No. II/34/Part 16
Dated: 18/05/2017
The Chairman,
Railway Board,
New Delhi
Dear Sir,
Sub:
NFIR's Charter of Demands - SPAD Definition to be reviewed
to prevent
harassment and victimization of Running and Safety
categories' Staff
(Item No. 30 of Charter of Demands)-reg.
Ref: (i) NFIR's letter No. IV/NFIR/WCM/209 dated
01/06/2013.
- Railway Board's letter No. 2013/E(LR)-11/1/15 dated
02/09/2013 toGS/NFIR.
- NFIR's letter No. II/34/Part XIII dated 10/02/2016.
While
enclosing copy of its letter No. II/34/Part XIII dated
10/02/2016, on
the subject, the Federation conveys its disappointment over
non-responsive attitude of Railway Board on Federation's
communication.
- In
this connection, Federation desires to bring to the kind
notice of the
Board (CRB) that the subject matter has also been dealt by
the High
Power Committee (R&S) constituted by the Railway Board to
review the
duty hours of Running and other safety related categories of
staff and
the HPC (R&S) gave recommendations vide Para 9.12 of its
report as
under:-
"Existing instructions of minimum punishment
to staff for SPAD cases should be reviewed to ensure that
the decision
takes into account the gravity of the offence
(repercussions of the SPAD) and also the
Loco Pilot's past record [Para 4.3.1.3 (1)]".
- Federation
however is surprised to note that the Railway Board had
taken arbitrary
decisions vide minutes of the meeting of the full Board held
on
06/10/2015 & 08/12/2015 which were circulated vide No.
E(LL)/2015/HPC/2/Pt. MS dated 01/02/2016 without caring to
consult
- Further
to above, Federation conveys following points in support of
our
contention that there is urgent need to define `SPAD' so as
to ensure
that conclusions are arrived yet judiciously.
- SPAD
(Signal Passing At Danger) is an unusual occurrence and can
happen on
account of human failure or the failure of
machine/equipment.
- Even the human failures could be due to the failure of
brake or signalling system or incorrect operation of
signal.
To
monitor the SPAD cases DATA LOGGERS have been provided. It
is also an
admitted fact that reduction in the distance of Relay after
the stop
signal from 13 mtrs to 03 mtrs has been contributing for
increase in the
number of SPAD cases.
Though there is a provision in General
Rules (GRS) that if a train stops at main line, the speed
should be
reduced to 50 Kmph at outer most facing point to reduce SPAD,
the Loco
Pilots are however afraid of adhering to the speed limit to
avoid loss
of punctuality in trains.
- To minimize/eliminate the incidents of SPAD, Federation
therefore suggests following measures:-
- The Home Signal of the station may be kept at an
'adequate distance' to reduce unusualThe adequate distance
may be taken as the distance sufficient to ensure safety.
- A
Rectangular Safety Board be placed at about 100/150 mtrs
before the
Home Signal. The Board could be white with orange inclined
alternative
reflecting strips with printing thereon with the caption
"Loco Pilot to stop at this board and draw ahead up
to Home Signal if Home Signal is at
ON".
Reports
received by the Federation reveal that more than 80% of SPAD
cases
takes place when the Loco Pilot just passes the distance of
100 mtrs or
below. These type of cases do not have financial or any other
negative
consequences whatsoever but the Loco Pilots are imposed with
the penalty
of removal from service which does not at all commensurate
with the
repercussion of such incidents. The authorities while
imposing severe
punishments do not care realize the truth as to how the Loco
Pilot and
family members would survive on account of loss of job. The
quantum of
punishment on alleged SPAD is also justifiably questionable,
considering
the fact that even a hard core criminal when sent to jail
gets three
times meal in the jail whereas the Loco Pilot and his family
suffers
without livelihood due to imposition of draconian penalty.
Keeping
total position in view, Federation suggests that in place of
"imposition of the penalty" of 'removal from service' on the
Loco
Pilots, it would be appropriate that the Loco Pilot concerned
be taken
off from the running duties and placed under "grounding from
running
duties pending enquiry". Thereafter, on completion of
enquiry,
opportunity be given for submitting appeal to the Branch
Officer to
consider the case whether the Loco Pilot be taken back on
running duty.
NFIR also reminds that the issue of SPAD cases was discussed
with the
Board (CRB, MS, FC, AMS) on 21/07/2016 informally, but
however without
any fruitful decision.
NFIR, therefore, requests the Railway Board
to consider the above points and take a view to define SPAD
to save the
Running Staff from unnecessary victimization. Federation
proposes
separate meeting to discuss the issue threadbare. Federation
hopes to
get a reference in this matter soon.
DA/As above
Yours faithfully,
S/d,
(Dr. M. Rag avaiah)
General Secretary
No. 11/34/Part XIII
Dated: 10/02/2016
The Secretary (E),
Railway Board,
New Delhi
Dear Sir,
Sub:
NFIR's Charter of Demands - SPAD definition to be reviewed
to prevent
harassment and victimization of Running Staff and Staff
belonging to
Safety categories (Item No. 30 of demands)-reg.
Ref: (i) NFIR's letter No. IV/NFIR/WC/209
dated 01/06/2013.
(ii) Railway Board's letter
No. 2013/E(LR)-11/1/15 dated 02/09/2013
addressed to the GS/NFIR.
Federation invites attention of the Railway Board to the
minutes of the meeting held by Railway Board (CRB, MS &
FC) with
NFIR on
23/08/2013 wherein NFIR's 34 Point Charter of Demands was
discussed.
The Railway Board while conveying comments on the 34 Point
Charter of
Demands vide letter cited under reference had advised
following position
in respect of demand No. 30 on the subject:-
"Definition of SPAD is not laid down as such. Any
passing of 'stop' signal (except
permissible signals and those permitted
under certain rules such as Automatic signals) at danger by
a loco without authority is treated as
SPAD irrespective of distance travelled by Loco
after passing a signal at danger.
Safety Directorate is of the view that the same should
continue.
However, Railways were asked to give their
suggestions with regard to review of
punishment norms issue by Railway Board
including those for SPAD.
Replies
received from Railways are being compiled and changes
proposed, if any,
will be put up for perusal and approval of
Board".
Thereafter,
a period of more than two years has passed, the position
relating to
changes proposed and the decision of Railway Board thereon is
yet to be
communicated to the Federation.
NFIR, therefore, requests the
Railway Board to apprise the Federation the proposed changes
and the
decision taken by the Board at an early date. The Federation
also
requests to make available the suggestions received from
railway early.
Yours faithful
S/d,
(Dr. M. Raghavaiah)
General
Secretary
Source : NFIR
