Revised Category wise break up under 6% quota may be partially modified for PS Group ‘B’ LDCE but this revision was not demanded in the OA. This was infact a part of second relief sought in the original OA wherein quash of Sr. Postmaster(Group B Gazetted), Postmaster( Grade III and II-Group-B non- Gazetted) and Postmaster Grade-I Group C Recruitment rules, 2010 was requested. As per these statutory rules all the 116 Sr. Postmaster posts mention therein are to be carved out from General line but instead the quota of the Inspector line has also been reduced from 19% and 75%. In General line quota there are only 52 posts (6%). Hence these rules become redundant. The relief for change in statutory rules is a subject matter of long discussion so we will have to file a separate case for that. To avoid litigation, I had long discussion with you and you had assured me to go to Directorate to discuss the matter and get the things set right amicably.I again through this email request you to kindly submit a representation to Dte. with the request to post all General line aspirants as Sr. Postmaster, as the PS Group B posts in their quota are already full, rather 4 officers (27 -23) are working in excess if we go by the recruitment rules of 2010 though these are running contrary to PS Group B recruitment rule 1987. If there is a litigation than our demand will be to fill up 52 posts of Sr. Postmaster from General Line and rest 64 posts from 19% IP line LDCE quota. If we go by Postmaster recruitment rule 2010 there are two quota 25% of 116 i.e 29 posts are earmarked for General line and 75% all through competitive examination from IP line. In case department goes against the statutory rule framed by them we will have no option except to file another application in the Hon'ble CAT for relief and justice.
CAT case on Grade pay issue for IPs at Ernakulam bench is listed on 9.6.2011.
ReplyDeleteIP Sindhanur sub division.
It is very bad mentio here that the IPASPOs approached CAT without evaluating the other repurcissions. Can the CS Punjab circle or the GS can explain what benefit our senior colleagues got from the CAT order. No senior colleague at all india level was ready or coming forward for the cause of Grade pay issue. If the grade pay issue was taken up by the GS of the association in 2004 just after the revision of scales of IT and CBDT Inspectors the prerevised scale of IPs definately would have enhanced on par with them.
ReplyDeleteBut now any IPASP can imagine what moral victory we go out of this CAT order.
Exactly , it has not been made clear still that is it 3 extra vacancies after calculations or instead of first anounced 32 total vacancies have reduced to 3 now. The people who claim this to be a moral victory ..do they even understand the meaning of that word "victory" or were they from directorate side who are happy to have got the seats reduced.
ReplyDeleteMoreover , they are shamelessly boasting off about this .also 6% for general line means 22 seats then how can be 19% for IP/ASP line be only 3 seats ...really how stupid this is .
Hell Mr CS Punjab Circle
ReplyDeleteAfter announcement of results are you happy that all general line posts are filled. What hasty decision you made in going to CAT I think our cadre people are like the Indian crab. At least you could have waited till the results as our senior IP/ASPOs who are experienced would have passed in the Gr B exam which could have further accelerated promotional opportunities to our cadre. Let God give you wisdom now at least