IRPS WEB SITE LINKS

| | About IRPS | IRPS Home Page | Contact Nos | Officers' List | Retirement List | Library | Codes & Manuals | Posting Orders | |
| | RB VI PC Orders | Rly. Classified List | DoPT's Orders | DoPT's Acts & Rules | Indian Railway Employee | |

| | India News | PIB India | All Newspapers India | BBC World News | CNN World News | E Gazette India | Employment News | |

| | Whispers | Babus of India | Power Buzz | Central Govt. Employess News | IRFCA Indian Railways' News | Sarkari Tel | Railway Samachar | G-Connect | |

| | IRPOF | AIRF | NFIR | AI-SC&ST-REA | AI-OBC-REA | Technical Supervisors | Loco Runing Staff | Station Masters | Railway Retired Staff & Officers | |

| | Ravi Ki Duniya[Blog by Mr Ravinder Kumar, IRPS] | |

| | Ravi Ki Duniya in Navbharat Times[Blog by Mr Ravinder Kumar, IRPS] | |



Discussion Forum for IRPS Officers & Visitors

Untitled

by Monica

Dear Webmaster Sir,
I am not on leave sir. I am working as dycpo/hq/nr since May this year. I was on a day's leave when Anant sir joined in sg at hqs after returning from deputation in September I think.
kindly update
thanks!

Posted on Nov 27, 2014, 10:49 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Pay fixation....Pls help...

by espee

On being declared surplus an Asst.Guard at a basic of Rs.11410 was redployed as Jr.TNC on 23.03.2010 and was later promoted as Sr.TNC(GP 2400)23.09.2010 and again was promted as Goods Guard (GP 2800) on 09.02.2011.His pay was fixed first from running to on-running by giving the 30% benefit and later he was promted to St.TNC and to Goods Gurad and finally retired on 30.04.2014 with a basic pay of Rs.18770/-.

The most learned accounts department while passing his pension directed the Sr.DPO to follow the instructions of Railway board in tetter no E(P&A)II-74/PP-12 Dt.09.01.1975 which speaks.

"A question has been raised as to whether the element of running allowance(40% of pay)taken into account for the purpouse of fixation of pay at the time of posting of running staff to a stationary post in terms of Rl.Bd lr no PC-66/PA-2/1 Dt 07.03.1963 is to be reckoned for the purpose of fixation of pay on repromotion(or reappontment) to a running post.The board desire to clarify that the pay of the rubnning staff on re-promotion.re-appointment to a running post from a stationary post should be fixed after excluding the element of running allowance referred to above"

Basing on the above advise, the office of Sr.DPO reduced the pay of the employee( after too many correspondences,P branch got defeated) and his basic pay became Rs.15280/-

Is this right, whether 1975's letter still holds good though the running allowance rules-1981 still holds and which does not speak of any such irrerugularity and so many questions........

Please help, estemed members of IRPS forum......

Posted on Nov 22, 2014, 8:46 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Re: Pay fixation....Pls help...

by Does not matter

The letter no E(P&A)II-74/PP-12 Dt.09.01.1975 cited states thus,

"A question has been raised as to whether the element of running allowance(40% of pay)taken into account for the purpose of fixation of pay at the time of posting of running staff to a stationary post in terms of Rl.Bd lr no PC-66/PA-2/1 Dtd. 07.03.1963 is to be reckoned for the purpose of fixation of pay on promotion(or reappointment) to a running post.The board desire to clarify that the pay of the running staff on re-promotion.re-appointment to a running post from a stationary post should be fixed after excluding the element of running allowance referred to above".

A plain reading makes it clear that, running allowance should not be reckoned while fixing the pay if appointed again to a running post (RUNNING POST ONLY), as per letter dated 07.03.1963. This is because, counting running allowance while fixing the pay and further allowing running allowance thereon amounts granting running allowance twice. On the other hand, while fixing pay on appointment as TNC was correctly done. Further promotion as Sr.TNC, a non-running category, shall be in reference to the pay he was drawing as TNC(which includes element of running allowance, as it was fixed taking the running allowance into account on appointment to that post) at the time of promotion. Hence, the basic pay of Rs.18770/- he last drew, before it was revised to Rs.15280/- at the instance of Accounts, was correct (presuming calculations are correct and only difference of opinion between Personnel Dept. and Accounts Dept. is in interpretation of the letter dated 09.01.1975) and his settlement dues shall be calculated accordingly.

In case, the department is not revising the pay/settlement dues(including fixation of pension/family pension), the retired employee can approach Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal and certainly will get the relief, in my humble opinion.

Posted on Nov 22, 2014, 4:27 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Pls help

by espee

Thank you sir, for the interpretation.I wonder if the 1975 letter is valid as on date or not?The main question.Any how rhanks.

Posted on Nov 23, 2014, 6:23 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


pls go through the grievance

by aggrieved direct officer

Group A Officers of all the 8 Organised services of Indian Railways are aggrieved from various unreasonable decisions taken by Ministry of Railways under influence from Indian Railway Promotee Officers’ Federation. These include artificially inflating Cadre Strength and consequently vacancies to be reported for Recruitment so as to induct more Promotee officers in Organised Group A services and placing them above Direct Recruits of Same Recruitment year by wilful misuse of Weightage Rule thereby adversely affecting the career prospects of direct officers.
This report has analysed the gross irregularities meted out to Group A officers of IRSME.
Junior Scale Cadre strength in IRSME was notionally fixed to 108 posts and divided between Direct and Promotee in 75:25 (i.e. DR 81 Posts & PQ 27 Posts). But to meet unreasonable demands of IRPOF, Ministry of Railways has exceeded its jurisdiction to enhance the Junior Scale cadre strength from 108 to 337 posts. As a result recruitments from 2010 onwards are being done at highly exaggerated rate of around 20% of total service strength every year (Without taking cognizance of actual vacancies in higher grades). Historical average annual recruitment to IRSME has been around 35-40. But Annual recruitment from 2010 onwards has been done at a rate of 168 per year.Only beneficiary are Group B officers who are getting promoted to Group A in large numbersdue to retrospective nature of weightage rule available to Promotee officer.
The paradox created by Ministry of Railways has led to a situation where, against 695 Permanent Senior Duty posts (Sr Time Scale & Above) in IRSME there are 1400 plus officers already recruited and working. In addition 191 SCRA officers are undergoing training. Not only this, recruitment of another 126 IRSME officers is in process. In addition percentage of Promotee officers w.r.t. to total permanent posts in IRSME has exceeded 65%. Seniority position reveals that between 2002 to 2009 a total of 610 Promotee officers have been placed against 109 direct officers despite Promotee quota is only 25% of JS Cadre strength.
Moreover all these changes have been done in complete secrecy. No public notification or Circular has been issued in this regard by Ministry of Railways. Any alteration in cadre strength of Group A services is within the jurisdiction of cabinet only. Despite this all these proposals have been given sanction without referring it to cabinet and without taking mandatory consultation from UPSC.

It is well settled principle that seniority cannot be assigned from a date an officer is not even eligible for promotion to a cadre. But in present case there are so many Promotee officers who have been assigned seniority of a date prior to the date one becomes eligible for promotion. In recent panel of 145 IRSME officers (2010-11 & 2011-12), there are at least 19 such officers.

As per the policy on optimization of direct recruitment to civilian posts Direct Recruitment was to be curtailed to 1/3rd of the vacancies arising for direct recruitment quota and rest 2/3rd posts were to be abolished each year. Purpose was reducing strength of all government departments by 2% every year. It was specifically mentioned in the policy circular that the remaining 2/3rd of the posts will be abolished and will not be filled through promotion. But Ministry of Railways again implemented this policy only to the extant it benefited the Promotee officers. Against 872 vacancies that arose during 2002-2009 only 207 recruitments have been done. As per the provisions of the policy remaining 665 posts (872-207) should have been abolished. But these posts were kept vacant and the vacuum generated by these vacancies which subsequently moved to higher grades i.e. Senior Scale and Junior Administrative Grade etc. have been utilized for accommodating larger batches of Promotee officers in future years due to weightage rule. Instead of achieving the desired objective of reduction in cadre strength it has only achieved enhancement of Promotee recruitment at the cost of direct recruitment.On one hand Ministry of Railways has suppressed direct recruitment in the name of rightsizing the organization and on the other hand annual recruitment has been increased to benefit promoted officers.

While assigning DITS to Promotee officers 2-3 Batches of Promotee officers have been clubbed together and placed between two batches of direct officers. This is in gross violation of policy laid down by DOPT.Promotee quota in Junior Scale Cadre of IRSME is 84. This implies that at any point of time total vacancies in the Junior Scale under Promotee quota cannot exceed 84. Contrary to this various panels e.g. panel years 2010-11 & 2011-12 have been merged and 145 Promotee officers have been recruited in IRSME against 84 posts.

For the reasons stated above it is requested that Competent Authority may please appoint a Committee at appropriate level to enquire into all these wrongdoings and take measures to correct the anomalies pertaining to Recruitment, fixation of DITS & Inter se seniority of Promotee officers recruited for Panel years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 wrt available direct officers.



Posted on Nov 21, 2014, 10:55 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Re: pls go through the grievance

by anonymous

The contention that the JA grade may be after 12 yrs for DRs on account of excessive intake of Group ‘B’ officers, is not based on facts but it is a statement to arouse the sentiments of DRs against the recruitment of Group ‘B’ officers. All officers – of all departments are being promoted within periods of their due eligibility (except Group ‘B’ off-course). The fact is that there being no eligible officer available (8 yrs + officers) for promotion, as many as 484 posts of JA grade (27%) are filled on adhoc basis. It is also a fact, due to acute shortage of JA grade eligible officers the eligibility of JA grade (adhoc) promotions period was reduced to 5 yrs from 6 yrs – on the express demand of DRs, and an impressive number of officers have been promoted to JA grade (ad-hoc) after just 5 yrs which means after their promotion to Sr.scale in 4 + yrs they are being promoted to JA grade within one year experience in Sr.Scale. This is applicable for DRs only because Group ‘B’ officer can only be promoted to JA grade after they get DPC induction which is normally 9-10 yrs. (even 17 yrs for Accounts & 15 yrs for Engg).

Posted on Nov 25, 2014, 12:25 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Fixed Medical Allowance

by Syed Ibrahim

All Central Govt Pensioners/Family Pensioners are given Fixed Medical Allowance every month. Earlier, the rate of FMA was Rs. 100/- p.m, which has been enhanced to Rs 300/-. To get FMA, the Pensioner/Family Pensioner should reside outside the radius of 2.5 km from the nearest railway hospital. If a Pensioner/Family Pensioner has opted for FMA, he/she is not eligible to get treatment as 'Outpatient'. However, if he/she is having Railway Employees' Liberalised Health Scheme (RELHS) card, he/she is eligible to get treatment as 'Inpatient'.

Some cases pose problems. Widowed/unmarried daughters are getting Family Pension, subject to some conditions stipulated by the Government. However, they are being denied FMA on the ground that their father/mother was not in receipt of FMA. To elaborate this matter, it is better to quote an example. Father was a railway employee. He retired in the year 1969. At that time, FMA was not in vogue and hence, he was not given FMA. He expired sometime during 1980. His widow was in receipt of Family Pension. FMA came into force sometime after 6th PC recommendations. Grant of FMA was not brought to the notice of the widow and hence, she was not in receipt of FMA. Widow died sometime during 2000. Her unmarried daughter was given Family Pension. Now the unmarried daughter is seeking FMA, quoting the Railway Board's circular issued during March 2014. The Railway administration has denied her FMA on the ground that her parents were not in receipt of FMA. Now the question is: Whether the action of the Railways to deny FMA to the unmarried daughter (now family pensioner) is correct?

In my view, the action of Railway is not correct. The circular of the Ministry of Railways issued during March 2014 does not say that the unmarried/widowed daughters are eligible to get FMA from the date they start receiving family pension. That circular does not say that unmarried/widowed daughters are totally prohibited from receiving FMA since their parents were not in receipt of FMA.

Railway officers should interpret the circulars in a benevolent manner, instead of interpreting in a manner which goes against the welfare of the pensioners/family pensioners.

Posted on Nov 19, 2014, 5:54 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Fixed Medical Allowance.

by D.K.Mukherjee

There appears to be some misuderstanding on relevant rules. FMA came into force w.e.f. 1.12.97 for payment of Rs.100/-PM. as per award given by the 5th CPC and not 6th CPC. The relevant conditions laid down in RBE 65/99, wherein it has been stated that all Pensioners/Family Pensioners who are eligible for any of the Health Care Scheme on Railway are eligible for the benefit of FMA and actual enrolment of the Health care Scheme is not pre-requisite. The said FMA has been enhanced to Rs.300/- P.M w.e.f 1.8.08 and Rs.500/- P.M w.e.f 19.11.14. When the deceased Rly.employee retired and expired the Cont.Health Scheme was in force. It appear that the said Retd. employee did not opted for the said scheme but otherwise was eligible which is pre-requisite for payment of FMA.
Payment of Family Pension for life in respect of Widowed/Divorced daughter came into force sometime in 1998 and for unmarried daughter sometime in 2007, who are regarded as second category of Family Pensioners. The Widowed/Divorced daughters were denied payment of FMA since they were not included in term 'Family' as per I.R.M.M. However, same has also been allowed w.e.f. 7.7.14 vide RBE 69/14. However, the unmarried daughter was always included in term 'Family' as result denial of payment to the unmarried Daughter who is in receipt of Family Pension is quite against the rules on subject. The decisive officers should deal such type of cases after going into the subject and with proper application of mind. Thanx.

Posted on Nov 23, 2014, 6:00 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Whether Railway Board is amendable to Supreme Court's orders or not?

by Ramesh


Time and again, the Supreme Court has emphasised that equally footed persons should not be compelled to approach the court for getting benefits. For example, the issue of pay parity to the Stenographers working in Zonal Railways on par with the Stenographers working in Railway Board. Four Stenographers of Southern Railway (Sivagurunathan and 3 others) approached CAT, Chennai bench seeking pay parity with the Stenos working in Railway Board. The CAT allowed the OA sometime during 2010. The Railway Administration moved High Court by way of Writ Petition and the WP was rejected by High Court of Madras. Railway Admn moved Supreme Court by way of SLP, which was also dismissed. Review Petition filed before Supreme Court also failed. Thus, the order of the CAT has attained finality. Railway Administration has chosen to implement the order only to the 4 Stenographers who were the applicants before the CAT. In other words, the similarly placed stenographers were denied the benefit arising out of the CAT's order rendered in Sivagurunathan's case. Hence, a spate of OAs are being filed in CATs by the aggrieved Stenographers.

I have come across a reply of Railway Board (No. PC-V/2011/M/3/AIRF dated 13-11-2014) addressed to General Secretary of AIRF (this letter is available in AIRF's website) wherein the Railway Board has rejected the request for extending the benefits to other similarly placed persons.

I am afraid, whether the Railway Board is functioning in India or from Afganisthan or from Pakistan or from some other African country? On 17-10-2014 the Supreme Court in State of UP & Others versus Ashok Kumar Srivastava (civil appeal no.9849/2014 arising out of SLP 18639/2012) has categorically held that in service matters, similar persons should be treated similarly and they should not be forced to approach the court for getting benefits. Had the authorities in Railway Board cared to see the SC's order dated 17-10-2014 they would not have reached such a conclusion both in the case of Zonal Stenographers as well as in the issue raised by AIRF.

The action of Railway Board as well as Zonal Railway authorities is only increasing the cases in the Courts, despite the fact the the AG of India has stated that he would do whatever best possible to reduce the docket explosion in the courts.

Long live Railway Board, Long live the democracy, jai Hindm Bharat Matha ki jai.

Posted on Nov 14, 2014, 7:22 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Irony

by espee

Railway Board is mximum occupied by gazetted officers(BOSSES) who do not want to interpret a rule or direction for the benefit of a Non-Gaz if on demand also.But can bring out a clarification of eligibility of Child edu.Allowance to the third Child when .......(conditions apply).
Long live Railway Board, Long live the democracy of Railway Board.

Posted on Nov 17, 2014, 8:20 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Recover the cost of litigation

by ELEMKAY

At least in two cases, the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court should order for payment of cost of litigation with compensation to the employees, and the amount should be recovered from the salaries of the officers who took the decision not to settle the issue until the matter is disposed of by Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is because, it is only the Government that pays for the Advocate fees etc. for the Government side. There is also a trend, "Why should I pass an order based on some other judgement and why should it pave way for some benefits. Let him approach the Court and get orders in his favour; then I will implement". After all, if a contempt petition is filed, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Venkataraman in one of his earlier posts, the officer will fly to the court and say 'it was an inadvertent error and I have the highest respect for the court' and the contempt case will be closed. Therefore, unless and until the cost of litigation + compensation (let it be even a Rupee) is recovered from the salaries, the trend of 'not taking any decision positively' will not stop.

Posted on Nov 17, 2014, 8:25 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Contempt Petitions

by Ramesh

I remember, long back the Supreme Court sent the Chief Secretary of Karnataka Govt (Mr Vasudevan, if my memory serves me right) to Jail for committing contempt. In other words, the Chief Secretary, according to the Supreme Court, has deliberately floated the Orders of the Court and hence, he was sent to jail. Since our memory is too short, we tend to forget the earlier events.

One employee submitted his voluntary retirement request, unable to bear the ignominy heaped on him. No order was passed by the competent authority within the time limit of three months. Hence, the VR came into effect. However, after a period of nine months, one Personnel Officer passed an order stating that your voluntary retirement request could not be agreed to. Irony is that the Personnel Officer who passed such an order did not know under which rule the employee submitted the VR application and did not notice that he passed the order after the lapse of the prescribed period. Thus, the concerned employee was forced to go to court and the court came to his rescue. However, the Zonal Railway did not want to lag behind in securing the name of 'cantankerous litigant' wrote a letter to Railway Board, seeking the permission of Railway Board for filing Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court. Thank God - wiser heads prevailed in Railway Board and the Railway Board advised the Zonal Railway that this was not a fit case to go in for SLP. However, the employee is get to his settlement benefits. Now, a new 'ghost' has been introduced in the drama by the Railway administration saying that a huge amount has to be recovered from your settlement dues, as there was shortage of railway materials when you were working in railways. When did the employee leave the railway service? The participants would be astonished to hear that the employee left the railway service in the year 2002 itself. Now only the railway administration has woken up to say that the entire settlement benefits are to be recovered from you on account of 'shortage of railway materials'.

Long live the democracy, principles of natural justice, personnel management and human touch in railways!

Posted on Nov 18, 2014, 6:21 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Re: Contempt Petitions

by NamelessFaceless

it would be worthwhile to publish the names of personnel officers and the railways who have done such things. i had a feeling that it is the legal department in the railways who are interested in those lowers with whom who have dealings who are doing such things and if personnel officers are notorious (one addl.member engg. mr. suryanarayanan explained about one thalapakattu apo on the southern railway as to how notorious he used to be!!!). why not complain to railway minister and also take up in parliament such matters. what are the unions doing or are these officers themselves are from the unions!!!!

Posted on Nov 18, 2014, 5:04 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Contempt Petitions

by ELEMKAY


To avoid transfers to inconvenient places, majority of the personnel officers are functioning as members of the unions. The world say one PHOD opening the car door of a trade union leader to show his 'affinity'.

Posted on Nov 18, 2014, 7:26 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Piquent situation caused to an employee

by Ramesh

One employee was convicted by CBI Court. Under Rule 14(1) of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules 1968, a Notice was issued to that employee. Thereafter he was removed from service from 01-08-2001. His appeal was also rejected. The said (ex.)employee moved the High Court against the conviction. As per judgment dated 27-4-2010, the High Court acquitted the employee. Consequently, he made a request for reinstatement and he was reinstated on 28-12-2010. The question now arises as to how the intervening period from 01-08-2001 to 28-12-2010 is to be treated. Shockingly, an Officer passed the following order:

1. Period from 27-10-2000 to 31-07-2001 is to be treated as Suspension.
2. Period from 01-08-2001 to 26-04-2010 is to be treated as leave period.
3. Period from 27-04-2010 to 30-12-2010 is to be treated as duty.

It is the contention of the employee that for the period mentioned in (a) above i.e. from 27-10-2000 to 31-07-2001 he had worked in Railways and he was paid salary for the said period also. Hence, by any stretch of imagination, the period from 27-10-2000 to 31-07-2001 cannot be treated as Suspension period. As usual, his representation failed to evoke any response. Hence, he moved the CAT. The CAT upheld the contention of the employee, stating that since the employee had worked during the said period and he was also paid fully for that period, the Railway Admn cannot treat that period as suspension period. The Railway Admn did not prefer any appeal against the Order of the CAT in the High Court, thereby the order of the CAT attained finality.

After the receipt of the above Order from CAT, the Railway Admn issued an Office Memorandum on 16-09-2014 reiterating that the period from 27-10-2000 to 31-07-2001 is to be treated as suspension. Thus, the Officer who has issued the Office Memorandum on 16-9-2014 has, prima-facie, committed contempt of court. The employee, after receipt of the Office Memorandum, met the concerned Officer and requested for denovo review on the ground that the Office Memorandum runs contrary to the Order of the CAT. That Officer bluntly told the employee that he would not be afraid of facing contempt of court and the employee cannot do anything.

Now, the employee is compelled to move the CAT once again under Contempt of Courts Act. Such a situation ought to have been avoided by the Personnel Department. Had the concerned officer read the Order of the CAT and other relevant papers, the Office Memorandum would not have been issued at all and the employee would have been spared from the ordeal of moving the Court once again. Ironically the loser is the employee only, as he has to spend money for filing Contempt Petition in CAT, whereas the Officer who has issued the Office Memorandum is not going to spend any money from his pocket and on the contrary, he will be gainer as he would come to the place where the CAT is located on 'on duty' account and get TA/DA etc.

Long live the Personnel Department and the Officers! Jai Hind. Bharat Mata ki ji.

Posted on Nov 11, 2014, 7:43 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Piquent situation caused to an employee

by -

Harassment of employees is not new in Western Railway

Posted on Nov 12, 2014, 4:45 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


piquent situation

by H L N Prasad

Please refer the Railway Board's Lr.No.E(D&A)62 RG6-30, dated 12.10.1962 and E(D&A)69-RG6-48 dated 5.9.1970 which will answers all the situation referred in the above case.
1. The period between the date of acquittal to date of joining to be treated as duty for all purposes i.e.27.4.2010 to 28.12.2010 is to be treated as duty
2. The period between the date of suspension/removal/dismissal to the date of acquittal should be treated as duty for all purposes provided the railway servant has been acquitted on reasons other than benefit of doubt otherwise acquitted on benefit of date the period will be decided under Rule 1344(FR54A) R-II by the competent auhtority.
3. Sanction of leave beyond ten years needs to be reviewed since under Rule 1344 there is no provision to treat the intervening period as leave. It should be decided either as period spent on duty or non-duty

Posted on Nov 13, 2014, 10:58 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Fixation of Seniority

by Venkataraman

One employee (say 'A') applied for the post of Junior Engineer through General Departmental Competitive Examination (GDCE)and he was selected. He had undergone the prescribed training course. Thereafter, he joined the working post in January 2010.

Another employee (say 'B') applied for the same post of Junior Engineer through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). He was selected. After undergoing the prescribed training course, he joined the working post in November 2010.

The seniority list of Junior Engineers was published. Shockingly, 'A' was shown as JUNIOR to 'B' in the said seniority list. Aggrieved of this, 'A' made a representation. His representation was rejected by the Personnel Officer on the ground that those selected through LDCE would be shown as Seniors to those who have been selected through GDCE.

In my considered view, the rejection of the representation of 'A' by the Personnel Branch on the above said ground is totally not correct for the following reasons.

(a) 'A' joined the working post in January 2010, whereas 'B' joined the working post only in November 2010.
(b) Posts for GDCE are being worked out, by carving out 10% posts available under Direct Requirement Quota. Hence, those selected through GDCE are to be treated similar to those selected under DR quota.
(c) GDCE is conducted by RRB, whereas LDCE is conducted by the Department.
(d) No Circular/Rule/Instruction has been quoted while rejecting the representation of 'A'.

I am of the further view that without proper application of mind whatsoever, the representation of 'A' has been rejected by the Personnel Branch. Such an action leads to an avoidable litigation. In case the department loses its case in the judicial forum, appropriate litigation cost should be recovered from the salary of the concerned Personnel Officer.

May I request the esteemed and learned participants to offer their views on the above?

Posted on Nov 9, 2014, 9:10 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Fixation of Seniority

by Does not matter

I am full agreement with the views of Mr.Venkataraman.

Posted on Nov 9, 2014, 11:09 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


fixation of seniority

by prasad

the seniority has ought to have been assigned in terms of Para 302 of IREM but incorrectly the seniority has been assigned in the instant case.

Posted on Nov 10, 2014, 11:18 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


fixation of seniority

by prasad

the seniority has ought to have been assigned in terms of Para 302 of IREM but incorrectly the seniority has been assigned in the instant case.

Posted on Nov 10, 2014, 11:18 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Fixation of Seniority

by Venkataraman


What is more disturbing is that despite the employee's representation and despite his efforts to bring to the notice of the Personnel Department the relevant rule position, still his representation is rejected and the employee is forced to approach the judicial forum for getting suitable relief. Such a situation should be avoided as Railway Admn should act as 'Model Employer'. Visualise a situation in which the employee is not in a position to approach the court (may be due to his ignorance, or not able to spend money, etc etc). In such a situation, not only an illegality is allowed to perpetrate, but also the innocent is made to suffer due to the ignorance of the Personnel Branch concerned.

Posted on Nov 11, 2014, 5:44 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Fixation of Seniority

by Does not matter

The officer responsible should be made to attend the judicial forum. Only then do they realise the gravity!

Posted on Nov 11, 2014, 5:55 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Re: Fixation of Seniority

by nameless faceless

Has the case been decided by Personnel Officers at the lower level or at the higher levels including the highest level in the Personnel dept. I am sure the Officers at the higher/highest level are not aware of the case.

Posted on Nov 11, 2014, 10:07 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Fixation of Seniority.

by S. Tamilcholai

The case explained is simple, not involving any interpretation or intricacy. The seniority is to be determined by the date of joining the working post after successful completion of the prescribed initial training. 'A',the JE selected thro' GDCE and joined the working post in january, 2010 would undoubtedly rank senior to 'B',the JE selected thro'LDCE and joined the working post months after the joining of 'A'. The views expressed by Sri.Venkataraman are unbiased and totally justified. May I be permitted to state without offending anybody that the saying 'ignorance is bliss'and negligent attitude seem to pervade the officials who dealt the case.The role of the Personnel Branch in keeping the work-force contended to obtain the optimum output need not be over-emphazised.

Posted on Nov 11, 2014, 11:03 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Fixation of Seniority

by Venkataraman

'At which level (whether at the lower level or higher level) the case was decided' is NOT the question here. It is my experience that the concerned Clerk or Office Supdt without bothering to go through the contents of the representation, simply puts up the same in the file, writes a cryptic note and sends the same the next level officer. The Clerk or Office Supdt, as the case may be, does not bother to connect the relevant rule, circular, etc relating to the representation to arrive at a just conclusion. The Officer to whom the file comes is equally not bothered and affixes his initial or simply makes an endorsement to the effect 'the representation may be disposed of as mentioned above'. In order to save his skin, that officer forwards the file to the next higher level officer with another 'wonderful' endorsement to the effect 'May kindly see'. That next higher level officer also simply affixes his initial. Thus, there is no application of mind whatsoever at any level. This is one of the reasons as to why a number are being filed in CATs now-a-days.

When I joined Railway Service 'Pension Adalats' were held with real seriousness. I remember Mr P Chidambaram, (while he was MOS in the Ministry of Personnel & PG) attended one of the Pension Adalats. Large number of retired persons attended,ventilated their grievances and these grievances were attended with all seriousness. See the very thin attendance in the present day 'Pension Adalats'. It is not lasting even for the full day. In the afternoon session, we cannot see any pensioner or even officials. When I interacted with some Pensioners, they feel that their representations are being dealt with carelessness. However, at the end of the day, we would be astonished to see the statistics being furnished by the Administration, saying that this much pensioners attended and this much representations were disposed of. Needless to say, statistics are only cooked up figures and nothing else.

Take the grievance of 'Fixed Medical Allowance'. It is well known that FMA is to be given to all Pensioners and Family Pensioners, subject to some conditions. In one Zonal Railway, FMA is denied to a Family Pensioner on the ground that they have not received any circular/instruction from Railway Board stating that widowed/unmarried daughters (who receive family pension)are eligible for FMA since the Pensioner (father or mother as the case may be)was not in receipt of FMA. During March 2014, Railway Board has issued a circular, clarifying the position. Despite this, unnecessary and irrelevant questions are being raised, making the Family Pensioner to run from pillar to the post to get FMA. What are we going to achieve by making a poor person to suffer? We only incur the curse of such affected persons and nothing else.

Another instance I want to mention here, that is, intimation regarding acquisition of immovable/movable property. Here also, unnecessary questions are being raised. Central Vigilance Commission during 2001 has given a very clear cut instruction on the issue. Despite this, to show their authority or arrogance, to harass the employees, irrelevant questions are being raised. Such things should be stopped forthwith.

It is my suggestion that every month, a seminar is to be organized by the Personnel Department in which the latest rule position should be discussed, for the benefit of all concerned.


Posted on Nov 12, 2014, 6:05 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Re: Fixation of Seniority

by NamelessFaceless

sorry mr. venkatraman no seminar will ever help. the attitude must change and it looks the only way is the singaporean way of a bulging back or a thinning purse. incidentaly what are the organised labour (if at all they are organised!)doing. what happens in the sr.dpos conference etc. has the sw railway bankrupt of personnel officers or a dy. or chief in personnel deptt. who can assert! Pity that things have gone so bad in all aspects and instead of seminars go and pray at the nearby temple/church/masjid to save!!!!!

Posted on Nov 14, 2014, 1:47 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


transport allowance to handicapped rly employee

by suresh kumar shrimal

1.A visually handicapped 40% can entitle for double rate of transport allowance. 2 Please attach Rly board letter no F(E)I/78/AL-7/5 date 23-10-78.

Posted on Nov 1, 2014, 10:59 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Untitled

by NAMELESS



Sushil Kumar Bansal*

Very recently, I have come across a comment/article by a retired General Manager of Indian railways on Face book regarding the recruitment in Railways in Officer’s Cadre, and also stating what and how much a person should aspire for a promotion/status. Strangely, the author of this article - is not fixing the aspiration limits of his own cadre but its emphesis is more to lay down the limits of other cadre’s aspirations. In my view he is a bit late in fixing the limits of one’s aspirations, otherwise one Tea sellor could not have become the Prime Minister of India. It is stated therein that a Group ’B’ officer; who enters Group ‘C’ cadre, if he gets the highest status in Supervisor cadre itself. It is just like a dream coming true and if he becomes Gp ’B’, at the most Sr. scale officer on adhoc - it must be taken as bonus, and not a matter of right. On the other hand, a direct recruit should have limitless aspirations according to him. In my opinion it is beyond one’s thinking to say something on aspirations of others. It is now a well known fact that a large number of Group ‘C’ & Group ‘B‘ officer have at least equal qualifications – if not more - in the cadre of Accounts, Traffic & Personnel Deptts. – which is a graduation only. In other departments, Engg. & Stores – many Group ’B’ & ‘C’ have equivalents – Engg. degree – qualification. Even a diploma holder, with five years service is considered to be equivalent to degree holder.

Apart from the degree, the other qualities viz. intelligence, dedication, labour, sincerity etc. etc. cannot be preserve of any cadre belonging to one source of recruitment only. Therefore, any person, having a right on the basis of his birth in the service cannot claim all credits to him. Our constitution is based on equality of all kind based on his merit. Thinking that all Direct recruits are more intelligent and all promotees are not, can only be thinking of a perverse mind.

Secondly, a person who has retired from such a high post – General Manager, there are only 27 posts of this rank on Indian Railways - out of 13.5 lakh employees working there, should not have such narrow thinking. I am aghast to think that with such a mind, how many promottee officers fate must have been damaged during his regime/working. Though otherwise, I have myself heard many – say all the higher ups – Members, Addl. Members, PHODs, General Managers including himself and ministers even Prime Minister (Shri V.P. Singh). Complimenting Gp B officers’ intelligence, sincerity, labour and dedication and saying that this category of officers is actually the back bone of the Railway administration. In this way, direct recruits after entering a Junior officer’s cadre becomes a promottee when he is promoted to Sr.Scale and therefore the posts of JA grade, SAG grade, atleast PHOD/GM level should always be filled by direct recruitment only. This person was himself a promottee General Manager, having reached to this status through 6-7 promotion only - in between.


On going through the complete write up I feel that I may not say that he lacked the knowledge of rules but at least I can definitely say that he is misinformed vastly.

All his statements that the reduced intake of DRs, increased intake of Group ’B’ officers, system of calculation of vacancies, promotions to Sr.Scale posts, and quota for recruitment and effect on DRs promotional prospects etc. as given by him are wrong and misplaced. All this is very strange because he was not only GM but he was a top office bearer also for a long period of FROA, who are considered to be fountain of knowledge, especially, in respect with recruitment and Promotions etc. I am particularly he himself was the author. I think before writing this piece of information, he should have consulted the known stalwarts of FROA S/Sh. Neeraj Kumar, (the then ED/MPP), J. C. Pant, (GM/RWF.Retd), J. Verghose, Krishnamurthi, K. Balakrishna (both Retd.MS and S. C. Manchanda, Addl. Member Staff (Retd.). All of whom contributed immensely in many decisions regarding cadre management and vacancy calculations/statistics. (I am most lucky to have close touch with all these knowledgeable, analytical and logical officers).

Since I was also an important office bearers of IRPOF when the Hon’ble General Manager retd. (writer of the comments) was also the General Secretary of FROA) – important fact is - but for the intervention of RPF Association and of IRPOF, he would not have been PHOD/GM even, I feel it my duty to put the facts straight before extending the discussions further. For that the following facts are mentioned for the information of all.

The quota for Group “A” & Group “B” w.e.f. 01.01.97 (and not 60 : 40 as mentioned by him. (25% before 1953, increased to 33.3% by Sh. Lal Bahadur.

The quota is in posts – not in vacancies – as per DoPT rules and High level Administrative Reform committee, and 5th Pay Commission and Govt. of India decision and notification.

The intake of Group 'B' in Group 'A' is not linked to Group 'A's intake/recruitment. This is independent. Vacancy calculation System is such that neither the intake vacancies for Group 'B' can be inflated, nor for DRs.

The statement that excess recruitment of Group 'B' is affecting promotional prospects of DRs wherein the promotions to JA grade may be 12 years or more, is just wrong and a statement to mislead DRs and for agitating their minds.

The Railway Board have not been following the ratio laid down for recruitment of DRs for the last years, and also not following the DOPT rules, is not based on facts and is totally false.

That the call to GMs for creating _enough opportunities for ensuring the promotion of DRs after 3 years on adhoc basis is nothing but mischivious and contrary to all existing rules (Now It can be understood, that why ECoR is worst in promoting the Group “B” officers, to Sr.Scale (adhoc) and many officers with 8-10 years or service are still waiting for promotion and there are bare minimum Group ‘B’ officers are working in sr.scale (adhoc).

IMPORTANT FACTS to KNOW:

Despite the claim of author regarding inflated intake of Group ‘B’ officers beyond their quota – the Total quota occupied by Group ‘B’ in Group ‘A’ as on 01.06.2014 is 21.6% of the total sanction posts of Group ‘A’ or 27.1% quota laid down as on 01.06.2014 in cadre. The status of officers working is as under:-

Total Wkg. Promotees Sanctioned
HAG 272 nil 191
SAG 1831 13 1211
SG 1433 244 3528
JAG 1221 +484(ad-hoc) 851 + 313(adhoc)
SS 1180 747 3404)
JS 1313 7 (1875 (as per Rly.Bd.1647 only)

As already stated above that the quota is in posts and not in vacancies, therefore there should have been 50% promottee officers right from HAG to SS or even in JS cadre.

The claim that the JA grade may be after 12 years is proved in correct, in view of the above mentioned statement because - as many as 797 officers are working in JA (ad-hoc) for want of eligible officers.

At present the achieving of the laid down eligibility periods for promotions is as under:-

(i) HAG/SAG 18 yrs Attained with non-function___ .
(ii) SG 14 yrs No eligible officer is overdue or stagnating
(iii) JA 8+ yrs -do-
(iv) SS 4+ yrs -do-
(as many as 2000+ Group ’B’ officers are
Working on adhoc basis due to non
availability of eligible Group ‘A’ officers..

On the other hand the status for Group ‘B’ is as under:

(i) Group ‘A’ induction 3yrs regular service Not a single officer is
inducted in GP’ A in 3+ yrs.
Average length of service is 9 yrs+
(Accout-17 yrs+Personnel-16 yrs+
Civil–15 yrs+) are still waiting for
Group ‘A’ induction.
(ii) Sr.Scale(adhoc) 3yrs regular service Average 8-9 yrs.
More than 3000 officers with 6 yrs
or more are waiting

Recruitments at JS level :-

Before 1996, the vacancy calculations used to be every year w.e.f. 1997, system of calculations of vacancies every year has been dispensed away with. Now the same was/is as under:-

Gp.B DRs
1997-2000 250/yr 250/yr
2001-2002 180/yr 180/yr
2003-2005 318/yr 318/yr
2006-todate 411/yr 412/yr

Since the vacancy calculations is not every year, separately and the vacancies are based on a set system, there cannot be any inflation in the number of vacancies for promotes or DRs. (However the vacancies for DRs are in fact are being inflated every year in the sense that on account of a ban by the government of India only 1/3rd of the vacancies can be filled in DR quota which are being filled to full in Railways through a wrong declaration).

The figure of 411 is based on the total Junior scale sanctioned cadre, wherein only 50% of the cadre strength are filled every year. 25% of JS cadre from Direct Recruits & 25% from Promottees.

(The total cadre strength in JS is 1273 regular Posts+602 LR posts=1875)

However Railway Board is taking 1647 JS posts (and not 1875) and filling 50% of this 823 (411 from Group ‘B’ and 412 from Direct Recruitment every year). Every year is asked to fill 412 posts from DR quota. Therefore no chance of increase in quota whereas for promottees, the number is reduced by 15% as the persons selected gets retired before declaration of result, with 2-3 years delay in DPC. And further above 10% are also retired within one year – a reduction of above 20-25% in annual intake. The fixed number department wise is as under :

Civil Mech Tfc Elect S&T Acts Per Store
74 84 66 55 48 29 28 27 = 411

The system of calculation given in the article by respected GM that it should be 40% (actually 50%) of the total Group ‘A’ officers minus the officers leaving the service, is just not logical & practical. In that way the vacancies for Group ‘B’ shall be calculated after the intake of DRs i.e. after 1-1/2 yrs, of vacancy year and then taking 2-3 yrs for DPC means 3-4 yrs after the direct recruit. Moreover why the intake of Group ‘B’ officers should be on the basis of Group ‘A’ intake. Both are independent and not dependent on DR intake. Otherwise Promottees can demand that it should be based on the intake of Group ‘B’ officers i.e. on the number of Group ‘B’ officers inducted in Group ‘A’ officers after DPC (with 2-3 yrs delay) and then as much DR should be recruited i.e. for the vacancy year 2014. The number of DR be decided after DPC of Group ‘B’ which may be in 2016-17 and then 1 yr for recruitment of DR means the recruitment of DR for the yr 2014 shall be in 2017-18 only. I feel the DR shall not/cannot have any grudge for this.

The contention of respected author that the promotional prospects of DRs are being affected adversely on account of excessive recruitment of Group ‘B’ officers, which in view of him is not required, as promottees should only be satisfied with their promotions up to the higher level of supervisor or at the maximum upto Group ‘B’ officr. He is very kind to agree that since there are sufficient number of posts left after promoting the DRs after 3 yrs service (on adhoc basis only), hence the bacha-kucha may be given to Group ‘B’ officers as a matter of kindness on his part, forgetting that promotion of Group ‘B’ officers to Sr.Scale (adhoc) is not the kindness but it is their compulsion, as it is just not possible to run the railway administration with effective sr.scale officers. It is very important to point out that as on 01.06.2014 there are 2773 (86.5%) promottee officers against a total of 3306 (working) officers i.e. 2026 (adhoc) and 747 in Group ‘A’, where as DRs are only 433 (13.3%) only.

Similarly in JA grade also against 1705 officers wkg (1221 regular + 484 ad-hoc) there are 1174 (851 reg + 323 adhoc) i.e. 68.6% promottee officers. It is known at all level that Sr.scale & JA grade are the only grades on which the efficiency of railway operations depends.

The contention that the JA grade may be after 12 yrs for DRs on account of excessive intake of Group ‘B’ officers, therefore is not based on facts but it is a statement to arouse the sentiments of DRs against the recruitment of Group ‘B’ officers. A few paragraphs earlier it has been shown that at present, all officers – of all departments are being promoted within periods of their due eligibility (except Group ‘B’ off-course). The fact is that there being no eligible officer available (8 yrs + officers) for promotion, as many as 484 posts of JA grade (27%) are filled on adhoc basis. It is also a fact, due to acute shortage of JA grade eligible officers the eligibility of JA grade (adhoc) promotions period was reduced to 5 yrs from 6 yrs – on the express demand of DRs, and an impressive number of officers have been promoted to JA grade (ad-hoc) after just 5 yrs which means after their promotion to Sr.scale in 4 + yrs they are being promoted to JA grade within one year experience in Sr.Scale. This is applicable for DRs only because Group ‘B’ officer can only be promoted to JA grade after they get DPC induction which is normally 9-10 yrs. (even 17 yrs for Accounts & 15 yrs for Engg).

As per the author, the only reason of delayed promotions to DRs is excessive recruitments of promottees and should be opposed even to the extent of inviting the PHODs/GMs to see that DRs are promoted to Sr.scale –even on adhoc basis after 3 years i.e. 1-1/2 yrs only service experience after their training/probation period. Everybody knows the extent of the intensive training being undertaken for probationers. As per this author, the 25-30 year experience of working in Group ‘C’ and then 8-9 years in Asstt. Officer’s cadre is not comparable to 1-1/2 year working experience on easy posts of DRs and that these officers should first be promoted. What is balance may be given to promottes as a matter of kindness.

Therefore, it has been contended – by the author – if the promottes are being given more, it is on account of conspiracy of RBSS staff and less knowledge / no interest of higher ups of railways i.e. his own counterparts in PHOD/GM/Member post. For one thing, I am thankful to him that he at least has agreed that people like him and others his seniors working on higher posts, do not have adequate knowledge regarding cadre and establishment. Everybody knows that RBSS staff is up to JA grade. There is no RBSS officer at PHOD/GM/members level and these officers cannot ask the RBSS staff to behave as per them.

Very important – information :

I wish to say emphatically, the whole cruxe of the author’s discussion - that main reason of inadequate or delayed promotions to DRs is excessive induction of Group ‘B’ officers in Group ‘A’ which is being done by RBSS staff by violating the rules laid down by DOPT on the subject, and excess recruitments of Group ‘B’ officers is being managed by mis-manipulating the rules for that and so on. The only remedy lies in filing the court case against this, and making the panels of many years of past controversial by making FROA & IRPOF as opposite parties to it.

I know that I am a very small fry in this context and do not stand any where in front of very large number of higher officials belonging to DRs (or even promottees) in respect with status, intelligence, resourceness, but still I dare to say, if you want to make - one drawn line shorter and you do it by erasing only, You are making yourself bigger but that means you have not progressed rather you are still there where you were. Wise shall be - which will be beneficial also - is to make yourself big by achieving more, by improving upon and by performing better.

It has been suggested that to snach from promottee officers, what they got as per rules, court cases be filled saying that the excess recruitment in Group ‘B’ is affecting adversely the chances of promotions of Direct Recruits and that Board has not being following 60:40 ratio for induction into Group ‘A’ for many years and that on this basis the panels of many years behind say 10-15 years be revised and finally asking for direction to Railway Board not to deviate from DOPTs instructions on the subject.

In this respect I would like to emphasis that if the statistics of recruitment for the last 20-25 yrs say 1985 to 2014 are scrutenised I am sure it will show that only Group ‘B’ officers are at the receiving end not the direct recruits (emphatically so because I am one of the few person including Railway Board having such information) and that implementation of 60:40 (actually 50:50) rule has been implemented against the promottees only. Further, it is very important to say that as per the existing law, promotional chances are not the part of fundamental rights as per the constitution.

Revealing - one information

I wish to reveal one information to you all with which I myself is a previe is that FROA and some very important and prominent stalwarts of Direct Recruits - I can even name them i.e. Neeraj Kumar (the then ED/MPP), J. C. Pant, (the then Adv) be it known to everybody that the more recruitment for Direct recruits and less induction for Group ‘B’ officers is detrimental to the promotional prospects of both and create acute stagnation. That the recruitment level for Direct recruits should be reduced was the demand of these gentlemen and they proved with plethora of statistics.

Though this demand of these high level bosses was opposed by IRPOF (because it means lowering the intake of Group ‘B’ officers too). But basically it is true. The issue is clear by the fact that excessive recruitment in the year 85, 86, 87 created acute stagnation in early 2000-01 whereas lesser recruitment in 2002-05 has enabled the officers to improve their promotion prospects.

Wef 01.01.1997, we were successful in getting a decision from Board of 250 induction/year upto 2001. Naturally to do justice - as per the sentiments of people like present ex.GM - Direct recruits, 250 officers were also to be recruited from DRs. Seeing the adverse effect of excessive recruitments, these wise gentlemen started a complain against this larger recruitment for DRs. As per the papers submitted by them any recruitment beyond 168 (for all department) shall create stagnation in the cadre of DRs. They were therefore successful in reducing the intake from 250/year to 180/year despite our opposition to this (The calculation/papers are available with us). Had the intake would have continued the JA grade definitely would have been in 12 years. In fact the intake between 2002-05 was much less (between 60-70) which saved the day for today’s direct recruits. The logic of this calculations is very simple that the vacancies created after 18 years due to superannuation and or new creation should be the level of intake today so that by the time the present lot reaches in 18th year, there may not be any person who may not get promotion for want of vacancies.

Conclusion :

It has been made amply clear that the ills of direct recruits are not on account of Promotee Officers. You are now required to analyse all these aspects and find out what are the other basic reasons of your problems and how these can be solved.

As per my view, I can say emphatically that there is one most important reason for the problem of the officers in Railways (not DR – Promotee) is that in Railways there is no forum/organisation existing in this organization to look after the management of the Cadres. No analyses are made in the problems of the officers cadre. Therefore, there can not be any solution. In all departments or as per the instructions on the subject – cadre restructuring should be done every 3-5 years. How much it has been done in Railways ( Officers Cadre) it is known to everybody.

I would like to share one thing with all of you - based on my experience – is that when I was a Train Examiner – who were in all respects being treated as second class supervisors – started their campaign to get justice, we started as direct recruits and promotee TXRs. We did not get any success despite symapathy being shown by everyone in the higher echelons. The day we took up the challenge unitedly – as C&W department – both Promotee & Directs – I was then DR- together in 1971 – there was no looking back and got all we wanted by 1980. Similarly, the fight within various departments – Mechanical versus Electrical or Civil versus Traffic or one department versus the other cannot help the cause of officers for getting satisfactory level of promotions / facilities.

Appeal :

I wish to make an earnest appeal to all DRs and even Group ‘B’ officers for not creating bad blood amongst them by spreading wrong and misleading information, and advise as this will not only create problem for both the cadres but also for Railways. Infighting among higher-ups to achieve one-up man-ship over the other fellow officers and excessive departmentalism has led us to a stage where everybody is asking to put other outsiders at the helm of affairs of Railways. Please note the might of Group ‘B’ Officers and their contribution in the well being of the Railways cannot be sidelined by spreading wrong and ill- advice.

The total number of Group B / Promotee officres today is 8274 (59%) against only 5850 Direct Recruits. This may also be borne in mind that GMs, PHODs, SAGs & SGs and JAGs who are getting promotions in time or who have already got promotions will not support any idea of bifurcating the cadre between Direct and Promotees. All whatever is suggested – the larger intake or court cases – not to be decided in near future – and will help only the people who are in colleges now and not the persons who are in service today. We have already lost much due infighting amongst ourselves and among various departments. Do no escalate this further as it will put total future of the Railway Officers at stake.The loss more is of direct recruits and not of Promotees, as, as per the respected GM, we the promottees have already achieved more than their dream.

*The Author is Former President of Indian Railway Promottee Officers Federation (IRPOF)


Posted on Oct 30, 2014, 7:40 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Untitled.

by D.K.Mukherjee, Retd:DPO(I)/KGP

If I am not wrong, is it Mr.Bansal or Mr.Hasan to whom I was associated to some extent by virtue of my involvment in the organisation of SERPOA as Wkg: President. Whatever it may be, the article as has been written is full of material and true facts. It is difficult to comment anything on it.However, this is the fate of most of the Gr.'B' Officers except a very few. However with the hard work done by the IRPOF situation has started changing after review conducted some time in 2002/2003. With the hope that the position will further be improved in near future and good day will definitely come. I again thanks to the author for the very nice and costly article drawn by him. with regards.

Posted on Nov 7, 2014, 4:47 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


dismissal from railway service

by aditya

Can any body explain what is the meaning of dismissal. After dismissal from railway Can any body get a job in state government.


Posted on Oct 30, 2014, 1:14 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Dismissal from service

by Venkataraman


I have gone through Rule 6 of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules 1968 as well as Central Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,1966. I have also gone through the relevant D&A Rules pertaining to Tamil Nadu Govt employees. In all these rules the similarity which I have observed is that 'dismissal' from service is normally a disqualification for future government service. The term 'future government service' though has not been defined, in my considered view, it should be taken not only the Central Govt service but also State Govt service as well.

Posted on Nov 2, 2014, 3:09 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Dismissal from Service

by S. Tamilcholai

I agree with the view stated by Sri.Venkataraman. Dismissal is the most deterrent penalty imposed after following the laid down procedure and it carries with it the disqualification of future employment under the Govt. The word 'Government' is not restrictive and as such, employment under central/any state/union territory govt.after imposition of the penalty of dismissal is not permissible.

Posted on Nov 7, 2014, 9:57 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Updating info of IRPS 2011

by Shirish Kamble

Sir,

Following officers of our batch are posted as under:

Rajesh kumar Sharma APO BHOPAL
Ashish Sachan APO CLW
Sudhagaran C APO PALAKKAD
Shirish Kamble APO NJP( New Jalpaiguri)
Shreerangam Haritash APO Chakradharpur

Kritika Kulhari,Lakshmi priya and Ramesh Bharati
have moved out of service.

Please update this info in officers list.

Thank you.


Posted on Oct 29, 2014, 10:38 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Thanks. List has been updated.

by Webmaster

:)

Posted on Nov 10, 2014, 8:58 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Online train reservation for Retired Officials of Railway

by Well Wisher

This is in reference to my earlier message of March 2014.
Till date no response has been received from any corner.

I, once against request IRPS Officers/Association to take up
the issue of provision of Online train reservation facility to
Retired officers and staff to avoid hardship to them and
their family members.

Posted on Oct 29, 2014, 12:48 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Future of Civil Services Officers in Railways

by KK Mishra

There are three pressing issues which will guide the future course for Civil Services Officers in Railways.

1. How do we respond to and impress upon the new Restructuring Committee (RC). The notification letter of 22Sept2014 gives Terms of Reference as:
a. Reorganising and Restructuring the Borad,
Seperation of Policy making and Operations,
b. Exchange of Officers with other departments
c. Financial needs of Railways
d. Modalities for Rail Tariff Authority

Read somewhere that RC will start with already done reports and interim 'implementable' report will be submitted by Mar2015.

2. How do we see the role of Civil Services Officers in Railways with the ensuing proposal of Railway University. Since details are not available, assuming will be selected from planned Railway University, and the lineage of Civil Services.

3. How do we respond to 7th Pay Commission. I am told IRS association is strongly representing regarding pay parity with IAS (the issue of 2 additional increments), Domestic Funding of Foreign Training (DFFT) issue and Secretary level posts.

For your kind perusal.

Regards,
KK Mishra
kk.mishra@outlook.com

Posted on Oct 29, 2014, 10:13 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Non Functional HAG to IRPS officers

by Sunil

http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/irpersonel/Promotion_Posting/PP_EOIII_271014.PDF

Posted on Oct 28, 2014, 7:27 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Shame on IRPS Association and IRPS Seniors

by Well wishers only

We are wondering on the tolerance level of IRPS brotherhood. This is right time to approach DOPT and CAT/HIGH Court wherein prejudiced HR Policy of Railways is under exposure. IRPS is the worst sufferer of Railway's faulty Policy as it looks like it was never meant for Railways. Railways Chairman don't want this cadre after justifying for 35 years, Railway don't want this cadre after exploiting it for 35 years but how can people who have given their 35 years to this Sevice can tolerate it we wonder. PLEASE REALISE COMING IRPS fraternity will never excuse you if you and your Association do not take it seriously and represent to DOPT and UPSC and fight at CAT/High Court/Supreme Court.

Posted on Oct 27, 2014, 8:32 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

change of designation

by Nikhil Dhongari

Serial no 387 Nikhil Dhongari posted as APO/Ambala/Northern Railways

Posted on Oct 20, 2014, 4:20 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Thanks. List has been updated.

by Webmaster

:)

Posted on Nov 10, 2014, 8:58 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


resignation from IRMS

by dr suresh babu

sir, I am working in southern railway. my initial appointment was 2007 and after doing 2 years of service I got selected for post graduation. but I did not got any leave from railway and I absconded. railway conducted disciplinary action against me. meanwhile I gave resignation in 2011, but it was not accepted as DA case was against me . in 2014 I came back in railway after an application for withdrawing my resignation. my DA case is still continuing. but due to some unavoidable condition I can not continue my service. if I give resignation now , it will not be accepted as there is a pending DA case. so I want to ask u what will be the consequences if I give resignation now.

Posted on Oct 19, 2014, 2:16 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Acceptance of resignation when DAR action is pending

by Venkataraman


Normal rule is that when D&A action is pending, request for VR or resignation will not be entertained. However, there is an exception to the above rule position, which can be seen in Master Circular No.21 and the exception provision reads as under:

2.In case a Railway servant against whom an enquiry or investigation is pending (whether he has been placed under suspension or not) submits his resignation, such resignations should not normally be accepted. Where, however, the acceptance of resignation in such cases is considered necessary in the public interest, the same may be accepted with the prior approval of the authority competent to dismiss the Rail­way servant concerned provided one or more of the conditions laid down below are fulfilled;

(a) where the alleged offences do not involve moral turpitude ;

OR

(b) where the evidence against the delinquent officer is not strong enough to justify the assumption mat if the departmental proceedings were continued the officer would be removed or dismissed from service ;

OR

(c) where the departmental proceedings are likely to be so protracted that it would be cheaper to the public exchequer to accept the resignation.

If you are able to satisfy your appointing authority that your case falls within any one of the above said stipulations, the AA can give your relief.

Posted on Oct 19, 2014, 5:07 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


resignation from IRMS

by dr suresh babu

Mr Venketraman, thanks for your reply. Actually I wanted to know if my resignation is not accepted what may be the consequences. If I don't come back after giving resignation ( e.g resignation from 1/1/2015 submitted on 31/12/2014 and not coming to duty from 1/1/2015). Are they going to start a new DA case of unauthorized absence? If yes what will be the consequences?

Posted on Oct 21, 2014, 10:13 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Resignation from service

by Venkataraman

Dear Sir,

You have submitted your resignation letter, requesting the Railway Admn to accept the same with prospective effect. In my considered view, the Master-servant relationship in such a situation will come to an end only when the Master (Railway Admn) accepts your resignation. You cannot simply throw your resignation letter on the table of the Master and vanish. If you do so, you are liable for disciplinary action on this ground also. You may ask: I have given notice of resignation and why should I wait? The answer is: Employment is a contract in which there are 2 parties, one is the Servant and the other is the Master. Both of them are competent to terminate the contract, provided they satisfy the agreement conditions. If you are a temporary employee, short notice is prescribed. If you are a permanent employee, long period is prescribed. Further-more, acceptance of resignation by the employer is a must. You may ask: How long I have to wait? The answer is: You have to necessarily wait till such time the Master makes up his mind either to accept or reject your request. For this purpose, the Master has to keep in mind whether any disciplinary proceeding is pending against you or whether you are suffering from any penalty, etc. In the instant case, you have been issued with a Major Penalty charge memo, which is yet to come to its logical conclusion. Once again kindly go through the Master Circular and see the conditions stipulated therein. Kindly persuade your Appointing Authority and get the relief at his hands. This is the only solution available to you in the present scenario.

Posted on Oct 23, 2014, 6:58 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Re: Resignation from service

by Suresh babu

Thanks for reply.



Posted on Oct 30, 2014, 1:11 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


JAG

by Sanjiv Kumar

SL.no.232 JAG from 7.10.14 for update with modification date of joining 22.08.2005plz.
Regards,

Posted on Oct 16, 2014, 10:15 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Thanks Sanjiv. List has been updated.

by Webmaster

:)

Posted on Nov 10, 2014, 8:59 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Buddys, Fight elese you are finished

by A Non IRPS Sympathiser

Where the IRPS will end up. Class I are retiring in SAG. Clerks too are retiring in SAG. High time one get their due.

1. IRPS can not become Member at the Board.
2. Now IRPS will not become Additional Members
3. IRPS will hardly become GM, even if Staff College is the slot
4. IRPS has hardly any chance to become DRM, under the new proposed System

High time IRPS fraternity should come together for their right than merely bothering on petty politics or feeling contended with some small achievements. IRPS Association need to write to all concerned to rectify the mistakes or give Platinum Handshake to IRPS Officers with option to continue with other organised services. PLEASE SEND A MERCY PETION TO ALL>
1. UPSC which has recruited us as Class 1 Officers
2. DOPT which frames rules for organised Services
3. Secretary DOPT
4. Cabinet Secretary
5. Additional Secretary PMO
6. Secretary PMO
7. Minister DOPT
8. Home Minister
9. Prime Minister
10. Chairman Railway Board
11. Minister Railways
12. President of India

Posted on Oct 15, 2014, 4:19 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Re: Buddys, Fight elese you are finished

by NamelessFaceless

sir you seem to sound right and the horn seems to be at the appropriate time but the place, this site, how many irps see this and how many will act i am doubtful.

Posted on Oct 17, 2014, 7:33 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


The sleeping IRPS Association

by A surprised onlooker

I am surprised the IRPS association has still not taken an appropriate move. Before them CRB has done enough damage by recommending closure of the service? If it is the future what bargain IRPS Association is expected to bargain for its existing members. Please rely on the saying God helps those who helps themselves. While I have nothing to do with IRPS I feel sorry about many talented upright IRPS colleagues and request IRPS association to augments it's efforts before it becomes too late.

Posted on Oct 23, 2014, 7:07 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


list to be corrected

by M B Singh

sr. no. 330 Rajnikant Awadhiya IRPS resigned from railway. Kindly update.

Posted on Oct 14, 2014, 11:54 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Physically Challenged Verssus Logically Challenged

by T.D. Dinakar, Dy. CPLO, SR

Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Physically Challenged Versus Logically Challenged
By Subhash Chandra Vashishth

There is an inherent bias in the executive when it comes to giving equal opportunities to those living with disabilities in employment despite the tall claims on paper by the Government and harshest judgements from the Courts criticizing the executive and the government. Now whether it is born out of age old mis-beliefs, myths and resultant negative attitudes towards the disabled or an utter lack of awareness about the possibilities and potential of those living with disabilities - the result is insurmountable barriers for disabled people on every step of their lives.

A committee of High Court Judges decides that those with vision impairments and those with hearing and speech impairment can not function as Judges (Blind/deaf can't be judges, say govt and HC; PIL questions it) , the Babus decide what a person with disabilities is capable of, without even knowing a, b, c of disability! And these decisions are taken in solo without involving those with disabilities or their organisations.

We recently saw certain candidates with disabilities who passed the UPSC's Civil Services Examination way back in 2007 -08 continue to await allocation of posts! The principles of natural justice particularly in a democratic set up as ours, demand that an opportunity of being heard be given to those affected by the proposed action. This is amazing way of functioning displayed by the Indian bureaucracy where the bureaucrats and not the law decides whom they want to allow in their gang!

Section 32 and the List of Identified Jobs
The List of Identified Jobs for persons with disabilities which had been prepared by the Babus with some experts from field also on the panel has done more harm than good for persons with disabilities of this country. The list has been used to deserving people out by State governments from several key posts. The successive committees of babus have not allowed the stakeholders to even know what was added or removed in the successive list of jobs published through gazettes. Each time a list of published, the earlier was removed from the website, without even explaining what new post(s) have been added or deleted from the list and the basis for the same! And this business of identified jobs has been in business since 1989 even before the disabilities Act came in to force.

The list doesn't seem to have applicability in all the states and union territories since so many states (read babus) have published their own selective lists of posts (read... unimportant posts) jobs, keeping the posts to the minimum that could be held by persons with disabilities. Certain states and Ministries have been on an exemption seeking spree under the proviso of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act. For instance the post of Judge has been identified in the Central List whereas states like West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh seems to have taken regressive steps by obtaining exemptions of judicial posts from the purview of section 33 (reservation in favour of persons with disabilities particularly against the candidates with visual and hearing and speech disabilities.)

3% reservation in promotion under Section 33

Similarly, by twisting the interpretation of section 33, the Babus have for long denied the 3% reservation in promotional posts to employees with disabilities particularly in group A and B posts citing various untenable reasons.

Now the Bombay High Court has dealt with the issue in a PIL filed by an NGO - National Confederation for Development of Disabled. The petition pointed out that the ratio of percentage of direct IAS to IAS by promotion or election was 67% : 33% in Maharashtra state at present. Thus effectively, out of 100 new posts, 67 were being filled by people who have been directly recruited in the IAS category and 33 posts were filled by state civil service officers. Thus the reservation in 33% promotional posts was being denied to the disabled officers from State Civil Services (for the impugned executive orders provide for no reservation in promotion in Group A and B posts!).

In a remarkable judgement the Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sanklecha has on 04 December 2013, directed that the rule be applied to the promotion of officers, who were recruited through the disabled quota i.e. now reservation would be applicable on all the 100 posts. The court held that it is clear that reservation has to be computed with reference to total number of vacancies in the cadre strength and, therefore, no distinction can be made between the posts to be filled in by direct recruitment and by promotion. Total number of vacancies in the cadre strength would include the vacancies to be filled in by nomination and vacancies to be filled in by promotion. [Click here for the copy of Bombay High Court judgement in PIL No. 106 of 2010 titled National Confederation for Development of Disabled and another versus Union of India and ors.]

Manner of computation of reservation under Section 33
The manner of arriving at or computing 3% reservation in various posts has not been spelled out in the Act. and thus in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 73 of the Act, the government (read babus) used their discretion to spell it out through executive orders (read DoPT Memos) thereby restricting the reservation benefits to the minimum particularly in Gp A and B posts.

For Eg. Office Memorandum (OM) dated 29.12.2005, issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, inter alia provides a system for ensuring proper implementation of the provisions of the Act for the persons with disabilities, wherein the 3% reservation for the disabled persons was being computed by taking into account the total number of vacancies arising in Group C and D posts for being filled by direct recruitment in a recruitment year both in the identified and non-identified posts under the establishment. Similarly, all vacancies in promotion quota shall be taken into account while computing reservation in promotion in Group C and Group D posts.

However, interestingly, when it came to Gp A and B posts, it was specifically restricted to be computed on the basis of vacancies occurring in direct recruitment quota in all the identified Group A posts in the establishment.

Justification to such a restriction given was that since the reservation for Group C and D posts is being calculated on the basis of the vacancies in identified as well as unidentified posts prior to the Act came into existence and in view of the provisions of Section 72 of the Act (Act to be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law), continued in the same way, however, reservation for Group A and B posts is to be calculated on the basis of the vacancies for identified posts as per the provisions of the Act.

The court thus decided that the modus of computation of reservation on the basis of total number of vacancies (both inclusive of identified and unidentified) in the cadre strength will uniformly apply to Group A, B, C and D and not just Gp C and D). Supreme Court Judgement dated 08 October 2013 in Union of India Versus National Federation of Blind (Civil Appeal 9096 of 2013) (click on link for judgement).

Accordingly, the DoPT issued a revision on 03rd December 2013 to its Memo dated 29.12.2005 (click link for a copy)

The way ahead

The tendency of the Government (read Babus) is to find ways to block the entry of the disabled into the mainstream of employment. This undeclared blockade has no direct link with abilities of persons with disabilities and indicates a greater malady that exists in our system. This can only be tackled by a sincere attempt to raise awareness of all government employees from the top order to the lowest about the capabilities of the disabled and also supporting employees with disabilities with reasonable accommodation and equal opportunities to work and prove their worth. At the same time, the executive has to be interpret the benevolent provisions of the Act so as to give effect to the will of the legislature and the mandate of international convention called UN CRPD.

One out of box idea is to scrap the Identification List and the present system of effecting reservation on identified posts. Let all posts be open for persons with disabilities with only condition that each person showcases how he/she will perform the functions of that post. Those competing on merit be not adjusted against reserved vacancies (policy exists but seldom implemented thereby defeating the intent of legislature of minimum 3% reservation). The government on their part must provide reasonable accommodation and an enabling environment to the employees with disabilities. I am sure this will work out and we must give it a try.

Here are some stories on such undeclared blockade and court intervention that recently made headlines in Indian Express and Times of India.

Civils: Centre, state told to implement quota rules for disabled

Aamir Khan, Indian Express, Mumbai, Thu Dec 05 2013, 11:58 hrs

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the state and Union governments to implement the rules of reservation for differently-abled candidates in civil services. The court also said the rules would apply during promotions.

The court was hearing a PIL filed by the National Confederation for Development of Disabled, stating that the People With Disabilities (PWD) Act was being violated. It sought the implementation of the rule, which provides 3 per cent reservation to disabled people in civil services recruitment. Directing the state and the Union government to implement the rule, the division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sanklecha directed that the rule be applied to the promotion of officers, who were recruited through the disabled quota.

The petition said the ratio of percentage of direct IAS to IAS by promotion or election was 67%:33% in the state at present. "Therefore, out of 100 new posts, 67 are filled by people who have been directly recruited in the IAS category and 33 posts are filled by state civil service officers. As per the PWD Act, three per cent of the posts in the IAS are reserved for such class of people. Thus, reservation should be applicable to all the 100 posts," the petition stated. It also contended that the quota for PWD had not been filled for 15 years. According to the Constitution, the authorities are under obligation to apply the provisions of the PWD Act. Granting relief to the petitioners, the HC disposed of the petition.

Source: Indian Express

Disabled people clear UPSC, but wait for service allocation

Rema Nagarajan, TNN | Dec 2, 2013, 04.55 AM IST

MUMBAI: Several persons with disabilities (PWDs) who crack one of the toughest exams in the country and get selected for the civil services are routinely rejected with the government claiming there is no suitable service for them.


Source: Times of India, 02nd Dec 2013
They are good enough to overcome their disability and get selected for the civil services after clearing two levels of exams and the interview, but the Department of Personnel and Training, the allocating authority, rejects them and cancels their candidature.
In the last two years alone, out of 67 such candidates who got selected, 11 are still waiting to be allocated services. Many selected PWDs are allocated lower services than their ranking merits, on the plea that the nature of their disability prevents them doing the job in most services.

So how do babus sitting in offices decide what candidates with varying levels and kinds of disabilities are capable of? The answer lies in a totally arbitrary list called "list of services identified suitable for physically disabled category along with physical requirements and functional classification" published in the gazette. It lays down what service a successful candidate with disability can get. For instance, under the category of locomotor disability, if the disability affects both hands or arms, you can get into the most sought-after Indian Administrative Service (IAS) but you would not be eligible for any of the other 23 services.

Again, the Delhi Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service (DANIPS) is open to those with one leg affected or whose hearing is impaired. However, there is no place for people with these or any other disability in either the Pondicherry Police Service or the Indian Police Service (IPS). How different can the job be in different police services? In an age of economic crime and cybercrime, will the police service be limited to physical fitness or brawn and not brains?

All accounts services, the Indian P&T Accounts & Finance Service, Gr.A, Indian Civil Accounts Service, Gr. A and Indian Railway Accounts Service are open someone with one arm (OA) or one leg (OL) affected or with one arm and one leg affected (OAL) and to those with both legs affected (BL). However the Indian Audit & Accounts Service Gr. A alone is not open to persons with both legs affected. Why is only this accounts service not open to people with both legs affected? Nobody seems to know.

"My disability says both legs affected. But I use crutches and can do all jobs. However, most services are closed to me because some officials who have never met me decided that if both legs are affected, I must be immobile or unable to do most jobs. It is totally unfair. This identification of service has to be done away with. Let them select us, meet us, see what we can do and allocate us services accordingly and by our ranks," says a candidate who cleared the exam earlier but will be appearing again for the civil service exam on Monday, hopeful of getting in again through the 3% quota in all services for PWDs mandated by the Disability Act 1995.

The identification of service ought to be abolished as it is discriminatory under the Disability Act and under international conventions signed by India on ensuring equal rights to the disabled, pointed out yet another PWD.

Officials in the DoPT did not comment despite several attempts to get their version."Frankly, I am appalled that nine years after this issue was first brought to light, it remains unresolved, that too, against the express orders and directions of the Prime Minister. If the country, the government and the prime minister's office in particular wish to demonstrate their true commitment towards protecting the rights of India's disabled citizens, they ought to resolve this issue once and for all," said Javed Abidi of the National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP). He added that in protest against such apathy, NCPEDP will not take part in the "charade" of celebrating World Disability Day on December 3 when "speeches would be delivered, advertisements issued, and some more false promises made".

News Source: Times of India


Posted by Subhash Chandra Vashishth at 1:43 AM

The Bombay High Court Judgment on 3% reservation in recruitment, promotion and deputation, and the order of the Supreme Court upholding this judgment can be downloaded from:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8956113/UoI_Vs_NCDD.zip

Source:

http://disabilityrightsthroughcourts.blogspot.in/2013/12/physically-challenged-versus-logically.html



Posted on Oct 14, 2014, 11:42 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Discriminatory Attitude

by a v m kutty

i am deeply pained by efforts being made to undermine the activities of Deputation branch and Secretary's branch by officers belonging to group A services particularly IRPS.

Posted on Oct 13, 2014, 3:33 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

The massacre of Railway Cadres

by A K Raghvan

Dear Mr Kutty are you aware of HR crisis in Railways. How organised services in Railways are suffering due to partition role of RBSS. See the mess in careers of organised services officers in Railways vis a vis RBSS. Today these services are running behind by 10 years than other services curtesy mess by RBSS. Mess in posting of DRMs and GMs. Today Railways has no option than looking beyond RBSS to safeguard its interest who has worked on show me the face I will show you the rule philosophy and enjoyed immensly. God save the Railways from such turn coat custodians who have ruined the Railway Services .

Posted on Oct 14, 2014, 5:28 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Delayed promotion

by IRPS

who should be blamed for delayed JAG and SG promotions for the organised service ? 2000 and 2001 batch of all services lost their pay, perks etc for 2-3 years due to delay in JAG regular promotion by 2 -3 years due to the arrogance and inaction of then adv Conf and his team.. The things are now in order after IRPS took over

Posted on Oct 14, 2014, 7:52 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


rti

by anonymous


All information about a government servant is private

The appellant sought certified copies of the documents of all the lecturers/HODs of a Polytechnic college relating to their names, appointment orders, promotion orders, pay fixation orders, pay fixation orders after 6th Pay Commission, enhancement orders, pay modification/alteration orders, etc. The matter came up before the Central Information Commission which ruled that except for information that can be disclosed u/s 4(1)(b), all other information about the employees would be personal information, which includes the service details, property returns, etc. The CIC directed the public authority to give only the information relating to the names of the lecturers working in the Polytechnic, along with their designations and pay scale.

Comments

Many public information officers are harassed by RTI applicants who seek information about a government servant through a series of RTI applications. This order provides a way to deal with such cases.


Posted on Oct 6, 2014, 9:15 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

regarding pay and seniority protection.

by Mr Shinde Pandurang Shrimant

Respected Sir,
I am working in Indian Railways medical department on the post of Staff Nurse. but before that i was working in AIIMS New Delhi. while working there i applied for railway post (with NOC) and then to ESIC Gulbarga (through proper channel), which is autonomous body under ministry of labor and employment. firstly I got selected to ESIC, after submission of technical resignation to AIIMS I joined ESIC. while working in esic again I joined Railways. but ESIC did not considered my resignation on technical ground. now sir, can I claim for pay protection and service continuance in railway department. thanks. please suggestions of all the people are most welcome.


Posted on Oct 6, 2014, 12:33 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Re: regarding pay and seniority protection.

by Gyani

Nope!!
since ESIC didn't accepted ur technical resignation therefore ur joining into Railways will be similar to freshers.

Posted on Oct 7, 2014, 12:01 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


REGD. LETTER

by Mrityunjaya Roy

R/SIR,
I NEED THIS LETTER------ (OM-99-E(SCT)1/25/13 DATED 11/09/2013) FROM YOUR END AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE.
THANKS,

Posted on Sep 27, 2014, 1:17 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Changes-IRPS

by sunil

Link of Boards orders issued on 26/09/2014. Two of these are of Non functional SAG/IRPS and one of SAG/IRPS... Regards...
http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/irpersonel/Promotion_Posting/E(O)_III_PP_260914.PDF

Posted on Sep 27, 2014, 10:57 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

List has been updated. Thanks a lot.

by Webmaster

:)

Posted on Sep 27, 2014, 8:13 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


change of designation

by Aravind. B.A

Have been posted as APO Trivandrum, SR

Posted on Sep 24, 2014, 1:55 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Thanks. List has been updated.

by Webmaster

:)

Posted on Sep 24, 2014, 11:17 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


change of designation

by R.S Charan

srno 388 raghuveer singh charan is now posted as APO JAIPUR division nwr..

Posted on Sep 23, 2014, 7:46 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Thanks. List has been updated.

by Webmaster

:-)

Posted on Sep 24, 2014, 11:17 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


IRPS Training someone please elaborate

by H Narayan

can someone plz tell the approx timeframe and outline of IRPS probationers training schedule.....

thanks in advance

regards

Posted on Sep 17, 2014, 11:27 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Resignation while on deputation.

by R. Narayan

How a permanent Group A employee can resign ( Not a Technical resignation)
from his services while he is on deputation.
To whom he will be addressing his resignation
letter either CMD of the PSU or Railway Board or GM.


Posted on Sep 15, 2014, 11:48 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Resignation

by Reader

Resignation has to be accepted by the Appointing Authority.
(See Rule 41 of RSPR'93).
For a Group A officer, the appointing Authority is the President of India.
Hence it has to be accepted by the President of India(or Minister on his behalf).

Posted on Sep 15, 2014, 2:50 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Re: Resignation

by NamelessFaceless

in simple words it has to go to Railway Board through the department where the employee is on deputation and the railway board will take necessary action (where necessary in consultation with the CVC or UPSC)and convey the sanction = the president is pleased to accept....

Posted on Sep 15, 2014, 3:03 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Resignation of permanent Gr. A Employee

by Ganesh Murthy

Sir, at first, the substantive Grade of the post in which the Officer, who is on deputation, is holding on the Railways, has not been spelt out.

As per para 8 (note) circulated by Railway Board vide their letter No. F(X)II-2010/PW/2 Dated 11.10.2010 (Advance Correction Slip No. 69), sanction of higher authority for acceptance of Resignations is necessary for Administrative Grade Officers.

In case the Officer who is on deputation, is holding the substantive post upto Senior Scale in the Railways, the General Manager of the Railway concerned can accept the resignation of the Officer concerned, though he is on deputation. After acceptance of the resignation by the GM, an advise should be sent to the Organisation in which the Officer is working on deputation basis, regarding acceptance of his resignation. If the Officer is working in Administrative Grade, then the GM of the Railway concerned should give recommendations for accepting the resignation of the Officer and then the same should be forwarded to Railway Board for acceptance of resignation by the higher authority. The General Managers, while accepting the resignation of the Officers holding substantive post upto Senior Scale, will have the power to waive the prescribed notice period in respect of probationary Officers selected for IAS/IFS/IPS. I am sure the readers of this esteemed forum will agree with this and in case i am wrong, the readers may throw light on the issue please.

Posted on Sep 19, 2014, 10:00 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Resignation of permanent Gr. A Employee

by Y Singh

Up to senior scale Resignation shall be accepted by concerned GM.
And Letter of resignation shall be forwarded by concerned PSU.
Resignation should be addressed to CMD of PSU.

Posted on Sep 20, 2014, 11:35 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Re: Resignation of permanent Gr. A Employee

by nameless faceless

the issue in question is who is the competent authority to accept the resignation ? the other formalities like forwarding the letter to railway concerned etc should off course need to be complied and observed with, which need not be eloborated.

Posted on Sep 20, 2014, 9:14 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


For webmaster

by DyCPO/SECR

Srl No. 276 Sri J S Sukhdeve is now posted as Chairman/RRC/SECR/Bilaspur at Bilaspur.

Kindly update please

Posted on Sep 13, 2014, 2:03 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Thanks. List has been updated.

by Webmaster

:)

Posted on Sep 24, 2014, 11:16 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Change of Designation

by Ullas Kumar

Sr 381 Ullas Kumar is APO Jhansi NCR.
Kindly update.

Posted on Sep 12, 2014, 7:06 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

List has been updated.

by Webmaster

:-)

Posted on Sep 13, 2014, 10:55 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


CHANGE OF DESIGNATION

by KUMAR CHANDRESH

sr no 394 kumar chandresh is now posted as APO KGP SER

Posted on Sep 10, 2014, 4:21 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

List stands updated. Thanks.

by Webmaster

:)

Posted on Sep 13, 2014, 10:54 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Change of Designation

by Arun ravichettu

sr no 377 Arun Ravichettu is now posted as APO Hubli SWR wef 26-8-2014

Posted on Sep 9, 2014, 11:46 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

List has been updated.Thanks.

by Webmaster

:)

Posted on Sep 9, 2014, 7:03 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


training of B.Tech CGA in Technicain Grade III

by NamelessFaceless

a candidate appointed through Compassionate Ground Appointment (CGA) as Technician Grade III in railway workshop will undergo training for six months or Three years?

Railway Board's circular prescribes six months training period for Diploma holder candidate. However, this letter does not include B.Tech as educational qualification of CGA candidate for appointment in Technician Grade III.

Is it correct to extrapolate provision for Diploma holder candidate for B.Tech candidate also?

Posted on Aug 31, 2014, 11:19 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Gazetted officers

by NamelessFaceless

those whose names are published on their appointment, promotions, superannuation are called gazetted officers and enjoy the benefit of gazetted officers. in the case of IAS officers their events are published in the respective gazettes of the states. i wonder if any even taking place in the case of IRPS or IRAS or any of the services are published in any gazette (or a supplement as gazette of india) and if not how can they be called gazetted officers exercising the powers of President of India. Can anyone clarify this point and if i am wrong and their names are published in the gazette of india i may be corrected. i know in good old days there used to be a gazette published by each railway and such events are published at least in those gazettes. i wonder if such a publication exist now a days!!!!pardon my ignorance.

Posted on Aug 30, 2014, 9:40 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

IRPS DAY

by tpvssrao

IT IS MY OPINION THAT EACH RAILWAY MAY CELEBRATE IRPS DAY LIKE IRSME DAY. I AM MISSING IRSME AND ALSO IRPS DAY BECAUSE INITIAL TEETHING PROBLEMS TO START.

Posted on Aug 28, 2014, 12:18 AM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Definition

by Vijay Kumar

Who is a PHOD, a CHOD and a HOD ? Is it defined somewhere ?

Posted on Aug 23, 2014, 1:10 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

HOD defined

by Reader

It is President who by order can declare an Authority to be HOD.
For eg CPO is an HOD but not CPO(IR) or CPO(A).

See Indian Railway Estt Code Vol I


103. Definitions.
Unless there be something repugnant in the subject or context, the terms defined below are used in this Code in the sense herein explained.


(21) Head of a department means any authority which the President may by order declare to be the head of a department for the purpose of these Rules.


Posted on Aug 23, 2014, 5:52 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Re: HOD defined

by vijay kumar

But who shall be PHOD & CHOD ?

Posted on Aug 25, 2014, 4:47 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Re: HOD defined

by ganesh

Sir PHOD will normally be in the rank of HAG. In case, there are SAG Officers, who are juniors and working under him, he will be the PHOD, being senior most amongst them. All the SAG Officers will report to him.

As far as CHOD is concerned, the seniormost Officer amongst all the Officers in a particular dept will be the CHOD. For example, if there are 04 SAG Officers in a particular dept, the seniormost amongst them will be the CHOD. If there is only one Officer in a particular dept, he will be the CHOD of the dept. I am sure all the readers of the forum will agree with this view, if I am right.

Posted on Aug 26, 2014, 10:42 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


HOD Defined.

by S. Tamilcholai

Mr. Ganesh is correct. However, let me further clarify the terms as under: PHOD is Principal Head of the Department and is in HAG. He is in-charge of the department in the headquarters office in which he is posted.

CHOD is the Co-ordinating Head of the Department and is in Senior Administrative Grade(SAG). In a department where two or more SAG officers work, the senior-most among them would be the CHOD and is responsible for co-ordinating the functions of that particular department. HOD is Head of the Department and is in Senior Admininistrative Grade. HOD may be in-charge of a specific function like Track, Bridge, Rolling Stock(FHOD-Functional Head of the Department)or he/she may be in-charge of a territorial jurisdiction(Territorial HOD).

Posted on Sep 5, 2014, 1:04 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Re: HOD Defined.

by ganesh murthy

thanks cholai sir for confirming my stand on phod/chod regards

Posted on Sep 6, 2014, 10:00 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


irps days

by shameful

it is time to highlight the personnel officers who gives bad to cadre he is habitual for correption see his past record as dy cpo rec

Posted on Aug 23, 2014, 12:12 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

GP of 6600 on Promotion to Sr Scale

by Railway_AAP

An anamoly has been noted in one of the Railway Units that when a Group A Officer is promoted to SrScale after three years service, he is not given GP of 6600 but given GP of 5400 with some Charge Allowance.

However, in case of Group-B Officers, after putting in three years of service in Group-B, they are promoted to Sr Scale and are given a GP of 6600.

SrScale post is a Group A post and a Group B Officer's promotion remains an ad-hoc promotion till he is promoted to Group-A; giving GP of 6600 to Group B Officer on ad-hoc promotion to SrScale after three years service in Group-B is illegal.

Further, how a Group-A Officer is denied GP of 6600 on promotion to SrScale after three years service in Group-A; is beyond comprehension.

Am I correct?? What are the guidelines in this reference. Learned members may please comment.

Posted on Aug 20, 2014, 12:17 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Reminder

by Railway_AAP

Where all experts have gone???
We are discussing all sorts of issues but are not discussing this pertinent issue.
Is the silence delibetate??? OR We donot know the rules????

Posted on Sep 4, 2014, 10:47 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Promotion in Senior scale

by NAMELESS FACELESS

The pertinent issue has been deliberated in detail with the rule position. There is no response now. Is the silence deliberate ?

Posted on Sep 15, 2014, 8:34 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Re: GP of 6600 on Promotion to Sr Scale

by ganesh murthy

Sir, I would like to humbly submit my views regarding filling up of the vacancies in Senior scale

Railway Board vide their letter No. E(GP)2007/1/93 DATED 29.02.2008 have issued consolidated instructions governing officiating promotion from Group 'B' to Senior scale on adhoc basis. Para 1 of this letter stipulates the eligibility condition for adhoc promotin to Senior scale. Para 1.1(a) mentions that vacancies in Senior scale in the 8 organised services should be filed up by regular promotion of Group 'A' (Junior Scale) Officers who are eligible for appointment to Sr. Scale, having rendered 4 years of service in Junior Scale, as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. Para 1.1(b) states that If eligible Group 'A' Junior Scale Officers are not available, the vacancies in Senior scale may be filled by adhoc promotion of Officers with the approval of the competent authority, as indicated below:-

(i) Group 'B' Officers who have rendered not less than 6 years of regular service in Group 'B' subject to their being adjudged suitable by a committee of PHODs.

(ii) Failing (i) above, Group 'A' (Junior Scale) Officers with a minimum of 3 years of service in Junior Scale and who have completed the probation successfully.

(iii) Failing (i) and (ii) above, Group 'B' Officers who have rendered not less than 3 years of regular service in Group 'B', subject to their being adjudged suitable by a committee of PHODs. Para 1.2 states that only those Group 'B' Officers who have rendered not less than years of non-fortuitous service in Group 'B' are to be considered for the adhoc panel. Para 2.2 of the said letter also indicates a caution clause that adequate number of vacancies in Senior scale is made available for promotion of Group 'A' Junior Scale Officers to Senior Scale after they complete 4 years' service, so that there may be no reasonable chance of Group 'B' Officers having to be reverted, once they are promoted to Senior scale even on adhoc basis. Para 8 of the said letter speaks of the entitlement of pay on adhoc promotion to Senior scale both for Group 'A'and Group 'B' officers, who promoted to officiate in Senior scale on adhoc basis. While the Group 'A' Officer in Junior scale on adhoc promotion to Senior scale is entitled to a charge allowance in addition to his pay in Junior scale, the Group 'B' Officers on promotion to Senior scale will be entited to draw pay in the Senior scale under normal operation of rules.

It may please be appreciated here that the recruitment rules are entirely different for Group 'A' Officers and Group 'B' Officers. While Group 'A' Officers, on completion of 5 years, are eligible for promotion even to JAG, Group 'B' Officers, who are yet to be conferred with Junior Scale, will continue to officiate in Senior scale on adhoc basis, against a Group 'A' post.

In the instant case brought out, it may be a situation where the Group 'B' Officer, on completion of three years (the Officer would have also completed six years of Group 'B' service), would have been promoted to officiate in Senior scale on adhoc basis. The Group 'A' Officer would have joined the Railway service afterwards and he would have been promoted to Senior scale with charge allowance only because of the fact that he has not completed 4 years of service. Since the recruitment rules are entirely different for Group 'A' Officers and Group 'B' Officers, I am of the opinion that the promotion of Group 'B' Officer to Senior scale on adhoc basis is not illegal, as per the priorities laid down by Railway Board for filling up of vacancies in Senior scale in organised services. I would like the learned members of the forum to opine and give their views on the issue please.

Posted on Sep 11, 2014, 11:46 PM

Respond to this message

Return to Index


Find more forums on Service OrganizationsCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  

Indian Railway Personnel Officers & visitors are welcome to express their views