Proposal in connection with Cadre Restructuring of Group C employees in Department of Posts
This is regarding the cadre restructuring consequent on the acceptance of the recommendations made by the committee on this issue. Order containing instructions is issued vide Dte letter dated 10.11.2017.
2. Already, a batch of officials have been promoted to LSG and posted to the places of their choices. Since the posts of treasurer were marked as LSG some of the officials are working as treasurer in HO/SOs. As per the recent instructions, the post of Treasurer could not be identified as LSG and hence those officials are to be posted to some other LSG posts. It is to be noted that those officials are senior officials. If they are posted to some other office there may be dislocation and consequtly dissatisfaction among officials. Also they may claim for some other posts which are already occupied by the LSG officials those who are junioirs.
3. On the other hand if the entire postings are cancelled and the exercise is done again by considering all the posts and all the LSG officials, it would be very difficult to manage. There may be growing dissatisfaction among officials, especially those who are now working at their place of choice. In order to simplify the things and to implement the proposal with minimum trouble the following is suggested.
4. Those officials working in LSG posts otherthan treasurer should be allowed to continue in the present post. There would be no counter claims as those officials are seniors and have been posted against their willingness.
5. The recent instructions permit identification of PA posts in HO/SO as LSG. As such in the offices in which LSG officials are working as treasurers, one post of PA should be identified as LSG, so that those officials working as treasurers may continue in the same office but against a different LSG post, other than treasurer. Thus the present status will continue without any trouble.
6. The rest of the identified LSG posts within the division may be filled by the officials proposed to be promoted to LSG now. These officials should be given an opportunity to furnish their choices of places, as done for those LSG officials promoted earlier.
7. If any official declines the promotion, the same should be accepted.
8. It is more important that almost in all the cases, there are absolutely no monetary benefits to the officials since each official is already in receipt of GP more than that of LSG. It is only a change in designation and can not be called a promotion. It is added that as per the provisions of FR 22, every promotion is accompanied by fixation of pay. Since this proposal earns nothing to the officials, this should not be called a promotion.
9. The promotion to LSG does not involve any fixation and hence if any official declines the promotion, the same should be accepted and this declination should not be a bar for the future MACPS. FR 22 assures for pay fixation on promotion, as per pay fixation formula prevailing on that date. The same amount of fixation benefit is assured under MACPS also. The rules on MACPS stipulates that if any regular promotion is declined by any official, the future MACP will not be provided to that official. This is only a change in name and no fixation benefit is available to any official. If a close reading of the rulings on MACPS with FR 22 is made, it could be seen that this cadre change cannot be called a promotion. Hence declining such thing cannot be a bar for future MACP. If the official declines LSG the official will not be offered promotions to HSG II and HSG I. Also in a majority of the cases, there is no scope for any fixation in future also in as much as HSG II and HSG I promotions would be awared only after a considerable time when the official would have crossed that grade pay level.
10. This promotion is linked to the number of posts identified. At the same time, MACP is awarded based purely on the length of the service of the individual officials and there is fixation benefit to all the officials.
11. In the light of the above facts, if any official, who is not entltled for any fixation benefit for this promotion, declines this promotion the same should be accepted and the future MACP should not be denied to that official. This should be taken at appropriate level for issue of suitable orders. Making this promotion in which no benefit to the official as a pre condition for getting the due benefits under MACPs is not under any law and also against natural justice.
12. It would be absolutely right if any official is entitled for pay fixation consequent on this proposal, and if the official declines the official will not be eligible for future MACP.
13. Alternatively, instead of identifying the posts, number of officials equal to the number posts may be identified, as LSG. The promotion may be awarded in situ. In this case, there would be absolutely no trouble at all. In such a case, every official will continue in their present post and will get their due promotions on their turn. There would be absolutely no dislocation at all. For example, if the number of LSG posts for our circle is 1500, then the senior most 1500 officials in the circle will be identified as LSG and so on.
14. In this case, all the officials will remain in the same division.
15. This should be considered at appropriate level for issue of suitable orders in this regard.
Srivaikuntam HO 628601