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.
