I’ve worked at a Head Post Office (HO) for several years now, and like most of my colleagues, I’ve been posted in various branches—sometimes at the SB Counter, other times in Mails, CPC, Sub Accounts, or even Accounts. These changes happen frequently, sometimes every few weeks. But when it comes to calculating tenure—especially for transfers—the real confusion begins.
According to the rules, the tenure of an official at HO depends on whether the work done is considered sensitive or non-sensitive. If most of your duties are sensitive in nature (like handling cash, public dealing, or confidential work), then you should be transferred after 3 years. But if the work is mostly non-sensitive (like basic clerical or routine office work), you can stay for up to 4 years.
Now, here’s where the problem lies. In most HOs, staff don’t stick to just one type of work. You may spend a month in SB, then get moved to CPC, or fill in for someone in Accounts. So when you’re posted across multiple sections, how should your tenure be counted?
Unfortunately, in many cases, the decision is made just based on the branch name or the overall HO tag, without properly checking what duties were actually done. This can result in mistakes—someone who has done mostly non-sensitive work might be marked for early transfer, while others who were on sensitive desks only briefly may get extended stay. It becomes unfair and also reflects poor supervision from higher-ups.
There’s another issue too. If we treat all HO officials as sensitive postings and transfer them every 3 years, it causes a lot of problems for the staff. People have to shift their families, find new schools for their children, and settle into new places—again and again. It’s not easy. At the same time, the department ends up spending extra money on TA/TP every time someone is transferred. That’s an avoidable cost.
In reality, most HOs don’t even have more than one or two truly non-sensitive posts. So if everyone is transferred every 3 years just because they’re posted at HO, it puts unnecessary pressure on both the staff and the system.
What’s really needed is a fair method. The decision should be based on the actual nature of duties performed—not just the name of the branch or post. Supervisors should carefully check what kind of work each official has been doing during their time at HO and decide accordingly. That’s the only way to ensure that the rules are applied properly, without causing harm to staff or disruption to office work.
Tenure policy is meant to ensure transparency and rotation in sensitive posts, not to create confusion or hardship. If applied properly, with proper recordkeeping and a little bit of understanding, it can work well for everyone—both the department and its employees.
-Sarvanann
Rtd PA, Tamilnadu Circle