National Federation of Postal Employees
All India Postal Employees Union Group ‘C’.
RTFR AGTTN/05-11 16-05-2011
The Superintendent of POs
Subject: Rotational transfer orders -2011, issued in Violation of rules and regulation and
standing instructions in this regard to victimize NFPE members & preferential
treatment by Divisional Administration-rg.
Reference: Our letter dated 12.05.2011
Your letter dated 13.05.2011.
We request you, please don’t mistake us, and with all humility, we submit the following in response to your letter referred.
I & II The competency / proficiency of the official may not be used for putting her into trouble. It is nothing but to justify the action of administration to say the beautified sentence - a lame reason.
The second reason put forwarded: there are no other suitable requests for filling up the vacant post of Divisional office.
It is very hard to understand there is such a special suitability for Pathanamthitta Divisional administration in this regard. Further (i) can we admit the whole staff working at present at Divisional office is having the said competency.
(ii) if we agree that there are no other suitable requests, then how the other official (at sl. No.5), who is only having less than four years of service and who is not completed her tenure has been posted.
As per the rules tenure transfer means transfer and posting on completion of tenure.
These jiggling and lame reasons put forwarded without any subsistence of rules and regulation itself reveals the true face of favouritism and torturing.
I We had never mentioned a case of fraud against the official at all only pointed out that he was given enough opportunity to tamper whatever had at HO against him by posting him at HPO. Who cares for supervisors for tampering of evidences?
In this case also the manner of justification reveals the true face of nepotism and turning the rules upside down.
II In the case of Smt. Jagadamma, it is said that she is otherwise well qualified to manage the work of project arrow post office and hence considered for the post of PA Pathanamthitta.
(i) This clearly emphasis the necessity of presence of project arrow trained official at all the three HPOs in our division; If so, has the Divisional administration ensured this at all the three HPOs. Why alone at Pathanamthitta HPO.
(ii) Is it highly objectionable / against rules / fundamental mistake or unworthy if a project arrow trained official assists Superintendent of POs at Divisional Office.
(iii) When the request is for OA Divisional office, this particular request cannot be ignored by saying that she is being posted at Pathanamthitta HPO and it is at the same station. If we agree this, then it has become obvious that the request of the official at sl no.5 of Part-I has been given preferential treatment.
(iv) It is said that she is holding an executive post of the service union. (a)The trade union right has been ensured by the Govt. of India and almost all the officials are the members of service unions. The officials working at Divisional Office are also the subscribers of various service unions. One cannot be ignored on the basis of subscribing to union or subscribing to a particular union. (b) When the executive post holder / holders of other union / unions are allowed to work at key branches of Divisional Office at present then the said ineligibility in her case reveals the bias and string-pulling of Divisional authorities. The action or deeds of Divisional administration not justifying what it said in the case.
III In the case of Smt. Bindhu Raghavan it is said that at Pathanapuram already there are two senior officials and hence the first choice station could not be provided. This is also mere attempts of the administration to justify the wrong action taken, via interpreting the rule in a misleading manner. Only to justifying the request granted to the official who has less than two years service who is the subscriber of the union of which the executive post holder is allowed to work at Divisional Office.
I In the case of Smt. Vijayakumari. S it is said that for clear reasons, she could not been accommodated at choice stations 1 and 2. What are the clear reasons it must be revealed whether she is an anti national activist or having connections with any terrorist movement. It is illegal, unconstitutional and dehumanizing to put somebody under shadow of various doubts. One cannot be humiliated without any comparison in this manner that the service matters about her are with the administration and it is better to not talk on it. What is wrong with her service matter, if the administration found her guilty in any case it must brought to her notice at once, and why not taking action on it, instead of doing this. She can be accommodated at Kozhenchery in resultant vacancy of the forthcoming retirement. Rest is nothing but lame reasons.
II The reason of shortage of staff has been found applied only in the cases of staff members subscribing to this union. Where as it is not a an issue or problem in providing comfortable placement to the officials subscribing to the union of which the executive post holder is allowed to work at Divisional Office.
III The line of theory presented in the case of deputation was not found implemented by the administration in various cases experienced in the past recent times at least in the case of officials subscribing to the union of which the executive post holder is allowed to work at Divisional Office. Even if they refuse to obey orders or skip away no matter they were dealt with magnanimously. The reason of shortage of staff has been found applied only in the cases of staff members subscribing to this union. Whereas, it is not an issue or problem in providing comfortable transfers to the officials subscribing to the union of which the executive post holder is allowed to work at Divisional Office.
Also in all other cases discussed in the previous letter the administration has taken the stand in justifying the violation of rules and standing instructions regarding rotational transfer.
The pointed out transfers and postings ordered on mere fascination and as gratification of union of which the executive post holder is allowed to work at Divisional Office are being blatantly justified with the self contradictory arguments presented without corroboration of rules.
Thereby we are going on with our program decided by our union committee. However we are extending our willingness to appear for discussions on 20-05-2011.
Shaji P Mathew
Divisional Secretary AIPEU GROUP-C
Convener Local Coordination Committee