GDS Demand for Inclusion in 8th CPC:
2 days ago
An Organisation Fighting for the cause of Mailguards and Multi-Tasking Staff Group'C' under the banner of National Federation of Postal Employees. [Central Head Quarters MS-1/22 P& T Quarters, Atul Grove Road, New Delhi.110001] Mobile-Delhi- 09811358335 ,Hyderabad-09885077451. emails- rms4chq@gmail.com- rmschqfour@rediffmail.com
Ser | Issue | Clarification |
1. | Whether the Divisional Scrutiny Committee has to just arrive at the average grading based on the grading given during the last 5 years to ease the work of the Screening Committee so that the Screening Committee can easily decide the cases fit or unfit based on average grading or the Committee has to go through all the entries, reassess the performance and award fresh grading ignoring the earlier grading given by the reporting officer/reviewing officer if found necessary ? | Scrutiny Committee ordered to constitute was required to re-assess the grading of each year based ion all the entries made in the confidential reports of the preceeding 5 years prior to reporting perion 2008-09 & grade the performance as `Average`, `Good`, `Very Good` etc. as a onetime exercise. Fitness for the purpose of conferment of financial upgradation under MACP based on reassessed grading of the Scrutiny Committee was to be adjudged by the Screening Committee only after acceptance of such finding by the authority mentioned in Para 7 of order dated 01-09.2010 on constitution of the Scrutiny Committee issued by this Directorate. |
2 | Whether the Divisional Scrutiny Committee can change the grading given by the reporting officer without receiving representation from the official/without disposal of representation /without intimating the initiated officer and whether such revision can be taken as authenticated for further reference. This office is of the view that the benchmark assigned by the reporting officer cannot be changed by the Committee | Grading given by the Scrutiny Committee after reassessing the ACR was required to be recorded separately without making a change in the grading given by the reporting officer/reviewing officer available on the original confidential reports. The finding of the Committee one being accepted by the authority in Para 7 was to be taken as authenticated for the only purpose of financial upgradation under MACPS |
3. | Whether the Scrutiny Committee has to carry out the scrutiny/grading of all the officials or has to carry out the grading of only those officials who are due for MACP during the year? | Scrutiny Committee was required to reassess the entries of the preceeding 5 years ACRTs prior to the reporting period 2008-09 in respect of all the officials covered by the orders in the light of the new system of communicating the entries in the APAR effective from reporting period 2008-09 initiated after 01 Apr 2009. |
4. | As the formation of the Scrutiny Committee is one time measure, whether Committee has to meet every year in the beginning and carry out the grading work in advance to facilitate the Scrutiny Committee to award financial upgradation under MACP | Since entries in APAR for reporting year 2008-09 onwards are prescribed to be communicated to the officials reported upon and representation made against the adverse entries/grading made, if any is to be decided by the competent authority & final grading is to be arrived at, no further scrutiny of the APAR would be involved. Hence the answer to this part is negative. |