You are Visitor No:

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Objection, addition/ deletion in clauses of New Revised Draft Transfer Policy SAMPLE of SPOUSE CASE Received

Suggestion 1.


UNDER  2. Guiding/ Basic Principles


Modification of (t)  i)   Request Transfer on Spouse ground:     



                                                to insert clauses  f, g, h after clause (e)      


f) Vacancy position should be displayed by the Samiti in the website. Couples desiring  posting  under Unification of Spouses category , orders  ought to be  straightway  issued  for filling up of thoseVacancies, prior to transfer of employees in other categories., and after filling up of vacancies by those returning from NER & Hard & Very Hard stations. This Spouse category of  employees  are  not  required  to participate in further counselling process., just like those for North East( NER) & Hard & Very Hard stations, category.


 g)They should not be waiting till the commencement of online counselling session, but unification of spouses should be and could be done anytime of the year.


   h) Vacancies,if not should be created by invoking the displacement count, especially if the present employee in that place , where either of the spouse desires,  has served therein for more than 10 years


Justication:  1.Spouse got married recently  need not wait for one year for unification                                         

                      2. Their vacancy would be blocked by other categories., if not done prior to  

                      3. They can work  more dedicatedly , lead a normal family life,and have more job  

                        4.Vacant posts need not lie vacant till online counselling , it should  not be affecting students’ studies.




Suggestion 2



Insert  e) To unify the spouse in NVS/JNV, under d of 6. ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES


                  Justification: The objectives of 'Administrative transfer' and 'Displacement' ,should be the same, i.e  the  paras showing the objectives or rather  the clauses should be the same ( ibid 11 A. 3)


1 comment :

Kheda J.N.V. said...