An employee receives transfer orders and is issued relieving orders. However, he does not report to the new location where he has been transferred even after approximately six months.
I have been informed under the RTI Act that because he was ill, he submitted a sick leave application and supporting documents directly to the regional office that issued the transfer orders. Copies of the documents were also sent to his previous office (from which he was transferred). The head of the previous office recommended approving his leave, and the regional office granted the leave.
Is this the correct procedure for granting leave to an employee, where the reporting office is not involved in the decision-making process?
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
9I have been informed under the RTI Act that because he was ill, he submitted a sick leave application and supporting documents directly to the regional office that issued the transfer orders. Copies of the documents were also sent to his previous office (from which he was transferred). The head of the previous office recommended approving his leave, and the regional office granted the leave.
Is this the correct procedure for granting leave to an employee, where the reporting office is not involved in the decision-making process?
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Revribhav, Proceeding on sick leave is a typical ploy to avoid or delay joining a new place of posting upon transfer. This is often done with the hope of getting the transfer order canceled or withdrawn, or to make personal arrangements to deal with the relocation involved.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 or old office. This is particularly significant if the transfer order is canceled or modified later.
Only when the person has "joined" the new place of posting by submitting a joining letter or signing his attendance there, is he deemed to have a lien with the new office. Subsequently, his personal files and 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 to inform the new office, which he has not yet joined. If required, it is the responsibility of the previous office to inform the new office about the leave and delay in joining.
Hope you find this explanation satisfactory.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Since the incumbent, whether relieved or not, has not yet joined the new place of posting, his lien is maintained by the previous or old office. This is particularly significant if the transfer order is canceled or modified later.
Only when the person has "joined" the new place of posting by submitting a joining letter or signing his attendance there, is he deemed to have a lien with the new office. Subsequently, his personal files and 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 to inform the new office, which he has not yet joined. If required, it is the responsibility of the previous office to inform the new office about the leave and delay in joining.
Hope you find this explanation satisfactory.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 favor of me prohibiting my employer from effecting transfer orders dated 5.06.07 (still effective).
My employer has issued a Memo dated 13.02.08, kept me under suspension from 10.04.08, held an inquiry, and dismissed me with effect from 16.11.09 upon such charge as unauthorized 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 the Chairman of the company. They state under RTI they have no time limit to dispose of the same.
In the meantime, they have stated that my gratuity stands forfeited and have made substantial deductions from my own contribution provident fund for what they call recovery against unauthorized 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 a 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My employer has issued a Memo dated 13.02.08, kept me under suspension from 10.04.08, held an inquiry, and dismissed me with effect from 16.11.09 upon such charge as unauthorized 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 the Chairman of the company. They state under RTI they have no time limit to dispose of the same.
In the meantime, they have stated that my gratuity stands forfeited and have made substantial deductions from my own contribution provident fund for what they call recovery against unauthorized 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 a 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Why did this talented employee leave.doc