The Committee

Chief Patron: Shri Anil Shastri, Special Invitee, Congress Working Committee (CWC), Patron: Amitabh Lall, Advisor: D K Mazumdar, President: Dr P K Maheshwari, Vice Presidents: Amlan Das and A K Dikshit, General Secretary: Dr D S Chauhan, Organising Secretary: A K S Chauhan, Treasurer: Milind K Gupte, Zonal Secretaries: Mithileshwar Jha (North), Rajesh Kumar Meena (Central), Shrikant Zhambre (West), Ranjit Kumar Sinha (South), Sanjay Kumar Gupta (East), A K Gogoi (North East), Executive Committee Members: Ganesh, P C Suresh Babu, Hemant Patil, Manojit Biswas, N C Parikh and Smt. Urvashi Garg

Saturday, 29 March 2014

Letter to the Bank on Transfer Policy

Chief General Manager (HRMD)                                                                     28/03/2014
NABARD, Head office
Mumbai

Dear Sir,
                      Transfer Policy 2014 - Guiding Principles thereof

We request a reference to the captioned subject matter and we would like to express our gratitude to the bank for initiating steps to evolve an officers friendly transfer and posting policy with a human face without compromising on the aspects of organizational requirements.  In order to further refine the process we would request you to consider the following suggestions from AINBOA-

  1. Postings at Srinagar Cell of the office may be delinked from Jammu and it may be considered at par with NE postings in view of the drastically different situations (geographical, weather based, political and social) prevailing in the Srinagar region.
  2. The DR officers who have completed their first posting tenure of 3 years and are desirous of being considered for a posting at the choice centre as per the old policy may not be denied this opportunity in all fairness of things as their batch mates have already got benefited on this aspect under the old policy.
  3. GoI Instructions to banks and PSUs on placement/posting of physically challenged officers be made part of the policy.
  4. The LOS and/or tenure of DDM posting may be made at par with that of the LOS applicable for their governing RO. Ex. the tenure of a non domiciled DDM posted in a remote district of Bihar or Jharkhand is 5 years but that of an non domiciled officer posted at Patna or Ranchi is for 4 years.
  5. We feel happy to note that our long pending request of NOT to post grade ‘A’ officers as DDMs has been accepted by the bank. On similar analogy we request removal of all contract officers posted as DDMs under the designation of Project Managers.
  6. Only those lady officers be posted as DDMs who are willing to take up this primarily field level responsibility and in order to broad base their choice for DDM posting they may be given a choice of opting for the district/s (instead of state).
  7. Preference may be given to Senior officers (grade D and above) who have NOT spent even a single posting in their home centre for being posted to their centre of choice.
  8. In order to have a workable and conducive operational environment between bank and AINBOA, bank may consider posting of at-least one principal office-bearer (President or GS) at Mumbai.

Thanking You
Yours Sincerely,


(Dr D S Chauhan)

General Secretary

1 comment:

  1. Dear Sir,

    Sub:- Transfer Process 2014- issues of concern

    As you are well aware, transfer process for Grad 'A', 'B' &'C is going on/completed (not sure). In this write up the First transfer list published in NABNET is referred to as 'I list' & individual orders being issued based on representations is referred to us 'individual orders'. I am very eager to know association's stance on the following issues pertaining to the said Transfer process:

    1. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY
    After the publishing of I list in NABNET, Representations were called for and subsequently HRMD has been issuing individual orders of transfers to ROs. What is the harm in making the transfers of its own staff transparent through publishing in NABNET as was the procedure followed in last few years. Is this practice of secret orders advisable for an organization known for its transparency and accountability ?

    2. ABERRATIONS IN THE APPLICATION OF TRANSFER NORMS

    a. LENGTH OF STAY :Though the Transfer guideline dated 28 February stipulated 'Length of Stay' for Grade A, B & C as 5 years, it was evident from the I transfer list that '5 year policy' was not uniformly followed.

    b. GROUND OF TRANSFER
    Discrepancies were observed in consideration of the 'Grounds of transfer'. For example in case of DRs of 2010 batch, many were granted transfer on the ground of 'Joining working Spouse', while few others were denied. If lack of vacancy for Grade 'A' in the destination ROs was the reason for said denial, how other 'Grade A's were transferred to these same ROs through 'individual orders', later ?

    Is there any model to calculate vacancy in ROs? If yes, can't it made transparent to ?

    3. ROLE/VOICE OF AINBOA IN HR matters like Transfer
    Association's efforts in ensuring employee friendly HR policies over years is well appreciated. However, how far it was effective in ensuring equitable justice for all its officers in Transfer process 2014.?

    It is humbly requested that AINBOA take RO wise feedback on the issues concerning Transfer process 2014 , consolidate and communicate the same to the management, URGENTLY, to ensure equitable justice for all its staff in HR matters including transfer.

    ReplyDelete

Comments posted without Name, UIN, Designation, Place of Posting (RO/HO/District) and nabard.org e-mail id will not be posted.

Moderation of Comments may take some time before being posted on the blog.