GDS/CHQ/41/1/2010 Dated: 19-02-2010
To
The Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110001
Sub:- Incentive structure for different types of work
performed in BOs.
Ref:- Your letter No. 01-14/2008-RB dated 18-01-2010
Sir,
The Scheme of NRGS is a regular type of work and is not going to be withdrawn in the foreseeable future, especially because of the popularity it has gained and also because the government has also prominently been advancing it as a flagship programme. This being the case the introduction of incentive for a permanent type of work denotes of ad-hocism and denial to the staff of their rightful work denominators for fixation of allowances.
Since we donot agree with the concept of incentive, we are not discussing the merits of the incentive formula.
Similarly, the PLI has assumed the character of permancy and is being managed by grant of incentive. This is against the principled basis of calculation of work and again denotes adhocism.
Similar is the case for all work that is or is sought to be managed on incentive basis.
We, therefore, request you kindly to withdraw incentive scheme which works to the deterent of the staff and to evolve due work calculation in cousultation with the staff side so that justice is doue properly to the staff.
Yours faithfully,
(S.S. Mahadevaiah)
General Secretary
GDS/CHQ/41/1/2010 Dated: 19-02-2010
To
The Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110001
Subject:- Revision of norms for cash handling for work-load
assessment of BPMs.
Ref:- Your letter No. 5-1/2007-WS-1(PT) dated 11.01.2010
Sir,
The comments sent vide your office letter under reference which is with reference our letter of even No. dated 24.12.2009 does not address our concern properly. We would discuss the reply Para-wise:-
We have not challenged the he need for revision of the standard in to as such our concern lies in the twenty fold increase in the amount to be handled for earning one point. We have suggested that the norms should be revised to Rs.5000 cash handled for one point of work. This is because the basic principle for treating the Branch offices on different footing from other Post offices exists even to day where cash is handled in bits and small coins or G.C. notes of small denomination. We are not aware as to which B.O. was or which BOs were taken up for studies; but we are still confident that the norms are abnormally harsh. As a matter of fact, before the revision was considered our views and imperical experience should have been obtained. Since the standard is abnormally harsh it affects the BPMs very adversely because the same is unrealistic and impractible.
We, therefore, request you kindly to keep the revised standard of cash handling in abeyance and take steps for evolving a realistic and practical standard keeping our views into consideration.
We had pointed out that in view of the multiplication of work at Branch offices and introduction of several new schemes and products, the accounts maintenance has become more cumbersome and the 14 points allotted for the purpose need to be raised to 28 points. A practical view of this has got to be taken. Now it is not correct to say that counting of the remittance received or made is covered by the said 14 points. These 14 points are allotted for preparing accounts, different bags, slips and closing and sealing as also time sprat in opening and closing of the PO. It is not correct to say that these 14 points cover counting/verification of remittance received from/made to account office. This issue merits reconsideration.
We, therefore, request you kindly to reconsider the issue to raise the 14 points to 28 points and to include the amount of remittance made/received as cash handled.
We hope these issues will receive your consideration based on merit and practicability.
GDS/CHQ/41/1/2010 Dated: 24-02-2010
To
The Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110001
Subject:- Introduction of RSBY (Rastriya Swasthya Bima Yojna) for
GDS employees.
Ref: Your office letter no 6-10.2009-PE-II dated 13-01-2010
Sir,
While we welcome the scheme as an important step towards provision of health care to the GDS employees, we feel that slight improvement in the scheme would be really more helpful and beneficial to the beneficiaries of the scheme. It needs not be emphasised that the GDS employees work in village areas where hospitals with in-door facilities are very littler or at places even not available. There are health centers which provide only out door treatment. Keeping these facts in view, we offer the following suggestions for incorporation in the scheme before the department sings the agreement with the Insurance company:-
1. It is mentioned that GDS having one yeas or more service shall be covered under the scheme. We feel that this condition may be deleted and all GDS employees should be covered under the scheme.
2. As per the terms mentioned, the scheme will cover only serving employees and on discharge/retirement the GDS can continue to avail the facility on his owncost. In this connection a reference is invited to the recommendations of Nataraja Murti Committee on the subject. The recommendation is that the GDS employee and his family should continue to be covered under the scheme at Govt. cost. We sincerely feel and suggest that this recommendation be implemented to ensure that the GDS employees and his family members continue to be covered under the scheme even after discharge/retirement without any cost to the GDS.
3. It is mentioned that the scheme will cover all health problems but OPD treatment is not covered. As we have mentioned above, in the rural areas mostly OPD treatment only is available and there are many diseases almost all diseases where prolonged treatment is provided on OPD treatment. For example we can take any disease say: T.B., heart disease orthopedic treatment or pre-natal or postnatal health cases where prolonged treatment is required. The same is provided by OPD treatment only. In order to make the scheme more meaningful and beneficial, we very emphatically suggest that the scheme should be made cover OPD treatment also.
4. It is mentioned that the amount of travel expenses is inclusive in the
total coverage of Rs.30,000/-. We feel that this affects the treatment cost. We, therefore, suggest that the travel cost should be over and above the coverage amount of Rs.30,000/-
We hope that our suggestions will duly be considered and necessary amendments in the scheme as suggested above may be caused to be carried out.
