Cashiers. The Department may consider the parity between the PO Treasurer and RMS Cashier in the matter of Allowance by changing the nomenclature of Treasurer into Cashier since the nature of job is identical. This will end the age-old disparity between the two.
Charge Hand in MMS: The bringing together of both Charge Hand and the Artisan Grade I in the same pay band PB-1 by the Pay Commission is causing much resentment. Earlier the Charge Hand was in higher scale than Artisan Grade I. The recommendation of the Commission has upset this relativity. We request that the Department may consider upgrading Charge Hand to PB-2 scale of pay.
Despatch Rider: The 6th CPC has unfortunately ignored this cadre altogether. Recruitment Rules and minimum qualification for Despatch Rider is the same like Drivers. We request the Department may consider merging this cadre with the Driver.
Sorters: Sorters who are an isolated cadre remained on par with Postmen by IV CPC recommendation. That parity got disturbed after V CPC and further disturbed now. We request at least the Sorter cadre be merged with the LDC and upgraded to pre-revised 3050-4590 scale.
Development Officers: The PLI Development Officers are to be considered by the Department for upgradation of scale.
The above suggestions are not exhaustive. We are holding our Federal Executive on 28th and 29th April 2008 and any further views will be submitted to your consideration in the first week of May 2008.
The Staff Side was assured that there would be more interactions with us and that before the Department sends its final report to the Ministry of Finance, the Staff Side would be fully consulted. We thank the Department for this stand and we look forward to sorting out the anomalies and other problems by the Department.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully,
Sd/[
[K.Ragavendran]
Secretary General
1st Floor, North Avenue Post Office Building, New Delhi 110001
PF- 14 /2008 Dated 17th April 2008
To
The Secretary
Department of Posts
Dak Bhawan
New Delhi – 110001
Sub: Views of NFPE on certain recommendations of 6th CPC and request for modification / improvements sought thereon – reg.
Sir,
As a follow up to the informal discussions the Staff Side had with the DDG [Estt] on 4.4.2008, we place the following views of our Federation with a request for modification or improvement on certain recommendations of the Pay Commission with regard to Department of Posts.
Upgradation of Group ‘D’: All the non-matriculate Group ‘D’ officials including non-test category officials should be imparted with the proposed retraining and placed without any restriction in upgraded PB-1 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. We also request the department of posts to consider upgradation to the pre-revised 3050-4590 scale since 2750-4400 is not in existence in our department.
Ensuring promotional avenues of GDS and Casual labourers: We request that the present system of promotional avenues available to Gramin Dak Sevaks to Group D and C posts shall continue in the present format of seniority as well as examinations and all vacant posts of Group ‘D’ also to be upgraded and allotted for GDS on seniority basis, who should also be imparted with the same retraining like Group ‘D’ and placed in PB-1.
TBOP / LSG, BCR / HSG-II: The recommendation placing TBOP PAs/SAs as well as the LSG Supervisors in the same pay band of PB-1 along with the upgraded Group D has caused a lot of resentment. This will de-motivate the entire PA/SA and TBOP/LSG work force. The Department may consider the fact that the TBOP / BCR introduced for both Postal and Telecom under the same orders but subsequently after the recommendations of V CPC implemented, the Telecom Department [before conversion as BSNL itself] got these two scales upgraded into 5000-8000 for TBOP and 5500-9000 for BCR. Thus there exists discrimination between the two wings of the same Ministry of Communications. If the Department of Posts could consider this and TBOP and BCR are upgraded in the Department of Posts also to the same level, then by virtue of that the TBOP / LSG Supervisors also would be placed in the pay band of PB-2. This may be considered.
Supervisory Allowance: The stand of the Department is that LSG and HSG are norm based supervisor posts and TBOP / BCR are non-functional posts. The recommendations of the pay commission have not made any distinction between the supervisors and the supervised. It is a fact that supervisors are holding higher responsibilities and therefore it is suggested that element of supervisory allowance may be reintroduced. The matching savings element is now no more valid since the TBOP and BCR are no more considered as promotions but only financial upgradations. Re-introduction of graded supervisory allowance for LSG, HSG-II and HSG-I to match the supervisory responsibilities are therefore most justified to motivate the officials who shoulder extra responsibilities and needs to be considered by the Department afresh in the background of distinction now being made as supervisors and non-functional officials. The Pay Commission has failed to consider this aspect altogether. The same may be considered now and 10% Pay + Grade Pay may be fixed as Supervisory Allowance as in the case of the recommendation to the Caretakers vide Para 3.8.8 of 6th CPC Report.
Supervisory Allowance to Selection Grade Postmen: The Selection Grade Postmen like Sorting Postmen, Head Postmen, Mail Overseer, Cash Overseer and allied cadres like Head Mail Guard / Head Mail Peon etc are ignored by the Pay Commission. We request the Department to consider reintroduction of Supervisory Allowance at the rate of 10% of Pay + Grade Pay as recommended to the Caretakers by the Pay Commission.
System Administrators: The technical knowledge acquired by the System Administrators and the role being played by them in computerizing the offices all over the country as well as ensuring the smooth running of the net work is unfortunately overlooked by the Pay commission. In no other department such a massive computerization could have taken place without employing outside knowledge. It is known that these category of staff work beyond 8 Hours daily as well as called to assist by field offices at odd hours also. We request the department may consider grant of 10% of Pay + Grade Pay as recommended in the case of caretakers vide Para 3.8.8 of CPC Report to distinguish them from the other operative staff as an interim measure. We also request to consider the issue of formation of a separate technology wing like civil wing and make the System Administrators a separate establishment.
Marketing Executives: The Pay Commission has not considered the issue of marketing executive also. These are the staff that actually performs by procuring mails for the department with their higher skill and knowledge. In order to compete the couriers it is essential that such category of staff are properly recognised with financial package. The Department may consider grant of 10% of Pay + Grade Pay as recommended in the case of caretakers vide Para 3.8.8 of CPC Report to distinguish them from the other operative staff as an interim measure pending consideration for a separate establishment.
PO & RMS Accountants: Unfortunately the 6th CPC has not considered granting higher scale favourably. It has recommended only doubling of Special Allowance for this category. This will take away the charm in aspiring Accountants who had to undergo a tuff examination. This issue is pending from the time of V CPC itself. We request the Department to reconsider and grant higher scale to Accountants. We request the Department to consider that at least this Special Allowance may be taken for pay fixation benefit similar to that of the JAO qualified hands in Postal Accountants granted vide DG Posts Order No.8 (1) 2004/PA-Admn/501 dated 29.10.2006.
Cash Handling Allowance to PO Treasurers: The Pay Commission has unfortunately not considered the case of Treasurers properly. In most cases the PO Treasurers are handling more cash than the RMS Cashiers. The Department may consider the parity between the PO Treasurer and RMS Cashier in the matter of Allowance by changing the nomenclature of Treasurer into Cashier since the nature of job is identical. This will end the age-old disparity between the two.
Charge Hand in MMS: The bringing together of both Charge Hand and the Artisan Grade I in the same pay band PB-1 by the Pay Commission is causing much resentment. Earlier the Charge Hand was in higher scale than Artisan Grade I. The recommendation of the Commission has upset this relativity. We request that the Department may consider upgrading Charge Hand to PB-2 scale of pay.
Despatch Rider: The 6th CPC has unfortunately ignored this cadre altogether. Recruitment Rules and minimum qualification for Despatch Rider is the same like Drivers. We request the Department may consider merging this cadre with the Driver.
Sorters: Sorters who are an isolated cadre remained on par with Postmen by IV CPC recommendation. That parity got disturbed after V CPC and further disturbed now. We request at least the Sorter cadre be merged with the LDC and upgraded to pre-revised 3050-4590 scale.
Development Officers: The PLI Development Officers are to be considered by the Department for upgradation of scale.
The above suggestions are not exhaustive. We are holding our Federal Executive on 28th and 29th April 2008 and any further views will be submitted to your consideration in the first week of May 2008.
The Staff Side was assured that there would be more interactions with us and that before the Department sends its final report to the Ministry of Finance, the Staff Side would be fully consulted. We thank the Department for this stand and we look forward to sorting out the anomalies and other problems by the Department.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully,
Sd/[
[K.Ragavendran]
Secretary General
2 comments:
Comrade, As I have joined as HSG-II SRO at Alappuzha, I could read the details today only. Unfortunately we could not discuss in detail about the VI CPC in Circle Conference held at Kasaragod. The representation seems covered all most all points. Reductions in retirement benefits should also be exposed. I request you to give directions to all Circle Secretaries to discuss in detail about the matter and send suggestions. With regards,
D. Sathyaseelan
HSG-II SRO, Alappuzha, Kerala.
Sir
A Technical Wing as like Postal Civil and Postal Electrical Wing is need of the hour. Though Department of Posts has taken up the project of Computerization of its Post Offices since last 20 years but it has not given proper thought on its implementation neither it has given due weitage to the human resource development. Whatever the Department has gained in the field of Computerization its because of the Hard work being given by the System Administrators from the PA cadre. As the Department is going towards full computerization including the Branch Offices through Online transactions i.e. Any time banking the duties and responsibilites of the System Administrators will increase manifold. Hence without a separate Technical Wing this huge work cannot be implementate properly neither our justified demands will get proper attention. We strongly demand a separate Technical Wing with due status to the System Administrators.
Prodip Dutta,
System Administrator,
Midnapore Division,
West Bengal Circle
Post a Comment