Posts Tagged ‘Government Employee’

DoPT: Exemption from the routine exercise of transfer/ rotational transfer

Advertisement

Exemption from the routine exercise of transfer/ rotational transfer who who is a care-giver of dependent with Specified Disability: DoPT Order

F.No.42011/3/2014-Estt.(Res)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training

North Block, New Delhi
dated the 08th October, 2018

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Exemption from the routine exercise of transfer/ rotational transfer.

Considering that transfer of a Government employee who serves as the main care giver of persons with disability would have a bearing on the systematic rehabilitation of persons with disabilities, the Government issued OM of even number dated June 6, 2014 to exempt such employee from routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer, subject to administrative constraints.

2. The scope of disability initially had covered (i) blindness or low vision (ii) hearing impairment (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral Palsy (iv) leprosy cured (v) mental retardation (vi) mental illness and (vii) multiple disabilities, which subsequently, vide OMs of even number dated November 17, 2014 and January 5, 2016, was further extended to include ‘Autism’, ‘Thalassemia’ and ‘Haemophilia’.

3. With the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 on April 17, 2017, the following instructions are issued in supersession of the above-mentioned OMs of even number dated June 6, 2014, November 17, 2014 and January 5, 2016 with regard to the eligibility for seeking exemption from routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer:

(i) A Government employee who is a care-giver of dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister with Specified Disability, as certified by the certifying authority as a Person with Benchmark Disability as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative constratints.

(ii) The term “Specified Disability” as defined in the Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, covers (i) Locomotor disability including leprosy cured person, cerebral palsy, dwarfism, muscular dystrophy and Acid attack victims (ii) Blindness (iii) Low-vision (iv) Deaf (v) Hard of hearing (vi) Speech and language disabilities (vii) Intellectual disability including specific learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorder (viii) Mental illness (ix) Disability caused due to: (a) Neurological conditions such as Multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease (b) Blood disorder- Haemophilia, Thalassemia and Sickle cell-disease and (x) Multiple disabilities (more than one of the above specified disabilities) including deaf blindness and any other category of disabilities as may be notified by the Central Government.

(iii) The term ‘Specified Disability’ as defined herein is applicable as grounds only for the purpose of seeking exemption from routine transfer/ rotational transfer by a Government employee, who is a care-giver of dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister as stated in Para 3(i) above.

4. All the Ministries/Departments are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all concerned under their control.

Sd/-
(G.Srinivasan)
Director (Res)

Download Order

Download Central Government Employees News iOS App . Click here Cg News for iPhone, iPad & iPod Touch app to download in your device.
Stay updated on the go with CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NEWS App. Click here Cg news for Phones app to download it for your device.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - October 9, 2018 at 8:46 am

Categories: DOPT Orders   Tags: , , , , , ,

Interest bearing advances/ Seventh Central Pay commission recommendation on House Building Advance – enhancement in past cases regarding

Interest bearing advances/ Seventh Central Pay commission recommendation on House Building Advance – enhancement in past cases

I-17011/11(4)/2016-H.III

Government of India
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs
Housing-III Section

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi,
Dated : 29.06.2018

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Interest bearing advances/ Seventh Central Pay commission recommendation on House Building Advance – enhancement in past cases regarding.

The undersigned is directed to invite attention to this Ministry’s OM No. I- 17011/11(4)/2016-H.III dated 09.11.2017 on the above-mentioned subject and to say that it has been decided in consultation with Ministry of Finance to make the aforesaid orders applicable with effect from 1st January, 2016. Accordingly, it has been decided that an enhancement of House Building Advance, if applied for, would be granted to government employee for an amount equivalent to the difference between the previously sanctioned amount and the new eligible amount determined on the basis of basic pay as per 7th CPC, in past cases, where HBA was sanctioned on or after 01.01.2016 but before 09.11.2017 subject to complying following conditions :

a) The Government employee should not have drawn the entire amount of HBA sanctioned under earlier orders and/ or where construction is not completed/full cost towards acquisition of house/ flat is yet to be paid.

b) There will be no deviation from the approved plan of construction on the basis of which the original sanction of House Building Advance was accorded. The revised cost of the original plan can, however, be considered for determining the additional amount, subject to the prescribed maximum limits.

c) Supplementary Mortgage Deed, Personal Bond and Sureties will be drawn and executed at the expense of the loanee.

d) The actual entitlement will be restricted to the repaying capacity computed on the basis of the formula laid down in this Ministry’s OM No I-17011/11(4)/2016-H.III dated 09.11.2017. It should be ensured that the entire amount of advance with interest is recovered before retirement of the Government servant

e) Rate of interest:

The rate of interest will be at 8.50% from the financial year 2017-18 onwards. This will be reviewed every three years to be notified in consultation with Ministry of Finance. However, the new rate of interest would be chargeable only on collective amount that would remain outstanding on grant of enhancement of HBA, i.e., the unpaid portion of previously sanctioned HBA plus the enhancement so granted. Thus, the amount of HBA that has already been re-paid on old rates will not attract the fresh interest charges.

2. However, the existing limit of maximum admissible amount of Rs. 25 lakhs for the purpose of construction/ purchase of new house/ flat and Rs. 10 lakhs for expansion of existing house/ flat would remain unchanged. In other words, the sum total of previously, sanctioned House Building Advance and the enhancement granted under these orders cannot exceed the aforesaid limits. In any case, not more than one enhancement is admissible to a Government employee.

3. The applications for enhanced House Building Advance should be submitted within six months from the date of issue of this order.

4. Ministries/ Departments with branch offices in the far-flung areas are be advised to give wider publicity to these orders through modern communication means so that there is no occasion for any representation for extending the time limit of six months on the grounds of late receipt of these orders.

5. This issues in supersession of all the earlier orders on the subject.

S/d,
(Shailendra Vikram Singh)
Director (IFD)
Tel: 23062798

To,
All the Ministries and Departments of the Government of India as per standard distribution list.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - July 6, 2018 at 9:04 am

Categories: 7CPC, Employees News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Eligibility of Divorced Daughter of Armed Forces Personnel for Grant of Family Pension

Eligibility of Divorced Daughter of Armed Forces Personnel for Grant of Family Pension

As per Ministry of Defence (MoD) letter of September 2015, presently only those children who are dependent and meet other conditions of eligibility for family pension at the time of death of the Government servant or his/her spouse, whichever is later, are eligible for family pension. Accordingly, divorced daughters who fulfil other conditions are eligible for family pension if a decree of divorce had been issued by the competent court during the life time of at least one of the parents.

The Government has been receiving grievances from various quarters that the divorce proceedings are a long drawn procedure which take many years before attaining finality. There are many cases in which the divorce proceedings of a daughter of a Government employee/pensioner had been instituted in the competent court during the life time of one or both but none was alive by the time the decree of divorce was granted by the competent authority.

The matter has been examined and it has been decided vide Ministry of Defence letter dated 17 November 2017 to grant family pension to a divorced daughter of Armed Forces personnel in such cases where the divorce proceedings has been filed in a competent court during the life time of the employee/pensioner or his/her spouse but divorce took place after their death – provided that the claimant fulfils all other conditions for grant of family pension. In such cases, the family pension will commence from the date of divorce.

PIB

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - November 27, 2017 at 11:00 pm

Categories: Defence, Pension   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Fixation of pay in case of employees who seek transfer to a lower post under FR 15(a)

Fixation of pay in case of employees who seek transfer to a lower post under FR 15(a)

Dated: 01/05/2017

No. I/2/Part IV

The Secretary (E),
Railway Board,
New Delhi

Dear Sir,

Sub: Fixation of pay in case of employees who seek transfer to a lower post under FR 15(a) – clarification regarding.

Ref: DoP&T’s OM No. 12/1/2016-Estt (Pay I) dated 31st March, 2017.

Kind attention of Railway Board is invited to DoP&T’s OM dated 31st March, 2017 (quoted under reference) on the subject pertaining to fixation of pay in the case of employees who seek transfer to a lower post under FR 15(a), copy enclosed.

According to the DoP&T OM dated 21st October 2009, 05th November 2012 & 31st March 2017, the method of pay fixation in respect of Government employee transferred to a lower post on his/her request shall be as under:-

“The pay of the Government employee holding a post on regular basis will be fixed in the revised pay structure at the stage equal to the pay drawn by him/her in the higher level of post held regularly. If no such stage is available, the pay will be fixed at the stage next below in the lower level with respect to the pay drawn by him/her in the higher level of posts held regularly and the difference in the pay may be granted as personal pay to be absorbed in future increments.”

From the OMs issued by the DoP&T pursuant to the implementation of the 6th CPC pay structure as well 7th CPC pay matrices w.e.f. 01/01/2006 and 01/01/2016 respectively, the pay fixation on joining lower post shall be with reference to pay drawn in higher level of post.

On Zonal Railways etc., pay fixation to those who joined in lower Grade Pay/Pay Matrix at their request is not being allowed inspite of DoP&T’s OMs cited above, (i.e. ensuring pay protection),It is also noticed that Railway Board have not issued corresponding instructions on the basis of DoP&T OM dated 31st March 2017 till now.

NFIR, therefore, urges upon the Railway Board to kindly consider the above facts and issue clarification on the lines of the OMs of DoP&T for granting pay fixation in those cases of employees who joined on transfer to a lower post at their request.

DA/As above

Yours faithfully,
S/d,
(Dr. M. Raghavaiah)
General Secretary

Source : NFIR

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - May 2, 2017 at 8:17 am

Categories: 6CPC, 7CPC   Tags: , , , , , ,

Child care leave to be applied for in advance: High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that child care leave has to be applied for in advance by a woman employee working with the Haryana Government.

Justice Rajiv Narain Raina of the High Court has also made it clear that it can be availed after the go-ahead by the authorities concerned. The permission for child care leave cannot be granted ex post facto (with retrospective force).

The development is significant as Haryana Government rules make it clear that child care leave is admissible to a woman government employee for a maximum period of two years or 730 days during her entire service for taking care of her surviving children.

It is permissible only for the first two children of the government employee. Their age has to be below 18 years for the mother to avail the leave.

The ruling by Justice Raina came on a petition by Shashi Bala against the state and other respondents. A government employee, she moved the High Court after the department concerned refused to grant ex post facto permission for child care leave.

Taking up her petition, Justice Raina asserted that by the very nature of things, child care leave has to be applied for in advance and due permission needs to be accorded. The right was valuable, because a woman employee would get full salary for the period of child care leave.

“It cannot be applied for to act retrospectively and therefore, there is nothing wrong in the department holding that ex post facto permission cannot be granted,” Justice Raina asserted.

Before parting with the order, Justice Raina observed that the first request in the case in hand was made on April 6, 2011, for granting backdated child care leave with effect from November 30, 2010, to March 30, 2011. Dismissing the plea, Justice Raina added that there was no merit therein.

Haryana Government rules suggest that child care leave cannot be demanded as a matter of right and no one can, under any circumstances, proceed on child care leave without prior proper sanction by the competent authority.

Child care leave is also admissible during the probation period, provided the probation period is extended by the period of child care leave availed. Besides this, the leave may not be availed for a period of less than 30 days.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.26951 of 2016

Date of decision:22.12.2016

Shashi Bala
… Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others
..Respondents.

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

Present: Mr.Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate for the petitioner.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral)

By the very nature of things, Child Care Leave has to be applied for in advance and due permission accorded. The right is valuable because female employee gets full salary for the period of Child Care Leave. Child Care Leave cannot be applied for to act retrospectively and therefore, there is nothing wrong in the Department holding that ex post facto permission cannot be granted. In this case first request was made on 6.4.2011 for granting backdated Child Care Leave w.e.f 30.11.2010 to 30.3.2011.

No merit.

Dismissed.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
JUDGE

22.12.2016
Meenu

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - January 13, 2017 at 6:33 pm

Categories: Employees News   Tags: , , ,

Government announced the Leave Travel Concession (LTC) rules for easy settlement of the LTC claims.

Government announced the Leave Travel Concession (LTC) rules for easy settlement of the LTC claims.

The amended Office Memorandum No.31011/3/2015-Estt(A.IV) seek to ease the procedural difficulties faced by government employees while applying for and settling LTC claims.

Setting outer time-limits for various LTC procedures, the DoPT today said leave or sanction of LTC leave advance would take no more than five days each. This would be extendable by three days where the government employee is away for the headquarters.

Besides, the administration will take no more than 10 days (13 where the employee is away from headquarters) to verify LTC claims after the LTC bill is submitted by the government employee.

The government also proposes to allow its employees to self-certify their proposed LTC journey. Under existing CCS (LTC) Rules, government employees are required to inform their controlling officer before the journey on LTC is to be undertaken.

Also, whenever a government employee applies for LTC, he /she may be provided with a copy of the guidelines to be followed while availing of the concession.

A government servant is allowed to avail of LTC once in a block of two years to visit his/her hometown, while LTC to any place in India can be availed once in a four-year block. If not availed during these blocks, the LTC may also be availed in the first year of the following block.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - February 19, 2016 at 11:55 am

Categories: LTC   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Supreme Court sets bar on suspension of government employees

Supreme Court sets bar on suspension of government employees
A government employee can’t be kept suspended for more than three months if not formally informed about the charges, the Supreme Court said Monday.
Based on the principle of human dignity and the right to speedy trial, the landmark verdict is expected to affect lakhs of government employees across India, many of whom are under suspension for years pending departmental proceedings.
“Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration,” a bench headed by justice Vikramjit Sen said.
If the charge sheet or memorandum of charges was served within three month, the suspension could be extended, it ruled.
“If it (suspension) is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning…, this would render it punitive in nature,” the court said.
It agreed with petitioner’s senior counsel Nidhesh Gupta that a suspension order can’t continue for an unreasonably long period.
Protracted periods of suspension had become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be, the court said. It drew a parallel with criminal investigation wherein a person accused of heinous crime is released from jail after the expiry of 90 days if police fail to file the charge sheet.
The suspended persons suffers even before being charged and “his torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination”. “Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement,” the court said, setting aside a direction of the central vigilance commission that required departmental proceedings to be kept in abeyance pending a criminal investigation.
The government, however, was free to transfer the officer concerned to any department in any of its offices to ensure the employee did not misuse contacts for obstructing the probe, the court said.
The order came on a petition filed by defence estate officer Ajay Kumar Choudhary, who was suspended in September 2011 for allegedly issuing wrong no-objection certificates for the use of a four-acre land parcel in Kashmir. After failing to get relief from the Delhi high court, Choudhary had moved the top court in 2013.
Since a charge sheet had already been served on Choudhary, these directions would not apply to his case, the court said.

Read at Hindustan Times

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - February 18, 2015 at 4:34 am

Categories: Employees News, General news, Latest News   Tags: , , , ,

Government employee can’t seek promotion after refusing it: Supreme Court

Government employee can’t seek promotion after refusing it: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: A government employee, whose promotion is canceled owing to his refusal to accept it, cannot ask for it at a later stage, the Supreme Court has said.

The apex court set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had directed the state government to restore the promotion of one of its employees whose promotion was cancelled after he turned down the offer as he did not want to get transfered to some other place.

“As we find that it is the respondent himself who is responsible for cancellation of the promotion order as he did not join the promoted post, the impugned order of the high court is clearly erroneous and against the law,” a bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar said.

The court passed the order on an appeal filed by Madhya Pradesh government challenging the high court order.

The government had submitted that the high court failed to consider that Ramanand Pandey himself sent back the promotion order and continued on his post and approached the court after two years when it cancelled his promotion.

It said that at the time of promotion, Pandey was posted in Bhind district where he remained for almost 15 years and his intention was to stay at that place only.

The apex court, after hearing both sides, quashed the high court order.

“It is clear that he wanted to remain in Bhind district, where he had continued since 1990, as he was ready to go on leave instead of joining the place of transfer. Moreover, for more than two years from the date of cancellation of the order of promotion, the respondent kept totally mum and maintained stoic silence.

“There was not even a semblance of protest as to why his promotion order was cancelled or that he wanted to join the promotion post after the alleged inquiry into the so-called complaint was over. He filed the writ petition on October 24, 2008, i.e. almost two years after cancellation of his promotion order,” it said.

Source : http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-10-24/news/55397829_1_promotion-high-court-order-apex-court

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - October 27, 2014 at 9:31 am

Categories: Employees News, Promotion   Tags: , , ,

Determination of date of increment after expiry of duration of penalties of withholding of increments/reduction to lower stage imposed for less than a year regarding – Railway Board Orders

Determination of date of increment after expiry of duration of penalties of withholding of increments/reduction to lower stage imposed for less than a year regarding – Railway Board Orders

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)

No. E(D&A) 2008 RG6-36

New Delhi, 15/01/2014

The General Manager(P)
All Indian Railways and
Production Units etc.
(As per standard list).

Sub: Determination of date of increment after expiry of duration of penalties of withholding of increments/ reduction to lower stage imposed for less than a year regarding.

Ministry of Railways have received a few references regarding certain penalties of rule 6 of Railway Servants (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1968 which are having pay element imposed for less than a year. In one case, the penalty of withholding of increments was imposed on 24.3.2008 for a period of six months with cumulative effect and in the other case the penalty of reduction to lower stage was imposed on 9.2.2009 for a period of six months with non-cumulative effect.

2. The question of date of release of increment in the above cases on expiry of the penalty, in the context of fixing of 1st July as the date of increment uniformally for all Government servants following VIth CPC, has been examined in consultation with the Department of Personnel & Training. It is advised that fixing of 1st July as the date of increment for all Government servants under the Revised Pay Rules following the acceptance of the recommendation of the IVth CPC, is relevant, only in respect of Annual increment. This provision is not applicable where the increment is withheld as a measure of penalty. In cases where the increment is withheld as a penalty for a specified period restoration of the withheld increment would be at the end of the currency of the penalty and not postponed to the next 1st July. The person concerned may even be entitled to the next increment on the 1st July following the expiry of the currency of the penalty, (notwithstanding the fact that the penalty imposed on him was having postponing effect on his future increments), if he has net qualifying service of six months prior to the relevant 1st July.

3.  Likewise, where the penalty of reduction to lower stage was imposed, the pay will be restored immediately on expiry of the currency of the penalty. In so far as release of next increment is concerned, the same may also be allowed immediately on restoration if the person concerned has rendered net qualifying service of six month on the 1st July preceding the date of the expiry of the currency of the penalty.

Please. acknowledge receipt,

sd/-
(Harish Chander)
Dy. Director Est. (D&A)

Source: AIRF
[http://www.airfindia.com/Orders%202014/RBE-09.2014.pdf]

via: www.railnewscenter.com/

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - January 26, 2014 at 1:00 am

Categories: Employees News, General news, Railways   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Death of Government Employee does not entitle family for job: Supreme Court

Death of Government Employee does not entitle family for job: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment and the person seeking appointment must possess the eligibility for the post.

A bench of justices B S Chauhan and S A Bobde also said that the competent authority should examine the financial condition of family of the deceased and job should be offered to the eligible family member only if it is satisfied that they would not be able to cope up with the crisis.

“Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. “The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post,” it said.

The bench allowed an appeal filed by MGB Gramin Bank which had challenged a 2010 judgement of the Rajasthan High Court by which one Chakrawarti Singh, son of a deceased Bank employee, was directed to be appointed under a scheme of compassionate employment.

Singh’s father, who was working as a Class III employee with the Bank, had died on April 19, 2006 while in harness. Singh had applied for compassionate appointment on May 12, 2006.

The bench set aside the judgements of the High Court, saying, “The reasoning given by the single judge as well as by the division bench is not sustainable in the eyes of law.” It also said that “an ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment”.

PTI News

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - August 21, 2013 at 6:10 am

Categories: Employees News, General news   Tags: , , , ,