OUR CHQ Seeks Further Clarification on MACP & its Speedy implementation

Ref: P/4-1/MACP Dated – 07.12.2010

To,

Sri. P. K. Gopinath
Member (P)
Department of Posts
Dak Bhawan New Delhi – 110001

Sir,
Sub: - Delay and irregularities in implementations of Modified Assured career progression scheme clarification regarding.
Ref: - Yr. letter no. 4-7 (MACPs)/2009-PCC dt. 18.10.2010.
While thanking the kind gesture in clarifying all the vital issues on MACP, we wish to bring the following to your kind notice for further clarifications.
(i) Under clarification no. 4 in the orders cited above in the reference, it was clarified that such cases where due date of financial upgradation proceeds the refusal for regular promotion, financial upgradation under MACPs shall be allowed.
So far our demand in this point is concerned that since the orders on MACP was issued on 18.09.2009 stipulating the said conditions, the officials who declined regular promotions in between 1.9.2008 to 18.9.2009 prior to the issue of orders should be considered and their earlier declination to regular promotions should not be a bar for MACP or postponing their financial upgradations. During discussions it was agreed earlier to consider.
(ii) While clarifying item no 5, it is mentioned interalia:
“Similarly the officials who were facing disciplinary action as on the date of their upgradation can only be not considered.’
It requires to be linked with the latest DOPT & Trg OM No. 22012/1/99 – Estt (D) in which it is clarified under para 3 as follows:
“No promotion can be withheld merely on the basis of suspicion or doubt or where the matter is under preliminary investigation and has not reached the stage of issue of charge sheet etc.”
If this provision is added in the MACP clarifications, many officials will get their due promotions since in many cases, the MACP has not been granted merely on the ground of prima facie cases, or preliminary enquiry etc. The copy of the DOPT OM is enclosed for ready reference.
(iii)The Screening Committees for scrutinizing the confidential reports for the preceding five years in case of officials who have not been granted MACP earlier due to application of bench mark as directed vide Directorate letter No. 4-7(MACPs)/2009-PCC dt. 1.9.2010 have not been constituted so far in many circles even though the maximum period was prescribed one month. In most of the circles, due to non formation of screening Committee and lack of directions to the divisional heads to review/reconsider the left out cases compulsorily, nothing is moving and deprived officials could not get the fruit of the prudent Postal Board’s decision on this major issue.
It is requested to kindly consider the above and cause appropriate clarifications and orders at the earliest.
With profound regards,
DA: as above
Yours sincerely,

(K. V. Sridharan)
General Secretary