Recruitment Rules for the Post of Postmen and MTS notified

Recruitment Rules for the Post of Postmen and MTS notified
D.G. Posts No. 44-2/2011-SPB-I dated 27th January,2011.

I am directed to forward herewith a copy of Recruitment Rules for the post of Postman and Mail Guard dated 16th December, 2010 gazette notified on 20th December, 2010.It may be observed that the notified Recruitment Rules provide to fill up the vacancies as under(For full text please refer to the recruitment Rules)
Postman:
i.(a) 25% by promotion by Selection-cum-seniority of Multi Tasking Staff.,
(b) 25% on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination by promotion from amongst Multi Tasking Staff failing which by direct recruitment.
(c) 25% by direct recruitment on the basis of Competitive Examination limited to Gramin Dak Sevaks failing which by direct recruitment of Gramin Dak Sevaks (without any examination on the basis of their seniority subject to their meeting the prescribed requirements).
(d) 25% by direct recruitment from open market.
Mail Guard:
a) 25% by promotion by Selection-cum-seniority of Multi Tasking Staff of the recruiting Division.
b) 25% on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination by promotion from amongst Multi Tasking Staff of the recruiting Division ,failing which by direct recruitment
(c) 25% by direct recruitment on the basis of Competitive Examination limited to Gramin Dak Sevaks failing which by direct recruitment of Gramin Dak Sevaks (without any examination on the basis of their seniority subject to their meeting the prescribed requirements).
(d) 25% by direct recruitment from open market. with matriculation as minimum educational qualification.
2. It is presumed that the Circles have already filled up the vacancies of Postman and Mail Guard up to the year 2010. The Circles may intimate the number of vacancies pertaining to the year 2010 in the said cadres filled up by them. The number of vacancies of the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 cleared under ADRP and all the vacancies of the years 2009 & 2010 if any, not yet filled up by any Circle may be communicated to the Directorate along with the reasons for the same and the date by which those vacancies would be filled up. The information in this regard may be furnished latest by 7th February, 2011.
3. In order to initiate action to fill up the vacancies of the years 2011 the Circles may work out the firm anticipated vacancies which would fall under various modes of filling up as provided in the Recruitment Rules. Wherever applicable the vacancies may be assessed Division/Unit wise. The direct recruitment vacancies not cleared under Annual Direct Recruitment Plans of the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 should be taken into consideration while assessing the vacancies.
4. The consolidated number of vacancies so assessed by them for whole Circle may be furnished to the Directorate by 1st March ,2011 positively in the enclosed pro forma.
5. Once the Circles complete the process of identification of vacancies to be filled up by various modes they may proceed further to fill up the following vacancies.
(a) Postman:
25% by promotion by selection-cum-seniority of Multi Tasking Staff..
(b) Mail Guard:
25% by promotion by selection-cum-seniority of Multi Tasking Staff..
6. The Circles are requested to process the above said appointment in such time-frame so that the appointment orders are issued by 29th March, 2011.
7. As regard the vacancies to be filled up by Departmental examination and direct recruitment the Directorate is in the process of finalizing the syllabus and scheme for examination. The same will be conveyed to the Circles shortly to enable them to fill up those posts also.
7. Receipt of this letter may be acknowledged.

Recruitment Rules for the post of Multi Tasking Staff.
D.G. Posts No.45-2/2011-SPB-I dated 27th January, 2011.

I am directed to forward herewith a copy of Recruitment Rules for the post of Multi Tasking Staff dated 16th December, 2010 gazette notified on 20th December, 2010.It may be observed that the notified Recruitment Rules provide to fill up the vacancies as under(For full text please refer to the recruitment Rules)
Vacancies in Circle and Administrative Offices:
i.(a) 25% by appointment of Casual Labourers confirmed with temporary status on the basis of Selection-cum-seniority failing which by,
(b) Appointment of existing Casual Labourers engaged on or before1.9.1993 working for full hours viz.8 hours, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority; failing which by,
(c) Appointment of existing part-time Casual Labourers, engaged on or before 1.9.1993,on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by,
(d) Direct recruitment as per the scheme circulated by the Department of Posts from time to time.
ii. 75% by direct recruitment as per the scheme circulated by the Department of Posts from time to time.
Vacancies in Subordinate Offices:
i) 50% by direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks of the recruiting Division or Unit, on the basis of Selection-cum-seniority.
ii) (a) 25% by direct recruitment on the basis of Competitive Examination restricted to the Gramin Dak Sevaks of the Division or Unit falling which by,
(b) Appointment of Casual Labourers engaged on or before 01.09.1993, working for full hours viz. 8 hours a day, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by,
(c) Appointment of Casual Labourers conferred with temporary status in the neighbouring Division or unit on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by,
(d) Appointment of Casual Labourers engaged on or before1.9.1993,working for full hours viz 8 hours,of the neighbouring Division or unit on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by,
(e) Appointment of Part-time Casual Labourers engaged on or before 1.9.1993, of the recruiting Division or unit on he basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by,
(f) Direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks on the basis of their seniority in the Division or unit.
Failing (i), (ii) and (iii) above by direct recruitment from open market.
2. In order to initiate action to fill up the vacancies of the years 2009 and 2010 the Circles may work out the vacancies falling under various modes of filling up as provided in the Recruitment Rules. Wherever applicable the vacancies may be assessed Division/Unit wise. The direct recruitment vacancies of the erstwhile Group 'D' not cleared under Annual Direct Recruitment Plans of the years 2005,2006, 2007 and 2008 should be taken into consideration while assessing the vacancies.
3. The vacancies so assessed my please be furnished to the Directorate by 10th February, 2011 positively in the enclosed pro forma.
4. Once the Circles complete the process of identification of vacancies to be filled up by various modes they may proceed further to fill up the following vacancies.
(a) Vacancies in Circles and Administrative Offices:
25% of vacancies to be filled up by appointment of Casual Labourers.
(b) Vacancies in Subordinate Offices:
i) 50% of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks of the recruiting Division or Unit, on he basis of Selection-cum-seniority.
ii) 25% of vacancies to be filled up by appointment of Casual Labourers.
5. The Circles are requested to process the above said appointment in such time-frame so that the appointment orders are issued by 29th March,2011.
6. As regard the vacancies to be filled up by Departmental examination and direct recruitment the Directorate is in the process of finalizing the syllabus and scheme for examination. The same will be conveyed to the Circles shortly to enable them to fill up those posts also.
7. Receipt of this letter may be acknowledged.

DDG(P)

TDS on Interest in Bank Deposits

TDS on Interest in Bank Deposits

1.Interest earned on bank deposits is subject to tax deducted at source (TDS) if the total interest amount in a financial year exceeds Rs 10,000.
2. Interest earned on term deposits is subject to TDS. However, interest earned on savings account balances is not subjected to TDS.
3. Even if a customer has multiple deposits, the interest earned will be aggregated and subjected to TDS if the threshold level is crossed.
4. TDS is applicable on the entire interest income if it is more than Rs 10,000 in a financial year, and not on the extent to which the interest income exceeds Rs 10,000.

Gr-D promotion and consequential benefits be given from the date of entitlement to GDS on seniority basis.

Gr-D promotion and consequential benefits be given from the date of entitlement to GDS on seniority basis.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH

R.A.No.46/10 IN O.A.No.393/09 Monday this the 10th day of January 2011

C O R A M :

HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr.K.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Vadakara Division, Vadakara - 673 101.

2. Postmaster General,
Northern Region, Calicut.

3. Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram.

4. Union of India represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Communication, New Delhi. ...Review Applicants

(By Advocate Mr.Sunil Jacob Jose,SCGSC)

V e r s u s

K.K.Gopalakrishnan,
S/o.late A.P.Sankaran Vaidyar,
Group D (Retired), Koyiilandi HPO.
Residing at Puthiyedath House,
Panthalayani, Koyilandi. ...Respondent

(By Advocate Mr.O.V.Radhakrishnan,Sr. along with Ms.Rekha Vasudevan)

This application having been heard on 10th January 2011 this Tribunal on the same day delivered the following :-
O R D E R
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an application for review of the order passed in O.A.No.393/09. That O.A was filed to issue appropriate orders directing the respondents No.1-3, who are review applicants herein, to hold DPC for appointment of the applicant to Group 'D' against the vacancies of the year 1997 and 1998 and to promote him against the vacancy arose on 31.12.1997, if not as on 14.6.1998 and to grant him appointment to Group 'D' with effect from the date of his entitlement with all ential
benefits immediately and issue appropriate directions to reckon the service from the date of his notional promotion to Group 'D' in implementation of Annexure A-1 order towards qualifying service for pension and to grant him retirement benefits.
2. Annexure A-1 order dated 14.6.2002 is the one passed in O.A.130/02. That O.A was filed by the applicant who was an Extra Department Agent acting as Group 'D' in the Head Post Office, Quilandi and he has sought for certain declarations that Annexure A-11, Annexure
A-12 and Annexure A-13 orders produced therein are unconstitutional and to direct the respondents to consider him for promotion to Group 'D' against the vacancy which arose on or after 6.3.1996 on the basis of his seniority and appoint him to Group 'D' with effect from the date of his entitlement with all consequential benefits. Finally it was disposed of by this Tribunal
and operative portion of the order in para 10 is as follows :-
"10. In the result, in the light of the above discussion, we declare Annexure A11 order dated 20.7.2000 illegal, incompetent and inoperative and the stipulation in Annexures
A12 and A13 to observe the stipulation contained in Annexure A11 is also inoperative. These three impugned orders are therefore quashed to the said extent. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to Group-D vacancies which arose in the year 1998 and 1999 on the basis of his seniority, irrespective of the fact that he has
crossed the age of 50 years and to give him appointment as Group-D if he is found suitable by the Departmental Promotion Committee. In that event, the applicant should be given notional seniority with effect from the date on which a person below him in the seniority list of ED Agents has been appointed against the vacancies of any of these years. The
applicant shall not be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances on the basis of his notional appointment. The above directions shall be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no order as to costs."
3. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in.P.No.23876/02 (Annexure A-3). The Hon'ble High Court by judgment dated 24.5.2007 dismissed the O.P and held as follows :-
" We do not like to upset the appointments already effected on the basis of the direction of the Tribunal. We make it clear that the principle laid down by the Tribunal will be
confined to the parties to O.A.130/02. Further, we notice that statutory rules have already been framed and further recruitments will be governed by the statutory rules."
4. The said judgment was again appealed before the Apex Court by ng S.L.P.No.14431/08 which was allowed and numbered as C.A.No.3407/09 by order dated 4.5.2009. The Hon'ble Apex Court also disposed of the matter observing that "since the respondents has already been appointed in compliance with the directions made by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court did not interfere with it, we arenot inclined to interfere with the impugned orders exercising our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution." Thus the order passed in O.A.130/02 attained finality. In pursuance the review applicants who arerespondents in the O.A passed an order dated 9.7.2008 giving notional promotion to the applicant as Group 'D' with effect from 25.10.2000 the date on which his next junior GDS was appointed in the cadre against the vacancy of 1998. It is also ordered that he will not be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances on the basis of this notional appointment. This was the subject matter of challenge in the subsequent O.A.393/09. The stand of the department as stated in para 4 of the order of this Tribunal in

O.A.393/09 is as follows :-
"4. The Original Application has been admitted by this Tribunal and ordered notices to the respondents. The respondents are resisting the Original Application by filing a reply statement and also relying on Annexure R-1 order dated 9.7.2008. The stand taken in the reply statement by the Department is that though this Tribunal has directed the Department to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post which arose in the years 1997, 1998 and 1999, the DPC for consideration of promotion to Group-D only met on
30.8.2000 and as the junior of the applicant one Saranan has been promoted with effect from 2000 only, the applicant was also promoted with effect from that date i.e. 25.10.2000. The further stand taken in the reply statement is that during the period 1997, 1998 and 1999 there was no appointment given or promotion given to Group-D as the Department officials have not reported the vacancies in Vadakara Division. Further it is stated that as the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 30.8.2000 the applicant has been promoted. It is also stated in the written statement that the applicant has been given notional Group-D status with effect from the same date on which his next junior has been appointed i.e. on
25.10.2000 and hence the order dated 9.7.2008 (Annexure R- 1) is in full compliance with the orders passed by this Tribunal."
5. Further the Tribunal did not accept the stand taken by the department and after an elaborate consideration of the matter in para 6 found that the applicant had received information under the Right to information Act which shows that there were vacancies for the years 1997,
1998 and 1999 and further contended in Annexure A-12, the informationreceived from Superintendent of Post Offices, Vadakara Division, that no appointments were given during the said period and appointments were only given for the years 1996 and 2000. These contentions of the respondents that there were no vacancies in 1997, 1998 and 1999 was
gone into by the Tribunal by an adjudicatory process and finally rebuttingthe contention of the department it was clearly held in para 8 in the following lines "This stand of the respondents is not justifiable and we arenot accepting such a stand taken by the Department in giving appointment to the applicant with effect from 2000 and consider his case for notional
promotion, though it was a notional promotion for counting the period witheffect from 1.1.1998 for the purpose of pension." Therefore, it was held that Annexure R-1 produced in the said case required re-consideration and the applicant should be assigned seniority and appointment position with effect from 1.1.1998 and he is also entitled for the entire period of hisnotional promotion for counting his pension and the department shall pass appropriate orders on that effect within a reasonable period at any rate within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. That order has not been complied with. It is in the meantime that the present R.A has been
filed.6. We have heard Shri.Sunil Jacob Jose,SCGSC, learned counselappearing on behalf of the review applicants and Senior counsel, Shri.O.V.Radhakrishnan appearing on behalf of the respondent/applicant in the O.A. The main contention of the review applicants is that the order of this Tribunal in O.A.393/09 is a mistake apparent on the face of the recordand liable to be reviewed and that an opportunity was not given to rebut the averments of the espondent/applicant in the O.A. As we find that it was

after adverting to the stand taken by the respondents and after considering the material on record that the Tribunal passed the order in O.A.393/09. No new fact has been narrated subsequently nor any new material produced in the R.A. They are only reiterating the same stand as taken in the O.A which was not accepted by the Tribunal. Being not a re-hearing
and since the contentions raised in the R.A has been gone into by the Tribunal the order eventually passed is not one suffering from any errors apparent on the face of the record. Further, we cannot re-hear the matter as points urged were considered and decided. Therefore, we find that there is no ground for review of the order passed by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we dismiss the R.A.

(Dated this the 10th day of January 2011)
K.GEORGE JOSEPH JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Officiating Period as Gr-D should be counted for Pensionary Benefits

Officiating Period as Gr-D should be counted for Pensionary Benefits

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 514 of 2010
Tuesday, this the 18th day of January, 2011
CORAM:

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

K. Sankaran Nair
S/o. R. Kesava Pillai (Rtd.)
Group D Official,
Kattappana Head Post Office
Residing at Komattil House
Senapathy (P.O), Santhanpare
Pin - 685 619. ... Applicant

(By Advocate Shri P.C. Sebastian)

Vs.

1. Union of India, represented by
Secretary to Government of India
Ministry of Communications
Department of Posts
New Delhi.

2. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Idukki Division
Thodupuzha - 685 584

3. The Postmaster General
Central Region
Kochi - 682 018 ... Respondents

(By Advocate Shri Pradeep Krishna, ACGSC)

This application having been heard on 11.01.2011, the Tribunal on 18.01.11 delivered the following. O R D E R
HON'BLE MR. K GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
The applicant in this O.A. entered service as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail packer (GDSMP), Santhanpura Post office on 19.11.1969. He was given officiating appointment as Group-D at Kattapana Sub Post Office with effect from 01.06.1999 considering his seniority and eligibility. He was regularly appointed as Group-D on 24.11.2000 and retired on superannuation on 31.01.2010. A minimum 10 years service is required for eligibility for superannuation pension. The applicant is having only 9 years, 2 months and 7 days of qualifying service and hence not entitled for pension. He has filed this O.A. for reckoning of his service as Group- D on daily wages from 01.06.1999 to count as qualifying service also along with the regular service.
2. The applicant submitted that he was eligible and entitled to be promoted as Group-D in the year 1999 itself and there were vacancies also. The request of the applicant for counting the officiating period prior to his promotion has not been acceded to by the respondents. The inaction on the part of the respondents in granting applicant's request for counting the officiating period prior to his promotion as qualifying service by preponing his date of promotional notionally,is unjust, arbitrary and prejudicial to his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He is similarly placed as Shri V.K. Divakaran, who was promoted as Group-D along with the applicant and was granted pensionary benefits counting the period of ad hoc service prior to his regular appointment as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. In O.A. Nos. 239/1998 and 449/1998, this Tribunal had directed the respondents to take remedial steps, if any, of the E.D. Agents in Kerala Circle who had suffered any loss by lapse on the part of the respondents in filling up the vacancies. The respondents are, therefore, duty bound to remedy the loss of pension the applicant is put to suffer on account of their lapse.
3. The respondents contested the O.A. They took the stand that the applicant submitted his willingness to officiate in a departmental post, hence he was engaged to work in a Group - D post in Kattappana South Post Office with effect from 01.06.1999. He was temporarily engaged to work in the post based on the willingness submitted by him. He was engaged to carry out the duties of a Group - D and is remunerated with the minimum of the scale and such engagements are usually intended to GDS since they are already familiar with the Post Office work. As his total qualifying service fell short of 10 years, he was not eligible for pension.There is no rule in force to give promotion from a back date if DPC could not be held in time for departmental reasons. The engagement of the applicant in the vacant Group-D post at Kattappana South P.O. with effect from 01.06.1999 can be in no way considered as officiating appointment. His engagement as Group-D was not as per the Recruitment Rules and the applicant cannot claim pensionary benefits for the work done purely on temporary basis. The period spent by an employee on purely a stop gap arrangement cannot be reckoned as qualifying service with attendant benefits. The DPC for promotion to Group-D was delayed due to various cases pending before this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Equating the case of the applicant with that of Divakaran's case is not correct. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court in giving the benefit of ad hoc service rendered by an employee has been overruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Mobina Singh vs. K.H. Themba Singh and Others, 2008 (1) SCC (L&S) 315. In the circumstances, the O.A. is not sustainable and liable to be dismissed.
4. We have heard Mr. P.C. Sebastian, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pradeep Krishna, learned ACGSC for the respondents and perused the records.
5. The applicant has more than 40 years of service with the respondents. After 30 years of service, he was directed to join Kattappana South Post Office in the vacant Group-D post with effect from 01.06.1999 on officiating arrangement basis. He was appointed as Group-D alongwith Shri V.K. Divakaran and 7 others on the basis of the order dated 08.11.2000 at Annexure A-2. When he was made to work as Group-D on officiating arrangement in 1999, he was eligible and entitled to be appointed as Group-D as vacancies were available.
6. Shri V.K. Divakaran who was given appointment in Group-D post alongwith the applicant had claimed in O.A. No. 800/2002 that his appointment as Group-D with effect from 01.03.1999, the date from which continuously working as Group-D in Thodupuzha H.O., could be considered as regular service. The said O.A. was disposed of on 02.03.2005 as under :
"12. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances, we set aside Annexure A-8 order and direct the respondents to grant the applicant continuity of service from 01.03.1999 and to consider him for regular appointment from that date by holding a review DPC if necessary for the purpose of pensionary benefits (alone) and pass appropriate orders within a time frame of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The O.A. is allowed. In the circumstances, no order as to costs."
The aforesaid order of this Tribunal was confirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide its judgement dated 27.03.2008 in W.P.(C) No. 17044/2005(S).
7. This Tribunal had relied on the judgements of Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association vs. State vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (1990) 2 SCC 715 and State of West Bengal vs. Aghore Nath Dev and others, (1993) 3 SCC 371. The respondents have taken the stand that equating the case of the applicant with that of Divakaran's case is not correct. But it was not substantiated in what way the applicant's case is different from that of Divakaran's case. On going through "O.A. No. 800/2002", it is seen that the respondents had relaxed the age limit for absorbing Shri V.K. Divakaran in Group - D. But for this relaxation the applicant is similarly placed as Shri V.K. Divakaran in respect of reckoning service from the date of officiation on the Group-D post for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association vs. State vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (1990) 2 SCC 715, held as under :
".. If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till regularisation of his service in accordance with rules, the period of officiating service will be counted..."
9. Again in R.K. Mobisana Singh vs. K.H. Temba Singh and Others, (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 315, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 34 of the judgement, referred to its decision in M.K. Shanmugham vs. Union of India, (2000) 4 SCC 476, which is extracted as under :
".....If an ad hoc selection is followed by regular selection, then the benefit of ad hoc service is not admissible if ad hoc appointment is in violation of the rules. If the ad hoc appointment has been made as a stop gap arrangement and where there was a procedural irregularity in making appointments according to rules and that irregularity was subsequently rectified, the principle to be applied in that case was stated once again....."
10. In the instant case, the applicant was put on duty of Group-D on officiating arrangement basis. Subsequently, he was regularised. It cannot be said that he was appointed in violation of the rules. The DPC could not meet in time for administrative reasons. That it could recommend his name subsequent to his appointment in 1999 is only a procedural irregularity which was rectified in due course of time. The stand of the respondents that the engagement of the applicant as Group- D was not as per the recruitment rules cannot be vindicated in the light of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. The officiating arrangement of the applicant on 01.06.1999 was against existing vacancy of a Group - D post. He was eligible and qualified for a regular appointment on that date and he continued in the post uninterruptedly till regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules. In such case, the appointee is not to be blamed for the deficiency for the procedural requirements in the rules at the time of his initial appointment and the appointment not being limited to a fixed period of time is intended to be a regular appointment subject to the remaining procedural requirements of the rules being fulfilled at the earliest, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Aghore Nath Dev and others, (1993) 3 SCC 371. Therefore, in our considered view,the applicant is entitled to reckon the period from 01.06.1999 to 24.11.2000 for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits.
12. The O.A. is allowed. The respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to issue appropriate orders granting the applicant pensionary benefits counting his service from 01.06.1999 onwards as qualifying service, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13. No order as to costs.

(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN)ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Qualified Surplus IP candidates can be allowed for IP Exam

Qualified Surplus IP candidates are eligible for IP Exam

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 708 of 2009
Wednesday, this the 19th day of January, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER


1. S. Biju,
S/o. N.K. Sudhakaran,
Working as System Administrator,
Kollam Head Post Office,
Residing Arunodayam house,
Thekkevila P.O., Kollam : 691 016

2. S. Bhagyaraj,
S/o. Unnikrishnan Nair,
Working as Postal Assistant,
Pathanapuram P.O.,
Residing at Saraswati Nilayam,
Koodal P.O., Pathanamthitta : 689 695 ... Applicants.

(By Advocate Mr. P.C. Sebastian)

v e r s u s

1. Union of India, represented by its
Secretary, Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts, New Delhi.

2. The Director General Posts,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi.

3. The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram.

4. The Chief Postmaster General,
Gujarat Circle, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

5. Shri Anil Kumar N, working as
Inspector Posts (P.G.) Nadiad Postal Division,
Nadiad, Gujarat.

6. Shri Unnikrishnan N, working as
Inspector Posts, Anand Postal Sub Division,
Anand P.O., Gujarat.

7. Smt. Asha Anand, working as
Inspector Posts (P.G), Surendranagar
Postal Division, Surendranagar,
Gujarat. ... Respondents.

(By Advocate Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC for respondents 1 to 4 and Ms. Jagada Bai, Counsel for respondents 5 to 7)

This application having been heard on 11.01.2011, the Tribunal on 19.01.11 delivered the following:
O R D E R

HON'BLE MR. K GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

The applicants are qualified surplus candidates of the Inspector of Posts Examination (IP examination), 2008. The name of the applicant No. 2 has been deleted from the party array on allowing M.A. No. 04/2011 on 04.01.2011. The applicants have filed this O.A. for a direction to the respondents to revise Annexure A-1 select list by deleting the names of respondents 5 to 7 and giving applicants their due positions in the list.
2. The applicants contend that the respondents No. 5 to 7 who are surplus qualified candidates of the IP Examination, 2007, and were allotted to the Gujarat Circle and working as Inspector of Posts in Gujarat at the time of 2008 IP Examination were ineligible to appear for the IP Examination, 2008 without being reverted to the lower cadre. Even after their allotment to the Gujarat Circle and after joining as Inspectors there, the partyrespondents were permitted to appear in the IP Examination, 2008 against the vacancies in Kerala Circle in the examination centres in Gujarat against the provisions of Annexure A-8 notification. The persons similarlycircumstanced as the party respondents were not permitted to appear in the said examination in centres elsewhere. The party respondents alongwith other surplus candidates unsuccessfully claimed for the 2008 vacancies in Kerala in O.A. No. 499/2008. They are getting double benefits of selection and appointment in the vacancies of 2007 and transfer to home circle which they could not have obtained but for their inclusion in the select list of 2008. The selection of party respondents, the surplus qualified candidates of 2007 IP Examination, is still in force and the consequential allotment to the Gujarat Circle appointing them as Inspectors in that Circle are also still in force and hence they are estopped from claiming the benefit of IP Examination, 2008. The aplicants have no more chance available to improve their position in the matter of promotion as Inspectors. As per the interim order of this Tribunal dated 06.11.2009, the applicants were deputed for training at PTC, Mysore, subject to the final outcome of this O.A.
3. The respondents contested the O.A. It was submitted on their behalf that till 2007 in a Circle only candidates equal to the number of vacancies in that Circle were selected and appointed to the post of Inspectors. By Annexure A-3 dated 13.04.2007, the Surplus Scheme was introduced whereby an All India merit list was drawn up comprising those candidates who qualify in all the papers but who do not figure in the merit list. These candidates will thereafter be allotted to those Circles which have unfilled vacancies in accordance with candidates' All India merit and choice of Circles exercised by them to the extent of availability of vacancies. The induction training for the candidates who are selected as per the merit list would commence immediately after the publication of the result at different PTCs. But the training for the surplus candidates will be formulated only after receiving the options from all the surplus candidates and their allotment to the Circles will be made as per their choice if vacancy exists. For them, a separate training package was formulated which included intensive training in the local language of the State to which they were posted. The Surplus Scheme was formulated with a view to reduce the shortage of qualified Inspectors and also to provide life line to those candidates who perform well in the All India Examination scoring higher marks but do not find a place in the select list of their home circle for want of vacancies. It was also submitted that the applicants have approached this Tribunal without making any representations to the various levels of authorities through available channels for redressing their grievances. The applicants herein are candidates in the surplus list of 2008. The party respondents are those candidates who had found a place in the merit list on account of having scored higher marks than the applicants. The examination for promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Posts was notified on 01.01.2008 much before the deputation of the private respondents for induction training at PTC, Vadodara on 22.09.2008. The party respondents applied for the said examination in their substantive capacity as Postal Assistants as they wanted to compete for the vacancies available in Kerala Circle for securing appointment in their home State. No provision in the rules prevented them from appearing for the said examination. The applicants were well aware of the inclusion of the private respondents in the list at Annexure R-5(B) containing the names of 97 candidates eligible to appear for the said examination. Having attended the said examination, the applicants are now estopped from challenging the action of the respondents permitting the party respondents to appear in the IP Examination, 2008, after publication of the results of the said examination on finding that that they have secured more marks than the applicants.
4. The respondents further contended that on successful completion of their training the party respondents were appointed as Inspector of Posts in the Gujarat Circle subject to their coming out successful in the language proficiency test within two years' period of probation. They hold the post of Inspectors as ad hoc appointees until they qualify in the language proficiency test. When the party respondents submitted applications for the IP Examination, 2008, they were working as Postal Assistants in Kerala and were yet to be allotted to Gujarat Circle. Having secured lower marks than the party respondents, the applicants cannot come up with an assumption that if the party respondents had not been permitted to appear in the said examination, they would have figured in the merit list. Having their lien in the substantive posts of Postal Assistants in Kerala Postal Circle, the party respondents were fully eligible to appear for the IP Examination, 2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2265/2007 held that "it is settled position of law that only when an incumbent acquires lien on another post ,his lien on the previous post stands automatically terminated." This position of law is squarely applicable in the case of the party respondents in this case. In the Civil Services Examination held throughout the country every year, the candidates are given option for selecting services and the allotment is made based on their position in the merit list. Even if a candidate qualifies once, he is given a chance to appear again for the same examination next year to improve his position in the rank list. On the same analogy, the party respondents who were surplus candidates posted to Gujarat Circle were given a chance to compete for the vacancies available in their home circle by permitting them to sit for the said examination. The party respondents were not full fledged Inspectors of Gujarat Circle at the time of the IP Examination, 2008, as they had lien on the post of Postal Assistants in Kerala Circle. They are ad hoc appointees as Inspector of Posts till they are confirmed after passing the language proficiency test. The moot point in O.A. No. 499/2009 is entirely different from that in this O.A.. The official respondents and the party respondents cannot be faulted for their inability to figure in the merit list ahead of the private respondents in the IPO Examination, 2008. In the circumstances, the O.A. should be dismissed.
5. We have heard Mr. P.C. Sebastian, counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC, for the respondents 1 to 4 and Ms. Jagada Bai, counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 and perused the records.
6. The short question to be decided is whether the party respondents in this O.A were eligible to appear in the IP Examination, 2008, or not. They were surplus candidates in accordance with the surplus scheme introduced vide Annexure A-3 dated 13.04.2007. Para 8 of the said scheme reads as under :
"8. the surplus qualified candidates, who are allotted to other Circles, will be required to pass a language proficiency test in the language of the State of the concerned, within the period of probation of two years. This test shall be conducted by the Circle itself. Candidates who fail to pass the language proficiency test shall be reverted to their substantive cadre and would be free to undertake the next IP examination subject to the prescribed eligibility norms."
7. The surplus qualified candidates have to pass a language proficiency test in the local language within a period of two years. In case they fail to pass the same they would be reverted to their substantive cadre and would be free to undertake the next IP examination subject to the prescribed eligibility norms. Based on this condition, the applicants argued that the party respondents were not eligible to appear in the IP Examination, 2008. The surplus scheme is an extended benefit granted to the meritorious candidates who could not be accommodated in the home Circle for want of vacancies. It also reduces the shortage of qualified Inspectors in the country. There is nothing in the scheme that takes away the vested right of the surplus candidates to appear in the subsequent IP examination during the period of probation. As rightly submitted by the official respondents, the surplus candidates who were allotted to a Circle other than their home Circle are ad hoc appointees on the post of Inspectors until they qualify in the language proficiency test of that Circle. They will be confirmed on the post of Inspectors only after passing the language proficiency test. Only after confirmation, they will acquire lien in the allotted Circle entailing automatic termination of their lien in the previous posts of Postal Assistants. In the eyes of law, the substantive posts of the party respondents would be Postal Assistants till they are confirmed on the posts of inspector of Posts in Gujarat. It is very relevant that the IP Examination, 2008 was notified long before the date of deputation of the party respondents for their induction training. They were actually working as Postal Assistants in Kerala Circle and were yet to be allotted to Gujarat Circle inspite of their being included inthe surplus list. Inclusion in the surplus list in no way extinguishes the vested right of the party respondents in regard to lien in the post of Postal Assistants and thereby to appear in the IP Examination, 2008. Therefore,the party respondents were eligible to appear in the IP Examination, 2008.
8. Further, as submitted by the respondents, the applicants have not exhausted the available channels for redressing their grievances before approaching this Tribunal. They were also aware of the fact that the party respondents were included in the list of 97 candidates eligible to appear in the said examination published by the 3rd respondent. After having attended the said examination and on finding that they have secured less marks than the party respondents and that they missed a place in the merit list, they are now estopped from challenging the action of the respondents permitting the party respondents to appear in the IP Examination, 2008. Also, we do not find any merit in the other contentions of the applicants.
9. In our considered view, there is nothing unjust, arbitrary or discriminatory in permitting the party respondents to appear in the IP Examination 2008. They were fully eligible to appear in the IP Examination,2008. Devoid of any merit, the O.A. is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Dated, the 19th January, 2011)

(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Retirement benefit can not be denied to employee

Retirement benefit can not be denied to employee

even if charges against him are pending

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that Government cannot deny retirement benefits to an employee who was asked to go on conditional retirement because charges against him were pending. A Division Bench of Justice R.Banumathi and Justice S.Nagamuthu rejected the contention of the government that Sankaran, an Assistant Tahsildhar had been allowed to retire on certain conditions as charges were pending against him,and hence he could not be given retirement benefits.
A single judge had already revoked the order of the collector suspending payment of retirement benefits.
Similarly Raja,a retired Sub-Registrar of cooperatives was allowed conditional retirement on April 30, 2010. But his retirement benefits were suspended as charges were pending against him. His writ petition was dismissed by a single judge, and he had come on appeal.
The Judges said when the Government employees are allowed to retire on condition, disciplinary action could be taken against them or inquiry conducted afresh. But government had no power to suspend payment of retirement benefits to them, the court said.
In a common order passed for both of them, the bench said when they are allowed to retire they should be given their retirement benefits.
Only government had power to take decision on disciplinary action against them, the bench observed and directed that all retirement benefits be paid to them.
i net

AADHAAR: What is & Why ?

Unique Identification Authority of India

AADHAAR: What is & Why ?

What is Aadhaar?
Aadhaar is a 12-digit unique number which will be issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to all residents of the country. It’s a step towards putting India in the club of more than 50 countries around the world that have some form of national identity cards. These include most of continental Europe (not the UK), China, Brazil, Japan, Iran, Israel and Indonesia. The number will be stored in a centralized database and linked to the basic demographics and biometric information photograph, ten fingerprints and iris of each individual. The number will be unique and would be available for online and offline verification and, hence, will rule out the possibility of duplicate and fake identities from government as well as various private databases.
What are the benefits of biometrics?
Apart from easy availability, the project will also rule out frauds by employing biometric techniques. Biometrics comprises methods for uniquely recognizing humans based upon intrinsic physiological or behavioural traits. So far, it is primarily used in computer science for access control. In some form, the method is also used for identifying individuals in groups who are under surveillance. Generally, biometric characteristics are divided into two main classes: physiological or those based on fingerprints, face, DNA, palm prints, iris recognition; and behavioural, which can include anything from gait or voice to typing rhythm. Aadhaar will use physiological traits — fingerprints and iris — to issue the unique identities. The iris recognition is included because the project is aimed at encompassing every resident, which includes children for whom fingerprints might not be a reliable identification and people working at places like fireworks factories and some plantations who have got their fingerprints rubbed off.
What will be the benefits of the unique identification number?
One of the key challenges faced by people in India is difficulty in establishing identity. People have multiple identity documents, each serving a different purpose. The most important characteristic of Aadhaar is its universality and it is assumed that the biometric card with the number will be gradually accepted across the country as the identification number by all service providers and government agencies. It is assumed by the UIDAI that the card will increase the trust between private and public agencies and reduce the denial of services to people who have no identification. The number will also hopefully reduce the hassle of repeatedly proving identity by various documents to avail services like opening a bank account and obtaining passport or driving licence and so on. For the people living below the poverty line and the ones who are entitled to various government-run welfare programmes, the number and the biometric data will help in identifying the beneficiaries.
Why is the UID criticized by some people?
The main criticism of the UID is based on privacy concerns. The project is criticized because, unlike Western countries, India is not known for stringent data protection laws and the opposing group fears data theft and selling of the vital information to a third party by corrupt officials. Apart from this, they argue, it’s an individual’s right to protect his or her privacy from any unlawful interference, even by the state. Article 21 of the Constitution, the Hindu Marriage Act, the Copyright Act, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Code of Criminal Procedure all place some form of restrictions on the release of personal information.
Is it mandatory or voluntary?
Considering privacy concerns, UIDAI has kept provision of voluntary registration at enrolment camps to obtain the number. Critics, however, argue that once the programme gets linked to welfare programmes, the PDS system and availing of various services, it will lose its true voluntary nature. Hence, it’s also important to have stringent laws to prevent denial of service in such situations.

Answer Papers should be evaluated properly

Answer Papers should be evaluated properly

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 756 of 2010
Wednesday, this the 05th day of January, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

R. Binoj, aged 31 years,
S/o. C. Raju, Postman,
Karimannur P.O., Thodupuzha,
Residing at 'Chellakulam House',
Kolahalamedu, Vagamon P.O.,
Idukki District. ... Applicant.
(By Advocate Mr. Shafik M.A.)
versus
1. Union of India, Represented by
The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum.
2. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Idukki Division, Idukki.
3. P.K. Thomas,
Postman, Idukki Colony ... Respondents.
(By Advocate Mr. Varghese P. Thomas for R!-2)
The application having been heard on 20.12.2010, the Tribunal on 5.1.2011 delivered the following:

O R D E R
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

The applicant is a Postman who appeared in the examination for promotion as Postal Assistant held on 06.11.2009. He was not declared as passed as he was short of one mark in paper-I English in which he got only 39 marks. On getting a copy of the answer paper under the RTI Act, he found that certain answers were not evaluated properly. His representation to the authorities concerned did not evoke any positive result. Hence, he filed the present O.A. for the following reliefs:
"(i) To call for the records relating to Annexure A-1 to A-7 to declare that the applicant is entitled to be awarded marks in question No. 8(5), 4 and 5 in A-4 answer sheet;
(ii) To direct the respondent to re-evaluate the answer paper in Paper-I English and to award the correct marks to the applicant and to revise the select list, include the applicant and to make promotions on the basis of such revised lists;
(iii) To declare Rule 15 of Appendix 37 of P&T Manual Volume IV as unconstitutional, ultra vires, unreasonable and void;
(iv) To issue appropriate direction or order to revise the select list and to appoint the applicant also as Postal Assistant in Idukki Division immediately on the basis of the marks on revaluation; and to grant him all consequential benefits with effect from the date of his entitlement.
(v) To issue such other appropriate orders or directions this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. As the respondents have reevaluated the answer paper in Paper-I English in terms of Annexure R-3 order dated 02.08.2010, the relief to declare Rule 15 of Appendix 37 of P&T Manual Volume IV as
unconstitutional does not survive. What remains to adjudicate is whether the applicant is entitled to be awarded marks for answers to question Nos. 4, 5 and 8(5) in Annexure A-4 answer paper and if so, whether he is entitled to consequential benefits.
3. As per interim order dated 03.09.2010, the applicant was sent for induction training at PTC, Mysore. Further, as per interim order dated 27.10.2010, he was allowed to undergo in-service training and the
applicant has completed the training.
4. The applicant contends that the refusal of the respondents to rectify the mistakes specifically pointed out in evaluating the answer paper and to declare him as passed is illegal and arbitrary. According to the applicant, the answers to question Nos. 4 and 5 merit more marks than he was awarded and correct answer to 8(5) is struck off as wrong. Awarding only 39 marks in Paper-I English and declaring him as failed even though he has scored high marks in other papers without awarding
marks for correct answers is highly illegal and arbitrary. He is short of only one mark in paper-I English. If one mark is added then he would become the second one in the merit list.
5. The respondents contested the O.A. They took the stand that the applicant failed in the examination even after revaluation. He could secure only 34 out of 100 marks on re-evaluation against 39 marks
awarded originally. In both ways, he failed to secure the minimum 40% marks prescribed for qualifying in the examination. They further stated that the case of the applicant would come within the ambit of issue No.1 and that they took action to appoint an independent examiner to revalue the answer scripts of the applicant, even without waiting for a direction from this Tribunal.
6. In the additional reply statement, the respondents submitted that the revaluation of answer scripts would mean valuing the entire answer scripts once again to reassess the value of each answer. In the instant case, the applicant got one more mark for the answer to question No. 8(5) in Paper-I English while he lost marks for answers to questions No. 1 to 3. In similar cases, like O.A. Nos. 413/2010, 459/2010 and 512/2010, on revaluation of answer scripts by an independent examiner, the applicants therein got higher marks than the initial valuation. The respondents have followed the spirit of revaluation in all the cases alike, observing the principle of equity in the revaluation of the entire answer
scripts of the applicant applying the uniform principle.
7. We have heard Mr. Shafik M.A., learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Varghese P. Thomas, ACGSC, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
8. The respondents submitted that re-evaluation of paper-I English was done taking into consideration of Annexure R-3 order dated 02.08.2010. Although it is not permissible to consider requests of the
candidate for revaluation after declaration of the results as it will not only cause great inconvenience to the examination process and also cause hindrance to the administration in the absence of vacancies of particular category viz; OC, SC, ST etc. under departmental quota but also against the spirit of Rule 15, Appendix 37 of Postal Manual Volume-IV, the respondents decided to conduct the revaluation of answer papers in the following circumstances as narrated in Annexure R-3 letter dated 02.08.2010:
"3. It may be seen that representations requesting for revaluation of answer papers are being received in this office specifically pointing out the following grievances :

(i) Particular answer(s) were not evaluated (ii) Excess attempted answer(s) were not
evaluated (iii)For the same answer(s), the examiner awarded marks to one candidate and to another candidate no marks were assigned or the answer struck off as wrong (iv)All the answers were evaluated but justified marks were not awarded by the examiner

4. The issues indicated at (I) to (iii) above are justified and need to be examined by the competent authority to find out the facts and if the claim of the candidates appears to be genuine, revaluation may be got done by an independent examiner in such cases and further necessary action may be taken. In so far as the issue indicated at (iv) above, there is no need to consider such requests and merits rejection at the initial stage itself."
9. According to the respondents, the case of the applicants would come within the ambit of issue No. (i) "Particular answer(s) were not evaluated" in Annexure R-1 letter dated 02.08.2010. This stand is not correct. The contention of the applicant is that the answer to question No. 8(5) and 4 are correct and that he has answered question No. 5 correctly in more than 4 fill-in-the-blanks. It is not the case of the applicant that particular answer to the question was not evaluated. In respect of answer to question No. 8(5), the case of the applicant is covered under issue No. (iii) as the answer given by the applicant was struck off as wrong.

10. Answer to question No. 8(5) which was struck off as wrong initially was rectified in revaluation granting one more mark to the applicant. As such he would have got 40 marks and would have passed the examination and got promotion. But the independent examiner revalued the entire answer paper and reduced two marks for the answer to question No. 1 and four marks for answer to question No. 3 thereby bringing the total marks to 34 from the original marks of 39. The respondents went about the revaluation of the answer papers of the applicant in paper-I English as per their understanding of Annexure R-3 letter dated 02.08.2010. The grievance of the applicant was pertaining to grant of less marks to the answers to questions No. 4 and 5 and the correct answer to question No. 8(5) struck off as wrong. In the revaluation, it was found that the answer to question 8(5) was correct and accordingly he was given one additional mark. The applicant had no dispute about the marks awarded to answers other than answers 4, 5 and 8(5). This Tribunal had directed revaluation of the answer paper of the applicant in paper-I English in the context of the relief sought in the instant O.A. But the respondents did not understand it rightly. In fact, as per their reply statement they had taken action to revalue the answer scripts of the applicant even without waiting for a direction from this Tribunal. In the orders dated 04.11.2010 and 01.12.2010, it was made clear that the revaluation ordered by the Tribunal was confined to the answers to question Nos. 4, 5 and 8(5). The interim directions of thisTribunal on revaluation of the answer scripts in respect of 4, 5 and 8(5) were not carried out by the respondents. The revaluation done by them is independent of the directions of this Tribunal.
11. In M.A. Nos. 921 of 2010 and 976 of 2010 in the present O.A., the 2nd respondent without understanding the directions given by this Tribunal in the context of the facts and circumstances of the O.A., prayed for modification of interim orders of this Tribunal dated 27.10.2010 and 01.12.2010 respectively. We do not find any merit in the stand taken by the 2nd respondent. We dismiss the aforesaid M.As as misconceived.
12. Revaluation of answer scripts other than those pertaining to questions 4, 5 and 8(5) was never sought by the applicant. This Tribunal had directed, as was clarified vide order dated 01.12.2010, if at all there was any misunderstanding in the minds of the respondents, that revaluation is confined to the answer scripts for questions 4, 5 and 8(5) only. If the respondents have gone beyond the direction of this Tribunal in reevaluating the answer scripts for other questions then that is not relevant for deciding whether the reliefs sought in the instant O.A., should be granted or not.
13. Even then, we would observe that answers to questions No. 1 and 3 for which the marks were reduced on revaluation are descriptive in nature as against answer to question No. 8(5) for which one additional mark is given on revaluation is not descriptive. In evaluating descriptive answers, it is trite to say that subjectivity of the evaluator plays a big role. Subjectivity varies from person to person depending on his personality, learning and experience. It is also seen that answers to question Nos. 4
and 5 are also not descriptive in nature. Therefore, the revaluation of answers to question Nos. 1 and 3 is all the more irrelevant in the facts and circumstances of the case and directions of this Tribunal.
14. We are constrained to observe that the examination for promotion as Postal Assistants held on 06.11.2009 has led to a number of litigations on account of haphazard manner of evaluation. The Department of Posts had to issue an order for revaluation as at Annexure R3(I). Even the said order and the directions of the Tribunal in this O.A. were not implemented properly. We do hope the respondent authorities would be more careful and serious in conducting examination in future.
15. In confining the revaluation of the answer scripts of the applicant to award correct marks for the answers to only question Nos. 4, 5 and 8(5) of paper-I English in the examination for promotion as Postal Assistant conducted in the year 2009, we find that the applicant has been awarded no additional marks for answers to question Nos. 4 and 5 and that one mark more is awarded for answer to question No.8(5), thus raising his total marks from 39 to 40.
10. In the result, the O.A. succeeds. Accordingly, we declare that the applicant is entitled to one mark for correctly answering question No. 8(5) in Paper-I English thereby raising the marks awarded to him in the said paper to 40, which is the pass mark. The respondents are directed to revise the select list to include the applicant and to grant him all consequential benefits from the date of his entitlement within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(Dated, the 05th January, 2011)
(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Guidelines for Stepping up of pay of the promotee senior with direct recruited

Guidelines for Stepping up of pay of the promotee senior with direct recruited

No. 1-9/2010-PCC
Government of India
Ministry of Communications & IT
Department of Posts,Pay Commission Cell,Dated – 05.01.2011

To,

All Heads of the Circles

Subject: - Stepping up of pay of the promotee senior with direct recruited junior appointed on or after 01.01.2006

This is regarding stepping of pay of promote senior with reference to direct recruit junior appointed after 01.01.2006.

2. The issue was examined in this office and referred to Ministry of Finance for clarification. Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure Legal Cell vide U.O. No. 18/28/2010-Legal dated 29.12.2010 has clarified that the stepping up of pay of the promote senior with direct recruited junior appointed on or after 01.01.2006 may be agreed to subject to fulfillment of the following conditions: -

(a) Stepping up of the basic pay of seniors can be claimed only in the case of those cadres which have an element of direct recruitment and in cases where a directly recruited junior is actually drawing more basic pay than the seniors. In such cases, the basic pay of the seniors will be stepped up with reference to the basic pay of the directly recruited junior provided they belong to the same seniority list for all purposes.

(b) Further, government servants cannot claim stepping up of their revised basic pay with reference to entry pay in the revised pay structure for direct recruits appointed on or after 01.01.2006 as laid down in Section II of part A of First Schedule to the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, if their cadre does not have an element of direct recruitment or in cases where no junior is drawing basic pay higher than them.

(c) Stepping up of pay of the seniors in accordance with the present advice of this Department shall not be applicable in cases where direct recruits have been granted advance increment at the time of recruitment.

3. The issues prevailing in the Circle may be decided as per above clarifications.

Sd/-
(Surender Kumar)

Clarifications on Child Care Leave

CHILD CARE LEAVE TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
-Clarifications issued by DO PT vide

No. 13018 /1/2010-Estt. (Leave)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)

New Delhi, the 30 the December 2010
Office Memorandum

Sub: Child Care Leave to Central Government employees - regarding

The undersigned is directed to say that subsequent to issue of this Department OM of even number dated 07/09/2010, this Department has been receiving references from various Departments, seeking clarifications. The doubts raised are clarified as under:-

1. Whether Earned Leave availed for any purpose can be converted into Child Care Leave? How should applications where the purpose of availing leave has been indicated as 'Urgent Work' but the applicant claims to have utilized the leave for taking care of the needs of the child, be treated?
Child Care Leave is sanctioned to women employees having minor children, for rearing or for looking after their needs like examination, sickness etc. Hence Earned Leave availed specifically for this purpose only should be converted.

2. Whether all Earned Leave availed irrespective of number of days i.e. less than 15 days, and number of spells can be converted? In cases where the CCL spills over to the next year (for example 30 days CCL from 27th December), whether the Leave should be treated as one spell or two spells'?
No. As the instructions contained in the OM dated 7.9.2010 has been given retrospective effect, all the conditions specified in the OM would have to be fulfilled for conversion of the Earned Leave into Child Care Leave. In cases where the leave spills over to the next year, it may be treated as one spell against the year in which the leave commences.

3. Whether those who have availed Child Care Leave for more than 3 spells with less than 15 days can avail further Child Care Leave for the remaining period of the current year'?
No. As per the OM of even number dated 7.9.2010, Child Care Leave may not be granted in more than 3 spells. Hence CCL may not be allowed more than 3 times irrespective of the number of days or times Child Care Leave has been availed earlier. Past cases may not be reopened.

4. Whether LTC can be availed during Child Care Leave?

LTC cannot be availed during Child Care Leave as Child Care Leave is granted for the specific purpose of taking care of a minor child for rearing or for looking after any other needs of the child during examination, sickness etc.
Sd/-
(Simmi R. Nakra
Director