AUPO'S ACHIEVEMENTS

AUPO and PSWA were formed in 2000 because

the PSA betrayed the UPSC Pexs and in 1999 in violation of all rules and regulations equated the pay of pexs with Trexs.

UPSC Pexs were also agitated and angry that though Pexs were eligible for both Production and Management posts of IBPS, Pexs were deliberately denied Production posts of IBPS by PSA in connivance with the Department.

Because of this attitude of the PSA many Pexs of 1982/1983 were reverted in 2000, while Producers were protected.

UPSC Pexs were also unhappy that the PSA was ignoring ratio to be followed between Pexs and Producers while making promotions. To give benefit to producers the ratio 1:1 was followed.
Contractual Producers /Science officers were also receiving many illegal promotions and benefits while UPSC Pexs got only false promises.

UPSC Pexs were deeply demoralised to find out that persons subsequently engaged on contract (and persons whose contracts were terminated only in 1989) were illegally made ASDs/station directors while senior UPSC Pexs from 1982 remained unpromoted.

AUPO's fight for justice and successes so far

1. a. AUPO's first success was the Pay Anomaly case which was fought along with PSWA . A common judgment was delivered in the cases (Pramod Mehta vs UOI and G.R. Syed & Others vs UOI)
b) Because of the victory in the Pay Anomaly case, Pexs salary was upgraded /stepped up and Pexs received arrears/huge financial benefits.

2. a) AUPO/s second major success was the IBPS case which was fought along with Sachidand Singh . Because of the succesful court verdict , Pexs were declared eligble for Production posts of IBPS and review DPC was ordered from 1990 onwards. This was a huge victory for the Pexs as benefits will come from 1990.
( The case had to be fought because in order to protect Producers, the PSA had been maintaining from 1990 that Pexs were not eligble for Production posts in IBPS,).

3. To protect Producers from reversion, .Review DPC was deliberately delayed (in connivance with PSA) .Eligiblity lists were also prepared to give undue advantage to contractual producers and promotee pexs with the support of PSA. However, AUPO and PSWA joined hands and fought to correct the illegallities.

4. In the contempt peitions filed by AUPO and PSWA , Department was forced to correct several mistakes. Several major errors remain. Atleast 250 non eligible persons have been included in the list, while eligble persons have been left out. UPSC has been asked by court to verify the records . The UPSC is now examining records. This is also a major success for Pexs/AUPO.

5. The promotion of Producers and Pexs in the ratio 1:1 ( ignoring the quota ratio prescribed in the rules) was also taken to court by AUPO . The court declared that quota ratio prescribed in rules had to be followed instead of 1:1. This was also a major victory.

6. Contractual service of Proucers is also being wrongly equated with regular service so as to give illegal benefits to Producers . This was done with the active support of the PSA though this was harming the Pexs and is in violation of the rules. AUPO has managed after a long struggle to take the matter up to the Supreme Court. The final hearing in the Supreme Court will be in May this year. We are sure that AUPO will get a favourable verdict that will give huge benefits to all Pexs.

7. The issue of ACP/MACP is also being taken up strongly by AUPO. We are doing our best to ensure that benefits granted by Government to those who have not received promotions have to be given as intended by Government to all eligible persons. The PSA is trying to indulge in pick and choose and favouritism by encouraging the Administration to release MACP in a piece meal manner. AUPO has pointed out that no one can be denied MACP on the grounds that their CRs are not traceable as we are not the custodians of our CRs .

jose