Thursday, September 27, 2012
PLI----Bonus declaration for the year 2009-10.
Simple Reversionary Bonus rate for the year ending 31.03.2010 on the Postal Life Insurance Policies on their becoming claim, due to death or maturity:-
Sl. No.
|
Type of Insurance Policy
|
Rate of Bonus
|
1
|
Whole Life Assurance (WLA)
|
Rs.85/- per thousand sum assured
|
2
|
Endowment Assurance (EA)
|
Rs.60/- per thousand sum assured
|
3
|
Money Back Policies (AEA)
|
Rs.55/- per thousand sum assured
|
4
|
Convertible Whole Life Policies
|
Whole Life Bonus would be applicable but on conversion, Endowment Bonus rate will be applicable
|
5
|
Terminal Bonus
|
Rs.20/- per sum assured of Rs.10,000/- subject to maximum of Rs.1,000/- for whole life policies and Endowment policies with term of 20 years and above.
|
The rate of Bonus for the year 2009-10 will be applicable from the date of receipt of this notification by the Circles and this will also be applicable to claim cases received but not settled till the date of receipt of this Notification.
Interim Bonus at the rates mentioned above will also be payable for all claims arising due to maturity or death until future valuation is completed.
Source:-Directorate of Postal Life Insurance Notification No.4-1/2008-LI dated 17th September, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Demand of Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- for Inspector Posts rejected by MOF again.
Copy of letter of Shri Permanand posted in "Postal Inspectors Blog for Pay hike" is reproduced below for information.
Dear Friends,
It is really sad to intimate that Department of Expenditure, MOF has rejected the demand for grade pay of Rs.4600 to Inspector (Posts) even after the full justification given by Hon’ble CAT Ernakulam Bench in its order dated 18.10.2011 in OA No. 381/2010 and the good viable proposal submitted by DoP. The official rejection letter is yet to be received. However, note sheet of the relevant file has been received under RTI from DoP.
2. As available in the note sheets (17/N), the DoP had sent the following proposal with concurrence of IFW and approval of Secretary (Posts) to Department of Expenditure, MOF:
“The hierarchical difference i.e non-availability of intermediary cadre like Assistant Superintendent Posts in CBDT/CBEC and CSS can be resolved by allowing Grade Pay of Rs.4600 to Inspector Posts in Department of Posts (a GCS Group B Non-Gazetted Post) and retaining its promotional cadre of Assistant Superintendent Posts (a GCS Group B Gazetted Post) also in the identical Grade Pay of Rs.4600. In the Accounts cadre, the cadre of Accounts Officer is in Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2. Its promotional post of Senior Accounts Officer is in Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3 & its further promotional post of ACAO also in Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3. This would not thereby involve upgradation in Grade Pays of Assistant Superintendent Posts and PS Group B.”
3. MOF has rejected the demand for Grade pay of Rs.4600 for Inspector (Posts) without examining the above proposal, and stated the following (written in red colour):
(I) There was no specific recommendation in para 7.6.14 to the effect that Inspector Post are granted Pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500.
(It seems that MOF has not gone through the para 26 of Hon’ble CAT order dated 19.10.2011 in OA No. 381/2010, wherein the import of the observation of the Pay Commission has been clearly mentioned. Moreover, as mentioned in para 7.6.14 of 6thCPC report “…………With this upgradation, Inspector (Posts) shall come to lie in an identical pay as that of their promotional post of Assistant Superintendent (Posts) [ASPOs]. ASPOs shall, accordingly, be placed in the next higher pay scale of Rs.7450-11500………….”)
(II) Inspectors in CBEC/CBDT were placed in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f 21.04.2004 i.e prior to 6th CPC by an executive order of the Govt. keeping in view of their parity with Inspectors of CBI/IB and court directions of CAT Jabalpur Bench. Further, Asstts. Of CSS have also been granted the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f 15.09.2006 on the basis of their traditional parity with Inspectors CBEC/CBDT. Further, it was the conscious decision of the Govt. to keep Asstts. In CSS/Inspector and analogous post in CBEC/CBDT in the higher pre-revised scale i.e Rs.7450-11500/- considering their pre-revising relativities, hierarchical structure, mode of recruitment etc. The mode of recruitment was not the only criteria as contended by the applicants in the OA. In various cases, Apex Court also opined that wholesale identity between two groups would involve matters relating to nature of work, educational qualification, mode of recruitment, experience etc.
(The details of the basis for increase from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500- 10500 for Inspectors CBEC/CBDT w.e.f 21.04.2004 and for Assistants in CSS w.e.f 15.09.2006 along with the note sheet of the relevant file have been asked from MOF under RTI. Also, Documents available for establishing the “Traditional Parity” / wholesale identity between Inspectors CBEC/CBDT and Assistants in CSS have asked. MOF Response is awaited. Further, wholesale identity should be decided by the Expert body i.e Pay Commission. 5th & 6th CPC had rightly did so for Inspector (Posts) and granted equal pay scale/ grade pay to that of Inspectors CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS. Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association, (2010) 5 SCC 225 wherein it has been stated as under:-
"23. It is now well settled that parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference category posts were carrying the same scale of pay. In fact, one of the functions of the Pay Commission is to identify the posts which deserve a higher scale of pay than what was earlier being enjoyed with reference to their duties and responsibilities, and extend such higher scale to those categories of posts.")
(III) It is pertinent to mention here that the OM dated 13.11.2009 and 16.11.2009 came into existence as a result of demand from various quarters of Govt. seeking upgradation for pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 due to functional requirement. However, hierarchical structure of Inspector Posts does not demand such functional requirement, as post of ASP in the scale of Pay of Rs.9300-34800 GP of Rs.4600/- PB-2 corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500 still exists, even after implementation of 6th CPC.
(Regarding the hierarchical differences, a viable proposal was submitted by DoP wherein it was clearly mentioned that the hierarchical difference i.e. non-availability of intermediary cadre like Assistant Superintendent Posts in CBDT/CBEC and CSS can be resolved by allowing Grade Pay of Rs.4600 to Inspector Posts in Department of Posts (a GCS Group B Non-Gazetted Post) and retaining its promotional cadre of Assistant Superintendent Posts (a GCS Group B Gazetted Post) also in the identical Grade Pay of Rs.4600. The example of AO, Sr. AO & ACAO was also given in the proposal. But, MOF overlooked the same.)
(IV) Since Inspector Post have come in the Pay Scale of Rs.9300-3400 GP of Rs.4200/- PB-2 corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500, the hierarchical posts in their cadre i.e ASP and SP had to be placed in the GP OF Rs.4600/- and Rs.4800/- respectively to maintain the relativity in the cadre. Moreover, the scale of other similarly placed posts i.e Asstt. Manager and Manager in mail Motor Service were also placed in the GP of Rs.4600/- and Rs.4800/- respectively. In case the demand of Inspector Posts for GP of Rs.4600/- is accepted, it will have cascading effect involving huge financial implications. Also, the demand for upgradation from similarly placed posts in Mail Motor Service etc. will arise immediately.
(In the proposal, it was clearly mentioned that this would not involve upgradation in Grade Pays of Assistant Superintendent Posts and PS Group B. Asst. Manager & Manager, Mail Motor Service are placed in the Grade pay of Rs.4600 & Rs.4800 respectively. Hence the imagination of MOF that In case the demand of Inspector Posts for GP of Rs.4600/- is accepted, the demand for upgradation from similarly placed posts in Mail Motor Service etc. will arise immediately, is hypothetical. Further, while submitting the proposal, DoP had given the figures for financial implications and for Inspector (posts), it is Rs. 1.01 crores only. Hence the ground that in case the demand of Inspector Posts for GP of Rs.4600/- is accepted, it will have cascading effect involving huge financial implications, does not hold any ground.)
(V) The duties and responsibilities assigned to Assistant of CSS and Inspector, CBDT/CBEC are quite different from Inspector (Posts). There is no comparison between Assistants CSS & Inspector CBDT/CBEC and Inspector (Posts). They are performing different duties in their respective cadres.
(As a matter of fact, the duties and responsibilities assigned to different cadres in different Department / Ministries will be different and after comparison only, specific pay scale/grade pay is given to particular cadres by the expert bodies i.e Pay Commission. The details regarding comparison of “Duties & Responsibilities” of Inspectors CBDT/CBEC and Inspector (Posts) have been asked from MOF under RTI.
Further, Para 30 of CAT Ernakulam Bench Order dated 19.10.2011 in OA No. 381/10 reproduced below:
“This Tribunal need not have to labour more to arrive at the finding that the functional responsibilities of the Inspector (Posts) are certainly onerous and evidently, it is on the basis of adequate justification that the successive Pay Commissions have appreciated the need to revise the pay scale of Inspector (Posts).”
4. It is very much clear from the grounds given by MOF that they were pre-determined not to allow Grade Pay of Rs.4600 to Inspector Posts in any case and they simply overlooked the full justification given by the Hon’ble CAT Ernakulam Bench and also the good viable proposal given by DoP. It can also be seen that the matter was disposed first time at the level of Jt. Secretary even after the clear instruction from Hon’ble CAT to re-look in the matter at the level of Secretary. It is also evident form the notings of the DoP at 28/N, which is reproduced below:
“Views taken by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure contains neither any details of examination of the proposal made by this Department on 17/N nor reasoning based on which the proposal was admitted/rejected.”
5. Accordingly the file was re-referred to the Department of Expenditure, MOF. However, Department of Expenditure, MOF returned the file stating that:
“The matter has been examined in this Deptt. and AM is advised to issue a reasoned speaking order rejecting the claim of the applicants on the grounds indicated in U.O note dated 28.05.2012.
This issues with the approval of Finance (Secretary).”
6. Our case for upgradation of Grade pay of Inspector (Posts) to Rs.4600 under OA No. 381/2010, had already been considered by Hon’ble CAT Ernakulam Bench within the parameters prescribed by the Apex Court in respect of the powers of the Tribunal in dealing with the fixation of Pay scale and had viewd that :
(a) The decision of the Ministry of Finance does not appear to have taken into account the clear recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission nor for that matter the full justifications given by the Department of Posts.
(b) The Tribunal is of the considered view that there is no justification in denying the Inspector (Posts) the higher Grade Pay of Rs 4600 when the same is admissible to Inspectors of other Departments with whom parity has been established by the very Sixth Pay Commission vide its report at para 7.6.14 extracted above. The Ministry of Finance has to have a re-look in the matter dispassionately at the level of Secretary keeping in view the aforesaid discussion.
7. From the documents received under RTI, the rejection of our demand of Grade pay of Rs.4600 for Inspector (Posts) has been disclosed. However, we may wait for the official rejection letter. Further, we wish to move to High Court at the earliest, to get Justice.
Views and comments are requested, so that we may move further.
Thanks.
Permanand
Dear Friends,
It is really sad to intimate that Department of Expenditure, MOF has rejected the demand for grade pay of Rs.4600 to Inspector (Posts) even after the full justification given by Hon’ble CAT Ernakulam Bench in its order dated 18.10.2011 in OA No. 381/2010 and the good viable proposal submitted by DoP. The official rejection letter is yet to be received. However, note sheet of the relevant file has been received under RTI from DoP.
2. As available in the note sheets (17/N), the DoP had sent the following proposal with concurrence of IFW and approval of Secretary (Posts) to Department of Expenditure, MOF:
“The hierarchical difference i.e non-availability of intermediary cadre like Assistant Superintendent Posts in CBDT/CBEC and CSS can be resolved by allowing Grade Pay of Rs.4600 to Inspector Posts in Department of Posts (a GCS Group B Non-Gazetted Post) and retaining its promotional cadre of Assistant Superintendent Posts (a GCS Group B Gazetted Post) also in the identical Grade Pay of Rs.4600. In the Accounts cadre, the cadre of Accounts Officer is in Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2. Its promotional post of Senior Accounts Officer is in Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3 & its further promotional post of ACAO also in Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3. This would not thereby involve upgradation in Grade Pays of Assistant Superintendent Posts and PS Group B.”
3. MOF has rejected the demand for Grade pay of Rs.4600 for Inspector (Posts) without examining the above proposal, and stated the following (written in red colour):
(I) There was no specific recommendation in para 7.6.14 to the effect that Inspector Post are granted Pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500.
(It seems that MOF has not gone through the para 26 of Hon’ble CAT order dated 19.10.2011 in OA No. 381/2010, wherein the import of the observation of the Pay Commission has been clearly mentioned. Moreover, as mentioned in para 7.6.14 of 6thCPC report “…………With this upgradation, Inspector (Posts) shall come to lie in an identical pay as that of their promotional post of Assistant Superintendent (Posts) [ASPOs]. ASPOs shall, accordingly, be placed in the next higher pay scale of Rs.7450-11500………….”)
(II) Inspectors in CBEC/CBDT were placed in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f 21.04.2004 i.e prior to 6th CPC by an executive order of the Govt. keeping in view of their parity with Inspectors of CBI/IB and court directions of CAT Jabalpur Bench. Further, Asstts. Of CSS have also been granted the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f 15.09.2006 on the basis of their traditional parity with Inspectors CBEC/CBDT. Further, it was the conscious decision of the Govt. to keep Asstts. In CSS/Inspector and analogous post in CBEC/CBDT in the higher pre-revised scale i.e Rs.7450-11500/- considering their pre-revising relativities, hierarchical structure, mode of recruitment etc. The mode of recruitment was not the only criteria as contended by the applicants in the OA. In various cases, Apex Court also opined that wholesale identity between two groups would involve matters relating to nature of work, educational qualification, mode of recruitment, experience etc.
(The details of the basis for increase from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500- 10500 for Inspectors CBEC/CBDT w.e.f 21.04.2004 and for Assistants in CSS w.e.f 15.09.2006 along with the note sheet of the relevant file have been asked from MOF under RTI. Also, Documents available for establishing the “Traditional Parity” / wholesale identity between Inspectors CBEC/CBDT and Assistants in CSS have asked. MOF Response is awaited. Further, wholesale identity should be decided by the Expert body i.e Pay Commission. 5th & 6th CPC had rightly did so for Inspector (Posts) and granted equal pay scale/ grade pay to that of Inspectors CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS. Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association, (2010) 5 SCC 225 wherein it has been stated as under:-
"23. It is now well settled that parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference category posts were carrying the same scale of pay. In fact, one of the functions of the Pay Commission is to identify the posts which deserve a higher scale of pay than what was earlier being enjoyed with reference to their duties and responsibilities, and extend such higher scale to those categories of posts.")
(III) It is pertinent to mention here that the OM dated 13.11.2009 and 16.11.2009 came into existence as a result of demand from various quarters of Govt. seeking upgradation for pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 due to functional requirement. However, hierarchical structure of Inspector Posts does not demand such functional requirement, as post of ASP in the scale of Pay of Rs.9300-34800 GP of Rs.4600/- PB-2 corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500 still exists, even after implementation of 6th CPC.
(Regarding the hierarchical differences, a viable proposal was submitted by DoP wherein it was clearly mentioned that the hierarchical difference i.e. non-availability of intermediary cadre like Assistant Superintendent Posts in CBDT/CBEC and CSS can be resolved by allowing Grade Pay of Rs.4600 to Inspector Posts in Department of Posts (a GCS Group B Non-Gazetted Post) and retaining its promotional cadre of Assistant Superintendent Posts (a GCS Group B Gazetted Post) also in the identical Grade Pay of Rs.4600. The example of AO, Sr. AO & ACAO was also given in the proposal. But, MOF overlooked the same.)
(IV) Since Inspector Post have come in the Pay Scale of Rs.9300-3400 GP of Rs.4200/- PB-2 corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500, the hierarchical posts in their cadre i.e ASP and SP had to be placed in the GP OF Rs.4600/- and Rs.4800/- respectively to maintain the relativity in the cadre. Moreover, the scale of other similarly placed posts i.e Asstt. Manager and Manager in mail Motor Service were also placed in the GP of Rs.4600/- and Rs.4800/- respectively. In case the demand of Inspector Posts for GP of Rs.4600/- is accepted, it will have cascading effect involving huge financial implications. Also, the demand for upgradation from similarly placed posts in Mail Motor Service etc. will arise immediately.
(In the proposal, it was clearly mentioned that this would not involve upgradation in Grade Pays of Assistant Superintendent Posts and PS Group B. Asst. Manager & Manager, Mail Motor Service are placed in the Grade pay of Rs.4600 & Rs.4800 respectively. Hence the imagination of MOF that In case the demand of Inspector Posts for GP of Rs.4600/- is accepted, the demand for upgradation from similarly placed posts in Mail Motor Service etc. will arise immediately, is hypothetical. Further, while submitting the proposal, DoP had given the figures for financial implications and for Inspector (posts), it is Rs. 1.01 crores only. Hence the ground that in case the demand of Inspector Posts for GP of Rs.4600/- is accepted, it will have cascading effect involving huge financial implications, does not hold any ground.)
(V) The duties and responsibilities assigned to Assistant of CSS and Inspector, CBDT/CBEC are quite different from Inspector (Posts). There is no comparison between Assistants CSS & Inspector CBDT/CBEC and Inspector (Posts). They are performing different duties in their respective cadres.
(As a matter of fact, the duties and responsibilities assigned to different cadres in different Department / Ministries will be different and after comparison only, specific pay scale/grade pay is given to particular cadres by the expert bodies i.e Pay Commission. The details regarding comparison of “Duties & Responsibilities” of Inspectors CBDT/CBEC and Inspector (Posts) have been asked from MOF under RTI.
Further, Para 30 of CAT Ernakulam Bench Order dated 19.10.2011 in OA No. 381/10 reproduced below:
“This Tribunal need not have to labour more to arrive at the finding that the functional responsibilities of the Inspector (Posts) are certainly onerous and evidently, it is on the basis of adequate justification that the successive Pay Commissions have appreciated the need to revise the pay scale of Inspector (Posts).”
4. It is very much clear from the grounds given by MOF that they were pre-determined not to allow Grade Pay of Rs.4600 to Inspector Posts in any case and they simply overlooked the full justification given by the Hon’ble CAT Ernakulam Bench and also the good viable proposal given by DoP. It can also be seen that the matter was disposed first time at the level of Jt. Secretary even after the clear instruction from Hon’ble CAT to re-look in the matter at the level of Secretary. It is also evident form the notings of the DoP at 28/N, which is reproduced below:
“Views taken by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure contains neither any details of examination of the proposal made by this Department on 17/N nor reasoning based on which the proposal was admitted/rejected.”
5. Accordingly the file was re-referred to the Department of Expenditure, MOF. However, Department of Expenditure, MOF returned the file stating that:
“The matter has been examined in this Deptt. and AM is advised to issue a reasoned speaking order rejecting the claim of the applicants on the grounds indicated in U.O note dated 28.05.2012.
This issues with the approval of Finance (Secretary).”
6. Our case for upgradation of Grade pay of Inspector (Posts) to Rs.4600 under OA No. 381/2010, had already been considered by Hon’ble CAT Ernakulam Bench within the parameters prescribed by the Apex Court in respect of the powers of the Tribunal in dealing with the fixation of Pay scale and had viewd that :
(a) The decision of the Ministry of Finance does not appear to have taken into account the clear recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission nor for that matter the full justifications given by the Department of Posts.
(b) The Tribunal is of the considered view that there is no justification in denying the Inspector (Posts) the higher Grade Pay of Rs 4600 when the same is admissible to Inspectors of other Departments with whom parity has been established by the very Sixth Pay Commission vide its report at para 7.6.14 extracted above. The Ministry of Finance has to have a re-look in the matter dispassionately at the level of Secretary keeping in view the aforesaid discussion.
7. From the documents received under RTI, the rejection of our demand of Grade pay of Rs.4600 for Inspector (Posts) has been disclosed. However, we may wait for the official rejection letter. Further, we wish to move to High Court at the earliest, to get Justice.
Views and comments are requested, so that we may move further.
Thanks.
Permanand
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Conducting of Special LDCE for promotion to the cadre of AAO(90% Departmental Examination Quota) for the year 2012
As communicated vide Department of Posts(PA Wing) letter No.3-24/10-PCE/EXAM(DE)/2111 to 2210 dated 11th September, 2012 the above examination will be held on 29th and 30th of December, 2012. All the categories of the officials who had qualified in the JAO Part-I(Postal) Examination are eligible to appear for the said examination as a one time measure. The successful candidates are liable to be posted anywhere in India.
The vacancy against 90% quota as on 01-09-2012 is as under:-
OC =293,SC=139 & ST=80
The candidate should not exceeding 53 years of age as on 1st January, 2011.
Qualifying Marks :
For OC Candidates:-40% in each subject and 45% in the aggregate provided that a minimum of 40% is also secured in the practical papers.
For SC/ST Candidates:-33% in each subject and 38% in the aggregate provided that a minimum of 33% is also secured in the practical papers.
Courtesy : http://ipasporissa.blogspot.in/
The vacancy against 90% quota as on 01-09-2012 is as under:-
OC =293,SC=139 & ST=80
The candidate should not exceeding 53 years of age as on 1st January, 2011.
Qualifying Marks :
For OC Candidates:-40% in each subject and 45% in the aggregate provided that a minimum of 40% is also secured in the practical papers.
For SC/ST Candidates:-33% in each subject and 38% in the aggregate provided that a minimum of 33% is also secured in the practical papers.
Courtesy : http://ipasporissa.blogspot.in/
FRAUD – A COMPLETE STUDY
A. PREAMBLE:
Now a days , real threat to IP cadre is multifarious frauds. Frauds in lakhs are common in all divisions. Fraudulent persons are developing confidence among the people. The innocent people give money to them without getting any documentary evidences. It results unrecoverable loss to the department and contributory negligence to the Inspectorial staff as well as operative staff.
B. FIRST THING TO DO is recovery, recovery and recovery only. Fraudulent persons should be handled softly. All ways and means should be adapted to recover the whole amount of loss. Nothing is wrong in giving false hopes like ‘police case will not be given if entire amount is recovered,' Minimum punishment will be given' and 'the same post will be given after enquiry' . Time gap should not be given for recovering the amount. Some anti-social elements will preach the fraudulent persons not to credit the amount stating that (1) if the amount is credited voluntarily, it will be taken as a documentary evidence against them (2) Even if the amount is credited, the employment will not be given by the Department (3) Even if the amount is credited, the police case will be given (4) If the amount is not credited into Government, the same will be utilized for meeting police case and court case. If the entire amount is recovered, the angle of investigation will be different and the course will not be more harsh.
C. MODUS OPERANDI
1. Suppression of SB/RD deposits and RPLI premiums:
Entries are made only in passbooks. The amount is not brought into postal accounts. There will be no entries in the departmental records such as SB/RD/RPLI journals and BO daily accounts. This type of frauds can be detected only by verification of passbooks with reference to SB/RD ledger balances and RPLI journals.
2. Suppression of RD MPKBY bulk lists and RD PRSS bulk lists:
Suppression of RD MPKBY agents’ lists and RD PRSS lists can be detected only by verification of agents’ copies of RD MPKBY agents lists and RD PRSS lists with office records. There is no use in verification of copies of MPKBY lists available in the office.
3. Forgery withdrawals/ fraudulent withdrawals:
Forgery withdrawals are made by preparing withdrawal forms by forging the signature of the depositors. Fraudulent withdrawals are made by withdrawals in which the signatures / LTIs were obtained previously from the actual depositors. There will be no entries in the passbooks but the amount will be charged into postal accounts. The amount will be taken by the fraudulent officials. Some fraudulent BPMs make entries in the passbooks in respect of forgery / fraudulent withdrawals and show the passbooks to the Mail overseers and Inspecting Officers for verification at the time of visits / inspections.
4. Change of denomination of RD accounts by using data entry;
If the denomination of RD account is Rs.10.00,it gives maturity value of Rs.600.00+ Rs.128.90 = Rs. 728.90. If the denomination is changed to Rs.1000/-using the data entry, it will give maturity value of Rs. 60000/-+12890/-= Rs.72890/-.The fraudulent SPM will obtain signatures in application side and acquittance side of withdrawal form in blank form and fill up with the inflated figures of Rs. 72890/-. The In-Charge of SBCO of a Head office is the correct authority to watch and report such kind of malpractice. In some Head Offices, RD transactions are not fed up-to-date in V2 software of SBCO branch. Use of the data entry should be permitted by the Divisional office for restricted period only. Unauthorized use of the data entry should be checked by the Inspectorial staff and by the DSMs.
D. HOW TO CONTROL FRAUDS IN BRANCH OFFICES?
1. (a) Lists of passbooks not received for entry of interest from the BOs should be prepared and two copies should be sent to the concerned Sub Divisional heads by registered post before 20th of July of every year vide Rule 75(1) (iii) of POSB Manual Volume I. The third copy is retained at Account office as office copy.
(b) A separate paragraph should be mentioned in BO IR whether the list of passbooks not received for entry of interest was received from the Account Office or not.
(c) During the inspection, four SB passbooks from the above list should be verified. If such passbooks cannot be verified, SB 46 notices should be issued for equal number of passbooks to be verified.
(d) If the list of SB passbooks not received of interest is not supplied by the Account Office, four SB passbooks which were not received for entry of interest should be verified.
(e) One copy of the above list should be given to the Mail overseer who will verify all SB passbooks in the list before the 31st March of the next year.
2. Maintenance of special error book:
(a) If any transaction is noticed by the SO, which have been found taken place at BO after the receipt of interest statement and the passbook has not been received, the SO should note the fact in the Special Error Book and a copy of the special error book should be sent to the Sub Divisional head vide Rule 76 (b) of POSB Manual Volume I and DG Posts Letter No.35-15/86-SB dated 27.03.2003.
(b) Fraudulent BPM will not send SB passbooks to Account Office for entry of interest since he committed fraud in these passbooks. Serious note should be taken when the passbooks are not sent for entry of interest when the transactions are taken place in these accounts.
3.Direct supervision by the Account Office:
(a) Account office should watch closely the work of the Branch Postmaster. If there is any correction or overwriting in the BAT in the pay-in-slip or withdrawal form, the passbook should be called for to verify the correct BAT. The corrections in the BO daily accounts should be brought to the notice of the Sub Divisional head. If the Account Office doubts the integrity of the Branch Postmaster, the same should be brought to the notice of the Sub Divisional head.
4. Direct supervision by the Mail overseer:
(a) Major part of the work of a Mail overseer is supervision of work of a Branch Office. Sub Divisional heads are saddled with so many targeted items of works where Mail overseer is concerned only with the supervision of Branch Offices. Sub Divisional heads spend few hours in the Branch offices and returned to the head quarters for attending some other works. Each Mail overseer can have 40 to 60 branch offices in his beat. Mail overseer can spare maximum eight hours in the Branch Offices checking all records and passbooks. Mail overseers should visit each BO once in quarter.
(b) Mail overseer should bring all irregularities found during the visit to the Sub Divisional heads such as shortage of cash, non-writing of BO accounts and non-writing of SB/RD journals. Mail overseer should not give oral warning to BPMs and it will not give any positive results.
(c) Mail overseer should verify heavy withdrawals more than Rs. 5000/- by obtaining passbooks from the depositors. There is no use in verifying SB journal of the Branch office. He should verify all heavy withdrawals since from his last visit and note down in his diary. When the heavy withdrawal memos are received subsequently he will furnish his verification report in the heavy withdrawal memos. He need not go the Branch Office for each heavy withdrawal memo.
(d) Mail overseer should take two copies of extracts of passbooks verified and send one for copy for verification at Head office in respect of SB accounts and to the Account office in respect of RD accounts. One copy is kept as office copy to be filed along with his diaries. If any difference is noticed in the balance of any account, action should be taken to send the passbooks to Account office for verification. Verified copy should be pasted over the office copy which is kept in the diary.
(d) Mail overseer should check BO accounts, SB/RD/RPLI journals and all receipt books since his last visit.
(e) Where there are two Mail overseers, their beats should be interchanged for every year.
(f) Mail overseer should enquire conduct and character of BPM with neighbouring Branch offices. If there is fraud in ten accounts out of five hundred accounts, it is tolerable. When there is fraud in hundred accounts, what is the use of the post of Mail overseer in a Sub Division?
5. Supervision by the Sub Divisional head:
(a) An office should be inspected within a year. If the office could not be inspected within a year, the reason for the delay should be noted in the Inspection Report as well as in the diary.
(b) Inspecting Officer should give more importance in respect of paragraphs relating to verification of passbooks than any other paragraphs. These paragraphs find important role in fixing contributory negligence when the amount could not be recovered from the delinquent BPMs.
(c) The following passbooks should be verified
(i) Four SB passbooks from the list of passbooks not received for entry of interest or four SB passbooks which were not received for entry of interest when the above list is not received.
(ii) Four other SB passbooks in which heavy deposits / withdrawals have been taken place.
(iii) Two current RD passbooks
(iv) Two discontinued RD passbooks
(v) Two TD passbooks
(vi) Five RPLI premium receipt books.
(d) If required number of passbooks could not be verified for any reason, SB 46 to the equal number of passbooks should be issued. SB 46 should be sent by the registered post and the RL receipts should be filed along with IR report.
(e) IR should be issued within 10 days from the date of inspection.
(f) As far as possible, stop gap arrangement in respect of BPMs, the incumbent should be changed once in two months.
(g) Any error book entries regarding SB branch matters and any information from the Account Office regarding integrity of the BPMs should not be ignored. It should be verified through Mail overseers.
E. HOW TO CONTROL FRAUDS IN SUB OFFICES?
I. FRAUDULENT USE OF DATA ENTRY:
(a) Fraudulent use of Data Entry is the main factor in the frauds of Sub Offices. Data Entry is available in many offices without authorisation of Divisional Office. DSMs should be instructed to install Data Entry for specific period. DSM should uninstall Data Entry as soon as the purpose is served. Inspecting Officer should check whether Data Entry is available and if so, the purpose for which Data Entry is kept.
Method to check whether Data Entry is available in the system
Click Start -> Search -> For Files & Folders
Select ‘Computer’ (or all the Drives viz., C:\, D:\, E:\ F:\ etc., may be searched)
Search “ *dataentv5.exe ”
If data entry packages available, then the result will be
sbdataentv5.exe
rddataentv5.exe
tddataentv5.exe
misdataentv5.exe
scsdataentv5.exe
ppfdataentv5.exe
nssdataentv5.exe
certdataentv5.exe
If data entry packages are not available, then the result will be
No items match your search.
(b) Now a days, the fraudulent SPMs made forgery / fraudulent part withdrawals in RD accounts. Normally number of part withdrawals in a sub office is five percent of total RD accounts. If there are a large number of part withdrawals in a year, it should be suspected.
Method to check particulars of part withdrawals within a period
Login →Counter or Super (Enter button must be used instead of mouse)
Reports → RD Reports → Accounting of loans
Please enter from date and to date and Click ‘OK’
Account number, amount and date of withdrawals will be shown in the screen for
the given period. If there is any abnormal number of withdrawals noticed, passbooks of high value denomination should be obtained and verified whether there are any part withdrawals in the RD passbooks.
(c) (i) Initially once works relating to the Data Entry is completed after computerization, List of balances should be taken and certified by the SPM. The signed copy should be forwarded to concerned SBCO. SBCO should do the ledger agreement for that SO. DE should be removed by DSM and it should not be installed / used once again at any cost.
(ii) The SPM should request the Divisional office for Data Entry stating the particulars of accounts to be modified and reason for such request. After getting written permission from the Divisional Office with period of permission, the DSM should install the Data Entry Module for that particular scheme.
(iii) A register in the following format should be maintained in all Computerised POs., which should be reviewed by the Sub Divisional Heads during inspections/visits.
Sl. No
Date
Scheme
Account No.
Nature of Problem
Rectified through DE on (date)
Rectified by (Name of the official)
Sign. of the official
Sign of SPM/ HPM
(iii)After completion of works for which Data Entry is given, the data entry module should be removed/un-installed by the DSM.
(iv) 100% completion of works relating to Data Entry is the only way to avoid frauds in a sub office.
(d) During the visit or inspection, the Inspecting Officer should check whether unauthorised Data Entry is available. If unauthorised Data Entry is available, the Data Entry should be deleted. If we ordinarily delete the file, it will go to ‘RECYCLE BIN’. The Data Entry can be used restoring from RECYCLE BIN, If we use ‘SHIFT + DELETE’, the file will be deleted without going to Recycle Bin.
(e) The register maintained for Data entry modifications should be critically reviewed by the Sub Divisional Heads w.r.t the written permission accorded by the Divisional Heads and the details of accounts modified / corrected.
II. Supervision by the Sub Divisional head and inspectorial staff:
(a) An office should be inspected within a year. If the office could not be inspected within a year, the reason for the delay should be noted in the Inspection Report as well as in the diary.
(b) Inspecting Officer should give more importance in respect of paragraphs relating to verification of passbooks than any other paragraphs. These paragraphs find important role in fixing contributory negligence when the amount could not be recovered from the delinquent SPMs.
(c) As per latest Sub Office questionnaire, the following passbooks should be verified in respect of single sub offices.
(i) Fifteen SB passbooks which were not received for entry of interest (ii) Ten TD passbooks.
(d) Inspectorial staff may verify the following passbooks in addition to the above passbooks.
(i) Ten SB passbooks in which heavy deposits /heavy withdrawals were
made.
(ii) Five RD current passbooks.
(iii) Five RD discontinued passbooks.
(iv) Five MIS passbooks
(v) Five RPLI premium receipt books.
(d) If required number of passbooks could not be verified for any reason, SB 46 to the equal number of passbooks should be issued. SB 46 should be sent by the registered post and the RL receipts should be filed along with IR report.
(e) IR should be issued within 15 days from the date of inspection.
For kind attention of OAs, Postal Divisional Office and concerned supervisor whether ASPOs (HQ) or ASPOs (OD):
When a Sub Postmaster commits a fraud, the Circle Level Investigation of the Region will analyse all lapses on the part of the Head office, Sub Divisional head and Divisional office. They will fix contributory negligence, if any lapses are noticed on the part of the OA Divisional office and concerned supervisor.
A. Review of Sub Postmaster’s Monthly Report (SMR):
The following points should be reviewed in respect of SMRs.
(1) SMR should be prepared in correct format of PA 17 (a). In the reverse side, the transactions of the current month and the transactions of corresponding month of the last year of in respect of each branch should be noted. If the decrease in the transactions of SB and RD deposits and increase in the withdrawals should be reviewed critically. If such irregularities are noticed, SMR should be sent to the Sub Divisional head for verification.
(2) Now a days, Sub office monthly reports are sent instead of SMRs. It does not contain the transactions of the corresponding month of the previous year. It should not be accepted. The SPM should be asked to send SMR in correct form PA 17(a).
(3) There should be specific remarks in the SMRs by the Head Postmaster whether ‘Satisfactory’ or Not satisfactory’. Serious note should be taken on the remarks of the Head Postmaster such as ‘Not satisfactory’. Such SMRs should be sent to the Sub Divisional heads without fail. Watch should be made in respect of SMRs sent for verification.
(4) Serial numbers of the ECB memos should be noted in the SMRs. Continuity of ECB serial numbers should be watched.
(5) Generally the fraudulent SPMs do not send SMRs. They know that if SMRs are sent, they will be caught. Non receipt of SMRs from a Sub Postmaster should be reviewed seriously. Non receipt of SMRs should be watched by a register maintained for the purpose.
The following points should be reviewed in respect of ECB (Excess Cash Balance) memos: .
(1) There should be specific remarks in the ECB memos by the Head Postmaster whether ‘Satisfactory’ or Not satisfactory’. Serious note should be taken on the remarks of the Head Postmaster such as ‘Not satisfactory’. Such ECB memos should be sent to the Sub Divisional heads without fail. Watch should be made in respect of ECB memos sent for verification.
(2) Break in the serial numbers should be watched by maintaining a register each page for a Sub Office. If the break in serials is noticed, the SPM concerned should be addressed to send the wanting ECB memos with copy to the Head Postmaster. All correspondence should be made by the registered post.
Reviews of SMRs and ECB memos are tools to bring out the frauds. Many frauds are being unearthed by such reviews.
The following points should be reviewed in respect of IR branch:
1. In respect of Inspection Reports having the remarks ‘Not satisfactory’, the concerned BO or SO should be ear-marked for second inspection. Second inspection should be carried out during the next half year.
2. Serious note should be taken in respect of IR/VR paras in respect of irregularities relating to Savings Bank matters. Such paras should be communicated to the Sub Divisional heads or to some other Inspectorial staff immediately. Periodical reminders should be made.
3. In some divisional offices, no office copy is maintained for outward correspondences. It is not correct. All correspondence should be made by registered post by keeping office copies.
Now a days , real threat to IP cadre is multifarious frauds. Frauds in lakhs are common in all divisions. Fraudulent persons are developing confidence among the people. The innocent people give money to them without getting any documentary evidences. It results unrecoverable loss to the department and contributory negligence to the Inspectorial staff as well as operative staff.
B. FIRST THING TO DO is recovery, recovery and recovery only. Fraudulent persons should be handled softly. All ways and means should be adapted to recover the whole amount of loss. Nothing is wrong in giving false hopes like ‘police case will not be given if entire amount is recovered,' Minimum punishment will be given' and 'the same post will be given after enquiry' . Time gap should not be given for recovering the amount. Some anti-social elements will preach the fraudulent persons not to credit the amount stating that (1) if the amount is credited voluntarily, it will be taken as a documentary evidence against them (2) Even if the amount is credited, the employment will not be given by the Department (3) Even if the amount is credited, the police case will be given (4) If the amount is not credited into Government, the same will be utilized for meeting police case and court case. If the entire amount is recovered, the angle of investigation will be different and the course will not be more harsh.
C. MODUS OPERANDI
1. Suppression of SB/RD deposits and RPLI premiums:
Entries are made only in passbooks. The amount is not brought into postal accounts. There will be no entries in the departmental records such as SB/RD/RPLI journals and BO daily accounts. This type of frauds can be detected only by verification of passbooks with reference to SB/RD ledger balances and RPLI journals.
2. Suppression of RD MPKBY bulk lists and RD PRSS bulk lists:
Suppression of RD MPKBY agents’ lists and RD PRSS lists can be detected only by verification of agents’ copies of RD MPKBY agents lists and RD PRSS lists with office records. There is no use in verification of copies of MPKBY lists available in the office.
3. Forgery withdrawals/ fraudulent withdrawals:
Forgery withdrawals are made by preparing withdrawal forms by forging the signature of the depositors. Fraudulent withdrawals are made by withdrawals in which the signatures / LTIs were obtained previously from the actual depositors. There will be no entries in the passbooks but the amount will be charged into postal accounts. The amount will be taken by the fraudulent officials. Some fraudulent BPMs make entries in the passbooks in respect of forgery / fraudulent withdrawals and show the passbooks to the Mail overseers and Inspecting Officers for verification at the time of visits / inspections.
4. Change of denomination of RD accounts by using data entry;
If the denomination of RD account is Rs.10.00,it gives maturity value of Rs.600.00+ Rs.128.90 = Rs. 728.90. If the denomination is changed to Rs.1000/-using the data entry, it will give maturity value of Rs. 60000/-+12890/-= Rs.72890/-.The fraudulent SPM will obtain signatures in application side and acquittance side of withdrawal form in blank form and fill up with the inflated figures of Rs. 72890/-. The In-Charge of SBCO of a Head office is the correct authority to watch and report such kind of malpractice. In some Head Offices, RD transactions are not fed up-to-date in V2 software of SBCO branch. Use of the data entry should be permitted by the Divisional office for restricted period only. Unauthorized use of the data entry should be checked by the Inspectorial staff and by the DSMs.
D. HOW TO CONTROL FRAUDS IN BRANCH OFFICES?
1. (a) Lists of passbooks not received for entry of interest from the BOs should be prepared and two copies should be sent to the concerned Sub Divisional heads by registered post before 20th of July of every year vide Rule 75(1) (iii) of POSB Manual Volume I. The third copy is retained at Account office as office copy.
(b) A separate paragraph should be mentioned in BO IR whether the list of passbooks not received for entry of interest was received from the Account Office or not.
(c) During the inspection, four SB passbooks from the above list should be verified. If such passbooks cannot be verified, SB 46 notices should be issued for equal number of passbooks to be verified.
(d) If the list of SB passbooks not received of interest is not supplied by the Account Office, four SB passbooks which were not received for entry of interest should be verified.
(e) One copy of the above list should be given to the Mail overseer who will verify all SB passbooks in the list before the 31st March of the next year.
2. Maintenance of special error book:
(a) If any transaction is noticed by the SO, which have been found taken place at BO after the receipt of interest statement and the passbook has not been received, the SO should note the fact in the Special Error Book and a copy of the special error book should be sent to the Sub Divisional head vide Rule 76 (b) of POSB Manual Volume I and DG Posts Letter No.35-15/86-SB dated 27.03.2003.
(b) Fraudulent BPM will not send SB passbooks to Account Office for entry of interest since he committed fraud in these passbooks. Serious note should be taken when the passbooks are not sent for entry of interest when the transactions are taken place in these accounts.
3.Direct supervision by the Account Office:
(a) Account office should watch closely the work of the Branch Postmaster. If there is any correction or overwriting in the BAT in the pay-in-slip or withdrawal form, the passbook should be called for to verify the correct BAT. The corrections in the BO daily accounts should be brought to the notice of the Sub Divisional head. If the Account Office doubts the integrity of the Branch Postmaster, the same should be brought to the notice of the Sub Divisional head.
4. Direct supervision by the Mail overseer:
(a) Major part of the work of a Mail overseer is supervision of work of a Branch Office. Sub Divisional heads are saddled with so many targeted items of works where Mail overseer is concerned only with the supervision of Branch Offices. Sub Divisional heads spend few hours in the Branch offices and returned to the head quarters for attending some other works. Each Mail overseer can have 40 to 60 branch offices in his beat. Mail overseer can spare maximum eight hours in the Branch Offices checking all records and passbooks. Mail overseers should visit each BO once in quarter.
(b) Mail overseer should bring all irregularities found during the visit to the Sub Divisional heads such as shortage of cash, non-writing of BO accounts and non-writing of SB/RD journals. Mail overseer should not give oral warning to BPMs and it will not give any positive results.
(c) Mail overseer should verify heavy withdrawals more than Rs. 5000/- by obtaining passbooks from the depositors. There is no use in verifying SB journal of the Branch office. He should verify all heavy withdrawals since from his last visit and note down in his diary. When the heavy withdrawal memos are received subsequently he will furnish his verification report in the heavy withdrawal memos. He need not go the Branch Office for each heavy withdrawal memo.
(d) Mail overseer should take two copies of extracts of passbooks verified and send one for copy for verification at Head office in respect of SB accounts and to the Account office in respect of RD accounts. One copy is kept as office copy to be filed along with his diaries. If any difference is noticed in the balance of any account, action should be taken to send the passbooks to Account office for verification. Verified copy should be pasted over the office copy which is kept in the diary.
(d) Mail overseer should check BO accounts, SB/RD/RPLI journals and all receipt books since his last visit.
(e) Where there are two Mail overseers, their beats should be interchanged for every year.
(f) Mail overseer should enquire conduct and character of BPM with neighbouring Branch offices. If there is fraud in ten accounts out of five hundred accounts, it is tolerable. When there is fraud in hundred accounts, what is the use of the post of Mail overseer in a Sub Division?
5. Supervision by the Sub Divisional head:
(a) An office should be inspected within a year. If the office could not be inspected within a year, the reason for the delay should be noted in the Inspection Report as well as in the diary.
(b) Inspecting Officer should give more importance in respect of paragraphs relating to verification of passbooks than any other paragraphs. These paragraphs find important role in fixing contributory negligence when the amount could not be recovered from the delinquent BPMs.
(c) The following passbooks should be verified
(i) Four SB passbooks from the list of passbooks not received for entry of interest or four SB passbooks which were not received for entry of interest when the above list is not received.
(ii) Four other SB passbooks in which heavy deposits / withdrawals have been taken place.
(iii) Two current RD passbooks
(iv) Two discontinued RD passbooks
(v) Two TD passbooks
(vi) Five RPLI premium receipt books.
(d) If required number of passbooks could not be verified for any reason, SB 46 to the equal number of passbooks should be issued. SB 46 should be sent by the registered post and the RL receipts should be filed along with IR report.
(e) IR should be issued within 10 days from the date of inspection.
(f) As far as possible, stop gap arrangement in respect of BPMs, the incumbent should be changed once in two months.
(g) Any error book entries regarding SB branch matters and any information from the Account Office regarding integrity of the BPMs should not be ignored. It should be verified through Mail overseers.
E. HOW TO CONTROL FRAUDS IN SUB OFFICES?
I. FRAUDULENT USE OF DATA ENTRY:
(a) Fraudulent use of Data Entry is the main factor in the frauds of Sub Offices. Data Entry is available in many offices without authorisation of Divisional Office. DSMs should be instructed to install Data Entry for specific period. DSM should uninstall Data Entry as soon as the purpose is served. Inspecting Officer should check whether Data Entry is available and if so, the purpose for which Data Entry is kept.
Method to check whether Data Entry is available in the system
Click Start -> Search -> For Files & Folders
Select ‘Computer’ (or all the Drives viz., C:\, D:\, E:\ F:\ etc., may be searched)
Search “ *dataentv5.exe ”
If data entry packages available, then the result will be
sbdataentv5.exe
rddataentv5.exe
tddataentv5.exe
misdataentv5.exe
scsdataentv5.exe
ppfdataentv5.exe
nssdataentv5.exe
certdataentv5.exe
If data entry packages are not available, then the result will be
No items match your search.
(b) Now a days, the fraudulent SPMs made forgery / fraudulent part withdrawals in RD accounts. Normally number of part withdrawals in a sub office is five percent of total RD accounts. If there are a large number of part withdrawals in a year, it should be suspected.
Method to check particulars of part withdrawals within a period
Login →Counter or Super (Enter button must be used instead of mouse)
Reports → RD Reports → Accounting of loans
Please enter from date and to date and Click ‘OK’
Account number, amount and date of withdrawals will be shown in the screen for
the given period. If there is any abnormal number of withdrawals noticed, passbooks of high value denomination should be obtained and verified whether there are any part withdrawals in the RD passbooks.
(c) (i) Initially once works relating to the Data Entry is completed after computerization, List of balances should be taken and certified by the SPM. The signed copy should be forwarded to concerned SBCO. SBCO should do the ledger agreement for that SO. DE should be removed by DSM and it should not be installed / used once again at any cost.
(ii) The SPM should request the Divisional office for Data Entry stating the particulars of accounts to be modified and reason for such request. After getting written permission from the Divisional Office with period of permission, the DSM should install the Data Entry Module for that particular scheme.
(iii) A register in the following format should be maintained in all Computerised POs., which should be reviewed by the Sub Divisional Heads during inspections/visits.
Sl. No
Date
Scheme
Account No.
Nature of Problem
Rectified through DE on (date)
Rectified by (Name of the official)
Sign. of the official
Sign of SPM/ HPM
(iii)After completion of works for which Data Entry is given, the data entry module should be removed/un-installed by the DSM.
(iv) 100% completion of works relating to Data Entry is the only way to avoid frauds in a sub office.
(d) During the visit or inspection, the Inspecting Officer should check whether unauthorised Data Entry is available. If unauthorised Data Entry is available, the Data Entry should be deleted. If we ordinarily delete the file, it will go to ‘RECYCLE BIN’. The Data Entry can be used restoring from RECYCLE BIN, If we use ‘SHIFT + DELETE’, the file will be deleted without going to Recycle Bin.
(e) The register maintained for Data entry modifications should be critically reviewed by the Sub Divisional Heads w.r.t the written permission accorded by the Divisional Heads and the details of accounts modified / corrected.
II. Supervision by the Sub Divisional head and inspectorial staff:
(a) An office should be inspected within a year. If the office could not be inspected within a year, the reason for the delay should be noted in the Inspection Report as well as in the diary.
(b) Inspecting Officer should give more importance in respect of paragraphs relating to verification of passbooks than any other paragraphs. These paragraphs find important role in fixing contributory negligence when the amount could not be recovered from the delinquent SPMs.
(c) As per latest Sub Office questionnaire, the following passbooks should be verified in respect of single sub offices.
(i) Fifteen SB passbooks which were not received for entry of interest (ii) Ten TD passbooks.
(d) Inspectorial staff may verify the following passbooks in addition to the above passbooks.
(i) Ten SB passbooks in which heavy deposits /heavy withdrawals were
made.
(ii) Five RD current passbooks.
(iii) Five RD discontinued passbooks.
(iv) Five MIS passbooks
(v) Five RPLI premium receipt books.
(d) If required number of passbooks could not be verified for any reason, SB 46 to the equal number of passbooks should be issued. SB 46 should be sent by the registered post and the RL receipts should be filed along with IR report.
(e) IR should be issued within 15 days from the date of inspection.
For kind attention of OAs, Postal Divisional Office and concerned supervisor whether ASPOs (HQ) or ASPOs (OD):
When a Sub Postmaster commits a fraud, the Circle Level Investigation of the Region will analyse all lapses on the part of the Head office, Sub Divisional head and Divisional office. They will fix contributory negligence, if any lapses are noticed on the part of the OA Divisional office and concerned supervisor.
A. Review of Sub Postmaster’s Monthly Report (SMR):
The following points should be reviewed in respect of SMRs.
(1) SMR should be prepared in correct format of PA 17 (a). In the reverse side, the transactions of the current month and the transactions of corresponding month of the last year of in respect of each branch should be noted. If the decrease in the transactions of SB and RD deposits and increase in the withdrawals should be reviewed critically. If such irregularities are noticed, SMR should be sent to the Sub Divisional head for verification.
(2) Now a days, Sub office monthly reports are sent instead of SMRs. It does not contain the transactions of the corresponding month of the previous year. It should not be accepted. The SPM should be asked to send SMR in correct form PA 17(a).
(3) There should be specific remarks in the SMRs by the Head Postmaster whether ‘Satisfactory’ or Not satisfactory’. Serious note should be taken on the remarks of the Head Postmaster such as ‘Not satisfactory’. Such SMRs should be sent to the Sub Divisional heads without fail. Watch should be made in respect of SMRs sent for verification.
(4) Serial numbers of the ECB memos should be noted in the SMRs. Continuity of ECB serial numbers should be watched.
(5) Generally the fraudulent SPMs do not send SMRs. They know that if SMRs are sent, they will be caught. Non receipt of SMRs from a Sub Postmaster should be reviewed seriously. Non receipt of SMRs should be watched by a register maintained for the purpose.
The following points should be reviewed in respect of ECB (Excess Cash Balance) memos: .
(1) There should be specific remarks in the ECB memos by the Head Postmaster whether ‘Satisfactory’ or Not satisfactory’. Serious note should be taken on the remarks of the Head Postmaster such as ‘Not satisfactory’. Such ECB memos should be sent to the Sub Divisional heads without fail. Watch should be made in respect of ECB memos sent for verification.
(2) Break in the serial numbers should be watched by maintaining a register each page for a Sub Office. If the break in serials is noticed, the SPM concerned should be addressed to send the wanting ECB memos with copy to the Head Postmaster. All correspondence should be made by the registered post.
Reviews of SMRs and ECB memos are tools to bring out the frauds. Many frauds are being unearthed by such reviews.
The following points should be reviewed in respect of IR branch:
1. In respect of Inspection Reports having the remarks ‘Not satisfactory’, the concerned BO or SO should be ear-marked for second inspection. Second inspection should be carried out during the next half year.
2. Serious note should be taken in respect of IR/VR paras in respect of irregularities relating to Savings Bank matters. Such paras should be communicated to the Sub Divisional heads or to some other Inspectorial staff immediately. Periodical reminders should be made.
3. In some divisional offices, no office copy is maintained for outward correspondences. It is not correct. All correspondence should be made by registered post by keeping office copies.
Compiled By
P.Karunanithy,B.Sc.,
ASPOs (HQ) ,
O/o The Supdt. of POs,
Karaikudi 630 003
Mobile : 094433 29681
Source : http://tnipasp.blogspot.in/
Monday, September 10, 2012
Inspector Posts Examination 2012 again postponed.
Inspector Posts Examination 2012 scheduled to be held on 15th and 16th September, 2012 is postponed vide Directorate memo No. A-34012/07/2012-DE dated 6th September, 2012 till further orders. To view original copy of said letter, please CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Letter to Minister of State for Finance to intervene in GP matter.
No. GS/AIAIASP/GP/2012 Dated 3rd September, 2012
To,
Hon’ble Shri Namo Narain Meena,
Minister of State for Finance,
Govt. Of India,
New Delhi 110 001.
Subject : Disparity in the pay scale of Inspectors Post (Group B).
Respected Sir,
For this act of kindness, we shall remain ever obliged.
To,
Hon’ble Shri Namo Narain Meena,
Minister of State for Finance,
Govt. Of India,
New Delhi 110 001.
Subject : Disparity in the pay scale of Inspectors Post (Group B).
Respected Sir,
I wish to bring to your kind notice the discrimination meted out to the cadre of Inspectors Post (Group B) in the Department of Post under Ministry of Communication in the matter of Grade Pay in comparison to the grade pay granted to the analogous cadres in other departments such as CBEC/CBDT and Assistants in Central Secretariat.
The pay scale of Inspectors Post (IPs) was having a historical parity with the pay scales of Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC/IB. However, this parity was disturbed in 1986 and Inspectors Post cadre is forced to perpetuate miserable fate by 1986 pay commission. The 5th Central Pay Commission however recognized this parity in pay scales between these cadres and placed Inspectors Post in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 on par with the Inspectors in CBEC & CBDT. The Inspectors of CBI and IB were however placed in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500.
However, like Inspectors Post (Group B), the Inspectors in CBEC & CBDT taken up the disparity and anomaly in their pay scales in Comparison to the Inspectors of CBI/IB with respective Ministry/Department. After negotiation, litigation and struggle the inspector in CBEC & CBDT get justice from the Government who were finally placed in the pay scale Rs. 6500-10500 vide the Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) Office Memorandum F.No.6/37/98-IC dated 21.4.2004 bringing at per with Inspectors of CBI and IB. Unfortunately the above grant of replacement in scale was not done in the cadre of Inspectors Post and Govt. left the issue to be decided by 6th pay commission.
The Sixth Central Pay Commission has recommended merger of pre-revised pay scales of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 with a view to bring Inspectors Post at par with Inspectors in CBEC & CBDT as well as Assistants in CSS and this has also been accepted and implemented by the Govt. Accordingly Inspectors Post have been placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4200/- at par with Assistant in CSS/Inspectors and Analogous post in CBEC & CBDT.
Now again, the Grade Pay of Inspectors in CBEC & CBDT has been revised from Rs.4200/- to 4600/- vide Ministry of Finance Memo. No.1/1/2008-IC dated 13th Nov.2009 (Annex-I) leaving Inspector Post in stagger. The Grade Pay of Assistants in the Central Secretariat has also been upgraded from Rs.4200/- to 4600/- vide Ministry of Finance Memo No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 16th November 2009 (Annex-II) but the file of Inspector Posts has been returned back by Ministry of Finance with the remarks that the post of Inspector Posts is not comparable to that Inspector in CBEC & CBDT.
SIR, Your good self can well imagine the plight of Inspector Posts and as such we are harried a lot. Sir, it is wrong to say that our cadre is inferior to any analogous post rather we are superior to them that is why we have been considered in Group B and given the responsibility as recruiting officers, appointing authorities, as sub divisional officer has to manage total postal affairs. We are investigating authority, inquiring authority; attend court cases like law officer, handle technology deals like IT professional and process legal cases such as police cases, forum cases, labour court cases still how we are inferior to Inspectors of CBDT what a strange on the part of official dealing the case in Ministry of Finance. Sir, we are recruited through the same examination (Graduate Level Examination) as is in the case of other Inspectors than how the cadre of Inspector Posts can not be compared with other Inspectors. Sir, any other cadre in analogous post is not given the responsibility as Inspector Post has been given.
Department of Posts (Pay Commission Cell) continuously pursued the case at highest level with Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure with recommendations of the Secretary (Posts) for pay parity of Inspector Post but the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure is not ready to take the view of the Department of Posts positively resulting frustration and demoralization amongst the Inspector, Posts cadre.
Out of this frustration some of our members approached Hon’ble CAT for natural justice. Hon’ble CAT Ernakulam Bench has specifically stated in para 33 of its judgment dated 19th October’2011 (Annex-III) that “.....the case has been considered and the Tribunal is of the considered view that there is no justification in denying the Inspector (Posts) the higher Grade Pay of Rs 4600/- when the same is admissible to Inspectors of other Departments with whom parity has been established by the very Sixth Pay Commission vide its report at para 7.6.14 extracted above......."(Annex-IV).
Hon’ble CAT has allowed the OA to the extent that keeping in tune with the observations of the Sixth Pay Commission, coupled with the strong recommendations of the Department of Post and also in the light of our discussion as above, first respondent, i.e. the Ministry of Finance shall have a re-look in the matter at the level of Secretary and consider the case of the Inspector (Posts) for up-gradation of their grade pay at par with that of the Inspector of income tax, of CBDT and CBEC.
Since it appears that the proposal sent by the DOP to implement the orders of Hon’ble CAT has not yet been considered by the Secretary (Finance), we request your good self to please intervene in the matter and take up the issue with the appropriate authorities for an early settlement and grant of pay grade of Rs.4600/- to Inspector Posts w.e.f 1.1.2006 as has been done in the analogous post in other departments.
For this act of kindness, we shall remain ever obliged.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(Vilas Ingale)
General Secretary
Transfer & posting orders of CPMG Rajasthan
The following transfer / posting order in the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) of Indian Postal Service, Group ‘A’ has been communicated vide Department of Posts (Personnel Division) dated 31st August, 2012.
Shri Y.P.S.Mohan CPMG Delhi will hold dual charge of CPMG Rajasthan
Sl.No.
|
Name & Batch of Officer
|
Present Posting
|
Posting on transfer
|
Remarks
|
1
|
Ms. Kalpana Tiwari (IPoS-1978)
|
CGM(MB), Postal Dte, New Delhi
|
CGM( BD & M), BD&M Dte, New Delhi
|
Vice Sh. Y.P.S. Mohan transferred
|
2
|
Sh. S.K. Sinha (IPoS-1979)
|
CGM(PLI), PLI Directorate, New Delhi
|
CGM(MB), Postal Dte, New Delhi
|
Vice Ms. Kalpna Tiwari transferred
|
3
|
Sh. Y.P.S. Mohan (IPoS-1979)
|
CGM( BD & M), BD&M Dte, New Delhi
|
CPMG, Delhi Circle, New Delhi
|
Vice Ms. Rameshwari Handa retired on superannuation on 31-8-2012.
|
4
|
Sh. R.R.P Singh (IPoS-1980)
|
CPMG, Rajsthan Circle, Jaipur
|
CPMG, West Bengal Circle
|
Vice Ms. Humera Ahmed retired on superannuation on 31-8-2012.
|
5
|
Sh. Faiz Ur Rehman (IPoS-1979)
|
CPMG, Gujrat Circle, Ahmedabad
|
CGM(PLI), PLI Directorate, New Delhi
|
Vice Sh. S.K. Sinha transferred
|
Shri Y.P.S.Mohan CPMG Delhi will hold dual charge of CPMG Rajasthan
Sunday, September 2, 2012
IT Minister Kapil Sibal calls for separating regulatory services functions of Department of Post
Communications and IT Minister Kapil Sibal has called for restructuring of 150-year-old Department of Post by separating its regulatory and services functions to meet challenges of technological age.
"The postal department should also restructure itself to meet challenges of 21st century. The Department of Post (DoP) should look into prospect of bifurcating the ministry from the regulator and the operator, just as was done in the telecom sector," Sibal told PTI.
He said that the DoP should explore possibility of having different entities namely policy making, regulator and service provider. "No decision has been taken yet. It is all a matter of debate and dialogue at the moment," Sibal said.
DoP, which has around 5 lakh employees, is responsible for policy making, regulation and providing postal services, at present.
The over 100-year old Indian Post Office Act bars any individual or entity from delivering letters for commercial purpose. The business of private courier companies is built around delivering documents, parcels and others items which do not fall under the category of 'letter'.
Sources in the ministry said that Sibal held a meeting with DoP officials early this week on the issue of finanlisation of the National Postal Policy 2012 and asked them to prepare roadmap for restructuring as well.
They said that next meeting on the issue is expected to take place in 15 days. They said that the minister, in June, had asked DoP to set up a body to oversee the unbundling of its functions.
An independent body named Postal Development Board (PDB) will be responsible for the overall development and governance of the postal sector, they added. The PDB will also draw a road-map for unbundling of postal department functions.
The minister had also instructed DoP to constitute a Postal Advisory Board (PAB), in line with Telecom Commission, which should have representation from government, industry players, academics and other stakeholders, they said. The role of PAB will be to provide inputs to PDB on policy matters.
The government in 1997 created the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) to regulate the sector. Under New Telecom Policy 1999, government further restructured DoT by separating service providing function from it.
Source:-The Economic Times
Revision of tariff for occupation of Inspection Quarters / Inspection Rooms in the Department of Posts.
This has a reference to Department of Posts(Estate Division) earlier Letter No. 6-2/2004-Bldg. dated 4-8-2005. As communicated vide Department of Posts (Estate Division) Letter No.6-5/2009-Bldg dated 27-08-2012 the rates for occupation of Inspection Quarters / Inspection Rooms is rationalized as follows:-
A) Inspection Quarters / Inspection Rooms:
i) For Officers of the Department of Posts while on duty / leave, retired officers of Department of Posts, other Government / PSU Officers on official visit and others for period of 10 days:
Sl. No.
|
Category of visitor in Inspection Quarters / Inspection Rooms
|
Rent per Day (More than six Hours)
| |
X Class Cities
|
Y & Z Class Cities
| ||
1.
|
Officers of Department of Posts on official visit
|
25/-
|
25/-
|
2.
|
Officers and dependent family members of Department of Posts on personal Visit
|
100/-
|
50/-
|
3.
|
Retired Officers of Department of Posts
|
100/-
|
50/-
|
4.
|
Other Government / PSU Officers on official visit and others
|
250/-
|
150/-
|
ii) The charges for the use of :-
Air conditions :- 20/- per day or a part thereof
Room Heaters :- 10/- per day or a part thereof
B) Rates for officers for stay in Inspection Quarters/Inspection Rooms for periods exceeding 10 days:-
i) For period exceeding 10 days and upto 60 days:-Same as in para (A) above {With permission of the Controlling Authority i.e. Head of the Circle}
ii) For period beyond 60 days:- 10% of Basic pay (including special pay) [With permission of the DG Posts]
The revised rates indicated above will take place with immediate effect.
PA / SA Direct Recuitment Applications available in ONLINE
Good news for applicants of PA / SA Recruitment 2011 & 2012. You can get it Online.
Dte has requested the outsourced agency to print 10 lacs OMR kits for sale throughout India thro selected POs. Due to huge sale of forms, it is difficult to print within short period. Hence Dte is decided to upload the forms in www.indiapost.gov.in so as to download by the applicants.
Online application kits will be available in www.indiapost.gov.in from 03.09.12 to 25.09.12 only.
Those applied thro OMR kits need not apply again.
Online Procedure :
Click “Register Online” link.
Enter the details like a. Name b.DoB c.e mail ID d. Alternative e mail ID.
Click Submit button.
The following forms will be sent to the provided e mail ID within 24 hrs.
a. Special instruction sheet.
b. Application form.
c. Instruction sheet / Information brochure (11 sheets).
Fees :
Cost of Application form - Rs.50
Exam fee – Rs.200. Female, SC, ST & PH applicants are exempted, however they should pay Rs.50.
Total Rs.250 should be paid under Unclassified Receipts thro any POs and attach Original alongwith the Application form. Applicants can keep Xerox copies.
Applications should forward thro either Speed Post of Regd Post (other meant not accepted) to the following address.
Direct Recruitment Cell,
New Delhi HO,
New Delhi 110 001
Applicants can check the status of receipt of Cell on www.indiapost.gov.in
For more details, pl refer the advertisement of the concerned Circles.
Dte Memo No : A-34012 / 5 /2011-DE Dt. 31.08.12.
Source:- http://sapost.blogspot.com/
Dte has requested the outsourced agency to print 10 lacs OMR kits for sale throughout India thro selected POs. Due to huge sale of forms, it is difficult to print within short period. Hence Dte is decided to upload the forms in www.indiapost.gov.in so as to download by the applicants.
Online application kits will be available in www.indiapost.gov.in from 03.09.12 to 25.09.12 only.
Those applied thro OMR kits need not apply again.
Online Procedure :
Click “Register Online” link.
Enter the details like a. Name b.DoB c.e mail ID d. Alternative e mail ID.
Click Submit button.
The following forms will be sent to the provided e mail ID within 24 hrs.
a. Special instruction sheet.
b. Application form.
c. Instruction sheet / Information brochure (11 sheets).
Fees :
Cost of Application form - Rs.50
Exam fee – Rs.200. Female, SC, ST & PH applicants are exempted, however they should pay Rs.50.
Total Rs.250 should be paid under Unclassified Receipts thro any POs and attach Original alongwith the Application form. Applicants can keep Xerox copies.
Applications should forward thro either Speed Post of Regd Post (other meant not accepted) to the following address.
Direct Recruitment Cell,
New Delhi HO,
New Delhi 110 001
Applicants can check the status of receipt of Cell on www.indiapost.gov.in
For more details, pl refer the advertisement of the concerned Circles.
Dte Memo No : A-34012 / 5 /2011-DE Dt. 31.08.12.
Source:- http://sapost.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)