tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953363395711520086.post4142880585326410229..comments2024-03-25T09:59:14.448+05:30Comments on National Federation of Postal Employees: FEDERAL EXECUTIVE OF NFPENFPEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02066015506814442021noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953363395711520086.post-24468787504639550752007-12-25T21:13:00.000+05:302007-12-25T21:13:00.000+05:30dear comradedear comraderajendiranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09747553056656453290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953363395711520086.post-46310633087364702382007-12-25T21:00:00.000+05:302007-12-25T21:00:00.000+05:30DEAR COMRADE,It is sad, and I am very much dismaye...DEAR COMRADE,<BR/><BR/>It is sad, and I am very much dismayed at the fact that the department is conducting<BR/>Group B Examination, with the eligibility condition of 5years regular service in LSG<BR/>despite the efforts taken by the Federation and P3 CHQ.The Department without ,amending the recruitment rules,(the last amendment was made in the year 1994 )has denied a number of aspiring officials with 5 years service in TBOP,by mere<BR/>executive instructions, a rare chance of career progression.The Recruitment rules clearly states<BR/>that Clerical line Officials working in Post Offices with 5 Years service in LSG<BR/>,AND ABOVE are eligible.The intention of the Recruitment rules is 5 years service in 4500-7000 scale<BR/>whatever be the nomenclature.The Department cannot takeaway the vested rights of<BR/>TBOP Officials with 5 years service, by mere executive instructions .The stand taken by the <BR/>Department cannot be valid since any modification to the eligibility conditions<BR/>can only be made by Amendment to Recruitment Rules,by following provisions of<BR/>Article 309,and laying them before the PARLIAMENT with respect to subordinate legislation<BR/>and not by mere executive instructions.There is no differentiation in the Recruitment rules<BR/>between regular LSG and TBOP,and it does not bar TBOP Oficials specifically.<BR/><BR/> The Deparment's stand is clearly violative of Article 14 and 19.<BR/><BR/>This unconstitutional stand of the Department should be fought to the finish<BR/>to meet the ends of justice and to enable the TBOP Officials, who have all along been nurturing aspiration to<BR/>take up the Examination , on completion of 5 years service .<BR/><BR/>I, on my part, is contemplating filing an O.A.at CHENNAI CAT through SRI K.M.RAMESH ADVOCATE<BR/>,and the O.A. will be filed next week.<BR/><BR/>Please pursue the case at FEDERATION AND P3 level.A strong protest may be filed <BR/>with the Department initially ,for not heeding to the demand of the Unions<BR/>and arbitrary conduct of the Examination.Pl.,write to the Department to get the<BR/>EXAMINATION STAYED.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>with regards<BR/><BR/><BR/>YOURS COMRADELY,<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>P.RAJENDIRAN<BR/>SPM ALAGAPURAM P.O.<BR/>SALEM 636004<BR/>TAMILNADU<BR/><BR/><BR/>savisaran@eth.net<BR/><BR/>25.12.2007rajendiranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09747553056656453290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953363395711520086.post-90372707176560027162007-12-25T19:57:00.000+05:302007-12-25T19:57:00.000+05:30deardearrajendiranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09747553056656453290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953363395711520086.post-19178365167278243792007-12-25T13:13:00.000+05:302007-12-25T13:13:00.000+05:30dear Com.RaghavendranI have gone through the GDS m...dear Com.Raghavendran<BR/>I have gone through the GDS memorandum once more after your reply.i find I am right.There is only a casual mention on EPF .No specific demand.further I had published my comment on GDS memorandum that it is only partial.No rely is seen published<BR/>Devanand.N<BR/>RMS<BR/>Kerala circleDEVANAND.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05371374097549972732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953363395711520086.post-38105193335895406482007-12-12T00:58:00.000+05:302007-12-12T00:58:00.000+05:30Dear Comrade Devanand, Kindly go through the GDS M...Dear Comrade Devanand, <BR/><BR/>Kindly go through the GDS Memorandum submitted by the NFPE to the 6th CPC under Chapter X on Social Security Scheme [please follow the link available in the NFPE web site] wherein it has been pointed out as to what the Central Provident Fund Commissioner had stated before the Justice Talwar Committee in the year 1976. This is brought to the knowledge of the 6th Pay Commission only to take care of the issue that you have desired to be taken up and I once again assure you that this would be kept in mind while negotiations take place on the social security issues for the GDS in future.NFPEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02066015506814442021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953363395711520086.post-4925458941379597472007-12-12T00:15:00.000+05:302007-12-12T00:15:00.000+05:30Dear Comrade! No doubt during 1974 when the moveme...Dear Comrade! No doubt during 1974 when the movement of P&T was vertically and horizontally stood divided, an agreement for 20% LSG was signed in the JCM Departmental Council. The timing of the 20% LSG Promotions just on the eve of the NFPTE workers faction called upon to join the P&T employees to join the historic Railway Strike was viewed very critically by the progressive forces as a tool to prevent the P&T employees from joining the strike. Yes, it is a fact that granting of 20% LSG was a step forward at that time because of lack of promotions to overwhelming majority of staff. However we know well that it did not solve the problem of stagnation of PA/SA cadre without even getting to LSG because soon after implementation of 20% LSG, people started retiring as PA/SA. It was only in that background after a long battle of ideas over running scale and time-bound promotions, the P&T movement ultimately demanded and got TBOP to ensure the first promotion of LSG for all who have completed 16 years. <BR/><BR/>This mitigated the problem of non-availability of LSG vacancies limited to only 20% at that point of time and paved way for all to attain LSG promotion based on their own service in the cadre. Later on the second promotion in the shape of BCR ensured every one with 26 years of service to reach the HSG-II in-situ. Definitely in that background there was no basis or need to demand only 20% LSG anymore. <BR/><BR/>The TBOP and BCR officials just started manning the HSG-II and LSG posts and more posts were identified to place the TBOP/BCR officials with some higher responsibility since the BCR/TBOP officials outnumbered the so called standard supervisory posts. But over and above that, more number of TBOP/BCR were allowed to perform in non-supervisory work also. The Department called the TBOP and BCR as promotions and always equated them with LSG and HSG-II only. <BR/><BR/>The problem arose later on two counts:<BR/><BR/>1. Denial of higher pay scale to TBOP/LSG and BCR/HSG-II by the 5th CPC and the adamant attitude of the Government against sorting out this anomaly despite our protracted struggles; and <BR/><BR/>2. Unilaterally calling the TBOP and BCR as just financial up gradations and thus distinguished them from standard LSG and HSG-II posts. <BR/><BR/>In the meanwhile we know very well that the department had dispensed with the very LSG – HSG II promotions for long years after the introduction of TBOP/BCR Scheme. To complicate the matter further the department had again unilaterally introduced the fast track scheme, which was scrapped only after more crises were caused.<BR/><BR/>Taking all these factors into consideration we have submitted our demands before the 6th CPC. As I said before the SLP in the Apex Court is also pending. We maintain that TBOP is equal to LSG and the BCR is equal to HSG-II and that there should be no distinction between the two because the very TBOP – BCR schemes were promotional schemes only and so termed also all along. Suddenly attempting to term them as just financial up gradation on par with ACP scheme cannot be agreed upon by us. This is why we did not demand separate pay scales for TBOP, LSG, BCR and HSG-II like that. Our case before the Apex Court is the same. Our submission before the Pay Commission also is the same. Our argument during tendering oral evidence before the Pay Commission also is the same. The issue is neither given up nor forgotten and definitely not one that can be termed as betrayal. <BR/><BR/>Now the whole issue is revolving around the possible outcome of the Pay Commission. It will be taken up with top priority after the submission of the recommendations by the Pay Commission. The anomaly that the BCR officials in 5000-8000 pay scale are being promoted to LSG in 4500-7000 lower pay scale was very sharply brought before the Pay Commission also, which you will be able to appreciate on your reading the memorandum submitted by us to the Pay Commission. We hope to get some justice either in the shape of TBOP/BCR equated with LSG/HSG-II and if not agreed upon then definitely separate pay scales for TBOP, LSG, BCR and HSG-II. Any injustice in this matter you may be rest assured would bring out our violent reactions. <BR/><BR/> In the meanwhile we are doing everything to ensure notional promotion to senior officials as agreed upon by the Department of Posts during April 2007 negotiations from the year from which the LSG Promotion was not done in respective circles to mitigate the problem that arose due to the new concept unilaterally introduced by the Department, which places the senior officials at a very disadvantageous position against moving up in the ladder of supervisory posts in contrast to their junior officials.NFPEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02066015506814442021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953363395711520086.post-2101868763660555082007-12-08T14:20:00.000+05:302007-12-08T14:20:00.000+05:30Dear comrade rahgavendranI as talking about EPF ru...Dear comrade rahgavendran<BR/>I as talking about EPF rules.it is clear all employers other than those having their own PF scheme are liable to open an account in EPF.Postal department is having a PF scheme but only forpart of their employees.<BR/>GDS they say are not employees and hence no PF.<BR/>(now no entry in the postal associations also.)<BR/>Then postal authorities are bound to open an EPF account for every GDS by EPF rules.<BR/>Why not federation ask the EPF commissioner to take legal action against postal department for violating EPF rules?<BR/>This has nothing to do with the points raised in your reply.we need not demand anything from the DOPost.<BR/>Thank you<BR/>Devanand.N<BR/>RMS KeralaDEVANAND.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05371374097549972732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953363395711520086.post-66187301072021886422007-12-08T14:09:00.000+05:302007-12-08T14:09:00.000+05:30Dear comrade raghavendranThank you for your reply....Dear comrade raghavendran<BR/>Thank you for your reply.it is geat that we have developed a mechanism to interact.<BR/>" The case is still going on. But how come you jump to conclusion that the Federal Executive of NFPE is silent on this betrayal?"<BR/>But didnot use the word betrayal.<BR/>But 20 %of employees are to be made LSG by 74 JCM decision.But it was not maintained later.We donot demand to impliment it?right!<BR/>For TBOP/BCR maching saving was given for the upgradation of posts .This exercise were done only for few years.Then stoped upgrading posts but we were silentbut allowed to make the maching saving reduction.<BR/>I have never come accross a statement against this from federation till now.RIGHT?<BR/>Now department had changed the nomanclature.<BR/>SA/PA<BR/>TBOPSA/PA<BR/>BCRSA/PA<BR/>LSAGSA/PA<BR/>LSG(TBOP)SA/PA <BR/>LSG(BCR)SA/PA<BR/>HSG2SA/PA<BR/>HSG1SA/PA<BR/>This order became aginst our promotional interest.But we didnot saw this order in our favour.<BR/>Why federation didnot demand 8 seperate payscales for all these new posts?<BR/>Now LSG /HSG passed by 2/3rd examinations are ranked senior to LSG(TBOP) and LSG(BCR).TBOP/BCR officials were not allowed to appear in examinations.<BR/>As you know now BCR SA/PAs (5000-8000)are being promoted to LSGSA/PA in the pay scale of 4500-7000).<BR/>But our federation do not havecase against this anomaly.Do we have any?<BR/>This I dont mind to call betrayal but I don't say so<BR/>regards<BR/>N.Devanand.<BR/>RMS KeralaDEVANAND.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05371374097549972732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953363395711520086.post-88103713691589006632007-12-06T22:47:00.000+05:302007-12-06T22:47:00.000+05:30Dear Comrade Devanand, Once again thanks for your ...Dear Comrade Devanand, Once again thanks for your comments. The question of PF recovery has been only for regular civil servants and the Government has not agreed to grant the status of civil servants to the ED even after the landmark judgment of the Apex Court. We raised the issue before the Justice Talwar Committee and got a very favourable recommendation for status and pension and all benefits. However you know well that the Government rejected the recommendations. On the other hand the Government has totally cancelled the GPF to regular employees also for those who entered service from 1.1.2004 and started recovering 10% of Pay and DA towards pension contribution. We are demanding to scrap this new pension scheme also. This is the effect of neo-globalization policies of the Government. Therefore demanding it for ED employees while the same is being dispensed with for the regular employees is a bit complicated. However we have demanded pension once again in our GDS Memorandum and the point you have made would be kept in mind while negotiations take place on the social security issues for the GDS – K.Ragavendran / Secretary General / NFPE.NFPEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02066015506814442021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953363395711520086.post-76190362118671447522007-12-06T22:34:00.000+05:302007-12-06T22:34:00.000+05:30Dear Comrade Devanand, Thanks for your comments. O...Dear Comrade Devanand, Thanks for your comments. Our stand is that TBOP and BCR are LSG and HSG-II Promotions only. We have filed a case in Chennai CAT and won it. The Department went on appeal against the CAT but Madras High Court dismissed the appeal of the Department. The SLP is pending in the Supreme Court. The case is being fought still. However your contention not appears to be correct as the Supreme Court has not so far said that TBOP and BCR are not promotions. The case is still going on. But how come you jump to conclusion that the Federal Executive of NFPE is silent on this betrayal? The Executive had an agenda before it and discussed the agenda. This does not mean that the Federation is not opposing the contention of the Department. Any way once again thanks for your involvement and interaction. NFPE welcomes such interactions from the educated membership. Regards – K.Ragavendran / Secretary General / NFPE.NFPEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02066015506814442021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953363395711520086.post-53881203416143736482007-12-03T15:44:00.000+05:302007-12-03T15:44:00.000+05:30ComradeIn India any establishment with five or mor...Comrade<BR/>In India any establishment with five or more workers are supposed to open an EPF account for it's workers.Those who are not doing so are liable to be punished as per EPF rules.<BR/>Only exemption is for those firms who have their seperate PF scheme.<BR/>Postal Department has PF scheme for regular employees but not for their GDS employees.So the department is liable to open EPF account for it's GDS employees and remit employers contribution.<BR/>But Postal department is not doing it.<BR/>They are acting against the law of the land.<BR/>Our federation all along were fighting for it's ED(GDS) employees.But never bothered to raise this issue even now<BR/>WHY!!!!<BR/>Why don't we take it up atleast now<BR/>Devanand.N<BR/>RMS Kerala CircleDEVANAND.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05371374097549972732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953363395711520086.post-43806054857344649442007-12-03T15:34:00.000+05:302007-12-03T15:34:00.000+05:30dear comradeplease go through two (JCM)departmenta...dear comrade<BR/>please go through two (JCM)departmentalcouncil decisions in 1974 and 1984 on promotions.74 says 20% is upgraded to LSG.<BR/>84 says posts of those completed 16 years are upgraded to LSG.5% and 15% udjusted as matching savings for the cost of upgradation.<BR/>But postal department unilateraly decided that TBOP and BCR are not promotions.<BR/>They say that supreme court decided so.<BR/>SC decided because gvt.gave an affidavit that these are only financial upgradations and not promotion.<BR/>How can gvt.give such an affidavit in SC against the decision of JCM in which gvt is a party.<BR/>How can federation keep silent on such a betrayal.<BR/>Federal exicutive has never deliberated on this .<BR/>Why???DEVANAND.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05371374097549972732noreply@blogger.com