An employee gets transfer orders and issued relieving orders. He does not join the new place to which he has been transferred even after about six months.
I have been informed under the RTI act that since he was sick he submitted the sick application and documents directly to the regional office which issued the transfer orders and copies were endorsed to old office (from which he was transferred). The office in-charge of old office recommended sanction of leave and his leave was sanctioned by regional office.
Is it the proper procedure of sanction of leave to an employee that is,the reporting office has not been in the picture.
From India, Ajmer
8I have been informed under the RTI act that since he was sick he submitted the sick application and documents directly to the regional office which issued the transfer orders and copies were endorsed to old office (from which he was transferred). The office in-charge of old office recommended sanction of leave and his leave was sanctioned by regional office.
Is it the proper procedure of sanction of leave to an employee that is,the reporting office has not been in the picture.
From India, Ajmer
Dear revribhav
Proceeding on Sick Leave is a typical ploy to avoid or delay joining (upon transfer) a new place of posting. This is done with a view/hope to get the transfer order cancelled/withdrawn or to make one's own personal arrangement to deal with the relocation involved.
Since the incumbent (whether relieved or not) has not yet joined the new place of posting, his lien is maintained by the previous/old office. This is particularly significant in case the Transfer Order is cancelled/modified later.
Only when the person has "joined" the new place of posting (by submitting a joining letter or signing his attendance there); he is deemed to have a lien with the new office. Subsequently, his Personal Files/records reach the new place.
In the instant case cited by you, I do not find any irregularity if the person has not informed his new office. Since he has already informed his previous office, and got his leave granted, he is under no compulsion for him to inform the new office which he has not yet joined.
If required, it is the responsibility of the previous office to inform about the leave and delay in joining to the new office.
Hope you find this explanation satisfactory.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Proceeding on Sick Leave is a typical ploy to avoid or delay joining (upon transfer) a new place of posting. This is done with a view/hope to get the transfer order cancelled/withdrawn or to make one's own personal arrangement to deal with the relocation involved.
Since the incumbent (whether relieved or not) has not yet joined the new place of posting, his lien is maintained by the previous/old office. This is particularly significant in case the Transfer Order is cancelled/modified later.
Only when the person has "joined" the new place of posting (by submitting a joining letter or signing his attendance there); he is deemed to have a lien with the new office. Subsequently, his Personal Files/records reach the new place.
In the instant case cited by you, I do not find any irregularity if the person has not informed his new office. Since he has already informed his previous office, and got his leave granted, he is under no compulsion for him to inform the new office which he has not yet joined.
If required, it is the responsibility of the previous office to inform about the leave and delay in joining to the new office.
Hope you find this explanation satisfactory.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
My grievance is that I have been under similar circumstances, my sick leave of about 40 days has been rejected though I was never relieved from my office and there is a court stay in favour of me prohibiting my employer to effect transfer orders dated 5.06.07 (still effective).
My employer has issued Memo dated 13.02.08 kept me under suspension from 10.04.08 held inquiry and dismissed me w.e.f 16.11.09 upon such charge as un-authorized leave.however the only 'grave' charge is that I left headquarters.
My appeal has been rejected and the memorial dated 25.05.10 has been pending with Chairman of the company,they state under RTI they have no time-limit to dispose the same.
In the mean time they have stated that my gratuity stands forfeited and have made substantial deductions from my own contribution provident fund of what they call recovery against un-authorized leave and housing loan without any notice or authority.(Though there is no mention of any such things in the penalty order.)
The employee concerned had taken stay on the ground of sickness and the court dismissed his case as the sickness was not found so severe that he cannot be transferred.
From India, Ajmer
My employer has issued Memo dated 13.02.08 kept me under suspension from 10.04.08 held inquiry and dismissed me w.e.f 16.11.09 upon such charge as un-authorized leave.however the only 'grave' charge is that I left headquarters.
My appeal has been rejected and the memorial dated 25.05.10 has been pending with Chairman of the company,they state under RTI they have no time-limit to dispose the same.
In the mean time they have stated that my gratuity stands forfeited and have made substantial deductions from my own contribution provident fund of what they call recovery against un-authorized leave and housing loan without any notice or authority.(Though there is no mention of any such things in the penalty order.)
The employee concerned had taken stay on the ground of sickness and the court dismissed his case as the sickness was not found so severe that he cannot be transferred.
From India, Ajmer
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.
PF Transfer Request Letter - FOR RPF Office.doc
PF Online Transfer.pdf