Counting of services paid from contingencies with regular service for retirement benefits of railway employees who have put in such service – reg.
National Federation of Indian Railwaymen
3, CHELMSFORD ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 055
Affiliated to :
Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC)
International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF)
No. II/35/Pt. 11 Dated: 09/03/2015
The Secretary (E),
Sub: Counting of services paid from contingencies with regular service for retirement benefits of railway employees who have put in such service – reg.
Ref: (i) NFIR’s PNM Item No. 27/2011 & 3/2013.
(ii) Ministry of Railway’s OM No. E(NG)II/2014/CL/14 dated 25/11/2014 to the Secretary, DoP&T, North Block, New Delhi.
(iii) NFIR’s letter No. II/35/Part. 11 dated 07/01/2015.
(iv) Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, DoP&T OM No. Misc- 14017/6/2015 – Estt(RR), Dy. No. 1066914/15/CR dated 26/02/2015 addressed to Secretary, Railway Board, New Delhi & copy endorsed to the General Secretary, NFIR.
The Secretary, DoP&T, North Block, New Delhi while enclosing copy of NFIR’s letter No. II/35/Part. 11 dated 07/01/2015, has addressed letter to the Secretary, Railway Board (OM dated 26/02/2015), wherein the Railway Ministry has been advised to send the proposal in accordance with the procedure laid down in DoP&T OM No. 2034/2/2010 – Estt. (D) dated 13th August, 2010.
Federation also desires to state that the issue was discussed in the NFIR’s PNM meeting held with the Railway Board on 19th/20th December, 2014 wherein the Official Side while discussing PNM Item No. 27/2011 & 3/2013 had stated that the subject matter has been referred to the DoP&T vide OM dated 25/11/2014 whose response was awaited. However the DoP&T’s OM dated 26/02/2015 reveals that the Railway Ministry has not sent proposal in the prescribed format. For ready reference copy of DoP&T OM dated 26/02/2015 is enclosed.
NFIR, therefore, requests the Railway Board to kindly see that proper proposal is sent to the DoP&T duly endorsing copy to the Federation. The matter may be treated as important in view of the fact that the PNM item is pending since four years.
(Dr. M. Raghavaiah)