Plrease read this posted on this forum by nidhi seth
Grievance-handling is a very important and sensitive area of the government’s work profile. It is, none-the-less, an area that is, at best, taken for granted and, at worst, grossly neglected by the service providers as it does not fall into the category of "urgent matters". Its importance is very often not appreciated by those who ought to recognise the value of grievances in order to develop a diagnosis of what ails a Government Ministry, Department or agency. There is, perhaps, a reasonable justification for this perception of the grievance-handling mechanism among the citizens at large. Every grievance points to a missed pulse beat somewhere in the organisation, and when grievance-prone areas are identified and analysed, it can frequently prevent "cardiac arrest" or avoid a "moment of truth" for the organisation. One does not have to await public interest litigations and contempt proceedings in a court of law before addressing grievances and grievance-prone areas.
There are specific factors that make for a sound complaints-handling system. It should ideally be accessible, simple, quick and fair. It should also respect confidentiality, be responsive, effective and accountable. It should provide feedback to management for systemic reform.
The mechanism for grievance-handling and its redress in the Government of India attempts to cover all these parameters through a set of guidelines issued by the nodal agency for poilicy formulation on grievance handling, namely, the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG).
Accessibility
Grievance-handling is decentralised and grievances are settled independently by each Ministry, Department or agency. There is a provision for accessibility of publicly notified Grievance Officers to meet the aggrieved persons at specified times and on specified days of the week. Telephone numbers and contact addresses of the Grievance Officers are widely publicised. Complaint boxes are placed at or near the reception desks. Information and Facilitation Counters (IFCs) have been set up by the organisations with a large public interface.
Simplicity
The streamlining of complaints-handling is essential and, though an outline of the Government’s requirements to assess a grievance is publicised, no strict proforma for application is laid down. Nodal agencies, like the DAPRG, the Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare (DP&PW) and the Directorate of Public Grievance (DPG) in the Cabinet Secretariat facilitate the setting up of grievance mechanisms by Government bodies and monitor the movement and disposal of individual grievances on a selective basis.
Speed
Time limits have to be fixed and notified for grievance-handling and final disposal by each organisation. The DAPRG has recommended 15 days for acknowledgement and three months for interim reply or final disposal and reply.
Fairness
It is not as easy as it sounds, as it requires balancing fairness towards the complainant with fairness towards the organisation and the individual complained against. Perception of fairness can vary sometimes even in the face of true impartiality. Transparency on the part of the decision-making and implementing authority goes a long way towards ensuring fairness.
Confidentiality
It needs to be maintained in all cases, particularly in matters such as dispute settlement in land-revenue or police cases. With the increasing use of information technology, provisions for maintaining confidentiality are being built into grievance software too.
A reply to any grievance must cover all points raised and not address the grievance partially. Moreover, if an application is rejected, the reasons for such rejection must be made explicit. If there is any follow-up action, it must be pursued. This is not to say that such consideration is to be given to frivolous or fictitious complaints or to those which are persistently repeated, despite a well argued final reply having been sent.
In order to be effective, the grievance redress mechanism should provide specific remedies. Remedies vary from compensations and refunds to repairs and replacements, from giving requisite information to tendering an apology. The concept of providing remedies requires a paradigm shift from an inherently defensive stance to one which is based on reaching out with goodwill to the aggrieved person. It also requires a degree of sensitive handling and can differ from case to case. Remedies also work towards ensuring both organisational and individual accountability.
An accountable grievance-handling system is open to scrutiny by clients, government and agency staff. Agencies can make their grievance redress mechanism more accountable by publishing information on the system and service delivery standards, and reporting on the outcomes of complaints and citizen satisfaction levels in annual reports and other public documents.
Grievances are an indicator of the agency’s health and require regular trend analysis. For this purpose, a monitoring mechanism is prescribed in each Government organisation and monitoring and evaluation is undertaken from time to time by the nodal agencies too. Recommendations for systemic changes are made on the basis of such analysis and lead to simplification or improvement of procedures.
Prevention being decidedly better than cure, it was decided to make the exercise of service delivery and grievance handling a proactive one by adopting the concept of the Citizens’ Charter initiated in UK in 1991. This was endorsed in 1998 and renamed Service First. The Service First Unit in the Cabinet Office in UK coordinates and monitors the implementation of the various national and local Charters in UK and issues the Charter Mark Award to service providers for excellence in performance. The Charter, whereever it has been adopted (for instance UK, Canada and Malaysia), continues to remain a non-justiciable document embodying the trust between the service provider and its user and it has proved to be an effective vehicle for information dissemination, indicating service delivery commitments and grievance redress mechanisms.
The word "citizen", as used in the Charters, is a generic term to indicate all the stakeholders to whom a service is available. It does not mean the public at large. The Citizens’ Charter, therefore, addresses its commitments directly to its users, stating standards of service, imparting information, providing a channel for grievance redress and an avenue for user evaluation and feedback. In the Indian adaptation of the Charter concept, the obligations of the users, if any, have also been added, because awareness building is a two-way street. On the one hand, there is the need to sensitise the service provider and, on the other, it is necessary to create a climate of civic and social responsibility among "citizens", not merely "consumers" or "customers".
There could be National and State-level Charters, which are in effect the parent Charters, with local agency or Charters at the cutting edge. This could evolve in such cases as the Charters for the users of the railways, telephones and posts. In some cases the concerned nodal Central Ministry may prepare a model
Charter which can then be adapted with local variations for individual agencies, such as hospitals, public distribution systems and educational institutions. These can be fine-tuned according to actual services delivered and local conditions. Further, at every annual review, more services or more stringent standards of services can be added. So far 61 Charters have been formulated by the Central Government agencies. Similarly, over 100 Charters have been issued by various States and Union Territories. These are at difference stages of implementation.
Implementation of the Charters by the respective organisations is a major task, covering vast distances and manpower. It, therefore, needs a monumental and sustained effort at training, orientation, publicity and awareness building, as well as regular and honest evaluation, to transform the Charter from a significant piece of paper into an instrument for changing long-entrenched values and mindset. Creating a platform of interests between the service provider and its users is the first step, balancing the strengths and constraints of the former against the reasonable expectations of the latter is the next. The success of each Charter depends largely on the accuracy with which that platform of common interest is targeted, thereby, endowing credibility on the service provider and creating confidence in the user.
From India, Delhi
58Grievance-handling is a very important and sensitive area of the government’s work profile. It is, none-the-less, an area that is, at best, taken for granted and, at worst, grossly neglected by the service providers as it does not fall into the category of "urgent matters". Its importance is very often not appreciated by those who ought to recognise the value of grievances in order to develop a diagnosis of what ails a Government Ministry, Department or agency. There is, perhaps, a reasonable justification for this perception of the grievance-handling mechanism among the citizens at large. Every grievance points to a missed pulse beat somewhere in the organisation, and when grievance-prone areas are identified and analysed, it can frequently prevent "cardiac arrest" or avoid a "moment of truth" for the organisation. One does not have to await public interest litigations and contempt proceedings in a court of law before addressing grievances and grievance-prone areas.
There are specific factors that make for a sound complaints-handling system. It should ideally be accessible, simple, quick and fair. It should also respect confidentiality, be responsive, effective and accountable. It should provide feedback to management for systemic reform.
The mechanism for grievance-handling and its redress in the Government of India attempts to cover all these parameters through a set of guidelines issued by the nodal agency for poilicy formulation on grievance handling, namely, the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG).
Accessibility
Grievance-handling is decentralised and grievances are settled independently by each Ministry, Department or agency. There is a provision for accessibility of publicly notified Grievance Officers to meet the aggrieved persons at specified times and on specified days of the week. Telephone numbers and contact addresses of the Grievance Officers are widely publicised. Complaint boxes are placed at or near the reception desks. Information and Facilitation Counters (IFCs) have been set up by the organisations with a large public interface.
Simplicity
The streamlining of complaints-handling is essential and, though an outline of the Government’s requirements to assess a grievance is publicised, no strict proforma for application is laid down. Nodal agencies, like the DAPRG, the Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare (DP&PW) and the Directorate of Public Grievance (DPG) in the Cabinet Secretariat facilitate the setting up of grievance mechanisms by Government bodies and monitor the movement and disposal of individual grievances on a selective basis.
Speed
Time limits have to be fixed and notified for grievance-handling and final disposal by each organisation. The DAPRG has recommended 15 days for acknowledgement and three months for interim reply or final disposal and reply.
Fairness
It is not as easy as it sounds, as it requires balancing fairness towards the complainant with fairness towards the organisation and the individual complained against. Perception of fairness can vary sometimes even in the face of true impartiality. Transparency on the part of the decision-making and implementing authority goes a long way towards ensuring fairness.
Confidentiality
It needs to be maintained in all cases, particularly in matters such as dispute settlement in land-revenue or police cases. With the increasing use of information technology, provisions for maintaining confidentiality are being built into grievance software too.
A reply to any grievance must cover all points raised and not address the grievance partially. Moreover, if an application is rejected, the reasons for such rejection must be made explicit. If there is any follow-up action, it must be pursued. This is not to say that such consideration is to be given to frivolous or fictitious complaints or to those which are persistently repeated, despite a well argued final reply having been sent.
In order to be effective, the grievance redress mechanism should provide specific remedies. Remedies vary from compensations and refunds to repairs and replacements, from giving requisite information to tendering an apology. The concept of providing remedies requires a paradigm shift from an inherently defensive stance to one which is based on reaching out with goodwill to the aggrieved person. It also requires a degree of sensitive handling and can differ from case to case. Remedies also work towards ensuring both organisational and individual accountability.
An accountable grievance-handling system is open to scrutiny by clients, government and agency staff. Agencies can make their grievance redress mechanism more accountable by publishing information on the system and service delivery standards, and reporting on the outcomes of complaints and citizen satisfaction levels in annual reports and other public documents.
Grievances are an indicator of the agency’s health and require regular trend analysis. For this purpose, a monitoring mechanism is prescribed in each Government organisation and monitoring and evaluation is undertaken from time to time by the nodal agencies too. Recommendations for systemic changes are made on the basis of such analysis and lead to simplification or improvement of procedures.
Prevention being decidedly better than cure, it was decided to make the exercise of service delivery and grievance handling a proactive one by adopting the concept of the Citizens’ Charter initiated in UK in 1991. This was endorsed in 1998 and renamed Service First. The Service First Unit in the Cabinet Office in UK coordinates and monitors the implementation of the various national and local Charters in UK and issues the Charter Mark Award to service providers for excellence in performance. The Charter, whereever it has been adopted (for instance UK, Canada and Malaysia), continues to remain a non-justiciable document embodying the trust between the service provider and its user and it has proved to be an effective vehicle for information dissemination, indicating service delivery commitments and grievance redress mechanisms.
The word "citizen", as used in the Charters, is a generic term to indicate all the stakeholders to whom a service is available. It does not mean the public at large. The Citizens’ Charter, therefore, addresses its commitments directly to its users, stating standards of service, imparting information, providing a channel for grievance redress and an avenue for user evaluation and feedback. In the Indian adaptation of the Charter concept, the obligations of the users, if any, have also been added, because awareness building is a two-way street. On the one hand, there is the need to sensitise the service provider and, on the other, it is necessary to create a climate of civic and social responsibility among "citizens", not merely "consumers" or "customers".
There could be National and State-level Charters, which are in effect the parent Charters, with local agency or Charters at the cutting edge. This could evolve in such cases as the Charters for the users of the railways, telephones and posts. In some cases the concerned nodal Central Ministry may prepare a model
Charter which can then be adapted with local variations for individual agencies, such as hospitals, public distribution systems and educational institutions. These can be fine-tuned according to actual services delivered and local conditions. Further, at every annual review, more services or more stringent standards of services can be added. So far 61 Charters have been formulated by the Central Government agencies. Similarly, over 100 Charters have been issued by various States and Union Territories. These are at difference stages of implementation.
Implementation of the Charters by the respective organisations is a major task, covering vast distances and manpower. It, therefore, needs a monumental and sustained effort at training, orientation, publicity and awareness building, as well as regular and honest evaluation, to transform the Charter from a significant piece of paper into an instrument for changing long-entrenched values and mindset. Creating a platform of interests between the service provider and its users is the first step, balancing the strengths and constraints of the former against the reasonable expectations of the latter is the next. The success of each Charter depends largely on the accuracy with which that platform of common interest is targeted, thereby, endowing credibility on the service provider and creating confidence in the user.
From India, Delhi
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Must Read for all profs.doc
How.to.Books.Ho w.to.Read.Faste r.and.Recall.Mo re.April.2007.e Book.pdf
Must Read.jpg