We deeply appreciate comments from our viewers. Some times back we introduced Google Plus for sharing comments. But viewers without any google account was being denied to post comments in this blog. A number of viewers objected about that and with due respect to their difficulties, we decided to make it easier. From 1st January 2014, viewers can post comment in this blog without any particular account, even anonymously. Come on , share your valuable views. Please wait for a little to allow us to review your comments before appearing in the blog. We wish a happy and prosperous new year to our viewers.
53 comments:
Happy new YEAR-2014
From
Mani Shankar, Indore
For Income tax inspector RR, passing wise quota may be retained as earlier from 1986, for high morale to the talented officials, opportunity for their promotions which create enthusiasm to work.Officials left at top of passing list in the earlier DPC, will far behind in seniority list if RR as recommended by sub committee no. 6 applied. Feeling hopelessness on earlier hard work, this effect their entire carrier and thoughts of their hard working. Thus passing quota should not be removed or New RR should be applicable to the officials who will pass ITI Exam 2014 onwards.
Seat allotment in the various cadre must not be changed which pooposed by the Itgoa and Itef of WB unit. I hope cbdt will consider the matter.
It seems that cbdt is not interested to allocate the posts of group b and c cadre which is the major lapse towards revenue because every regions is presently suffering from huge shortage of staff in the cadre of group b and c.
For Income tax inspector RR, passing wise quota may be retained as earlier from 1986, for high morale to the talented officials, opportunity for their promotions which create enthusiasm to work.Officials left at top of passing list in the earlier DPC, will far behind in seniority list if RR as recommended by sub committee no. 6 applied. Feeling hopelessness on earlier hard work, this effect their entire carrier and thoughts of their hard working. Thus passing quota should not be removed or New RR should be applicable to the officials who will pass ITI Exam 2014 onwards.FROM AMARJEET KUMAR SR TA O/O DDIT ( I & CI), LUDHIANA
The early passing rule in the cadre of
ITIs only is discreminatory and unjustified. It should either be applicable in rest of the cadres in which passing out departmental exam is mandatory or terminated completely.
It is not right that early passing rule is discreminatory. The officials who are laborious should be motivated. There will be totally unjustice to them who passed the exam 6 year ago and waiting promtion at top of passing quota and now at 89-90 in seniority list. The passing quota should be retained for already exam passed officials.
It is not right that early passing rule is discreminatory. The officials who are laborious should be motivated. There will be totally unjustice to them who passed the exam 6 year ago and waiting promtion at top of passing quota and now at 151-152 in seniority list. The passing quota should be retained for already exam passed officials.
I am totally disagree with this argument that those who have early passed the examination of ITIs in particular are laborious and intelligent and those who have early passed the rest of departmental examination i.e. Ministerial Exam, ITOs examination are lazy and inefficient. There may be certain happening or mis happening behind non attendence of ITI examination in time with any of us. Hence if any body has to assess or ensure whether one is laborious and more intelligent and efficient as well the number of attempt taken in any of the departmental examintation should be counted and considered rather than early passing of the examination my dear friend. In other sense such rule of early passing should be implemented evenly in other cadre too in order to compensate such type of misfortunate but laborious and efficient guy who could not attend ITIs examination in time due to any reason. In fact one of the vital motto behind Cadre Restructuring is to rectify or abolish such type of biased rule and provide equal opportunity to all. As such I am fully agree with the decision taken by the sub committee in this regard. Moreover, it also seems worthless in view of the newly created merged post of " Excecutive Assistant".
i request to cbdt that seat allocation may be completed at the earliest with the instructions that necessary dpc may be done as per rules. dpc of all posts above the rank of ito has already been completed but upto ito, no action has been taken till now. many employees who is retiring or to be retired can take benefit of this cadre review.
As per rumors, the Seniority List of Executive Assistants is being pursued by the CBDT as recommended by the Sub Committee No.6 from the cadres of O.S., then Steno. Gr-I after that Sr.TA and the bottom Steno.Gr-II(PB-2). It should be implemented with regard to the Date of Entry into the Income Tax Department or the Date of Joining in the I.T.Deptt., on Inter-charge transfer, if, request made by the official in the cadre of Stenos. The name of the Steno (PB-2) in the Seniority List should be placed on TOP and the name of the STA should be placed bottom of the Steno.(PB-2) whether it is a Cadre Restructure 2001 or it is a Cadre Review 2013-14. The Criteria for preferring the STA on top of the Steno. (PB-2) is not at all acceptable.
The new Recruitment Rule (RR) recommended by the sub committee No.-6 for Group B & C officials is it also for attached directorates of DGIT(Admn.)?
kindly, do not abolish the OS post as it is only the hope of many those who find difficult to clear ITI promotion examination. can at least get one increment.
Not just that the early passing rule must be maintained, it should also be applicable to all exams. Also I find that people are not discussing the NR Parmar case. How can a person who does not even possess the necessary age/qualification on the said year be given seniority in a year.
It would be irrelevant and unjustified to consider that those who have early passed the departmental examination of ITIs are laborious and efficient but those who have early passed either departmental examination of ministerial staff or ITOs are not so. In fact, the basic motive behind constitution of sub committee no. 6 is to detect and amend, if necessary, such type of biased existing provisions which does not seems justified under any point of view. As such I am totally agree with the recommendation of sub committee no. 6 in this context.
If a person taken direct recruit iti examination at age of 19 and clears the exam. If that post is notified 3 years back, then he will be getting his seniority from the age of 16 as per parmar case. It is injustice. Please comment on this
What is cbdt doing as no allocation of group B and C posts has been done so far. The employees are getting retirement who were seeking promotions and it seems more officials will retire before getting DPCs done. The CBDT should allocate posts within week so that DPCs may be carried out by CCITs(CCA} timely.
All the members know that there is great delay in implementing parmar decision due to which promtion to the post of ITI and ITO are completely stalled. Iam of the opinion that promotions should be given immediately subject to refixing of seniority on implementation of parmar case. Or else particular time frame should be given to implement parmar case. Holding of promotions for indefinite period is unjustified.
If passing quota is a biased provision and all the promotions are from seniority, then there is no need of exams only a training is sufficient. Yes, there should be passing quota at all levels. It is just a motivation to the officials to work hard for their future aspects and thus should not be removed. If passing quota is not available at all levels then it should also not be removed at the middle level of the department and must be retained at the only available level for a chance to officials.
End all kind of reservation
क्या केडर रिस्ट्रक्चरिंग एक मजाक है क्या यूनियन वाले ड्रामे बाज है कैडर रिस्ट्रक्चरिंग का मसला साल २००९ से चल रहा है २३ मई २०१३ को कैबिनेट ने इसको स्वीकृत कर दिया था उसके बाद कमेटि बनायीं गयी जिसको तीन महीने में अपनी रिपोर्ट देनी थी उनका कार्ये ३० सितम्बर को समाप्त हो गया था लेकिन ३० सितम्बर के तीन महीने बाद भी कुछ नहीं हो रहा है यहाँ तक कि एलोकेशन ऑफ शीट्स भी नहीं हुई है जब तक स्टॅस्टिकल स्टेटमेंट्स और सर्वे और सर्च में स्टाफ का कोऑपरेशन जारी रहेगा कैडर रिस्ट्रक्चरिंग नहीं आ सकता इसको तुरंत बंद कर देना चाहिए | अरुण मिश्रा सीनियर कर सहायक , जींद
If there exist any vacancy after implementation of cadre restructuring the case of eligible candidates of inter charge cases may kindly be considered for promotion. This may benefits to many of our friends.
It is FUNNY to note a comment above, that a steno should be placed above the STAs in the Income Tax Department, while making the merger of cadres to form EAs. The Board as well as the Committees must study the set up and functioning of the department at lower rungs. During last restructuring, the Board/ITEF placed all DEOs (on the basis of pay scales alone) above the seniormost UDCs ( even direct UDCs) with several years of service in the line. The authority maust have gone through the Shivprasad Pipal case in the Supreme Court where it is categorically mentioned how the placement must be done, when different cadres are merged.
(a) Nature and duties of the posts (b) Powers exercised by the officers holding a post (c) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post and (d) the salary of post.
If, abiding by the above rule, DEOs, in whatever pay scales, must have to come to the last bench only. Like wise, the proposed merger of stenos and TAs to form EAs, is highly laxative of law and demoralizing.
The post of Stenos (Technical) and STAs/TAs (ministerial) are never comparable. Now, in Kerala, a Steno (GP 2400) on just completing 3 years service in that grade is being promoted as Inspector(GP 4600) whereas, even direct UDCs of 1999 batch are still working as STAs/OS in GP 4200 only. These Inspectors, will get promotion as ITOs soon and they will write the CRs of their erstwhile senior employees(mainstream cadres) . This has already happened in Kerala. The basic qualification for recruitment for the post of UDC/TA is Graduation + 8000 key depression whereas for Steno, it is just SSLC.
The promotion to the post of Inspectors must be done only from mainstream cadres who are working in that line. It is shameful and cheating , to follow the RR as early as 1986, which should have been amended, at least 5 times by now, as per DoPT guidelines.
K.N.Purushothaman, Kochi.
Vacancy arise due to cadre restructuring should be filled according existing RR. as some cadre there are not many candidates who are eligible to promotion for such post as ITI. particularly in DELHI Charge.
I think for promotion existing rule should be implementation so that cadre restructuring benefit may be for existing offical/officer.
all merger of posts in EA is better option to make promotion easily.
Passing seniority should be given for ITOship exam also
HAPPY NEW YEAR --2014
TO
ALL VIEWERS
IN ALL PROCESS OF NEW RR, ITEF WERE PRESENT AND FURTHER CONSIDERATION WILL LAPSE MORE TIME WHICH IS NOT GOOD IN THE INTEREST OF EMPLOYEE
this is not a proper way to promotion
If we look into the past, we find that prior to April 1960, for the purpose of promotion to Inspectors, the list of all departmental candidates who had passed the departmental examination was arranged according to their seniority irrespective of the date or year of passing the departmental examination. This list was submitted to the Departmental Promotion Committee for selection for promotion to the post of Income Tax Inspectors. This gave rise to some discontent, as young and junior persons who had qualified in the departmental examination earlier than their seniors, found themselves lower in the eligibility list. Therefore, the entire matter was reconsidered and in April 1960 it was decided that for the purpose of promotion to the grade of Inspectors, persons who had qualified in an earlier departmental examination should be treated en-bloc senior to those who qualified in a subsequent examination. This revised procedure also gave rise to discontent amongst seniors who passed the departmental examination later. Therefore, taking all factors into account, the Government decided that there should be a fair balance between senior persons who qualify in the departmental examination at a later stage and junior persons who qualify in the same examination earlier. It was, therefore, decided that two lists should be drawn up of persons who pass the departmental examination. In the first list, the names should be arranged in accordance with seniority of the persons in the department provided they had passed the departmental examination and had put in the requisite years of service. In the second list, the names should be arranged in accordance with the date/year of passing the departmental examination. Both these lists would be forwarded to the Departmental Promotion Committee. Selection would be made from both the lists on a ratio of 50:50 basis.
The above decision was taken after taking into account the demands of both the categories of persons, namely, those who claimed that their seniority should not be overlooked, and those who claimed that their eligibility for promotion should depend upon the year of passing the departmental examination. Accordingly, orders to this effect were issued in November, 1960. This procedure for promotion of departmental candidates was embodied in the recruitment rules for the post of Inspectors which were issued in December 1969.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also accepted the above recruitment rules for Income Tax Inspector vide its judgment dated 02/09/1998 in the case of Chief Commissioner (Admn.) & Commissioner of Income-Tax, Vs. K.C. Sharma &Ors [1998] INSC 454 and held that “the whole purpose of preparing two lists is to give equal weightage to seniority from amongst eligible candidates and merit from amongst eligible candidates in the form of passing departmental examination much earlier. There is, therefore an intelligible criterion for distinguishing between the two lists. The object which is sought to be achieved by this differentiation is to give weightage to those departmental candidates who have shown merit by passing the departmental examination earlier than their seniors, while at the same time preserving the claim of the seniors who may have passed the departmental examination later for promotion on the strength of their seniority.”
priya mitro(ITEF CENTRAL LERDERSHIP KO NAHI)aap sabhi ko nav varsh-2014 KI SUBHKAMNAY.MITRO aaj ITax department staff me bahut hi nirasha hai, jiske jimmedar hamare neta log hai ye log regional basis per hamare aapke beech me ladai karvakar apni roti sake rahe hai.In leaders ka samajik bahiskar kar dena chaiye.Aaj 10 months ho jane ke baad bhi cadre-re... nahi ho saki kya iska koi uttar in central body ke neta logo ke pas hai,nahi sirf ye hame foolish banate hai.Mitro ek baat samajh me nahi aa rahi hai ke ham sabhi Central Govt. ke employee hai phir bhi hamare promotions me itna veriation,koi 4 years me promote ho raha hai to koi 14 years me,kya 14 years wala kisi se kam work karta hai.Sri Rajesh Menon ka hum sub ko bahut greateful hona chaiye jo unhone sahi baat kahi.Mitro aaj hum sub ko ekjut hoker aandolan karna hoga aur in central body ke neta logo ko sabak sikhana hoga jo kahte hai ki Board ne hamari baat nahi mani aur baat kya hai inke alawa koi nahi janta.
Steno become a redundant work force. No officer now a days dictate . So they should be alloted to surplus cell.
CBDT has clarified the CCA bombay in sep 2011 that new SG II is only redesignation of SG III not a promotion or upgradation. Further as per RR of Insp. Issued in 2003, SG II is elegible and this relates to SG with 4200 GP because new redesignation of SG III is effective from 2009. CBDT clarification is also on internet.
The fellow who can't help himself and need reservation can't serve the society.
B.J.P. PLANS TO ABOLISH INCOME TAX ?
-Pioneer newspaper
(Akhilesh Srivastava)
Lucknow.
It is stated by Mr. PURUSHOTHAM that the STENOs (TECHNICAL STAFF) as well as the TAs (MINISTERIAL STAFF)are NOT COMPARABLE. His version is different cadres. It is to inform to all of the STAs / TAs , if TAs are considered as MINISTERIAL STAFF then why the CBDT has been conducting the MINISTERIAL STAFF EXAMINATIONS and why the TAs are NOT OPPOSING THE SAME . The TAs are NOT HAVING much more EXPERIENCE or even much more SERVICE, the MINISTERIAL EXAM (FOR PROMOTION ANGLE) should be passed by the TAs for getting promotion as well as for appearing for ITI exam. Likewise, the STENOs should be cleared the MINISTERIAL STAFF (ENTRY LEVEL EXAM) exam for appearing / clearing the ITI EXAM. There is no variation for passing the MINISTERIAL EXAM by the STENOs and or TAs. DON'T think that the STENOs are not the Ministerial. If you are in the Ministerial Staff, then OPPOSE the same and not APPEAR for the exams.
Furthermore, the STENOs are not the DEOs. The DEOs main duty is FEEDING THE DATA and on the basis of the previous decision, the STENOs should not be clubbed with that of the STAs. The STENOs are dealing with the work of ACT / RULES and other ALLIED LAWS etc., whereas the DEOs are DATA FEEDERS and they are not dealing with the ACT / RULES & other ALLIED LAWS. Please kindly note that the placement of the STENOs below the STA is NOT AT ALL ACCEPTABLE AND OR IRRELEVANT MATTER.
It is stated by you that ONE STENO got promotion as ITI (from PB-1). It is to intimate that the person appears to be RESERVED CATEGORY PERSON or THERE ARE NO SUCH STENOS (including the PB-2 STENOS) are in the KERALA Region. Go and VERIFY the same from the Establishment Section.
The Seniority should be fixed as per the DATE OF ENTRY or DATE OF JOINING in the I.T. Deptt. since all the CADRES of OS (PB-2) & STENOS(PB-2) are being merged once. It is to intimate that the GOVT. OF INDIA itself is merging the cadres of O.S. (PB-2) / STENOs (PB-2) / STENOs. It is also to intimate that the STENOs are NOT INSISTING to MERGE with the OS / STAs and or with TAs. So, it is quite CLEAR that the GOVT. OF INDIA itself taken its decision to merge all the cadres. So, on the basis of this the GRADE PAY should not be taken into account since the erstwhile STENOs (now in PB-2) & UDC's (now STA – PB2) pay was Rs.1200-2400 & 4000-6000. It is the BASIS / PILLAR for fixing the SENIORITY LIST OF EXECUTIVE ASSTS. The Sub Committee No.6 (SCN-6) is NOT THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE and the SCN-6 never ever involved the STENOs in the meetings and the same was also not proposed by the STENOs to accept the same as proposed by the SCN-6. While preparing the RR, the SCN-6 is IGNORED the NUMBER OF YEARS RENDERED BY THE STENOS. So, I request the DOPT to kindly CONSIDER THE DATE OF ENTRY / DATE OF JOINING IN THE I.T.DEPTT (INTERCHARGE / INTERDEPARTMENTAL TRANSFERS) & FIX THE SENIORITY OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY STENOS (AS PER 4th CPC PAY OF Rs.1200-2040 & 5TH CPC of Rs.4000-6000 & also INCOME TAX DEPTT. PAY OF for STAs of Rs.5000-150-8000) and PLACE THE STAs BELOW THE STENOS (PB-2). The CHAIRPERSON of the CBDT is also requested to KINDLY GO THROUGH THE ABOVE and insist the same for PROPER PLACEMENT OF STENOS since the STENOS are doing very laborious work whereas the STAs / TAs are depending on the OUTSOURCING PERSONS and the Department is incurring heavy expenditure in respect of O.E.(O.S.) BILLS. The claim of the STAs / TAs are MINISTERIAL STAFF and qualified the test of 8000 Keys Depression per hour. If the STAs / TAs qualified the test of 8000 keys depression per hour then why they are DEPENDING ON THE OUTSOURCING PERSONS and the I.T.Deptt. is paying the O.S. BILLS to the OUTSOURCING PERSONS. The STENOS NEVER EVER ENGAGED any OUTSOURCING PERSON(S) and the I.T.Deptt. is also not sanctioning the O.E. (O.S.) BUDGET in this regard.
Kumar
CBDT notified that all process of cadre review will be completed before 31-12-2013.We have reached in new year and major groups of officials are eagerly waiting for implementation.kindly resolve the issues and do the needful at the earliest.Passing seniority for promotion to the grade of ITI should not be removed to allow the credit of merit and strengthen the morality of passing
officials.
AK Samanta
Mitro aap jo kah rahe hai ki sri Rajesh Menon jo ITGOA ke 30/12/2013 ke letter mein jo kah rahe hai uskeliye unka greatful hona chahiye, main ye nahin samajhta kyoki menon ji aapas mein regional basis par larha kar logo ka dhyan asali muddo se hatana chahte hai ve angrejo ki tarah phut dalo aur sasan karo ki niti aapna rahe hai. jab 2001 ke CR mein 100% sabhi post mein promotion diya gaya tha,to kya 2013 ke CR mein nahin ho sakta tha . kya menon ji ko cabinet approval ke pahale ye pata nahin tha ki IRS kya chall chal rahe hai yadi nahin pata tha to unhen ITGOA ka leadership nahin karni chaye kyoki jab hamare aaise leader ko pata nahin chalta to vo leadership kis kam ki burodh to eska hona chaye nahin ki regional allocation stagnation ki batein kar ke.yadi menon ji ko stagnation etna hi bura lag raha hai to ve CBDT/ CR committee ko ye suggestion dena chahiye ki jo bhi post CR mein ya further jo ITO mein promotion hoga ve all India Departmental competition basis par hona chahiye. ye ek tir se so problem ka samadhan ho jayega jaise regional stagnation,senior or junior ka problem , N.R. Parmar case ka problem etc.
Dear k n purushtam, pls check the position of D E O 's placement in others regions before writing any comments. In many regions where dpc for the post of OS was done on basis of U.D.C, all the D.E.OS were placed below udc who joined in the year 1997. Do you called it justice ? Only in Mumbai and one or two regions where dpc of OS was conducted on old T A basis, deo were placed alongwith other udc who joined in the same year. Is it not foul play by the I T E F,
While implementing the restructuring, the interest of the Organisation should not be ignored. Those who are doing well and proving better for the department should only be given opportunity for promotion first than the others.
The proposal that previous service in inter-charge transfer cases not to be considered for promotion is only a harassment and may be the decision of some who do not want the organisation should run smoothly.
Please frame the Recruitment Rule for the benefits of all.
Promotion exam for AO: Reccommendation of committee on this area may bring displeasure among small section of staff who have chosen OS line but did nothing to update themselves with day to day change in rules and regulations taking place. Most of AOs and AOs in waiting (present OS) lack knowledge and unable to guide their subordinates regarding rule position in day to day functioning of Office, instead they depend on their subordinates. When subordinates working under such AOs also not familiar with rules, incorrect fixation of pay , increase in number of audit objections, delay in misc. Payments including retirement benefits becomes regular affair. Most AOs employed as DDO in incometax department
don't even know TDS provisions on salary . We must introspect our strength and weakness and agree with valuable recommendations like this keeping the larger interest of the department as a whole.
I m agree with u
ARE OFFICE SUPERINTENDENTS OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTS ARE GETTING 3% PROMOTIONAL BENEFITS IN VIEW OF OM DT. 07.01.2013 ?
It is high time that there should be a cadre-wise organisation in Income Tax Department ,the only remedy for the ministerial staff for their genuine grievances for the last 3 decades. The ITEF as well as the Board suppressed them a lot.
K.N.Purushothaman, Kochi
Steno & Ministerial staff are basically same. No doubt steno is a technical staff but the entry level qualification is only 10+2 with Shorthand but in the case of TA it is Graduation with knowledge of Computer. As per me seniority list should be prepared in the entry level qualification angle. As per the SSC rating Steno is lower than TA.
Hai, If steno is lower than TA, why Gr.III steno was allowed to appear for ITO exam whereas TAs were not allowed. Further stenos are eligible for promotion to GP-4200 though they have not passed the Min. staff exam whereas TAs are eligible for promotion only after clearing the min. staff exam. Then who is lower? My dear friend, here, there is no question of lower / higher. It is the matter of equal opportunities to all. As per the sub-committee report recommendations, date of passing criteria is being abolished and promotion to the cadre of ITI would be given only on the basis of seniority of EAs. The recommendation of the sub-committee is not acceptable since most of the stenographers will be adversely affected because of the reason that they have been promoted to PB-2 after completion of minimum of 5 years service whereas TAs are getting promotion after completion of minimum of 3 years service. In my opinion, CR should be implemented basing on the existing RRs so as to avoid unnecessary litigations.
SAI
Hai friends, the recommendation of sub-committee on Recruitment Rules are not acceptable. Abolishing of date of passing criteria is really shocking and it affects the career prospects of many those who are expecting their promotion in the quota of date of passing. The employees who got transfer on Inter-charge from other regions are most affected since the hope of getting promotion on 'date of passing' criteria is being abolished.
SAI
In 2003, the RR for ITI was amended by excluding Steno-III as well as TA from the feeder cadres. The ratio between ministerial and Steno cadres was 4:1, but the instructions were not received in many charges. This was reiterated by the Board in a clarification issued to CCIT, Hyderabad in 2013. In 2005, this was again amended by going back to 1986 RR... really surprising...! One friend commented above, why stenos were allowed to take the test whereas TAs were not. The answer is very simple, the ITEF was always headed by STENOS, (Kutty and other kutties), now also not different, snatching the right of the deserved all along. When one gets some thing undue, he thinks that he deserves something more higher...That is why some of you think that Steno is higher than any other cadre...
It is very sad to read the comments of most of the employees of income tax deptt. Comrade pls post your positive and constrative comments. Pls avoid to post the bad comments for working cadres of deptt. This will tarnish the image of our unity.
It is to submit that there are problems in respect of the following cadres:-
1) OS -
There are many OS cadre candidates have not been passed the ITI test and some of the posts of the OS have been filled by promotion channel as AO and some of the posts as ITI.
2) STENOS (BOTH GRADE-1 & GR-II - PB0-2)
There are some problems in respect of :-
a) SENIORITY
b) DATE OF PASSING
c) P.S. CADRE POSTS
In respect of fixation of SENIORITY between the OS / STENOS Gr-I & II and the STAs (all are PB-2) and some of the STENOs / STAs are claiming that the DATE OF PASSING is to be taken as a criteria and some of the STENOS are requiring P.S. cadre posts and some of the STENOs and or STAs are claiming that the seniority list of EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT should be prepared like - EA (STENO) & EA (STA)
To solve these problems, it is suggested that -
i) the SEPARATE LISTS OF OS, STENOS (GR-I & GR-II / STAs (all are in PB-2) should be prepared - all are treated as EAs.
ii) After treating the same as EAs of all these FOUR CADRES in one cadre, the promotion aspects may be done on the basis of -
a) OS CADRES - 2 POSTS then
b) STENO CADRES (GR-I) - 1 POST i.e. 2:1
The promotion aspects for ITI may be made from the separate lists of the above individual cadre lists till the completion of the OS CADRE and STENO (GR-I)CADRE. It is applicable till they achieve as ITI or AO.
Then, the lists of STENOs (GR-I & GR-II) / STAs (all are in PB-2) should be taken and the promotion aspects may be made on the following basis -
a) STENOs (GR-I & II) - 1 POST then
b) STA - 1 POST i.e. 1:1
* The preference will be given to the STENO GR-1 + STA and the STENOs of GR-I will exhaust either in the promotion aspects of ITI or PS cadres.
** The next preference will be given to STENO GR-II (PB-2) and STA i.e. 1:1 and after completion of the STENO GR-II (PB-2), the balance of candidates left over if any pending is the EA (STAs only).
If the above method is followed, there may not be any problem if the SEPARATE SENIORITY LISTS IS TAKEN FROM THE CADRES OF THE OS / STENO GR-I & GR-II / STAs (all are PB-2). However, all are these cadres treated as EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS. The above separate lists is only for PROMOTION ASPECTS and to avoid COMPLICATIONS BETWEEN THE OS CADRES TO STENO GR-I CADRES AND STENO. GR-II CADRE TO STA CADRES AND ALSO TO AVOID LITIGATIONS OF AO / PS CADRES.
Dear ITD family members, if there is any problem in respect of the above proposed promotion aspects of ITI from the cadre of EA, please let me know the problems which we face in future.
Sir,
I would like to request our ITEF to kindly put a proposal for the promotion prospectus of our senior members (OS & IIT's) those who find difficult to clear their departmental examinations due to various reasons by implementing one time measure i.e. first promoting them and after wards giving 2/3 chances to clear their examinations. This would keep the moral of our senior members high.
As per recent developments, it is understood that the CBDT is going to issue instructions for implementation of parmar case. The probable instruction would be 'date of intimating the vacancy to SSC' will be taken for counting the seniority in respect of DRs. If it is implemented and 'date of passing quota' for promotion to ITI is abolished, what would be the fate of promotee employees. Even they would not be in a position to get an idea about his promotion since more number of DRs in the cadre of UDC may become seniors and those who have not passed the exam till date may clear the exam in subsequent years and get the promotion before one who has already passed the exam already. Like this, every year so many senior employees will pass the exam and get their promotions whereas the employees who have passed the exam a decade ago will have to wait for one more decade. This aspect must be thoroughly examined by the Board and at least 'date of passing quota' must be retained.
SAI
Is parmar case applicable for IIT only or for others?
Post a Comment