Recent discussions have highlighted a concerning trend where there appears to be confusion regarding the authority responsible for sanctioning leave (Especially CL) for Postmen in certain areas. It has been observed that in some instances, Inspector of Post Officers (IPOs) have assumed the role of leave sanctioning authorities(in the case of Casual Leave), a responsibility rightfully belonging to the Sub-Postmaster (SPM) or Postmaster (PM).
According to the rules outlined in Rule 99 of Postal Manual IV, the authority competent to grant casual leave is the head of the office. In cases where the applicant is themselves the head of the office, the authority superior to them assumes this responsibility.
Check below:
The issue at hand pertains specifically to the designation of the Casual Leave (CL) granting authority for Postmen. It has been emphasized that the SPM or PM holds this authority and not the Sub-Divisional Head (SDH), unless specifically delegated in cases requiring substitutes.If so, substitute arrangement has to be done by SDH.
Usually for CL, no substitute is required. Work is done by combination of duties. However, in case single pman or MTS, note 2 is applicable
It is essential to clarify that the IP is not vested with the authority to sanction CL. This distinction ensures clarity in administrative procedures and upholds the hierarchy stipulated by postal regulations.
In situations where there is ambiguity, it is recommended to seek clarification directly from the Divisional Head (DO). This approach ensures adherence to established protocols and avoids any misunderstandings regarding leave entitlements and responsibilities.
By maintaining clarity on these roles, the Postal Department aims to streamline operations and uphold fair administrative practices, ensuring that leave sanctioning responsibilities are appropriately assigned and executed.