Unauthorised absence its impact on ACP

Unauthorised absence its impact on ACP

Tangirala Srinivas
Tangirala Srinivas

June 10th, 2009, 12:08 pm #1

Dear Shepherd,
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

With regards
Tangirala Srinivas
Quote
Share

Shepherd
Shepherd

June 13th, 2009, 7:18 am #2

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
"standalone" variety)
-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
(RAILWAY BOARD)
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
services:
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."
Quote
Share

Tangirala Srinivas
Tangirala Srinivas

June 13th, 2009, 7:50 am #3

Dear Shepherd,

Thank you very much for the clarification. By the way, I am working as Executive(HR) in IRCTC. I deal with Payrol and process settlement cases and other related works. I have come across ACP orders issued by the Railways, wherein the employee had put in 10 years of service i.e, from the date of his appointment to the date of completion of 12 years of service and still granted Ist financial upgradation. It is also to mention that there were no entries of penalties recorded in the SR. On perusal of SR it is understood that no DAR action was initiated against the employee. While this is so, the grant of ACP is leading to overpayment of wages and leakage of revenue. I felt that this issue should be posted to you, seeking your intervention and guidance.

I once again express my thanks to you master

Tangirala Srinivas
Quote
Share

prasad
prasad

July 29th, 2009, 3:26 pm #4

Dear Shepherd,
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

With regards
Tangirala Srinivas
it is not convincing. For promotions the service required is non-fortutious service in the lower grade and not the qualifying service as required for the pensionary benefits. The non-fortutious service is the service rendered after due process of selection i.e. after regular appointment to a post by positive act of selection
Quote
Share

Dr. S. Ghosh
Dr. S. Ghosh

July 31st, 2012, 1:32 pm #5

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
"standalone" variety)
-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
(RAILWAY BOARD)
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
services:
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."
I am working as Sr. DMO Eastern Railway. My date of appointment is 17.04.1997. Due to jaundice at the outset of my service career I could not join for five months. I had been allowed to join with RMC. My increment however was deferred by five months and the period of absence is marked unauthorised in my service record. The CPO KKK had however given his opinion that from 17.04.1997 my service is continuous and in keeping with that my promotion has been given in the month of March. Further my promotion as Sr. DMO has been antedated to the month of January.What should be the ststus of the period covered by RMC and my date of increment.
Quote
Share

viney kumar
viney kumar

September 2nd, 2013, 1:46 pm #6

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
"standalone" variety)
-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
(RAILWAY BOARD)
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
services:
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."
what is residency period of railway service for consideration for promotion in group "c" general categories from erstwhile group "D" employees?
Quote
Share

Chayan Bera
Chayan Bera

January 31st, 2018, 9:31 am #7

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
"standalone" variety)
-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
(RAILWAY BOARD)
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
services:
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."
I adsend my duty 2months.....which kind of punishment shall givn me
Quote
Share