ANNUAL PAR 2012-13

The Chairman                                                       17/04/2012                          
NABARD
Head Office
Mumbai


Dear Sir,

                                       Annual PAR -2012-13

Please refer to Banks IOM NO. Ref.No. NB.HRMD PA/180 /SFS 1/2012-13 dated 12 April 2012 on the captioned subject. In this connection, the following is very humbly brought to your kind notice-
That as per the discussions held on 31/01/2012 during the Annual Discussions and on the calling of HRMD, NBOA has forwarded a detailed suggestive PAR format to HRMD. We were made to understand that a meeting will be convened so as to finalise the revised PAR system based on NBOA's suggestion ,suggestions received from individual officers and as per the organisational needs as perceived by HRMD. However, the said meeting never took place.

1. NBOA's major reservations were on evaluating the officers based on KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) without assigning them a clear cut job profile and key assignments as at the start of the performance year.

2. More so, NBOA was also very apprehensive on the inclusion of the clause 'Suitability of an officer to continue in services...'in the PAR format.

Now in the revised PAR system it has been observed that clause on 'suitability to continue in services...' has been done away with only for those officers who are upto the age of 50 years and are also not on probation. Meaning thereby that almost 60-65% of the officers continue in the ambit of this qualifying clause making them (excluding probationers) vulnerable for an uncertain future every year for 10 years. In this regards, we once again request you to reconsider the decision of including this clause in the PAR format because-

There already is in place a well laid down and time tested system of retirement review and efficiency evaluation of officers above the age of 50 years . This is being currently undertaken by 'Screening Committee' based on the PARs recorded by the reporting officer and also other factors which the committee may take into account. Giving a blanket freedom to all the reporting officers to comment on this serious aspect of the very existence of one's career/service may lead to unpleasant situations among the officers fraternity.

Retirement Reviews and Efficiency evaluations after a prescribed age limit are being independently looked into by very senior and experienced officers in the banking industry, including RBI, and it doesn't form the core of Annual PAR reporting.

As such, we request a re-look on this aspect and accordingly effect modification of the PAR format being put in place effective 2012-13.

Yours Sincerely,

----sd--------

(Dr D S Chauhan)
General Secretary