Orders issued a couple of days ago bifurcating Home Dept. staff between TS, AP
The latest order issued by the Central government allocating employees of the Home Department between the two successor Telugu States has come as disappointment to the State government officials.
The Central government has issued orders allocating employees of the cadre of Superintendents of Police non-cadre, additional SPs (civil) and deputy SPs (civil) between the two States a couple of days ago along with the lists of employees allocated to the successor States.
Telangana State Home Department officials are however aggrieved that the order was issued overruling an important clause in the allotment guidelines which could adversely impact the seniority and promotion opportunities of employees allotted to the State.
Officials are quoting Section 18 (o) of the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training of the Central government which should be kept in mind while making allocation between the two States. The clause read: “Cadre composition with reference to direct recruits/promotes and recruitment by transfer and reserved categories of persons as on the appointed day (observed percentage of reservations for different groups) may as far as practicable be kept in view while allocating personnel in the two cadres.”
“The Centre, however, did not consider the State’s request for implementation of the guideline and it has in fact overruled the request,” a senior official told The Hindu. Officials lamented that there were more number of employees than the sanctioned posts and there was already anguish among the employees over allocation of posts to people of AP origin.
The State had already raised its grievance with the Centre government over the seniority list prepared by the neighbouring State which is “unilateral”. The grievance is yet to be addressed and the Centre had issued orders allocating employees which could adversely affect interests of staff of Telangana origin.
The orders, senior officials said, followed a judgment of the High Court in which it termed as “distressing” the delay in final allocation causing uncertainty in the minds of the officials who had been tentatively allocated.
Source: Read Full Article