Difference b/w substantive and officiating post for government sector
Praveen
(Querist) 01 October 2014
This query is : Resolved
Please explain the difference between substantive and officiating post in government sector
Anirudh
(Expert) 01 October 2014
I know the answer.
But that is not the matter. First give your complete fact situation and then raise the query.
Praveen
(Querist) 04 October 2014
Sir,
we belong to Government college. Our Non teaching employees recruited on permanent basis but not confirmed after 10 years. Our Establishment Dept prepare pay fixation form what should write on this form substantive or officiating post in front of his post. Some expert tell is should be substantive but other officiating. Please advice for the same.
Anirudh
(Expert) 04 October 2014
First in the govt. posts are sanctioned. The posts may be permanent or temporary. The posts which are originally sanctioned on temporary basis can be made permanent subsequently, depending upon the requirement of such posts.
Against the permanent post, a person can be appointed either on regular basis or temporary basis. A person who has been appointed on temporary basis can be made permanent subsequently.
Thus, who ever have been appointed on permanent basis are known to hold substantive position.
Those who are appointed on temporary basis are known to hold temporary position.
Who ever was appointed on temporary basis stand automatically confirmed after 3 years of service. Therefore all those will be holding substantive positions.
There may be some cases, where a person holding higher post - say Head Clerk etc., might have gone on retirement / long leave / suspension etc. In such circumstances, the next lower grade employee say Clerk will be asked to officiate in the post of Head Clerk on a temporary basis. Thus the clerk in question will be said to hold the post of Head Clerk on 'officiating' basis. For him, the post of Head Clerk is 'officiating post' - till such time he is regularly promoted to that post. The person holding higher post on officiating basis cannot claim regular promotion on the ground that he was holding officiating post, or he cannot claim seniority in the higher post on the basis of his having officiated in the higher post.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 24 October 2014
" Please explain the difference between substantive and officiating post in government sector"
Substantive posts are those which posts are sanctioned in a particular cadre. These posts are filled as per the process laid down in the recruitment rules from amongst the eligible candidate and reservation rules applied where applicable.
Initial appointees to the posts are appointed on probation and during this period the have temporary status and after completion of probation the are made permanganate.
So substantive appointed are both permanent and temporary. Both collectively form part of seniority roll doe the post and have vested right on the post.
Ad-hoc appointment can be made from within the unfilled vacancies of the substantive posts. These ad-hoc procedure can be adopted when due to one reason or the other the substantive appointment is not possible.
Ad-hoc appointees are for a particular tenure and there is also no probation for the same. They also do not form part of seniority roll The appointments are not as a result of regular selection procedure as laid down in RR and reservation is also not applied on the same. But minimum eligibility has to be observed. They have no vested right on the post and are liable to be replaced by regularly appointed candidates. Some court judgement do provide that they have a right not to be replaced by another ad-hoc.
Other rights and responsibilities are same.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 24 October 2014
If you are regularly appointed that does not meant that you are ad-hoc by mere fact that the establishment has not completed you "removal from probation" proceed,
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 24 October 2014
You could have got this response much earlier had you not asked your question like being set up in question paper to your student.
Guest
(Expert) 24 October 2014
Dear Praveen,
You should not confuse the terms of "posts" and "service by employees" in Government departments. Posts are never substantive or officiating. It is the appointment of officials which is made on substantive, temporary or officiating basis. The posts in Government offices are either permanent or temporary in status. Irrespective of whether the post is permanent or temporary, appointments can be made on temporary or officiating basis against them if the officials have not been made permanent against the vacant permanent posts. An official can be appointed substantively against a vacant permanent (not on temporary post) on which none else holds a lien.
So, your Establishment Dept., which was supposed to keep a register of sanctioned establishments, has to check how many posts have so far been sanctioned permanently and how many are temporary and also who of the employees have been made permanent against which of the posts on issue of orders for their substantive appointment. If the Establishment department has not kept the register of sanctioned posts from time to time, they should refer to the Recruitment Rules of each cadre, which also contain the No. of permanent and temporary posts, separately.
Further, your statement, "Non teaching employees recruited on PERMANENT basis but NOT confirmed after 10 years," in itself is contradictory, as if they have already been appointed on permanent basis, what type of confirmation is required for them? Had they been appointed initially on temporary basis the question of their confirmation against the permanent posts could have arisen. However, if some of them had been appointed initially on temporary basis, the administration/ Establish department was required to issue orders for their substantive appointment against the permanent posts. The temporary officials, if any, should remind the Admn/ Establishment department to issue orders of their confirmation, if the Establishment/ Admn does not take initiative in that respect. However, if the posts are continuing to be temporary for years together and there is no likelihood of their being abolished in near future the Establishment department should take action to get approval of the competent authority for permanency of those posts to place lien of the officials after confirming then against such posts.
Now about the issue of showing the officials against the permanent posts while drawing their pay, those officials who are already permanent against some or the other post should be shown directly against those posts. Rest of them can be shown as officiating against the remaining posts.
