Good morning. I thank you very much for the interest you have shown in giving clarification. While the clarification is upto the question, I would like to add further that :
As per IREM Vol.I, Chapter II Section "B", In the normal case of promotion,
The condition of two years service should stand fulfilled at the time of actual promotion and not necessarily at the stage of consideration". In the same anology, the completion of 12 years of residency period in the grade is a pre-requisite for being considered grant of Ist financial upgradation under ACP scheme.
Similarly, the period of unauthorised absence should also be taken into concern for calculating the 12 years of service. In other words, the broken periods of unauthorised absence should be summed up and deducted from the total length of service rendered in the grade, if the employee is coming up financial upgradation under ACP scheme.
Plase let me know if my ideology is making sense to the point. Rule position in this regard is highly appreciated
You have stated: "In other words, the broken periods of unauthorised absence should be
summed up and deducted from the total length of service rendered in the grade, if the
employee is coming up financial upgradation under ACP scheme."
Let us first understand the legal underpinning of the issue.
"Periods of Unauthorised absences"(PoUA) are treated differently in Railway Rules:
-depending on its type(i.e. whether the PoUA is in continuation of authorised leave or of
-depending the purpose(whether for counting the "Qualifying Service" for pension or "for
earning Increments" or for assessing the "Residency Period for promotion" or for assessing
the "Residency Period for ACP" etc)
In my view, these absences are of following types:
Type (a) When an employee overstays the authorised leave and the period of overstay is not
granted as leave.
In such type of cases,Rule 518 of Railway Services (Liberalised Leave) Rules, 1949 is
attracted. Moreover,it does not cause any "interruption of service" due to operation of
Rule 42(b) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993,i.e. if during the unauthorised
absence, in continuation of authorised leave of absence, the post of absentee is not
substantively filled.But it would not count as "Qualifying Service" for calculating
pension, due to application of Rule 14(x) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
Type (b) When an employee absconds just unauthorisedly, without any preceding leave.
Both the aforementioned types of PoUA may end up :
- (i)getting regularised as EOL(called LWP too)
- (ii)getting treated as "Dies Non"
-(iii)getting regularised as his LAP,LHAP,EOL or any combination thereof.
- (iv)being left as it is, i.e left as "Unauthorised Absent"
(No. E(G)89 LE 2-16 dated 06/12/1989 refers)
Types (i),(ii) and (iv) would NOT count as "Qualifying service" for pensionary purposes.
Type (iii) would not count as "Qualifying Service", to the extent of EOL(with two
exceptions in case of EOL).(Rule 36 of Pension Rules,1993, quoted below.)
But as far as counting for "Residency period" for ACP/promotion is concerned, due to
clarification vide letter No. RBE No. 24/2002 letter No. PC-V/99/I/1/1 dated 19/02/2002, the PoUA of the variety (i),(iii) would count towards "Residency Period".
The PoUA of variety (ii) & (iv) would never count as "Residency Period".
Please bear in mind that even one day of PoUA(unregularised) would entail "interruption in
service" and would lead to "break in service" forefeiting the past service for all purposes.
Hence, to clarify your doubts:
if the PoUA,in the case you have cited, have been left
unregularised, then, not only they have no role in countinng of residency period for
ACP/promotion(i.e. they need to excluded, after summing them up)rather they would have the effect of breaking and forefeiting the past period of services.
I am doubtful wheher the PoUA have left been left "as it is". Please check the records.
Hope it clarifies.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (BHARAT SARKAR)
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS/RAIL MANTRALAYA
RBE No. 297/1989
No. E(G)89 LE 2-16 dated 06/12/1989
Subject :- Regularisation of the period of unauthorized absence.
Attention is invited to the instructions contained in this Ministry's D.O. No. E(G)86 LE
2/12 dated 26.2.1986 and No. E(G)88 LE 2/3 dated 25.1.1989, stressing the need to tighten
up the administrative machinery and for initiating action in cases of unauthorised absence
of Railway employee.
The question as to how the spell of unauthorised absence should be regularised if the
employee is allowed to rejoin duty after the period of absence and is imposed a punishment
other than compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal under the D&A Rules, has been under
consideration of this Ministry as the practice being followed at present from Railway to
Railway vary. The matter has been considered and it is clarified that the period of absence
in such cases may be treated only as extra-ordinary leave subject to provisions contained
in para 510 of Indian Railways Establishment code (5th edition) and no part of the absence
period be allowed to be covered by leave salary payable for leave due and admissible.
This issues with the concurrence of Finance Directorate of the Ministry of Railways.
Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993
"36. Counting of period spent on leave-All leave during service for which leave salary is
payable and all extraordinary leave granted on medical grounds shall count as qualifying
Provided that in the case of extraordinary leave other than extraordinary leave
granted on medical certificate, the appointing authority may, at the time of granting such
leave; allow the period of that leave to count as qualifying service if such leave is
granted to a railway servant,
(Authority: Railway Boards letter No. F(E)III/99/PN 1/(Modification) dated 23.5.2000)
(i) due to his inability to join or rejoin duty on account of civil commotion, or
(ii) for prosecuting higher scientific or technical studies."