MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED TO GDS COMMITTEE BY GENERAL SECRETARY, AIPEU GDS NFPE AND SECRETARY GENERAL, NFPE
Memorandum was submitted on 18th March 2016 to Sri T.Q.Mohd., Secretary, GDS Committee for revision of wages and other service conditions of GDS employees. Com. P.Pandurangarao, G.S.AIPEU GDS. (NFPE) presented the case very effectively. Secretary GDS COMMITTEE gave positive assurances.
Further, application for membership verification was also submitted to Dept. of Posts New Delhi.
All Comrades are requested to make maximum efforts to make AIPEU GDS NFPE as no.1 Union.
=R.N. PARASHAR, SECRETARY GENERAL NFPE.
CUT IN INTEREST RATE FOR SMALL SAVINGS SCHEMES
NFPE WRITES TO THE HON`BLE MOC
National Federation of Postal Employees
1st Floor North Avenue Post Office Building, New Delhi-110 001
Phone: 011.23092771 e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Mob: 9868819295/9810853981 website: http://www.nfpe.blogspot.com
PF-35(SB)-2016 Dated: 21st March, 2016
Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad
Hon`ble Minister of Communications & IT,
Government of India,
New Delhi-110 001
Sub: Cut in interest rate for small savings schemes.
As you are aware that the Government of India, Ministry of Fiancé, Department of Economic Affairs (Budget Division) vide F.No.1/04/2016-NSII dated 18th March -2016 has issued orders to cut the interest rates for Small Savings Schemes which will adversely affect the poor people and customers in Post Offices.
Already due to CBS related problems thousands and thousands customers have closed their accounts in Post Offices. Further this cut in small savings schemes like, NSC, KVP, PPF,MIS, Sr. Citizen Savings Schemes and Sukanya Samriddhi Yojna will force them to invest their money in some other schemes.
It is therefore requested to kindly utilize your good office and convince the Finance Ministry to exempt Small Savings Schemes in Post Offices from interest cut to protect interests of common man.
TAS FOR GOVT JOB PROMOTIONS
The Supreme Court has ruled that scheduled caste (SC) and scheduled tribe (ST) members cannot claim quota as a right in government job promotions. This move was taken while rejecting a PIL seeking direction to the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government to grant reservation in promotion.
In the landmark verdict, the apex court on March 11 said that the states were not constitutionally obliged to give preferential treatment to any community in promotion.
A bench comprising Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C Pant said that the government was not bound by any constitutional provision to frame a policy for reservation in promotion and the court could not order making reservation in promotion mandatory.
Referring to Articles 16(4), 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) of the Constitution mandating socially affirmative action to help disadvantaged groups, the court said that the states were not compelled to make reservation for SCs/STs in promotion.
It further said that the provisions allowed the government to exercise discretion and provide for reservation only after collecting quantifiable data showing backwardness of a class and inadequacy of their representation in public employment.
According to Article 16(4-A), nothing shall prevent the state from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services in favour of SCs and STs which, according to the state, were not adequately represented.
The bench refused to direct the UP government to carry out an exercise to find the representation of SCs/STs in government jobs in order to frame a policy for reservation in promotion.
"The state is not bound to make reservation for SCs and STs in matter of promotions. Therefore, there is no duty. In such a situation, to issue a mandamus to collect data would tantamount to asking the authorities whether there is ample data to frame a rule or regulation. This will be in a way, entering into the domain of legislation," the bench said, according to TOI.
The bench further said that the Constitution granted discretionary power to the government to frame law for reservation in promotion and they could not be forced to bring regulation on the issue.
"The courts do not formulate any policy, remains away from making anything that would amount to legislation, rules and regulation or policy relating to reservation. The courts can test the validity of the same when they are challenged. The court cannot direct for making legislation or for that matter any kind of subordinate legislation," the bench said, while rejecting the PIL.