Saturday, November 14, 2026
Redistribution of JTS/STS/PS Gr.B /ASP / IP / LSG / PA /MTS Posts across the Department in Alignment with the Rebalancing of Administrative Units
Single-Premium Payment Option for Santosh (PLI) & Gram Santosh RPLI) Effective through IMS from 01/01/2027
_001.jpg)
_002.jpg)
_003.jpg)
_004.jpg)
Friday, November 13, 2026
Addition of Single-Premium Payment option under Endowment Assurance products –Santosh (PLI) and Gram Santosh (RPLI)--eeg
Thursday, November 12, 2026
Redistribution of JTS / STS / PS Gr.B /ASP / IP / LSG / PA /MTS Posts across the Department in Alignment with the Rebalancing of Administrative Units - reg, A Admin
Business Continuity and Customer Facilitation Measures during implementation/rollout of lnsurance Management Solution (lMS) - reg
Online PAN Verification functionality in Finacle CBS System - Directorate Lr / SOP / Addendum dtd 12.11.2026--SB Order No. 0212024 dated 07 .05.2024--Online PAN Verification functionality in Finacle CBS System - reg
Tuesday, November 10, 2026
Revision of norms for opening of Post Offices (Bos and SOs)-distance of SOs and Urban Bos from the nearest Post Office -reg.
-distance%20of%20SOs%20and%20Urban%20Bos%20from%20the%20nearest%20Post%20Office%20-reg..jpg)
Revised ceiling rates and guidelines for cochlear implantation and rehabilitation under CGHS and CS(MA) Rules, 1944
Sunday, November 8, 2026
Notifying of Holiday Home at Jaipur R.S. Post Office in Rajasthan Circle: Department of Post Order, dated 04.11.2026
Saturday, November 7, 2026
Compulsory retirement Order is neither punitive nor stigmatic in character : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that an order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic in character and does not cast any aspersion on the conduct of an employee, nor does it imply any finding of misconduct.
A bench of Justices Manmohan and Shree Chandrashekhar, which upheld the Chhattisgarh government's order of compulsory retirement to five of its 14 employees, said it was based on subjective satisfaction of the competent authority that the employee's continued retention in service is no longer conducive to public interest.
"...an order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic in character. Such an order does not cast any aspersion upon the conduct of the employee nor does it imply any finding of misconduct," it said.
"...an order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic in character. Such an order does not cast any aspersion upon the conduct of the employee nor does it imply any finding of misconduct," it said.
"The ultimate assessment as to whether an officer has become dead wood or whether his continuance would be detrimental to administrative efficiency falls within the domain of the executive. However, such satisfaction cannot be found upon mere conjecture or whim. It must rest upon objective and relevant material available on record," it held.
The top court on Friday upheld that the April 12, 2023 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court upholding the single-judge bench's order affirming the 2017 government circular to compulsorily retire the employees, and rejected their contention that other similarly placed employees were not retired.
"An employee cannot successfully assail an order of compulsory retirement merely by contending that another officer possessing a comparable service record was not subjected to similar action," it said, adding that the evaluation of an employee's utility, integrity, efficiency and overall service profile is essentially an individualised exercise undertaken by the competent authority based on the materials pertaining to that particular employee.
The bench said the fact that action was taken against one employee while another similarly situated employee was left untouched does not, by itself, render the action unconstitutional or discriminatory
73 year old Retired Canara Bank Manager Loses ₹10.3 Lakh in Fake Life Certificate APK Scam.
Safety Alert: Never install APK files received through WhatsApp or unknown links. Always use official banking channels for pension and life certificate services.
Friday, November 6, 2026
WISH THE DIVINE LIGHTS OF DIWALI BRIING PEACE,PROSPERITY , HEALTH, and LOVE TO YOUR LIFE.=HAPPY DIWALI
Postal Directorates letter NoY-3822026 -PE-II-DOP dated 20.07.2026m. implement a common Organizational Structure across the the administrative offices of Circles &Division.
Thursday, November 5, 2026
Wednesday, November 4, 2026
A meeting was held at the Department of Posts Directorate on 03.11.2026 to discuss the following important issues concerning the postal network and cadre structure:
1. Rationalisation of Head Offices (HOs) and Sub Offices (SOs).
2. Proposed merger of PA (CO/RO) and Sorting Assistant (SA) cadres with PA (PO).
The meeting was chaired by the Member (Personnel), along with the DDG (Establishment). The Secretary, Department of Posts, also joined the meeting towards its concluding session.On behalf of FNPO, the following representatives attended the meeting:
1. Shri Sivaji Vasireddy – Secretary General, FNPO
2. Shri Nisar Mujawar – President, FNPO and General Secretary, P4
3. Shri R. Murali – General Secretary, R3 NURC
4. Shri U.M. Mhaskar – Deputy General Secretary NURC
5. Shri Sube Singh – Assistant General Secretary NURC
6. Shri M.K. Sharma – General Secretary, R4
7. Shri Sandeep Gulia – Financial Secretary, FNPO
8. Shri Naveen – CHQ Treasurer NURC
9. Shri Ashish Singh – Divisional Secretary, SH Division NURC
1.RATIONALISATION OF HEAD OFFICES AND SUB OFFICES
The Department explained its proposal for rationalising the existing network of Head Offices and Sub Offices. The staff side strongly conveyed its opposition to any unwarranted reduction in the number of existing Head Offices.
Our representatives highlighted the following important points:
At present, there are 810 Head Offices against 746 districts in the country.
Even if the proposed criterion of "One District – One Head Post Office" is taken into consideration, the excess number would be only 41 Head Offices.
Further, by adopting the norm of 25 Sub Offices per Head Office and distributing the Sub Offices rationally, all the existing Head Offices can be retained.
Hence, there is no convincing justification for reducing or downgrading the existing Head Offices.
The staff side also strongly rejected the argument that the recurring administrative work involved in preparing LPCs for officials transferred from Head Offices could be a reason for rationalisation.
It was firmly pointed out that such routine administrative considerations cannot be treated as valid grounds for closing or downgrading important Head Offices.
2. ONLINE ESTABLISHMENT REVIEW
With regard to the proposed Online Establishment Review, our representatives pointed out that several manual activities and responsibilities discharged by postal employees are not adequately reflected or captured in APT 2.0.
Therefore, any assessment of staff strength based solely on the data available in APT 2.0 would not provide a complete or realistic picture of the actual workload and manpower requirements of individual offices.
The DDG (Establishment) advised all recognised associations to submit their detailed suggestions, observations and objections in writing to the Directorate.
3. PROPOSED CLOSURE OF SUB OFFICES
The Department explained its proposal to identify and close certain Sub Offices based on the following criteria:
Sub Offices not generating revenue.
Sub Offices situated within a distance of 2 km in urban areas.
Sub Offices situated within a distance of 3 km in rural areas.
The staff side expressed serious reservations and strongly questioned the proposed criteria.
It was emphasised that the importance of a Post Office cannot be determined merely by its revenue generation or geographical distance from another office. Post Offices provide essential public services, particularly to rural, remote and economically weaker sections of society.
Any decision regarding closure must take into account public convenience, accessibility, social responsibilities and the actual service requirements of the people.
4. PROPOSED MERGER OF PA (CO/RO), SORTING ASSISTANT AND PA (PO) CADRES
This was one of the most important and sensitive agenda items discussed during the meeting.
The staff side categorically opposed the proposed merger of PA (CO/RO) and Sorting Assistant cadres with the PA (PO) cadre.
The primary justification advanced by the Department was that RMS officials are reluctant to accept LSG and HSG promotions due to the possibility of transfers to other stations.
Our representatives strongly contested this reasoning and highlighted the serious consequences that such a merger could have on:
The existing independent cadre structure.
Promotional avenues and career progression.
Seniority and service conditions.
The distinct nature of duties and responsibilities.
The future prospects of Sorting Assistants and other affected employees.
The staff side firmly conveyed that genuine difficulties relating to promotions and transfers should be addressed through appropriate administrative measures rather than by resorting to an unwanted merger of cadres.
We made it clear that the existing identity, cadre structure and promotional rights of Sorting Assistants must be protected.
5. CONCLUSION AND FURTHER COURSE OF ACTION
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Member (Personnel) requested the staff-side representatives to submit their detailed suggestions, views and objections on the proposals discussed.
FNPO representatives reiterated their strong commitment to protecting the interests of postal employees and safeguarding the existing postal network and cadre structure.
FNPO firmly opposes:
Unjustified rationalisation and reduction of Head Offices.
Closure of Sub Offices without proper assessment of public requirements.
Establishment reviews based on incomplete APT 2.0 data.
Merger of PA (CO/RO), Sorting Assistant and PA (PO) cadres.
Any restructuring that adversely affects the promotional avenues, seniority and service conditions of postal employees.
All Circle Secretaries, Divisional Secretaries and CHQ Office Bearers are requested to carefully examine these proposals, discuss their implications at their respective levels and forward their valuable suggestions and objections to CHQ at the earliest.
The inputs received from the Circle and Divisional Unions will help FNPO formulate a comprehensive and effective response to the Directorate.
Our stand remains firm: The interests of employees, the identity of cadres and the public service responsibilities of the Department of Posts must not be compromised in the name of rationalisation and restructuring.
LET US STAND UNITED TO PROTECT OUR CADRES, OUR PROMOTIONAL AVENUES AND THE POSTAL NETWORK.
With Unity and Solidarity,
FNPO – Federal National Postal Organisation
.jpg)
A meeting was held at the Department of Posts Directorate on 03.11.2026 to discuss the following important issues concerning the postal network and cadre structure:
1. Rationalisation of Head Offices (HOs) and Sub Offices (SOs).
2. Proposed merger of PA (CO/RO) and Sorting Assistant (SA) cadres with PA (PO).
The meeting was chaired by the Member (Personnel), along with the DDG (Establishment). The Secretary, Department of Posts, also joined the meeting towards its concluding session.
On behalf of FNPO, the following representatives attended the meeting:
1. Shri Sivaji Vasireddy – Secretary General, FNPO
2. Shri Nisar Mujawar – President, FNPO and General Secretary, P4
3. Shri R. Murali – General Secretary, R3 NURC
4. Shri U.M. Mhaskar – Deputy General Secretary NURC
5. Shri Sube Singh – Assistant General Secretary NURC
6. Shri M.K. Sharma – General Secretary, R4
7. Shri Sandeep Gulia – Financial Secretary, FNPO
8. Shri Naveen – CHQ Treasurer NURC
9. Shri Ashish Singh – Divisional Secretary, SH Division NURC
1.RATIONALISATION OF HEAD OFFICES AND SUB OFFICES
The Department explained its proposal for rationalising the existing network of Head Offices and Sub Offices. The staff side strongly conveyed its opposition to any unwarranted reduction in the number of existing Head Offices.
Our representatives highlighted the following important points:
At present, there are 810 Head Offices against 746 districts in the country.
Even if the proposed criterion of "One District – One Head Post Office" is taken into consideration, the excess number would be only 41 Head Offices.
Further, by adopting the norm of 25 Sub Offices per Head Office and distributing the Sub Offices rationally, all the existing Head Offices can be retained.
Hence, there is no convincing justification for reducing or downgrading the existing Head Offices.
The staff side also strongly rejected the argument that the recurring administrative work involved in preparing LPCs for officials transferred from Head Offices could be a reason for rationalisation.
It was firmly pointed out that such routine administrative considerations cannot be treated as valid grounds for closing or downgrading important Head Offices.
2. ONLINE ESTABLISHMENT REVIEW
With regard to the proposed Online Establishment Review, our representatives pointed out that several manual activities and responsibilities discharged by postal employees are not adequately reflected or captured in APT 2.0.Therefore, any assessment of staff strength based solely on the data available in APT 2.0 would not provide a complete or realistic picture of the actual workload and manpower requirements of individual offices.
The DDG (Establishment) advised all recognised associations to submit their detailed suggestions,
observations and objections in writing to the Directorate.
3. PROPOSED CLOSURE OF SUB OFFICES
The Department explained its proposal to identify and close certain Sub Offices based on the following criteria:
Sub Offices not generating revenue.Sub Offices situated within a distance of 2 km in urban areas.
Sub Offices situated within a distance of 3 km in rural areas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
