Thursday, April 25, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Monday, April 8, 2013
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Ad-hoc Appointment / Promotion — Review of – Regarding
No.28036/1/2012-Estt(D)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,
PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
& TRAINIING
North Block, New Delhi,
Dated the 3rd April, 2013
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Ad-hoc
Appointment / Promotion — Review of – Regarding.
The undersigned is
directed to say that as per the extant policy of the Government, all posts
are to be filled in accordance with provisions of the applicable Recruitment
Rules/Service Rules. As explained in this Department’s O.M.
No.28036/8/87-Estt.(D) dated 30.03.1988 read with O.M.
No.28036/1/2001-Estt.(D) dated 23.07.2001, promotions/ appointments on ad-
hoc basis are to be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances mentioned
therein, to a post which cannot be kept vacant in consideration of its functional/operational
requirement. In spite of these express provisions, it has come to the notice
of this Department that the Ministries/Departments are resorting to ad-hoc
arrangements in total disregard to the statutory provisions/instructions on
the subject as well as proper manpower management and career advancement of
the employees.
2. This Department has
been impressing upon all the Ministries/ Departments from time to time to
take adequate steps in advance so as to achieve the desired objective of
timely convening of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings and
preparing the approved select panels for regular appointments/promotions
within the prescribed time limits. However, at many a time, due to
non-adherence to the prescribed norms and procedures by the
Ministries/Departments, the approved select panel is not ready in time and
ad-hoc arrangements are resorted to. Some Ministries/Departments have taken
non-acceptance of their incomplete proposals for DPCs, by the UPSC, as the
reason for resorting to ad-hoc appointments. In this regard, as already
emphasized in this Department’s
O.M.
No.22011/3/2011-Estt.(D) dated 24.03.2011, it is reiterated that the
responsibility of sending the DPC proposals, complete in all respect, to the
UPSC, lies entirely on the administrative Ministries/ Departments
concerned.
3. Other reasons for
resorting to ad-hoc arrangements are absence/revision of Recruitment Rules,
disputed Seniority Lists etc. With regard to tackling the problem of absence
of RRs, it may be pointed out that the OM No. AB 14017/79/2006-Estt. (RR)
dated 6th September, 2007 provides that where no Recruitment Rules exist or
where the existing Recruitment Rules are repealed as per the prescribed
procedure, the option of approaching the UPSC for one time method would be
available. These instructions further provide that it will not be feasible or
advisable for the UPSC to suggest one time method of recruitment in cases
where Recruitment Rules exist even if they are perceived as unworkable. In
such situations, the administrative Ministries/Departments will have to
process necessary amendments required in the Recruitment Rules and,
thereafter, initiate the recruitment process.
4. Ad-hoc
appointments/promotions should be made only in rare cases and for exigencies
of work, where the post cannot be kept vacant until regular candidate becomes
available. Persons appointed on ad-hoc basis to a grade are to be replaced by
persons approved for regular appointment by direct recruitment, promotion or
deputation, as the case may be, at the earliest opportunity. As already
provided in this Department’s O.M. No.28036/1/2001- Estt.(D) dated
23.07.2001, no appointment shall be made on ad-hoc basis by direct
recruitment from open market. Where the vacant post cannot be kept vacant for
functional considerations, efforts are required to be made to entrust the
additional charge of the post to a serving officer under provisions of FR-49,
failing which only appointment by ad-hoc promotion/ad-hoc deputation is to be
considered in terms of provisions of this Department’s O.M.
No.28036/8/87-Estt.(D) dated 30.03.1988.
5. As already provided in
this Department’s O.M. No.22011/3/75-Estt.(D) dated 29th October, 1975, and
reiterated in O.M. No.28036/8/87-Estt.(D) dated 30.03.1988 and O.M.
No.28036/1/2001-Estt.(D) dated 23.07.2001, an ad-hoc appointment does not
bestow on the person a claim for regular appointment and the service rendered
on ad-hoc basis in the grade concerned also does not count for the purpose of
seniority in that grade and for eligibility for promotion to the next higher
grade. As per existing provisions, these facts are to be clearly spelt out in
the orders of the ad-hoc promotions/ ad-hoc appointments. Therefore, such
ad-hoc arrangements are neither in the interest of the individuals nor the
organizations concerned. It is, thus, not appropriate to resort to ad-hoc
arrangements in a routine manner.
6. As per existing
instructions vide O.M. No.28036/8/87-Estt.(D) dated 30.03.1988 and O.M.
No.28036/1/2001-Estt.(D) dated 23.07.2001, the total period for which the
appointment/ promotion may be made, on an ad-hoc basis, keeping in view the
exceptionalities anticipated in these OMs, by the respective Ministries/
Departments, is limited to one year only. These instructions further provide
that in case of compulsions for extending any ad- hoc appointment/promotion
beyond one year, the approval of the Department of Personnel and Training is
to be sought at least two months in advance before the expiry of the one year
period. Also, if the approval of the Department of Personnel & Training
to the continuance of the ad-hoc arrangement beyond one year is not received
before the expiry of the one year period, the ad-hoc appointment/promotion
shall automatically cease on the expiry of the one year term. Notwithstanding
these provisions, instances have come to notice of this Department where
Ministries/ Departments have continued ad-hoc arrangements beyond one year
without express approval of this Department, and later on, approached this
Department to seek ex-post facto approval for continuation of such
arrangements. It is reiterated that continuation of any ad-hoc arrangement
beyond one year and release of pay and allowances for the same, without
express approval of this Department is not in order.
7. This Department vide
O.M. No.39036/02/2007- Estt.(B) dated 14.11.2008, has requested all the
Ministries/ Departments to comply with the regulation-4 of the UPSC (Exemption
from Consultation) Regulations, 1958, which provide that if a temporary or
officiating arrangement made by ad-hoc appointment to a post falling within
the purview of UPSC is likely to continue for a period of more than one year
from the date of appointment, the Commission shall immediately be consulted
in regard to filling up of the post. For this purpose, the
Ministries/Departments are required to furnish monthly and six-monthly
returns to the Commission showing all such Group ‘A’ and S’
Gazetted appointments and
promotions made without reference to the Commission, as emphasized in this
Department’s OM No. 39021/1/94-Estt.(B) dated 22.07.1994. These instructions
are again reiterated and all the Ministries/Departments are requested to
ensure that requisite returns are furnished to the Union Public Service
Commission as per the time schedule prescribed so as to effectively monitor
the ad-hoc appointments being resorted to by various Ministries/Departments
without consulting the UPSC.
8. All the administrative
Ministries/Departments are requested to review the ad-hoc
appointments/promotions made by them, from time to time, and at least once a
year, on the basis of the guidelines and instructions in force, so as to
bring down the instances of such ad-hoc manpower arrangements to the barest
minimum, in respect of both Secretariat as well as non-Secretariat offices
under them.
sd/-
(Pushpender Kumar)
Under Secretary to the
Government of India
Monday, April 1, 2013
Consolidated instructions relating to action warranted against Government servants remaining away from duty without authorisation / grant of leave — Rule position
No. 13026/3/2012-Estt (Leave)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)
New Delhi, the 28th March, 2013.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject:- Consolidated instructions relating to action warranted
against Government servants remaining away from
duty without authorisation / grant of leave — Rule position.
The undersigned is directed to say that various references are being
received from Ministries/Departments seeking advice/post facto
regularisation of unauthorised absence. It has been observed that due
seriousness is not being accorded by the administrative authorities to
the various rule provisions inter alia under the CCS(Leave) Rules, 1972,
for taking immediate and appropriate action against Government servants
staying away from duty without prior sanction of leave or overstaying
the periods of sanctioned leave. It is reiterated
that such absence is unauthorised and warrants prompt and stringent
action as per rules. It has been observed that concerned administrative
authorities do not follow the prescribed procedure for dealing with such
unauthorised absence.
2. In view of this, attention of all Ministries/Departments is invited
to the various provisions of the relevant rules, as indicated in the
following paragraphs for strict adherence in situations of unauthorised
absence of Government servants. It is also suggested that these
provisions may be brought to the notice of all the employees so as to
highlight the consequences which may visit if a Government servant is on
unauthorised absence. The present OM intends to provide ready reference
points in respect of the relevant provisions, hence it is advised that
the relevant rules, as are being cited below, are referred to by the
competent authorities for appropriate and judicious application. The
relevant provisions which may be kept in mind while considering such
cases are indicated as follows:
(a) Proviso to FR 17(1)
The said provision stipulates that an officer who is absent from duty
without any authority shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances
during the period of such absence.
(b) FR 17-A
The said provision inter alla provides that where an individual employee
remains absent unauthorisedly or deserts the post, the period of such
absence shall be deemed to cause an interruption or break in service of
the employee, unless otherwise decided by thecompetent authority for the
purpose of leave travel concession and eligibility for appearing in
departmental examinations, for which a minimum period of service is
required.
(c) Rule 25 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972
The said provision addresses the situation where an employee overstays
beyond the sanctioned leave of the kind due and admissible and the
competent authority has not approved such extension. The consequences
that flow from such refusal of extension of leave include that:
i. the Government servant shall not be entitled to any leave salary for such absence
ii the period shall be debited against his leave account as though it
were half pay leave to the extent such leave is due, the period in
excess of such leave is due being treated as extraordinary leave
iii wilful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liableto disciplinary action.
With respect to (iii) above, it may be stated that all Ministries/
Departments are requested to ensure that in all cases of unauthorised
absence by a Government servant, he should be informed of the
consequences of such absence and be directed to rejoin duty
immediately/within a specified period, say within three days, failing
which he would be liable for disciplinary action under CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965. It may be stressed that a Government servant who remains absent
without any authority should be proceeded against immediately and this
should not be put off till the absence exceeds the limit prescribe under
the various provisions of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and the disciplinary
case should be conducted and concluded as quickly as possible.
(d) Rule 32(6) of the CCS (Leave) RuIe, 1972
This provision allows the authority competent to grant leave, to commute
retrospectively periods of absence without leave into extraordinary
leave under Rule 32(6) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. A similar provision
also exists under rule 27(2) of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. It may
please be ensured that discretion allowed under these provisions is
exercised judiciously, keeping in view the circumstances and merits of
each individual case. The period of absence so regularised by grant of
extra ordinary leave shall normally not count for the purpose of
increments and for the said purpose it shall be regulated by provisions
of FR 26(b) (ii).
3. All Ministries/ Departments should initiate appropriate action against delinquent Government servants as per rules.
4. Hindi version will follow.
sd/-
(Mukesh Chaturvedi)
Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
