Fixation of Seniority

Venkataraman
Venkataraman

3:40 AM - Nov 09, 2014 #1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does not matter
Does not matter

5:39 PM - Nov 09, 2014 #2

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

prasad
prasad

5:48 PM - Nov 10, 2014 #3

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I request the esteemed and learned participants to offer their views on the above?
the seniority has ought to have been assigned in terms of Para 302 of IREM but incorrectly the seniority has been assigned in the instant case.
Quote
Share

prasad
prasad

5:48 PM - Nov 10, 2014 #4

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I request the esteemed and learned participants to offer their views on the above?
the seniority has ought to have been assigned in terms of Para 302 of IREM but incorrectly the seniority has been assigned in the instant case.
Quote
Share

Venkataraman
Venkataraman

12:14 AM - Nov 11, 2014 #5


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

Does not matter
Does not matter

12:25 PM - Nov 11, 2014 #6

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

nameless faceless
nameless faceless

4:37 PM - Nov 11, 2014 #7

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

S. Tamilcholai
S. Tamilcholai

5:33 PM - Nov 11, 2014 #8

What is more disturbing is that despite the employee's representation and despite his efforts to bring to the notice of the Personnel Department the relevant rule position, still his representation is rejected and the employee is forced to approach the judicial forum for getting suitable relief. Such a situation should be avoided as Railway Admn should act as 'Model Employer'. Visualise a situation in which the employee is not in a position to approach the court (may be due to his ignorance, or not able to spend money, etc etc). In such a situation, not only an illegality is allowed to perpetrate, but also the innocent is made to suffer due to the ignorance of the Personnel Branch concerned.
The case explained is simple, not involving any interpretation or intricacy. The seniority is to be determined by the date of joining the working post after successful completion of the prescribed initial training. 'A',the JE selected thro' GDCE and joined the working post in january, 2010 would undoubtedly rank senior to 'B',the JE selected thro'LDCE and joined the working post months after the joining of 'A'. The views expressed by Sri.Venkataraman are unbiased and totally justified. May I be permitted to state without offending anybody that the saying 'ignorance is bliss'and negligent attitude seem to pervade the officials who dealt the case.The role of the Personnel Branch in keeping the work-force contended to obtain the optimum output need not be over-emphazised.
Quote
Share

Venkataraman
Venkataraman

12:35 AM - Nov 12, 2014 #9

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

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

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

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

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

NamelessFaceless
NamelessFaceless

8:17 AM - Nov 14, 2014 #10

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