Summary of the note on report of G.D.S. Committee submitted by AIPEDEU

GDS/CHQ/41/1 /2008 Dated: 14-11-2008

Sri. Jyotiraditya M. Scindia,
Hon’ble Minister of State for Communication & IT,
Government of India,
Electro Nikethan, 6 C.G.O. Complex,Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003


Subject: Retrograde and negative report of the GDS Committee under the Charmin ship of R.S. Nataraja Murthi committee of officer constituted to examine implementation of the report.
Ref: Directorate letter No. 6-1/2008-PE II Dated 07.11.2008.


Respected Sir,

We are encouraged and extend our hearty thanks to your on your announcement in the meeting held with the Union on 11.11.2008 that you will leave no stone unturned to see that justice is done to the GDS employees.

But certain actions taken by the Directorate appear to be confusing and are ominous. These are:-

(i) A committee has been constituted by the competent authority vide the letter under reference. We are not aware if draft and contents of the letter were brought to your notice. We are also not aware as to who is the competent authority to constitute the said Committee. But the letter of the draft denotes that emphasises is on implementation. Thus the constitution of the committee under such conditions appears to be rather an eye-wash; and if so the attempt is likely to boomerang.

(ii) Two officers who were actively and directly associated with the G.D.S. Committee and naturally have an inclination and inherent prejudice towards the report are holding important positions and power with respect to implementation. The officers, who were associated with the recommendations, as a matter of natural justice, should not be associated with implementation. They cannot be the prosecutor, judge and jury at the same time.

The second paragraph of the report is ominous. It indicates as if the emphasis is on implementing the report rather than removing the anomalies and rejects the offending recommendations. It is suggested that the Committee "may" not "shall" or "will" "look into" not "examine" or "consider" the representations received form the G.D.S. union. This makes the constitution of the Committee simply look like an eye wash. We enclose a copy of the letter for your ready reference,

We suggest that the second paragraph of the letter may be revised as follows;

"The Committee has submitted its report to the government. Before steps are taken as to how far and with what improvement the report may be implemented, it is necessary to examine the same to see what the anomalies which should be resolves are. Therefore, the competent authority constitutes a department Committee of senior officers for the purpose. The Committee shall examine as to what recommendations require to be implemented or improved or rejected. The Committee shall take into consideration the representation received from the G.D.S. union and will also hear the said union'.

We have already submitted a note on the negativities of the recommendation. However we enclose a summary of our note as Annexure to this letter.

We, therefore, request you kindly to consider the issue and take necessary steps to issue a corrigendum to the letter under reference and that the officers who were associated with the committee are shifted from implementation positions.

Yours faithfully,

(S.S. Mahadevaiah),
General Secretary









Annexure

Summary of the note on report of G.D.S. Committee submitted by AIPEDEU

2/2.5 In view of judgements of the Supreme Court in P.K.Rajamma's case (1977) (3) SCC that E.D. employees are holders of Civil Post and Theyyam Joseph's Case (1997) 8 SCC 489 that EDA's are Civil Servants, the status of civil servants should be recognised for all purposes. General Manager vs A.Srinivasa Rao case simply deals with Industrial Dispute Act and definition of Industry and does no deal with the declaration that G.D.S. are Civil servants. Therefore, the observation of the Committee in Para 2.10 that G..D.S. and regular employees belonged to two and distinct and separate group must be totally rejected.

3/3.8 (i) Recommendations in Paragraphs 5.16, 5.20 and 5.22 suggesting almost abolition of Posts of G.D.S. Stamp Vendors, Packers and mail men must be scrapped.

(ii) Recommendation in Para 6.11 for down gradation/abolition of EDSO's is disastrous and must be rejected.

(iii) Recommendation in Paras 7.14.2 and 7.14.3 regarding radial distance and digital map are ridiculous and unscientific. These recommendations in totality along with those in Para 7.14.5 should be outright rejected.

4/4.7 (i) We have suggested time factors on practical experience which should be accepted.

(ii) Consequently fixing working hours below three hours or suggesting pay-scales for less than three hours is not only preposterous but also departure from set norms. This should be rejected.

(iii) Minimum working hours of BOs in view of enhanced business should be 4 hours which should be extended upto 6 hours, minimum working hours of EDSOs should be 5 hours which may extend to seven hours.

(iv) The minimum duty hours of deliverer and other G.D.S. employees should be five hours and pay fixed from the pay-band -1 suggested by us for five hours work. The minimum of pay band -1 suggested by us is for 4 hours of work.
(v) Work hours of G.D.S. Packers should not be less than 6 hours.

(vi). Distance to be measured on foot.

4.8. Pay-scales suggested by the Committee are unscientific and without any base. We have suggested the following Pay Band and Grade Pay based on 6th CPC recommendations.

Pay Band (PB)-1: 3500 – 12000 for other G.D.S. employees other than BPMs & EDSPMs.

Grade Pay Rs 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750 according to grade or work hours.

Pay- Band (PB) 2: 4000-14000 for BPMs/EDSPMs

Grade pay: Rs 1000, 1200, 1600, 1800 according to grade/work.

4.9 (i) Fitment formula suggested by the Committee is unrealistic and without any scientific base. In view of later revision of 5th CPC scale the fitment formula should be:

Basic Pay plus 98 percent of basic pay plus 40% of the maximum of the scale subject to minimum of the PB + Grade Pay.

(ii) Annual increment: 3 percent

4.11 (i) DA, HRA and other allowances: At par with whole time employees.

(ii) Transport allowance: in towns etc - Rs.300
in other areas - Rs.200
which will earn D.A.

4.12. ACP – three ACP on completion of 10,20,30 years of service.

4.13. There will be no need for combined duty allowance as combination will not be possible.

4.14. Seasonal Pos: 50% of emoluments as retainer.

4.15. Recommendation of the committee in respect of lowering bonus calculating ceiling to 50% is not justified. EDA are covered under PLB scheme. No change or retrograde recommendation acceptable.

4.16. PRI – No need.

5.1,5.2 & 5.3; In view of GDS being civil servants, all retirement benefits, welfare health measures and applicability of rules should be at par with whole time employees.

6.1& 6.2; No need for separate rules. All rules as applicable to regular employees to be applied to G.D.S. employees who are civil servants.

5/5.4. Promotions:

(i) To multi skilled group 'C' – 85% from GDS ,15% from casual labours by seniority. Retraining where required.

(ii) To Postmen; 50% from multipurpose group 'C '
50% from GDS (37½% by examination and 12 ½% by seniority).

(iii) To PA's/SA's cadre: 20% vacancies should be reserved for G.D.S.



------------000---------------

GDS/CHQ/41/1 /2008 Dated: 14-11-2008

Ms. Radhika Doraiswamy
Secretary
Department of Posts
Dak Bhawan
New Delhi – 110001

Sub; Productivity linked bonus for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08.
Ref; Your office letter No. 26-04/2008-PAP dated 15.10.2008, and 26-04 2008 – PAP dated 21.10.2008.

Madam,

Despite your positive intervention and orders in respect of payment of productivity linked bonus to G.D.S. employees, the G.D.S. employees are being subjected to pin-pricking and provocation. We would relate the issue in brief.

(i) The Department of expenditure, Ministry of Finance, vide O.M. No. 7(23)/E.III-A/2007 dated 10.10.2008 to raise the ceiling on pay for calculation of bonus from Rs 2500 to Rs 3500 to take effect from 1.4.2006 i.e from the year 2006-07 onwards. The enhanced ceiling is applicable to all those central Government employees eligible for payment of Bonus.

(ii) Similar orders were issued by the Government when the ceiling was raised from Rs 1600/- to Rs 2500 and the G.D.S. employees have been receiving bonus upto the chanced ceiling as they are covered by PLB scheme.

(iii) That the Department of Post issued a discriminating order for raising the ceiling for regular Central Government employees only, though this was nothing like this in the orders of the Department of expenditure. At that time you were out of India. This discriminatory orders created serious resentment.

(iv) When you came back, you ordered that the discriminatory letter be superceded and another letter issued and fresh letter was issued superceding the letter dated 15.10.2006 vide letter No 26-04/2008-PAP dated 21.10.2008.

But in quite a few Circles the payment of bonus at enhanced ceiling to G.D.S. employees has been with held despite the letter 16.10.2006 restricting payment at enhanced rate stands superceded. This atrocious and provoking. We donot know how this is happening like this in some Circles.

We, therefore, request you kindly to cause instruction to be issued that bonus to G.D.S. employees are paid at the rate of enhanced ceiling.

Yours faithfully,


S.S. Mahadevaiah,
General Secretary.