This is regarding the counting of pre appointment training period for TBOP/BCR/MACPS.
1. Directorate letter no 44-2/2011-SPB II dated 5.5.20162. Department of Per & Trg OM no 16/16/89-Estt(Pay-I) dt 22.10.19903. Department of Per & Trg OM no 16/16/92-Estt(Pay-I) dt 31.3.1992
It is submitted that the period of induction training is to be counted for the purpose of drawing increments as per the communication cited against 2 above. The benefit has already been extended to those officials who undergone training after 1.1.1986. Their pay had been fixed notionally from 1.1.1986 and on actual basis from 1.10.1990 as per the instructions contained in the communication cited against 3 above.
As per the communication cited against 1 above, the above benefit has been extended to those officials who underwent training prior to 1.1.1986. This benefit has not been extended to those officials who underwent training prior to 1.1.1986. The service books and the particulars of training periods were called for by DO.
It is ascertained that the delay is due to the following reasons.
The case
In a number of cases, the training orders are not available either with the officials or with the administration. Also, there is no entry in the service book regarding the training. Hence, their cases have not been considered.
The remedy
The following is suggested. The prescribed training period is 90/105 days as per rulings on the subject and only 90 days’ of training period is to be counted for increment and hence for TBOP/BCR. At the first phase, this benefit was extended to those officials who underwent training on or after 1.1.1986 and now orders are issued for extending this benefit to those officials who underwent training prior to 1.1.1986, but not implemented. Based on the above, the officials can now be classified into those who had been extended the benefit and who had not been. This fact can easily be ascertained from the service book of the officials and this fact can be certified by the concerned DDOs. For example if the DCCS of the official is 1.1.1987 and if his first increment was drawn on 1.1.1988, it is clear that this official has not been extended the benefit. On the otherhand, if the first increment was drawn on 1.10.1997 it shows that this official has been extended this benefit. Since the orders were issued in 1992, the extention of this benefit and also the arrears paid particulars are available in the service book of the official. Considering the above fact, the benefit may be extended to those officials who underwent training prior to 1.1.1986, even without the training order or even training period, since only 90 days are to be taken for this benefit. It is not out of place to mention here that, the induction training is mandatory as per rules on the subject and also such training was imparted well before the regular appointment prior to 1.1.1986. It is practically impossible for the officials to produce the training orders and also the same difficulty lies with the administration to trace such orders since the case is more than 30 years old. The denial of this benefit for want orders is an injustice, as the officials are not responsible as well as the administration. Anyway this benefit is to be extended to those officials.
In the light of the above, it is requested that the training period may be included for increment without insisting for any orders, but based on the facts certified by the DDO as suggested above. It is submitted that there would be absoultely no scope for any official to get the benefit twice, since the cases are processed based on the service books and also after a full scrutiny.
The case
It is ascertained that in some divisions, those cases have been rejected and the benefit had not been extended. Many officials who underwent training well before 1.1.1986 but were regularised after a long period due to ban on creation of posts. Those officials were working as RTP against leave vacancies. These cases have not been considered by stating that there is a break between the period of training and the date of joining in the PA cadre on regular basis.
Also there are some officials who were posted on adhoc basis for some time and then their services were terminated due to litigation. Subsequently, those officials were again posted as Postal Assistants on regular basis. Those officials were also imparted training before their adhoc appointment. In those cases also, this benefit had not been extended, citing the break between their adhoc service and regular service.
The remedy
It is submitted that in both the cases above, the officials are entitled for this benefit. This denial of benefit may be due to the following. As per the FR 26, such period of training counts for increment and hence for TBOP/BCR. At the same time, as per Rule 22 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, such period of training counts as qualifying service for pension. These two aspects stand on entirely two different footing. A kind attention is invited to the following rules.
GIO (1) below FR 26 reads as follows. (Reference 2 cited above) (for increment)
3. The matter has been considered in the National Council (JCM) and it has been decided that in case where a person has been selected for regular appointment and before formally taking over charge of the post for which the selected person is required to undergo training, training period undergone by such a Government servant whether on remuneration of stipend or otherwise may be treated as duty for the purpose of drawing increments.
GID (1) below Rule 22 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 reads as follows (for pension)
2. The request made by the Staff Side of the National Council (JCM) has been examined and it has now been decided that in respect of Group “C” and “D” employees, who are required to undergo departmental training relating to jobs before they are put on regular employment, training period may be treated as qualifying service for pension, if the training is followed immediately by an appointment. This benefit will be admissiible to all Group C and D employees even if the officers concerned are not given the scale of pay of the post but only a nominal allowance.
From the above, it can be concluded that there should be no break in the case for counting the training period as qualifying service for pension and not for counting such periods for increment. There is a striking difference between the above 2 cases.
It is presumed that those cases have not been considered due to the non observation of the above striking difference between those cases. Even though there are provisions for condonation of the break due to various reasons under GID (1) below Rule 22 of Pension Rules, for counting the training period for pension, such condonation is not required for counting for increment.
It is submitted that as per FR 26, broken periods can be taken together, by omitting the breaks, towards increment. This benefit is extended under FR 26 alongwith proviso to FR 22. As per FR 26, for increment, the official should have completed the minimum prescribed service in order to earn his increment; the minimum prescribed service may be in spells.
In the light of the above, such officials are also eligible for the benefit of counting their training periods for increment and hence for TBOP/BCR as per existing rules on the subject.
In the light of the above, suitable action may be taken in this regard withoug further loss of time.
c. Convening of DPC or Review DPC
It is learnt that this benefit has not been extended in many divisions, stating that the cases should be placed before DPC for the modification of date of TBOP/BCR and hence the delay. In this connection, the following is submitted. The consideration by DPC or Review DPC is not at all necessary and an executive order will do.
Functions of the DPC
…The DPCs so constituted shall judge the suitability of officers for –
(a) Promotion to “Selection-cum-seniority” and “selection by merit” as well as “non-selection” posts.
(b) Confirmation in their respective grades/posts
(c) Assessment of the work and conduct of probationers for the purpose of determining their suitability for retention in service or their discharge from it or extending their probation; and
(d) Consideration of cases of Government servants for crossing the Efficiency Bar.
(G.I.Dept of Per & Trg. OM no 22013/1/2001-Estt.(D) dated 18.4.2001 as Found in Swamy’s Establishment and Administration under the chapter “Promotions”.)
For Review DPC
…Thus it may be necessary to convene Review DPCs to rectify certain unintentional mistakes, e.g.-
(a) Where eligible persons were omitted to be considered; or
(b) Where ineligible persons were considered by mistake; or
(c) Where the seniority of a person is revised with retrospective effect resulting in a variance of the seniority list placed before the DPC; or
(d) Where some procedural irregularity was committed by a DPC; or
(e) Where adverse remarks in the CRs were toned down or expunged after the DPC had considered the case of the officer.
(G.I. Dept of Per & Trg. OM no 22013/1/97-Estt.(D) dated 13.9.1998 as found in Swamy’s Establishment and Administration under “Promotions” under the sub head “Review DPCs”
From the above, it could be seen that the present case does not come under the purview of DPC. This is a case of extending the benefit of training period for increment and also for TBOP/BCR. This can be done by an executive order.
II. The case of MACPS
A kind reference is invited to Dte. Letter no. 4-7/(MACPS)/2009-PCC dt 18.9.2009 and letter of even number dated 23.6.2016.
The above communications allows the benefit of counting the training period for MACPS also. This benefit has already been extended in some postal circles, it is learnt.
The facts narrated above for TBOP/BCR is squarely applicable in this case also.
III. The prayer
From the foregoing discussions, it is very clear that those officials who underwent training before 1.1.1986 are also eligible for the benefit of counting the training period for TBOP/BCR upgradations.
Also, all the officials are eligible for the benefit of counting the training period for MACPS.
This benefit for MACPS is available as per Dte. No 4-7/(MACPS)-PCC dt 18.9.2009. The same had not been given effect due to the wordings used in para 9 of the annexure which reads as follows. “Service rendered on adhoc/contract basis before regular appointment or pre-appointment training shall not be taken into reckoning.” The word “or” denied the benefit. Subsequently the same has been modified as “service rendered on adhoc/contract basis before regular appointment on pre-appointment training shall not be taken into reckoning.” The word “on” assures the benefit.
As the denial of benefit is due to the mistake in the wordings used, it is requested that this benefit should be extended to all officials who were in service on 1.9.2008, the date of implementation of this scheme of MACPS which only will render justice to those officials who were in service and subsequently retired from service.
Since, those officials who are to retire from service in near future are the losers of this benefit, and there is only a little hope or no hope of extending this benefit to them, your early action in this regard is requested
It is imperative to mention that the implementation of CSI is in the offing. It is needless to say that things may be a little difficult when the drawal of pay is centralized and also the service books are digitized. Also in a centralized environment, processing of a huge number of such cases centrally would be a uphill task. The details of all such cases can be obtained from the DDOs duly certified as narrated above and the orders can be issued within a reasonable time, say a month. As such, it is once again requested for early action so that the entire process could be completed well before the implementation of the CSI, which is possible since the entire work is at Divisional level.
R.Hariharakrishnan
Postmaster,
Srivaikuntam HO 628601
Post a Comment