.jpeg)
The Department issued orders vide File No. 4-7/ (MACPS)/2009-PCC dated 18.9.2009 financial up gradations under the new modified Assured Career progressive scheme for 10,20 and 30 years of continuous regular service, in place of TBOP and BCR. But the experience, where the DPCs were held for MACP, it is a different experience. 50% to 80% of the officials did not get the financial up gradation based on the ACRs for the last five years.
The ACRs in the divisional level for the period for assessment were written very casually and every official was graded as Average, satisfactory etc which are invalid. The officials in the Group C cadre got TBOP and BCR by surrendering posts as a matching savings. When they are equated with other Central Govt. employees by way of MACP the inefficiency of authorities and their callousness in grading the performance has now come in the way of the promotions. Many appointing authorities do not know the particulars of officials whose performance they graded. This is another bolt in blue for the career of the officials. In fact the officials who are ignored of the promotions are the best performers in all the schemes, but for their grading in ACRs which are casual.
The DOPT in its order No. 21011/1/2005-Estt. (A) dt. 6.01.2010 clarified clearly about the ACRs prior to the reporting period 2008-09, the existing grading shall be blocked. (The order is published below.)
It is high time for the competent authorities holding the DPCs to act in the spirit of these orders. The Directorate also should circulate these orders with clear clairifications. The CHQ will do all its best. The Circle Secretaries are also requested to meet the Director of Postal Services/PMsG/CPMsG concerned and apprise them of the DOP&T order on this subject and see that officials are not affected due to the benchmark mentioned above.
Let us hope the better judgment prevail at all levels.
DOPT No.21011/1/2005- Estt. (A) dated the 6th January, 2010
Subject: - Effect on modification/expunction of adverse remarks in the ACRs and up gradation/down-gradation of overall grading in the ACRs prior to the period 2008-2009.
The undersigned is directed to say that instructions were issued vide O.M. of even number dated 14th May, 2009 by which the complete APAR (previously known as ACR) including the overall grading and assessment of integrity shall be communicated to the concerned officer for representation if any, with effect from the reporting period 2008-09 which was to be initiated from1.4.2008. Prior to that only adverse remark in the ACR were required to be communicated for representation, if any. The then existing instructions further provided that the overall grading in the ACR should remain unchanged even after modification or expunction of the entire adverse remarks. It was left to the DPCto re-determine the overall grading if it considered that the expunction of such adverse remarks had so altered the quality of the ACR. The matter has been further considered and it has been decided that in those cases where the reckonable ACRs prior to the reporting period 2008-09 are to be considered in a future DPC on which the adverse remarks of Reporting/Reviewing/Accepting Authorities have been expunged or modified by the Competent Authority, the “overall grading” in the ACR be kept blank for appropriate re-grading by the DPCs. The existing grading shall be blocked in such cases. It has also been decided that where the authority has upgraded/downgraded the overall grading without giving sufficient reasons, the DPC shall treat such an exercise as non-est/invalid. General terms, such as “I agree or disagree with the Reporting Officer/ Reviewing Officer” used by the Reviewing/Accepting Authority shall not be construed as sufficient reason for upgrading/downgrading the overall grading given by the Reporting Authority/Reviewing Authority. The proposals for the DPC where ACRs up to the reporting period 2007-08 will be taken into account should specifically bring out these guidelines.
2. It is also made clear that past cases already decided will not be re-opened.
DOPT No.21011/1/2005- Estt. (A) dated the 6th January, 2010
Subject: - Effect on modification/expunction of adverse remarks in the ACRs and up gradation/down-gradation of overall grading in the ACRs prior to the period 2008-2009.
The undersigned is directed to say that instructions were issued vide O.M. of even number dated 14th May, 2009 by which the complete APAR (previously known as ACR) including the overall grading and assessment of integrity shall be communicated to the concerned officer for representation if any, with effect from the reporting period 2008-09 which was to be initiated from1.4.2008. Prior to that only adverse remark in the ACR were required to be communicated for representation, if any. The then existing instructions further provided that the overall grading in the ACR should remain unchanged even after modification or expunction of the entire adverse remarks. It was left to the DPCto re-determine the overall grading if it considered that the expunction of such adverse remarks had so altered the quality of the ACR. The matter has been further considered and it has been decided that in those cases where the reckonable ACRs prior to the reporting period 2008-09 are to be considered in a future DPC on which the adverse remarks of Reporting/Reviewing/Accepting Authorities have been expunged or modified by the Competent Authority, the “overall grading” in the ACR be kept blank for appropriate re-grading by the DPCs. The existing grading shall be blocked in such cases. It has also been decided that where the authority has upgraded/downgraded the overall grading without giving sufficient reasons, the DPC shall treat such an exercise as non-est/invalid. General terms, such as “I agree or disagree with the Reporting Officer/ Reviewing Officer” used by the Reviewing/Accepting Authority shall not be construed as sufficient reason for upgrading/downgrading the overall grading given by the Reporting Authority/Reviewing Authority. The proposals for the DPC where ACRs up to the reporting period 2007-08 will be taken into account should specifically bring out these guidelines.
2. It is also made clear that past cases already decided will not be re-opened.
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
