In an important move to bring transparency to the functioning of the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (CIDCO), Vijay Singhal, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of CIDCO initiated transfers of 128 officers and employees across various departments last week.
The reshuffle includes a wide range of employees, from constables to field officers, as part of CIDCO’s ongoing efforts to ensure diversity in experience and break departmental monopolies.
As part of CIDCO’s policy, employees are transferred every three years to gain exposure to different departments. The list of transfers, announced by Personnel Department Manager Pramda Bidve, saw staff members from positions such as constables, mukadams, sanitation workers, assistant development field officers, and office assistants reassigned to other departments. The reshuffle has sparked a variety of reactions, with some employees expressing dissatisfaction due to the lack of “commissions” in departments like the Naina Project, rehabilitation, and social services, which they claim had influenced their work.
In a notable departure from past practices, Singhal issued strict orders to send many senior officials to different departments, breaking long-established traditions. However, despite some exceptions, many employees were still transferred within the Housing Department, leading to speculation and discussions regarding the move’s true intent.
In the lead-up to the announcement, the confidential transfer list was leaked prematurely, causing uproar among employees. Many of them, learning of their pending transfers in advance, attempted to use their influence to alter the process. Despite these efforts, Singhal stood firm, making it clear that the list would remain unchanged.
Though CIDCO’s transfer policy aims to provide employees with broad departmental experience, some employees have raised concerns that this goal was not fully met in the latest reshuffle, fueling dissatisfaction within the organization. The leak of the confidential list has further strained relations, with employees questioning the Personnel Department’s handling of the process.
