Suggestion inviting regarding Revision/Amendment in RRs for the post of PS Group 'B'
Friday, 5 May 2017
Suggestion inviting regarding Revision/Amendment in RRs for the post of PS Group 'B'
May 05, 2017
Kalaivaraikalai
The outcome of the standing committee held on 03/05/2017.
May 05, 2017
Kalaivaraikalai
Meeting
of the Standing Committee of National Council (JCM) held on 03.05.2017.
Only Action Taken Report (progress report) on old items discussed in
the Standing Committee meeting held on 25.10.2016 was discussed from 3
to 7 PM.
The
protest of the staff side regarding the abnormal delay in
implementation of revised allowances from 01.01.2016, increase in
minimum pay and fitment formula, Option -1 parity of Pensioners,
revision of pension and grant of dearness relief to autonomous body
pensioners etc was conveyed to Secretary, Department of Personnel who
chaired the meeting. The proposed move to close down DGS&D was also
raised.
To discuss the new items another meeting will be held shortly.
The
cabinet has approved the parity in pension recommended by the Pension
Committee constituted by Govt w.e.f.01.01.2016. (Whether it is 5th CPC
recommended parity can be confirmed only after seeing the orders).
It is confirmed that Option -1 recommended by 7th CPC is rejected.Thursday, 4 May 2017
Tirupati darshan ticket now at Palayankottai HPO
May 04, 2017
Kalaivaraikalai
திருப்பதி ஏழுமலையானை தரிசிக்க பாளையங்கோட்டை தலைமை அலுவலகத்தில் டிக்கெட் பெற வசதி செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது.
The Department of Posts has launched this
facility from April 26 and one can obtain Rs. 300 ticket for darshan at
10 a.m., 11 a.m., 12 noon and 1 p.m. The entry
ticket permits registration for six persons and one of the members of
the group can obtain the ticket from the post office. He has to upload
the pictures of other group members and should bring the Aadhaar card of
all the six members for registration.
If the Residents of Tirunelveli planning for a pilgrimage to Tirupati, he can now book special darshan tickets through the Palayankottai Head Post Office here.
Registration can be done prior to 56 days. For details contact, 0462-2568064
Cadre Restructuring ம் உங்கள் சந்தேகத்துக்கான சில விளக்கங்களும்
May 04, 2017
Kalaivaraikalai
You
may be aware of many speculations surrounding Cadre restructuring and
its implementation. This article had been drafted to put an end to such
speculation and to vent out the doubts in employee’s mind.
Consequent on Cadre restructuring, Only the posts were been upgraded.(wef 15.4.17 for Tamilnadu circle)
- Post of single handed and double handed had been upgraded to LSG
- Post of ‘A’ class and LSG had been upgraded to HSG-II
- Post of HSG-II had been upgraded to HSG-I
As per Recruitment Rules,
- Postal Assistant with 5 Years of service are eligible for LSG
- LSG officials with 6 years of service in the cadre are eligible for HSG-II
- HSG-II officials with `5 years of service in the cadre are eligible for HSG-I
- Senior most HSG-I with minimum 2 years of service are eligible for HSG-I Non functional Cadre.
As such, Postal Assistant irrespective of their GP will first be
promoted to LSG only. Some comrades were raising a question that whether
MACP III (4600 GP) will directly be placed in HSG-I post. No not at
all, For getting promoted to HSG-I, one have to work in HSG-II cadre for
at least 5 years of service. So they will be placed in LSG first.
So there are chances that, many HSG-II places may be vacant due to non
availability of elibilge officials. So union is asking for one time
relaxation to Recruitment rules for posting the officials.
Query 1:
Whether MACP-II (Grade pay 4200) PA be placed in HSG-II(before Cadre
restructuring A CLASS OR LSG OFFICE) after Cadre restructuring?
No. MACP is mere financial up gradation. MACP-II official is also should be treated as PA. As such they will be getting promoted to LSG first.
Query 2:
What is the tenure for single handed/Double handed offices, Treasury after Cadre restructuring?
2 years .As per Directorate order no 4-7/2009-vig dated 07.10.16 these Posts comes under sensitive posts . So they will be rotated after 2 years.
Query 3:
Who is competent for posting of PA in LSG post (previously single/double handed) after Cadre restructuring?
As LSG is a circle cadre, Posting for the LSG and above posts will be done by Circle office. So Posting of SPM in single/Double handed will be done by circle office. Divisional head can issue transfer orders only for Postal assistants Posts.
Query 4:
Whether System Administrator, Marketing Executive are LSG posts after Cadre restructuring?
As of now, they are PA cadre only. There is no LSG posts for System Administrator, Marketing Executive cadre.
Query 5:
If a time scale PA happens to officiate for more than 14 days in LSG
post (i.e as SPM in single hand/double hand), whether he is eligible for
officiating pay?
Yes, if an official officiating in higher post for less than 14 days, he is not entitled for higher pay. However, even if the first spell is less than 14 days but subsequently extended, the official officiating in the higher post is entitled for higher pay as per the Directorate letter No. 9-25/82-SPG/SPB II dt. 29.05.86.
Query 6:
Whether MACP-I (2800 GP) official working in single handed office will get disturbed after Cadre restructuring ?
May or may not be. It is subject to grant and acceptance of LSG. As of now, though he/she is placed in 2800 GP he/she is only PA. If that official was granted LSG he/she may not get disturbed else LSG official will be posted in that office.
Query 7:
A LSG official working currently in APM (now upgraded HSG-II after Cadre restructuring) can continue in his post?
May or may not be. If another HSG-II official opts for that post he had to work in other LSG Post. If no eligible officials, they may continue to officiate in HSG-II.
Cabinet approves modifications in the 7th CPC recommendations on pay and pensionary benefits
May 04, 2017
Kalaivaraikalai
The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi
approved important proposals relating to modifications in the 7th CPC
(Central Pay Commission) recommendations on pay and pensionary benefits
in the course of their implementation. Earlier, in June, 2016, the
Cabinet had approved implementation of the recommendations with an
additional financial outgo of Rs 84,933 crore for 2016-17 (including
arrears for 2 months of 2015-16).
The benefit of the proposed modifications will be available with effect
from 1st January, 2016, i.e., the date of implementation of 7th CPC
recommendations. With the increase approved by the Cabinet, the annual
pension bill alone of the Central Government is likely to be Rs.1,76,071
crore. Some of the important decisions of the Cabinet are mentioned
below:1.Revision of pension of pre – 2016 pensioners and family pensioners
The Cabinet approved modifications in the recommendations of the 7th CPC
relating to the method of revision of pension of pre-2016 pensioners
and family pensioners based on suggestions made by the Committee chaired
by Secretary (Pensions) constituted with the approval of the Cabinet.
The modified formulation of pension revision approved by the Cabinet
will entail an additional benefit to the pensioners and an additional
expenditure of approximately Rs.5031 crore for 2016-17 over and above
the expenditure already incurred in revision of pension as per the
second formulation based on fitment factor. It will benefit over 55
lakh pre-2016 civil and defence pensioners and family pensioners.
While approving the implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations on
29th June, 2016, the Cabinet had approved the changed method of pension
revision recommended by the 7th CPC for pre-2016 pensioners, comprising
of two alternative formulations, subject to the feasibility of the first
formulation which was to be examined by the Committee.
In terms of the Cabinet decision, pensions of pre-2016 pensioners were
revised as per the second formulation multiplying existing pension by a
fitment factor of 2.57, though the pensioners were to be given the
option of choosing the more beneficial of the two formulations as per
the 7th CPC recommendations.
In order to provide the more beneficial option to the pensioners,
Cabinet has accepted the recommendations of the Committee, which has
suggested revision of pension based on information contained in the
Pension Payment Order (PPO) issued to every pensioner. The revised
procedure of fixation of notional pay is more scientific, rational and
implementable in all the cases. The Committee reached its findings
based on an analysis of hundreds of live pension cases. The modified
formulation will be beneficial to more pensioners than the first
formulation recommended by the 7th CPC, which was not found to be
feasible to implement on account of non-availability of records in a
large number of cases and was also found to be prone to several
anomalies.
2.Disability Pension for Defence Pensioners
The Cabinet also approved the retention of percentage-based regime of
disability pension implemented post 6th CPC, which the 7th CPC had
recommended to be replaced by a slab-based system.
The issue of disability pension was referred to the National Anomaly
Committee by the Ministry of Defence on account of the representation
received from the Defence Forces to retain the slab-based system, as it
would have resulted in reduction in the amount of disability pension for
existing pensioners and a reduction in the amount of disability pension
for future retirees when compared to percentage-based disability
pension.
The decision which will benefit existing and future Defence pensioners
would entail an additional expenditure of approximately Rs. 130 crore
per annum.
Source : PIBSC Should Know the Difference Between Unsound Mind, Mental Illness and ‘Bad’ Behaviour
May 04, 2017
Kalaivaraikalai
The Supreme Court has ordered a mental examination of Justice Karnan to determine if he is fit to defend himself in court.
There was more drama yesterday in the suo moto contempt petition against
Justice C.S. Karnan before a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court,
with the court concluding that Justice Karnan may not be medically fit
to defend himself in the contempt proceedings, based on his press
briefings and orders. The Supreme Court ordered that he should be
medically examined by a board of doctors from Pavlov Government
Hospital, Kolkata, which was asked to report to the court whether he is
in a fit condition to defend himself.
Calcutta Pavlov Hospital, as it is called on the website of Bengal Health and Family Welfare Department, is a mental hospital. By asking for a medical examination to be conducted by doctors from this hospital, the Supreme Court is questioning Justice Karnan’s mental fitness.
Indian law recognises two related but distinct concepts of unsound mind and mental illness. Although these concepts have been treated as synonymous at times, the law does distinguish between the two. Mental illness is a medical condition while unsoundness of mind is a legal finding. Indian Contracts Act, 1872 is the only law in the country that defines a sound mind. According to the law, a person is of sound mind if at the time of making a contract, he is “capable of understanding it and forming a rational judgment as to its effects upon his interests”. Thus, mental illness is neither necessary nor sufficient for a finding of unsound mind.
Even if the medical board finds that Justice Karnan has a mental illness, it does not automatically imply he is of unsound mind. Clause 5 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 says “determination of a person’s mental illness shall alone not imply or be taken to mean that the person is of unsound mind unless he has been declared as such by a competent court”. Irrespective of his mental health status, the Supreme Court will have to satisfy itself that Justice Karnan is incapable of understanding his actions and is unable to form a rational judgement of the effects of his actions on his interests, and thus make a declaration that Justice Karnan is of unsound mind, before halting legal proceedings. Indian law allows for legal proceedings to be stayed if a person is of unsound mind.
On the other hand, Justice Karnan may claim that the Supreme Court is trying to malign him and portray him as mad as he has made serious allegations against the court. Clause 3 (b) of the Mental Health Care Act says mental illness is not to be diagnosed based on non-conformity to moral, social, cultural, work or political values. Justice Karnan’s battle has been with his peers and colleagues and he has been accused on not living up to judicial behaviour, displaying “abject disrespect” to the Supreme Court and thus not behaving in conformity with his professional values. There are no reports of Justice Karnan exhibiting any abnormal behaviour in his interaction with the press or public, or in his personal life. Can Justice Karnan claim that he cannot be diagnosed as having a mental illness under the Act merely based on non-conformity with work values?
Given these factors, one wonders what can be achieved by ordering a mental health examination. Besides, there are practical problems in implementing the court’s order. The Supreme Court has asked for the medical report to be submitted in eight days. Psychiatrists will struggle to arrive at a definite conclusion about the presence or absence of mental illness within eight days, especially since Justice Karnan is unlikely to submit himself to examination and/or co-operate with a psychiatric examination. It may be further argued that it is impossible for a group of psychiatrists to arrive at any conclusion about the presence or absence of mental illness in the current situation, even if the court were to give them more time.
Psychiatrists are thus placed in an unenviable position of having to conduct a medical examination with little co-operation from the person concerned and submit a medical report in an unrealistic time frame for what is essentially a work related legal conflict between the country’s senior-most judicial officers.
Mental health professionals will also have to consider other legal aspects in this case. The Mental Health Care Act allows mental health professionals to examine a person with their consent, or with the consent of a person’s nominated representative in very limited circumstances (violence towards others or self or lack of self-care putting the person’s life at risk), or without consent in a medical emergency. It is unlikely that Justice Karnan will consent to being examined nor can his nominated representative consent for his examination since he does not fulfil the criteria for consent by a nominated representative and clearly there is no medical emergency. If they cannot do it under the Mental Health Care Act, under what legal authority will psychiatrists examine Justice Karnan, if they insist on doing so? Can psychiatrists be prosecuted under the Act for violating its provisions or does an order of the Supreme Court override the provisions of the law and grant them immunity from prosecution?
One further issue from the Supreme Court order merits attention. Immediately after ordering a mental examination of Justice Karnan on the suspicion of him being unfit to defend himself, the Supreme Court also asked him to submit his response to the notice issued to him by the court in the next eight days. The court further said if he chose not to file a response it would be presumed he had nothing to say in the matter. It is difficult to understand the Supreme Court raising a question of the accused person’s mental fitness to defend himself and simultaneously asking the person to submit his defence to an earlier notice!
Our society presumes persons with mental illness cannot make decisions, equating the illness with an unsound mind. In the past few years, mental health stakeholders have made a huge effort to correct this erroneous impression. We have also tried hard to make people understand that mental illness is a medical condition and not just bad behaviour. Unfortunately, this case and the Supreme Court’s order negates our efforts by conflating mental illness with unsound mind and equating mental illness with possibly just bad behaviour. This is a major setback for the movement to reduce stigma against mental illness. Soumitra Pathare is a psychiatrist. Source : The Wire
Calcutta Pavlov Hospital, as it is called on the website of Bengal Health and Family Welfare Department, is a mental hospital. By asking for a medical examination to be conducted by doctors from this hospital, the Supreme Court is questioning Justice Karnan’s mental fitness.
Indian law recognises two related but distinct concepts of unsound mind and mental illness. Although these concepts have been treated as synonymous at times, the law does distinguish between the two. Mental illness is a medical condition while unsoundness of mind is a legal finding. Indian Contracts Act, 1872 is the only law in the country that defines a sound mind. According to the law, a person is of sound mind if at the time of making a contract, he is “capable of understanding it and forming a rational judgment as to its effects upon his interests”. Thus, mental illness is neither necessary nor sufficient for a finding of unsound mind.
Even if the medical board finds that Justice Karnan has a mental illness, it does not automatically imply he is of unsound mind. Clause 5 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 says “determination of a person’s mental illness shall alone not imply or be taken to mean that the person is of unsound mind unless he has been declared as such by a competent court”. Irrespective of his mental health status, the Supreme Court will have to satisfy itself that Justice Karnan is incapable of understanding his actions and is unable to form a rational judgement of the effects of his actions on his interests, and thus make a declaration that Justice Karnan is of unsound mind, before halting legal proceedings. Indian law allows for legal proceedings to be stayed if a person is of unsound mind.
On the other hand, Justice Karnan may claim that the Supreme Court is trying to malign him and portray him as mad as he has made serious allegations against the court. Clause 3 (b) of the Mental Health Care Act says mental illness is not to be diagnosed based on non-conformity to moral, social, cultural, work or political values. Justice Karnan’s battle has been with his peers and colleagues and he has been accused on not living up to judicial behaviour, displaying “abject disrespect” to the Supreme Court and thus not behaving in conformity with his professional values. There are no reports of Justice Karnan exhibiting any abnormal behaviour in his interaction with the press or public, or in his personal life. Can Justice Karnan claim that he cannot be diagnosed as having a mental illness under the Act merely based on non-conformity with work values?
Given these factors, one wonders what can be achieved by ordering a mental health examination. Besides, there are practical problems in implementing the court’s order. The Supreme Court has asked for the medical report to be submitted in eight days. Psychiatrists will struggle to arrive at a definite conclusion about the presence or absence of mental illness within eight days, especially since Justice Karnan is unlikely to submit himself to examination and/or co-operate with a psychiatric examination. It may be further argued that it is impossible for a group of psychiatrists to arrive at any conclusion about the presence or absence of mental illness in the current situation, even if the court were to give them more time.
Psychiatrists are thus placed in an unenviable position of having to conduct a medical examination with little co-operation from the person concerned and submit a medical report in an unrealistic time frame for what is essentially a work related legal conflict between the country’s senior-most judicial officers.
Mental health professionals will also have to consider other legal aspects in this case. The Mental Health Care Act allows mental health professionals to examine a person with their consent, or with the consent of a person’s nominated representative in very limited circumstances (violence towards others or self or lack of self-care putting the person’s life at risk), or without consent in a medical emergency. It is unlikely that Justice Karnan will consent to being examined nor can his nominated representative consent for his examination since he does not fulfil the criteria for consent by a nominated representative and clearly there is no medical emergency. If they cannot do it under the Mental Health Care Act, under what legal authority will psychiatrists examine Justice Karnan, if they insist on doing so? Can psychiatrists be prosecuted under the Act for violating its provisions or does an order of the Supreme Court override the provisions of the law and grant them immunity from prosecution?
One further issue from the Supreme Court order merits attention. Immediately after ordering a mental examination of Justice Karnan on the suspicion of him being unfit to defend himself, the Supreme Court also asked him to submit his response to the notice issued to him by the court in the next eight days. The court further said if he chose not to file a response it would be presumed he had nothing to say in the matter. It is difficult to understand the Supreme Court raising a question of the accused person’s mental fitness to defend himself and simultaneously asking the person to submit his defence to an earlier notice!
Our society presumes persons with mental illness cannot make decisions, equating the illness with an unsound mind. In the past few years, mental health stakeholders have made a huge effort to correct this erroneous impression. We have also tried hard to make people understand that mental illness is a medical condition and not just bad behaviour. Unfortunately, this case and the Supreme Court’s order negates our efforts by conflating mental illness with unsound mind and equating mental illness with possibly just bad behaviour. This is a major setback for the movement to reduce stigma against mental illness. Soumitra Pathare is a psychiatrist. Source : The Wire
Monday, 1 May 2017
Railway offers special VRS for its staff
May 01, 2017
Kalaivaraikalai
Railway offers special voluntary Retirement scheme for its staff
Railway offers special voluntary Retirement scheme for its staff, Railway has issued orders in this regard:-
Sunday, 30 April 2017
Labour Day or May Day or Workers' Day DAY
April 30, 2017
Secretary, FNPO Tirunelveli
Official Name is: International Workers’ Day
Also called as: May Day
International Labour Day is also known as the International Worker’s Day and May Day which is celebrated on an international level to promote and encourage the international labour associations. It is being celebrated all across the world every year on 1st of May which has been declared as the traditional spring holiday in the Europe.It has also been declared as the national holiday in almost 80 countries of the world whereas it is being celebrated as an unofficial event in most of the countries. It the US and Canada, it is (Labour Day) celebrated on 1st Monday of the September month as an annual holiday for celebrating the great achievements of the workers working in various fields.
Latest News
April 30, 2017
Secretary, FNPO Tirunelveli
IMPLEMENTATION OF MACP RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F. 01-09-2008 AND DENYING PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY UNDER ACP FOR THOSE WHO HAVE COMPLETED REQUIRED SERVICE DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN 01-09-2008 TO 19-05-2009 HELD NOT LEGAL
Read more
Read more
New Secretary Posts appointed
April 30, 2017
Secretary, FNPO Tirunelveli
The Cabinet has approved the appointment of Shri Anant Narayan Nanda, IPoS (1982) as Secretary, Department of Posts Read more
Allowance Committee Report Latest position
April 30, 2017
Secretary, FNPO Tirunelveli
The Allowances committee report will be now placed before the Empowered Committee of Secretaries (E-CoS) to firm-up the proposal for approval of the Cabinet READ MORE.
.bmp)
