Is "Re-designation of Posts" Fair in Central Public Sector Enterprises? Let's Discuss Its Impact on Seniority and Authority

Working in a Central Public Sector Enterprise.

Grades and Designations of Below-Board Level Positions

E1 - Subjunior Manager

E2 - Junior Manager

E3 - Assistant Manager

E4 - Deputy Manager

E5 - Manager

E6 - Senior Manager

E7 - Deputy General Manager (DGM)

E8 - Additional General Manager (AGM)

E8 - General Manager (GM)

E8 - Chief General Manager (CGM)

E9 - Executive Director (ED)

Pay scales vary across different grades. In the E8 grade, there are three designations (AGM, GM, CGM) with the same DPE pay scale but different benefits. Within the organization, one enters the E8 grade with the designation as AGM. Subsequently, through a selection procedure, the company chooses some AGMs as GMs. Through another selection procedure, the company selects some GMs as CGMs. The organization adjusts seniority in the E8 grade by disregarding the date of entry into the E8 grade, considering CGM as senior to GM and GM as senior to AGM. Only CGMs are eligible for entry into the E9 grade.

Validity of "Re-designation of Posts"

The company claims to have the authority to carry out "Re-designation of Posts" without affecting "Promotion." Is this "re-designation of post" truly valid? It significantly impacts seniority, grants CGMs more administrative and financial powers than GMs, and gives GMs more authority than AGMs. Can this be labeled as "Re-designation of Post" when many colleagues who were in the same post with the same seniority before the re-designation are now junior to the re-designated individual? How does this qualify as "Re-designation of Post" when, for the same post, someone, by virtue of their new designation, becomes senior to someone holding the old designation for the same post?

First of all, you should examine whether your HR Manual provides for such 'out-of-turn' pick-and-choose selection for elevating a handful of employees, mostly known to be in the 'good book' or through some favoritism. While doing so, it will undoubtedly create an 'anomaly' as hitherto juniors become 'seniors' overnight. Some in the upper hierarchy might say this is possible through a selection process of 'merit-cum-seniority,' which may be applicable for senior positions where advocating 'merit' should be the deciding factor rather than 'seniority.' Some may argue that this can be done 'without' affecting their emoluments and so on. These are the games being played by seniors to push their agenda by any means.

They term the process as "Re-designation of post" and not "Promotion." My query is: if there are two persons in the same post and one is re-designated with a new designation (treated as higher than the old designation) while the other is retained with the old designation, how can the process be "re-designation of post"? Because now the same post (as re-designation of the post has happened without an actual change in the post) has two designations with different seniority. I can say this is a violation of "re-designation of post."

Redesignation and Its Implications

As you know, when a post is created in the HR Manual/Manpower strength, it's tagged with the name of the designation, scale of pay, and other job descriptions/responsibilities, etc. That being so, simply redesignation cannot ward off any anomalies to the incumbents, both existing and recruits. If it's happening for the entire cadre applicable to all existing and future recruits, there won't be any problem. For example, E1 'Sub Junior' redesignated as E1-Junior Manager/Engineer. However, especially when a redesignation takes place applicable only to handpicked person(s), there appears a certain anomaly for others in the very same cadre. In such situations, the affected individuals have to seek redressal at the right time, in advance, i.e., before implementation, if possible, to safeguard their own interests.