.
You are aware that NOINO, since its formation in 2002, has been in the forefront in identifying the problems of the Class I Officers, taking up the same vigorously after proper study, offering solutions & then following up doggedly. All this is done with a systematic approach. This is evident in various issues taken up by us like the Back-up issue (where the centralised back-up is only a matter of time due to our diligent efforts), the Charter Struggle, Removal of age limit condition for promotion & posting in Marketing posts etc.
It is a fact that the Class I Officers are most affected by the 'Transfer' & the ‘posting on promotion’ policies. In fact, most complaints or grievances emanate from the posting on promotion & the subsequent transfer back to the parent division. If this policy is Written, Transparent, Uniform & Fair, then the Class I Officers would be happy & further motivated. With this in mind, we are calling for feedbacks from the Class I Officers across the country. We request you to send your specific feedbacks as follows:-
1. Name:-
2. Designation:-
3. Place of work:-
4. Division:-
5. Zone:-
6. Email-id:-
7. Cell no.:-
8. Feedback:
A. Lacunas or Drawbacks of the Current Transfer Policy:-
B. Impact/Reprcussions on the Individual/Office:-
C. Suggested solutions:-
As far as possible avoid presenting your own case. This is because we would like to have a solution to the officers in general on the TRANSFER issue. However, if you feel your case is a representative one (in other words, a common problem) you are free to present it. We would appreciate if your feedback is precise & a short one. The suggested solutions should also be such that may benefit maximum officers.
Kindly send your feedback to the following email id’s latest by 15th January 2011:
a.bhagdikar@licindia.com
g.kamath@licindia.com
sb.sharan@licindia.com
.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Protest lodged on Property Returns
.
Two organizations, viz. NOINO & BVKS have jointly submitted a protest letter to the ED(P) on the issue of filing of property returns. The letter is reproduced below:
.
22.12.2010.
.
The Executive Director (Personnel),
L.I.C. of India.
.
Respected Madam,
Re: Submission of Property returns
.
We, the undersigned, representing two organizations viz., NOINO & BVKS(Bharatiya Vima Karmachari Sena), wish to draw your attention to the circular issued by your goodself on the above subject on 3.12.2010. The circular makes it mandatory for all Class I Officers of the Corporation to submit their Annual Property returns. In this context, we would like you to consider the following points:-
.
1. The circular dated 3.12.2010 invokes the circular dated 25.04.2008 which in turn invokes the circular dated 23.8.1996. We fail to understand why the need is felt intermittently & what has led the management to invoke the circular at this juncture.
2. We also fail to understand as to why it has been made compulsory only for the Class I Officers to file the property returns when the earlier circulars clearly mentioned that all employees except Class IV employees should file the same. The circular dated 23.08.1996 refers to the Staff Regulations as amended in 1995 which clearly says that all Class I, II, III employees should file the property returns. Whether the Staff regulations have been suitably amended to include only Class I Officers? We feel that this is discriminatory & defies logic. We may make it very clear that it is not our demand that Class II/III employees should also be asked to file the property returns. We are simply saying that application of rules should not be selective. In fact, we feel that it is not necessary to call for the filing of property returns from any employee irrespective of Class & cadre for reasons specified in point no. 8 of this letter.
3. We find it highly objectionable that the management has decided not to consider such officers for promotion who fail to comply. Promotions should be purely based on merits, i.e. performance skills, knowledge, experience, qualifications, & behaviour with peers & superiors. Filing or not filing of property returns has nothing to do with promotions & hence should not be linked with the same. The management should immediately withdraw such a condition.
4. The prescribed limit of Rs. 10000/- for transaction of movable property is absolutely ridiculous & needs to be enhanced substantially.
5. It is also not clear why the date for filing returns has been changed to 31st December instead of 30th April as prescribed earlier. We are raising this point because there seems to be no logic in changing the dates & if there is one, we do not know it because of lack of transparency on the part of the management.
6. Ostensibly, the logic for filing property returns is to guard against (or to put a check to) any person indulging in corrupt practices & thus having disproportionate assets to his income. Whether all Class I Officers will indulge in such corrupt practices? There are various checks & balances in our system & we would do well to concentrate on improving our internal system & that the procedural aspects including accounting procedures are being scrupulously followed.
7. The origin of corruption is just not any position but the mind & hence selective application of any rule should be avoided.
8. What real purpose does the filing of property returns serve? This is so because:-
a. The employees filling-in the returns may not give correct information.
b. Even if the correct information is given by a supposedly corrupt person, the information will remain in the custody of the Corporation. The sealed cover would be opened only in the case of any official investigation. Thus, it would not be possible for anybody to know before-hand whether the person has disproportionate assets to his income.
.
In view of all these points, we demand that the above circular should be amended suitably & the condition of linking to promotion should be removed forthwith.
.
The last, but not the least, time and again we feel that such important move /decisions are being implemented unilaterally by the management without consultations with the representative Organizations/Unions. We strongly oppose it and demand that any important decisions be implemented only after the consultations with the representative Organizations/Unions.
.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- Ganesh Kamath, GS, NOINO
Sd/-
Gopal Shelar,Working President, BVKS
.
Two organizations, viz. NOINO & BVKS have jointly submitted a protest letter to the ED(P) on the issue of filing of property returns. The letter is reproduced below:
.
22.12.2010.
.
The Executive Director (Personnel),
L.I.C. of India.
.
Respected Madam,
Re: Submission of Property returns
.
We, the undersigned, representing two organizations viz., NOINO & BVKS(Bharatiya Vima Karmachari Sena), wish to draw your attention to the circular issued by your goodself on the above subject on 3.12.2010. The circular makes it mandatory for all Class I Officers of the Corporation to submit their Annual Property returns. In this context, we would like you to consider the following points:-
.
1. The circular dated 3.12.2010 invokes the circular dated 25.04.2008 which in turn invokes the circular dated 23.8.1996. We fail to understand why the need is felt intermittently & what has led the management to invoke the circular at this juncture.
2. We also fail to understand as to why it has been made compulsory only for the Class I Officers to file the property returns when the earlier circulars clearly mentioned that all employees except Class IV employees should file the same. The circular dated 23.08.1996 refers to the Staff Regulations as amended in 1995 which clearly says that all Class I, II, III employees should file the property returns. Whether the Staff regulations have been suitably amended to include only Class I Officers? We feel that this is discriminatory & defies logic. We may make it very clear that it is not our demand that Class II/III employees should also be asked to file the property returns. We are simply saying that application of rules should not be selective. In fact, we feel that it is not necessary to call for the filing of property returns from any employee irrespective of Class & cadre for reasons specified in point no. 8 of this letter.
3. We find it highly objectionable that the management has decided not to consider such officers for promotion who fail to comply. Promotions should be purely based on merits, i.e. performance skills, knowledge, experience, qualifications, & behaviour with peers & superiors. Filing or not filing of property returns has nothing to do with promotions & hence should not be linked with the same. The management should immediately withdraw such a condition.
4. The prescribed limit of Rs. 10000/- for transaction of movable property is absolutely ridiculous & needs to be enhanced substantially.
5. It is also not clear why the date for filing returns has been changed to 31st December instead of 30th April as prescribed earlier. We are raising this point because there seems to be no logic in changing the dates & if there is one, we do not know it because of lack of transparency on the part of the management.
6. Ostensibly, the logic for filing property returns is to guard against (or to put a check to) any person indulging in corrupt practices & thus having disproportionate assets to his income. Whether all Class I Officers will indulge in such corrupt practices? There are various checks & balances in our system & we would do well to concentrate on improving our internal system & that the procedural aspects including accounting procedures are being scrupulously followed.
7. The origin of corruption is just not any position but the mind & hence selective application of any rule should be avoided.
8. What real purpose does the filing of property returns serve? This is so because:-
a. The employees filling-in the returns may not give correct information.
b. Even if the correct information is given by a supposedly corrupt person, the information will remain in the custody of the Corporation. The sealed cover would be opened only in the case of any official investigation. Thus, it would not be possible for anybody to know before-hand whether the person has disproportionate assets to his income.
.
In view of all these points, we demand that the above circular should be amended suitably & the condition of linking to promotion should be removed forthwith.
.
The last, but not the least, time and again we feel that such important move /decisions are being implemented unilaterally by the management without consultations with the representative Organizations/Unions. We strongly oppose it and demand that any important decisions be implemented only after the consultations with the representative Organizations/Unions.
.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- Ganesh Kamath, GS, NOINO
Sd/-
Gopal Shelar,Working President, BVKS
.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Property Returns
.
We are in the process of lodging our protest on the property-returns issue. Meanwhile we may advise the officers to file the property returns because of following reasons:-
1. We don't want to jeopardise the chances of the officers in promotion zone.
2. The staff regulations specify that the employees should file the returns.
3. In some Zones, the office is not insisting to compulsorily fill it. In such Zones, the officer not in promotion zone may not fill it. But this, we leave it to the discretion of the respective officer.
.
We are in the process of lodging our protest on the property-returns issue. Meanwhile we may advise the officers to file the property returns because of following reasons:-
1. We don't want to jeopardise the chances of the officers in promotion zone.
2. The staff regulations specify that the employees should file the returns.
3. In some Zones, the office is not insisting to compulsorily fill it. In such Zones, the officer not in promotion zone may not fill it. But this, we leave it to the discretion of the respective officer.
.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Batches for promotion 2011
.
Following would be the batches to be considered for the promotion round 2011:
.
ZM(S)---------2006 & Earlier ZM(O)
ZM(O)---------2003 & earlier DZM/SDM
DZM/SDM----2006 & earlier DM/MM/CM
DM/MM/CM--2006 & earlier ADM/SBM
ADM/SBM----2004 & earlier AO/BM
AO/BM--------July 2005 & earlier AAO/ABM(S)
*
Following would be the batches to be considered for the promotion round 2011:
.
ZM(S)---------2006 & Earlier ZM(O)
ZM(O)---------2003 & earlier DZM/SDM
DZM/SDM----2006 & earlier DM/MM/CM
DM/MM/CM--2006 & earlier ADM/SBM
ADM/SBM----2004 & earlier AO/BM
AO/BM--------July 2005 & earlier AAO/ABM(S)
*
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Conveyance Allowance to Physically Handicapped
.
NOINO has demanded revision in the conveyance allowance to the physically handicapped employees. The letter submitted to the ED(P) in this respect is reproduced, here-in-below:
.
11.12.2010.
.
The Executive Director (Personnel),
L.I.C. of India.
.
Respected Madam,
.
Re: Conveyance allowance to physically handicapped employees.
.
We wish to draw your attention to the fact that the conveyance allowance to physically handicapped employees (in addition to the normal conveyance allowance) has not been revised in or after the recent wage revision. Currently the allowance is paid @ 2.5% of the basic subject to a maximum of 235/-.
.
We, hereby, demand an immediate revision in the aforesaid allowance to the extent of 5% of the basic pay without any limit.
.
Yours faithfully,
Ganesh Kamath
GS, NOINO
.
NOINO has demanded revision in the conveyance allowance to the physically handicapped employees. The letter submitted to the ED(P) in this respect is reproduced, here-in-below:
.
11.12.2010.
.
The Executive Director (Personnel),
L.I.C. of India.
.
Respected Madam,
.
Re: Conveyance allowance to physically handicapped employees.
.
We wish to draw your attention to the fact that the conveyance allowance to physically handicapped employees (in addition to the normal conveyance allowance) has not been revised in or after the recent wage revision. Currently the allowance is paid @ 2.5% of the basic subject to a maximum of 235/-.
.
We, hereby, demand an immediate revision in the aforesaid allowance to the extent of 5% of the basic pay without any limit.
.
Yours faithfully,
Ganesh Kamath
GS, NOINO
.
Monday, December 6, 2010
NOINO meets ED(P)
.
A two member NOINO delegation consisting of Shri Ganesh Kamath, All India GS, NOINO & Shri Dattaraj Prabhukhanolkar, GS, NOINO, Mumbai met the Executive Director (Personnel) Smt D. Vijayalakshmi on 6th December 2010 and discussed the following issues:-
.
1. Housing loan from LIC HFL: - We submitted a letter along with an Excel sheet containing specific examples to show how & where the employees across the country are suffering. We demanded that the Housing loan portfolio should be brought back to LIC. The letter has been published at the end of this circular. ED (P) assured to examine all the issues spelt out in the letter.
.
2. One more pension option:- We reiterated our old demand of giving one more option to the existing employees who had not opted for it earlier. ED(P) was positive on this issue & said that the management is giving top priority to it.
.
3. 5 days' week: - We reiterated our old demand of 5 days' week. ED (P) was not positive on this matter.
.
4. Revision in Daily Allowance: - ED (P) said that the circular would be issued very soon.
.
5. Revision in TE rules & incidentals:- ED(P) said that the management was working on the same & we could expect it in the near future.
.
6. Revision in leave rules: - We had submitted a letter on this matter to the ED (P) on 26.11.2010 demanding Intervening holidays between CL not to be taken into account; Minimum PL to be reduced to 6 days instead of 7 days; Minimum leave of 15 days not to be made compulsory for Encashment of PL; HRA to be counted as part of salary while calculating Encashment of PL etc. ED (P) seemed to be positive on the demands regarding Encashment of PL.
.
7. Transfer policy:- We urged the ED (P) to reconsider its present transfer/posting policy. We demanded that a one-day workshop should be held on this specific issue where NOINO could contribute with positive suggestions. ED(P) agreed to examine our demand.
.
We are also publishing hereunder the letter submitted to ED (P) on the issue of Housing loan. You may recall that this issue was taken up with IT department on 13th November 2010.
Ganesh Kamath
GS, NOINO
.
6.12.2010.
.
The Executive Director (Personnel),
L.I.C. of India.
.
Respected Madam,
.
Re: Problems of Housing loan from LICHFL
The portfolio of Housing loan to employees of LIC has been transferred to LIC HFL since long. At that time, we had expressed our apprehensions about the smooth transition. Our fears have come true. Even after a long period, there are a lot of problems & hence there are lots of angry & frustrated responses from all over the country. We had called for the feedbacks from the employees & we have been overwhelmed by the mails we are receiving. We are also separately taking up this issue with HPF. We have attached some specific examples in an Excel sheet to give you an idea of the problems faced by the employees all over the country. We are summarizing the responses as under:-
.
1. Callous & casual approach of the HFL officials:- This has been reported from all over the country.
.
2. Requirements asked again & again :- Original documents are asked again & again. Further, requirements are not asked at a single stroke. Once some requirements are submitted, again some more are asked.
.
3. Subsidy not received:- The full loan amount is charged at HFL rate. The employees are not getting the benefit of the subsidy. The loans disbursed earlier have also not been converted to cadre loan. Salary deductions have not started.
.
4. Delay in sanctioning of loan:- There is a delay in sanctioning of loans in many offices. There is no designated person to attend LIC employees. Due to delay in sanctioning of loan, some employees had to pay interest to the builder while some had to give up purchasing the flat & look elsewhere for loan.
.
5. Location of HFL offices :- In many places, HFL offices are located far away from the office/residence of the employee & hence they have to spend money/leave for the loan.
.
6. Valuation of perquisites :- The valuation of perquisites has not been completed by many Divisions. The employees are in a limbo as to whether they will receive the provisional certificates for Income-tax or not.
.
7. Difference in procedures & rules of HFL & LIC HPF :- This has led to utter chaos. To quote only two examples of the countless ones, HFL is not creating two separate accounts for husband & wife working in LIC, not allowing separate deduction, thus causing problems for claiming income-tax rebate. The restriction of loan only up to 85% of the estimate by HFL has also deprived the employees the benefit of increase in Housing loan.
.
In view of the above, NOINO demands that either the above issues should be set right within the shortest possible time OR bring back the Housing loan portfolio back to LIC from HFL. The second option would be the most prudent decision as this is the overwhelming feeling of majority of employees.
.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Ganesh Kamath
GS, NOINO
.
A two member NOINO delegation consisting of Shri Ganesh Kamath, All India GS, NOINO & Shri Dattaraj Prabhukhanolkar, GS, NOINO, Mumbai met the Executive Director (Personnel) Smt D. Vijayalakshmi on 6th December 2010 and discussed the following issues:-
.
1. Housing loan from LIC HFL: - We submitted a letter along with an Excel sheet containing specific examples to show how & where the employees across the country are suffering. We demanded that the Housing loan portfolio should be brought back to LIC. The letter has been published at the end of this circular. ED (P) assured to examine all the issues spelt out in the letter.
.
2. One more pension option:- We reiterated our old demand of giving one more option to the existing employees who had not opted for it earlier. ED(P) was positive on this issue & said that the management is giving top priority to it.
.
3. 5 days' week: - We reiterated our old demand of 5 days' week. ED (P) was not positive on this matter.
.
4. Revision in Daily Allowance: - ED (P) said that the circular would be issued very soon.
.
5. Revision in TE rules & incidentals:- ED(P) said that the management was working on the same & we could expect it in the near future.
.
6. Revision in leave rules: - We had submitted a letter on this matter to the ED (P) on 26.11.2010 demanding Intervening holidays between CL not to be taken into account; Minimum PL to be reduced to 6 days instead of 7 days; Minimum leave of 15 days not to be made compulsory for Encashment of PL; HRA to be counted as part of salary while calculating Encashment of PL etc. ED (P) seemed to be positive on the demands regarding Encashment of PL.
.
7. Transfer policy:- We urged the ED (P) to reconsider its present transfer/posting policy. We demanded that a one-day workshop should be held on this specific issue where NOINO could contribute with positive suggestions. ED(P) agreed to examine our demand.
.
We are also publishing hereunder the letter submitted to ED (P) on the issue of Housing loan. You may recall that this issue was taken up with IT department on 13th November 2010.
Ganesh Kamath
GS, NOINO
.
6.12.2010.
.
The Executive Director (Personnel),
L.I.C. of India.
.
Respected Madam,
.
Re: Problems of Housing loan from LICHFL
The portfolio of Housing loan to employees of LIC has been transferred to LIC HFL since long. At that time, we had expressed our apprehensions about the smooth transition. Our fears have come true. Even after a long period, there are a lot of problems & hence there are lots of angry & frustrated responses from all over the country. We had called for the feedbacks from the employees & we have been overwhelmed by the mails we are receiving. We are also separately taking up this issue with HPF. We have attached some specific examples in an Excel sheet to give you an idea of the problems faced by the employees all over the country. We are summarizing the responses as under:-
.
1. Callous & casual approach of the HFL officials:- This has been reported from all over the country.
.
2. Requirements asked again & again :- Original documents are asked again & again. Further, requirements are not asked at a single stroke. Once some requirements are submitted, again some more are asked.
.
3. Subsidy not received:- The full loan amount is charged at HFL rate. The employees are not getting the benefit of the subsidy. The loans disbursed earlier have also not been converted to cadre loan. Salary deductions have not started.
.
4. Delay in sanctioning of loan:- There is a delay in sanctioning of loans in many offices. There is no designated person to attend LIC employees. Due to delay in sanctioning of loan, some employees had to pay interest to the builder while some had to give up purchasing the flat & look elsewhere for loan.
.
5. Location of HFL offices :- In many places, HFL offices are located far away from the office/residence of the employee & hence they have to spend money/leave for the loan.
.
6. Valuation of perquisites :- The valuation of perquisites has not been completed by many Divisions. The employees are in a limbo as to whether they will receive the provisional certificates for Income-tax or not.
.
7. Difference in procedures & rules of HFL & LIC HPF :- This has led to utter chaos. To quote only two examples of the countless ones, HFL is not creating two separate accounts for husband & wife working in LIC, not allowing separate deduction, thus causing problems for claiming income-tax rebate. The restriction of loan only up to 85% of the estimate by HFL has also deprived the employees the benefit of increase in Housing loan.
.
In view of the above, NOINO demands that either the above issues should be set right within the shortest possible time OR bring back the Housing loan portfolio back to LIC from HFL. The second option would be the most prudent decision as this is the overwhelming feeling of majority of employees.
.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Ganesh Kamath
GS, NOINO
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
