GDS/CHQ/41/1/2010 Dated: 22.11.2010
To
The Secretary,
Department of Posts,
New Delhi-110001
Subject: - Introduction of Service Discharge Benefit Scheme (SDBS) for Gramin Dak Sevaks.
Ref: Your office letter No. 6-11/2010-PEII dated 11.10.2010
Madam,
We feel that the proposal submitted vide our letter of even No. dated 23.9.2010 and 24.9.2010 deserve deeper and factual analysis and decision, rather than taking a rigid stand. The following facts are advanced to seek improvement in the scheme:-
3.1 The recommendation of any Committee or Commission is simply recommendations and not awards of legal or statutory body. The recommendations of all Pay Commissions and ED Committees have been subject to modifications and the recommendations of some E.D. Committees have been totally altered. We can cite the example of Madan Kishore Committee and Savoor ED Committee which were totally altered and the recommendations of Justice Talwar Committee-a Committee under a retired High Court Judge were very partially implemented and that too with modifications. The one-man ED Committee has nothing special that its recommendations cannot be improved or modified.
Secondly, the GDS employees are not private sector employees and in view of several Judicial pronouncements have the attributes of Government employees and these GDS employees cannot be compared with private sector employees. That apart, it is not a fact that the private sector employees are not provided third benefit of social security. We may invite your attention to Employees Pension Scheme 1995 through which the private sector employees are given the benefit of pension. The GDS employees surely do not deserve to be treated on worse footing.
It shall be, therefore, in fitness of things that the scheme of pension is provided to the GDS employees in addition to the scheme of Severance Amount.
3.2 In this connection the situation may be considered as the things are taken on solid ground. All said and done, there is hardly anything to deny that the word discharge as it is there in public domain means some thing disgraceful. But using the word retirement; the status of the GDS employees does not change overnight. But the word "retirement" gives a sense of respectability and we do not see anything wrong in using this word "retirement" in place of "discharge".
3.3 Our objection in endorsing a copy of the document to the NUGDS is well founded and our apprehension that some sort of indirect legitimacy is sought to be provided to that unrecognized union. If it were with a view to popularize the scheme only. The letter could have been endorsed to all unions of GDS employees which participated in the membership verification. Any thing less than the prescribed limit are to be ignored. The word "sizable" is vague and subjective. There is no yard stick to gauze the membership "sizable" or otherwise.
We hope that in future no action is taken in a way which shows undue favor to a particular union or gives legitimacy to a union which does not deserve it.
3.4 The policy has always been to have a wide ranging discussion with the union in case of issues which have a direct impact on the employees. We do not find any reason why the department should not discuss the subject with us. Discussions would bring about some thing fruitful and will not be in any case a road-block. We hope that wide ranging formal discussion would take place.
3.5 We are of the view that no scheme is as rigid as to deny and valid and dynamic improvement. We can quote many schemes which have undergone such improvements. Our suggestion to continue the scheme even after the demise of the employees has a social and humane base. In several types of death, the next Akins is compensated adequately by the government only on social and human considerations. The case of a GDS employee who dies is harness cannot be treated on a different footing.
We very sincerely reiterate our views that the dependent next of the kin or the nominee of the GDS employees on death should be paid 60% of the total accumulation and the government should continue the scheme to provide social security to the dependent member of the bereaved family. Otherwise, you may agree that the nominee of the deceased GDS employee shall not have sufficient means to continue the scheme and has no other way than to face acute penury.
3.6 We feel that the suggestion has got to be considered, more deeply. That the employees may be absorbed is departmental posts or removed on account disciplinary action is not convincing. In case of absorption against departmental posts, action as prescribed for those opting to retire the severance amount scheme and subsequently absorbed against departmental posts, can be taken. In case of removal an account of disciplinary cases. The same action can be taken as in case of any other benefits.
Our suggestion that on an employee opting to elect the new scheme the sum of severance amount should be transferred immediately to his accumulation is sound and worth implementation. We hope this will be done.
3.7 In this Connection we would like to mention that is many cases 50% or above is rounded off to the next completed unit. If there is no provision is the rules, such a provision can be made is accordance with many instances or conventions in vogue. We hope such a provision has legal backing and will be made in the scheme.
3.8 What we suggest is that if there is no provision, such a provision be made to give better social protection to the employees. A provision for part payment either on permanent basis or as a recoverable measure should be introduced.
3.9 Our suggestion was for providing sufficient time to the employee to make up his mind while going with final date of implementation.
3.10 Our suggestion is very important and valid. The workers' money cannot be lift to the volatility of the market, be it 15% or 10%. There must be some safety provided to the money. In this connection we enclose a paper clipping of the "Times of India" a prominent Daily dated 15.10.2010. The Finance Ministry wanted that a part of the provident fund corpus of workers be invested in shares. The Labour Ministry has resisted the suggestion and refused to abide by it unless the Government gives an assurance that the money will be protected. Similarly if 15% the accumulation is to be invested in shares, let there be some protection from some quarters that the amount will not be washed away is the vagaries of the market. Otherwise the entire amount should be invested is Government Securities or any other scheme of the Government. We are of this firm opinion.
3.11 We still feel that our suggestion would be considered to provide wide coverage to the employees.
4. We still feel that on the lines of other recommendations and schemes, this scheme also is within the limits of undergoing improvement and changes and there is nothing which makes it immune from being subjected to change or improvement
5. Our clarifications sought for in our letter dated 24.09.2010 may kindly be provided.
With regards,
Yours faithfully,
--
S.S.Mahadevaiah
General Secretary
All India Postal Extra Departmental Employees Union
