Enter Keyword and Search



Grant of financial upgradation in the promotion hierarchy instead of grade pay hierarchy under the MACPS-furnishing the information regarding.





No. 42012/1/2011-Estt (D)

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

(Department of Personnel & Training),

Establishment (D)



North Block, New Delhi,

Dated 05th May, 2011



Subject:- Grant of financial upgradation in the promotion hierarchy instead of grade pay hierarchy under the MACPS-furnishing the information regarding.



Based on the discussion with Staff Side in 3rd meeting of the Joint Committee of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) held on 15.03.2011 under the chairmanship of the Joint Secretary (Establishment) Department of Personnel & Training, it has been decided that the necessary information it has been decided that necessary information in respect of specific categories of employees where the MACPS is less advantageous that the erstwhile ACPS may be called to from Ministries of Railways, Defence, Urban Development, Home Affairs and Department of Posts for taking a conscious Decision in the matter."



2. The Ministries of Railways, Defence, Urban Development, Home Affairs and Department of Posts are therefore, requested to send their information in the matter to this Department at the earliest.



(Prakash Nevatia)

Director (Establishment)

Courtesy : NFPE

National Pension Scheme gives mixed bag of returns

National Pension Scheme gives mixed bag of returns
 
In a year when Employees’ Provident Fund gave a 9.5 per cent return and an over 8 per cent inflation rate ate into much of people’s income, the New Pension Scheme gave a mixed bag of results. Rising interest rates and volatile stock markets have impacted its returns in 2010-11 but, since inception, the NPS has managed to do better.

The performance review of fund managers for 2010-11 by the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority has revealed that NPS for private citizens has managed to give higher returns than NPS for government employees.

Central government employees in NPS earned a return of 8.05 per cent to 8.45 per cent, much below the weighted average of 9.7 per cent in 2009-10. While UTI gave the highest return of 8.45 per cent, SBI gave the lowest return of 8.05 per cent. However, returns for state government employees in NPS was much higher, which ranged between 11.34 per cent and 9.88 per cent.

“It is about timing your investments as well as exposure to instruments,” said a PFRDA official. Central government employees who joined the service after 2004 are mandated to be part of NPS, which allows up to 15 per cent of the total corpus to be invested in equities, while the rest in corporate debt and government securities.

Private citizens, who were allowed to join the scheme from May 2009 can invest 50 per cent of their portfolio in equities and the rest in government securities and corporate bonds via one of the six fund managers — UTI Retirement Solutions, SBI, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, Reliance Capital, IDFC AMC and Kotak Mahindra AMC.

Surprisingly, it is not equities but corporate bonds that was the top performer in the past one year.

“Equities have been the most volatile in the past one year, so corporate bonds and G-secs have given a higher return,” said Balram Bhagat, CEO, UTI Retirement Solutions, which was the top performing fund manager for NPS for central government, state government and the low cost NPS Lite.

The fund managers gave returns between 8.05 per cent (SBI) to 11.89 per cent (Kotak) for equities, which was a tad higher than the average return of 11.14 per cent from Nifty and 10.94 per cent from the Sensex. Equities as a class of investment, however, has given as high as a 17.85 per cent (ICICI) return since NPS was launched two years ago.

However, the usually staid and low-risk, low-return bonds and securities proved to be the dark horse, although PFRDA officials said that high interest rate regime has hit bond yields. Corporate bond yielded returns varying between 12.66 per cent (SBI) and 6.26 per cent (IDFC). G-secs have also given handsome returns. While UTI gave 12.52 percent, SBI gave 12.25 per cent. The lowest performer was IDFC with a return of 6.97 per cent in 2010-11.

PFRDA officials however cautioned that returns would be higher over a period of time as NPS corpus grows. The total corpus for central government employees is Rs 6,400 crore and for those of state is Rs 1,200 crore. The private sector contributed Rs 80 crore to the scheme.

source: Indian Express

RBI asks banks to reimburse failed ATM transactions in 7 days

 

The Reserve Bank on Friday directed banks to reimburse customers for amounts wrongfully debited from their accounts in failed ATM transactions within seven days of an account holder’s complaint or else pay a Rs.100 per day compensation.

"The time limit for resolution of customer complaints by the issuing banks shall stand reduced from 12 working days to seven working days from the date of receipt of customer complaint," the RBI said in a notification.
 
Failure to re-credit the amount within seven working days will require the issuing bank to pay a compensation of Rs 100 per day, it said.
 
Earlier, banks were required to reimburse customers for amounts wrongfully debited from their accounts in failed ATM transactions within 12 days.
 
The RBI further said that all customers are entitled to receive such compensation for delays only if a claim is lodged with the issuing bank within 30 days of the date of transaction.
 
The directive shall be come into effect from 1st July, 2011.
 
The central bank instructed the issuing bank and the acquiring bank to settle failed ATM transaction disputes through the ATM system provider only.
 
"No bilateral settlement arrangement outside the dispute resolution mechanism available with the system provided is possible," RBI said.
 
This measure is intended to reduce instances of disputes in payment of compensation between the issuing and acquiring banks, it added.

Source : DDI NEWS

Harmonization of fee payable under the Right to Information Act, 2005

No.F.1/5/2011-IR
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel. PG & Pension
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block, New Delhi
Dated April 26, 2011
To
1. The Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs (except J&K)
2. The Registrars of oil High Courts
3. The Registrar of the Supreme Court
Subject:- Harmonization of fee payable under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Sir,
   Sections 27 and 28 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 empower the appropriate Governments and the Competent Authorities to make rules to prescribe,inter-alia, the fees payable under the Act, In exercise of the powers, the Central Government, State Governments, High Courts etc, have notified rules. It has been observed that the fee prescribed by different appropriate Governments/Competent Authorities is at great variance.
   2. The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission has, in this regard recommended that the States should frame Rules regarding application fee in harmony with the Central Rules and ensure that the fee should not become a disincentive for using the right to information.
   3. All the States/Competent Authorities ore, therefore, requested to kindly review their Fee Rules and to prescribe fee in consonance with the fee prescribed by the Government of India. A copy of the Right to information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 notified by the Government of India is enclosed for ready reference.
   4. Kindly inform us of the action taken in this regard.
Yours faithfully,
sd/-
(K.G. Verma)
Director


Source: www.persmin.nic.in






Recent Stories...


Disclaimer

90Paisa - Dedicated to Central Government Employees and Pensioners. As and when orders amending the rules are published by the Government, the amendment orders will be published in our blog immediately. Readers are requested to refer to the source link is given at the end of the post. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy of the content on this blog, the same should not be construed as a statement of law or used for any legal purposes. 90paisa accepts no responsibility in relation to the accuracy, completeness, usefulness or otherwise, of the contents. Users are advised to verify/check any information with the relevant department(s) and/or other source(s), and to obtain any appropriate professional advice before acting on the information provided in the blog. Links to other websites that have been included on this blog are provided for public convenience only. 90paisa is not responsible for the contents or reliability of linked websites and does not necessarily endorse the view expressed within them. We cannot guarantee the availability of such linked pages at all times.

Recent Posts