A NOINO delegation consisting of
our newly elected General Secretary Smt.
Anagha Sant; Shri Ganesh Kamath, Chief Advisor; Shri Sanjay Ramdasi, Jt. Treasurer; Shri Dattaraj
Prabhukhanolkar, Resident Secretary, NOINO; Shri Manish Patankar,
Jt Secy, NOINO WZ unit, met the Executive
Director (P) Shri M R Kumar and Shri
T R Mendiratta, Chief (Personnel) on 14th December 2012. The
following issues were discussed:-
A) Batches for Promotion: In the ensuing promotion round of 2013, the AO batches
of 2005 & 2006 & the ADM batch of 2008 have not been considered for
promotion by the management. We strongly protested this fact & demanded
that these batches should be considered. We submitted that by this decision,
the officers are frustrated, demoralized & there is a lot of unrest among
them. We presented our analysis of the statistics & argued that it was
possible to consider these batches. ED (P) said that he would examine the
statistics presented by us. However, he did not sound positive on this issue.
We have suggested a few solutions. The primary solution was to increase
vacancies. Just as AAO & AO cadres are considered inter-changeable, ADM
& DM could also be considered inter-changeable & more officers can be accommodated.
We also suggested that just as an AO is posted in a branch where BM is posted,
similarly, ADM could be posted where SBM is posted. Splitting of portfolios can
also be a solution. We also suggested that the current procedure of promotion
should give way to the procedure of ‘promotion
by application’. By this way, only those who are interested in promotion in
the particular year would be considered & to that extent the competition
would be reduced. On this particular issue (of ‘promotion by application’), ED(P) sounded positive. However, he
said that the management would consider the implementation of this suggestion
next year. We have also suggested long-term solutions (already demanded in our
charter) like running scales & granting grades & benefits for eligible
officers missing promotion for want of vacancies. NOINO will decide the future course of action in this matter shortly.
B)
One more Pension Option:- We have once again reiterated our demand for this
and stressed(once again) that this
should not be linked with our wage revision. ED(P) sounded positive on this issue & said that management would
be following up the issue with Finance Ministry.
C) Fixing of Responsibility for
Excess/Wrong Payments:- We pointed out that in some Divisions only Officers are held responsible and are pressurized
to pay the amount. We have already
raised this issue with the MD Shri Sushobhan Sarker on 11th October 2012 . We have offered some solutions like “Fidelity Insurance” and creating a “Reserve Fund” to cover the “Excess/Wrong Payments”. We said that
after shifting our dependence to the computerized system, it is illogical to
fix the responsibility, except for gross negligence or intentional mistakes.
The incidence of such cases (the proportion of excess/wrong payments to total
payments) is very low. The Outstanding amount is only about 40 crores. Out of
this only about 40% was outstanding from policyholders. Due to shortage of
staff, it is not possible to adhere to the usual procedure of one employee each
for preparing, checking & passing the voucher. Resultantly, only two
instead of three employees do the job. Thus, the risk increases, so also the amount
of recovery from each employee. It is also not possible to check 100% payments
while adhering to the customers’ demand and our cut off dates. On one hand, we
expect the employees to meet the dead-lines of Claims settlement as well as
maintain ‘NIL’ ratio & on the other hand we expect that no errors should be
committed & manual calculations should be done. It is also expected that
while settling claims, even premium should be calculated. This is practically
impossible. We asked a simple question. If the Data Vigilance Module can detect
errors, then why care has not been taken to incorporate steps in the
programming so that errors do not occur at all? ED(P) was very positive on
this issue & said that he would be immediately talking to the IT
authorities in this matter.
D) Commencing Discussions on Charter of
Demands”:- The delegation has
once again raised this issue and demanded that the management should
immediately invite the unions for discussions on the charter. We submitted the
“Addendum to the Charter of Demand” in “Core Financial Issues on actual DA
applicable as on 1st August 2012 . We also reiterated that our charter should not be
linked with “Banking Sector”. ED (P) said
that the management was constantly following up this matter with the Ministry.
There were some practical problems & when the management would be in a
position to offer something it would invite the unions for discussions.
.
E) Class III recruitment & paucity
of cashiers:- We have again raised this issue and also reiterated
the need for it. The pressure of work in branches has increased manifold the
major brunt of the same has to be faced by the Class I officers. ED (P) replied
that some formula is being calculated to find out actual number of vacancies branch
wise & some data collection was going on. He said that Class III
recruitment was on the agenda of the management. We also raised the issue of
shortage of cashiers & demanded recruitment of personnel exclusively as
cashiers to ease the burden on the Class I Officers & to reduce the problems
in the branches. ED(P) was not very positive on this issue & expressed that
recruitment of Class III would be the best solution to this problem.
F) Mediclaim Subsidy for Class One
officers:- We once again
pointed out that while this subsidy was 3/4th for Class III, Class
IV & also retired employees(including retired Class I Officers), the
subsidy was 2/3rd for Class I Officers & strongly demanded that
the Class I Officers should also be granted 3/4th subsidy. ED (P) was very positive about this issue
& agreed to consider this demand shortly.
G) Compulsion of filing Property
returns for Class One officers:- We once again raised this issue
& expressed our dissatisfaction over the selective targeting of Class I
Officers. We also protested the fact that such filing of property returns has
been linked with the promotion & demanded that this condition should be
removed forthwith. We submitted that the purported logic behind such compulsion
was to have a check on corruption & also to check whether any person has
assets disproportionate to his income. We submitted that the origin of
corruption was in the mind & not depended on any cadre. ED (P) was not
positive on this issue. He said that
submission of the property returns is in the best interest of the officers and
especially for those who may occupy “key posts” in the organization. The
numbers of anonymous complaints against the officers in key post have increased
with the advent of RTI. He also told that unless and until any vigilance
complaint is raised by an authority like CBI, the packets of property returns
are not opened at all. He also appealed that the officers should give correct
information to safe guard one’s own interest.
H) Restriction on mail recipients: - We once again raised this issue & said that this
move on the part of the management to restrict the number of mail recipients
was undemocratic & gave rise to many practical problems. ED (P) assured to
examine this issue at a later date.
NOINO
would be following up these issues in the future. The future course of action
on the above issues would be decided shortly.
No comments:
Post a Comment