D.G. Posts No. 4-7/(MACP) 2009-PC Dated 30 June,2011
This has the reference to the Directorate letter of even No. dated 01.09.2010 vide which constitution of the Scrutiny Committee was prescribed at Divisional levels for scrutinizing the confidential reports of Postmen, PA/SAs & other Group `C` staff for the proceeding 5 years and grade the ACRs on basis of entries made by the reporting officer in it. The Committee so constituted were required to complete the exercise of grading the performance of the officials within a period of one month from the date of issue of the said order. It was clearly provided that the findings of the Committee shall require acceptance of the DPS/Regional PMG concerned and that the exercise was a one time exercise only.
2. Service Unions have represented to the Department that the Committee has not been met and contended that the officials are not benefitted at all by its constitution. In the light of the representation made by service unions, it has accordingly been decided to make the purpose of constitution of Scrutiny Committee clear to all concerned.
3. Hence, it is clarified that the process of communication of APAR`s (earlier ACR's) for regular promotion is equally applicable for consideration of financial ugradation under MACPS. As per existing provisions, complete APAR is required to be communicated to the official concerned from reporting year 2008-09 onward. Where an employee is to be considered for promotion in a future DPC and his ACRs prior to the period 2008-09 reckonable for assessment of his fitness in such future DPC contain final grading which are below the benchmark for next promotion, the concerned employee is to be given an opportunity to represent within 15 days of its communication before such ACRs are placed before DPC. Keeping in view the practice of writing ACRs in the Department to constitute Scrutiny Committee to scrutinize the grading based on the entries in the ACRs where there was no adverse entry exclusively for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under MACPS. In other cases, where there was an adverse entry in the ACRs prior to reporting year 2008-09, the process of communication of the same was to be applied & representation decided in accordance with the existing provisions.
4. Some of the Circle have also sought certain clarifications over the issue and the same are clarified as under:-
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 period 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. |
5. In the light of the foregoing , it may please be ensured that where Screening Committee`s have not already met and completed the exercise the same may be got completed within one month and a division wise compliance on the completion of this exercise be sent to this office by 31st Jul 2011. In cases where the exercise has completed and the officials have not been benefitted by the above despite the fact that there was no adverse entry in the ACRs scrutinized, the process of communication ACR`s may at once be initiated and representations called for within 15 days of such communication and such representations be decided by the officer superior to the reporting officer/reviewing officer. Thereafter, Screening Committee may be constituted for consideration of grant of financial upgradation under MACPS, wherever justified and status thereof may also be reflected separately for each Division in the report to be submitted by 31.07.2011.
6. This issues with the approval of competent authority
--
M.Krishnan
Secretary General NFPE
