Commission, Omission - Pay Commission disappoints Postal Group ‘C’ employees
There is a great deal of resentment over the recommendations of the sixth Pay mmission amongst the Postal Employees. The 5th CPC had recognized the skills of the Postal Assistants and recommended higher scale of pay than the other Group ‘C’ employees of other Central Government establishments. Now, the various types of new works other than that of Post Office work are introduced which also requires highly skilled performance. However, the 6th CPC had not recognized this aspect and rescribed same pay band for the Postmen and Postal Assistants and only the Grade Pay has been increased to Rs.400/-to P.As. This has caused irksome to Postal Assistants and hence needs modification. The Grade Pay should be of Rs.2800 for P.As instead of Rs.2400. The gross injustice done to the TBOP cadre, though admitted in the evidence stage, the anomaly was not set right.The Pay Commission has also not recognized the heavy responsibility shouldered by LSG Supervisors and did not recommend higher pay band. This is totally unjustified and unacceptable.Now the LSG is a Circle Cadre and many have to go to outstation and maintain two establishments. If the LSG Scale is not in commensurate with the esponsibilities they shoulder, many will decline to work in norm based LSG posts. The officials are justified in declining LSG promotion since they are not financially benefited to shoulder additional higher responsibilities. Further, the Department had already filed a SLP in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Madras High Court and pleading that TBOP and BCR are only financial up gradation and not promotion. No body could predict the outcome of the Supreme Court case and when the final judgment would be pronounced. Therefore, now there is an urgent need that we should negotiate with the Govt. and the department to get higher scale of pay to the norm based LSG cadre. If we miss the bus, we have to wait for the next pay commission. We had lost already 10 years to get enhanced pay scale for TBOP/BCR cadres. Now, in middle class families mostly husband and wife are employed and ransfer is a liability since many have already settled in their respective towns/cities and constructed houses on getting loan from the department and banks.Hence the LSG Pay needs modification. We demand pre revised scale of pay of Rs.5000-150-8000 to LSG grade now. As stressed in the Pay Commission memorandum, there can be only one HSG cadre instead of 2 (HSG II & HSG-I). If there is one HSG cadre with a decent pay scale, the officials can go for some time to out stations on promotion till they can get vacancies in their towns/cities and the HSG scale can be pre revised scale of Rs.7450-225-11500.The 6th CPC had also done injustice to PO & RMS Accountants by simply doubling the present special allowance of Rs.180 to Rs. 360. Majority of the officials will not become eligible to get the allowance once they become eligible for up gradation of pay in TBOP. The Special Allowance should be treated as special pay and should be paid to all PO & RMS Accountants irrespective of their grade in TBOP/BCR and the special pay should be taken for fixation when they are promoted to LSG cadre.The 6th CPC’s contention that higher Pay Scales for System Administrators and Marketing Executives is not justified is unacceptable to us. We may demand pre revised scale of pay of Rs.5000-150-8000 to these officials and should be treated as separate cadre. The next promotional avenue for these cadres should be in HSG, Group‘B’ and Group ‘A’. The department can promote them to Group ‘B’ after conducting an examination or the department can prescribe some specific qualifications and allow these officials sufficient time to acquire themAs far as the basic structure of pay scale of CG employees is concerned, the Grade Pay should be raised by Rs.2000/- to all cadres up to Group B to set right the anomalies. The annual increment should be 4% to avoid derogation of emoluments compared to the future cost of living. All the new recommendations made by the Pay Commission should be discussed with the Staff Side JCM before implementation.The recommendation that annual increment be at 2.5% per annum and date of effect should be from 1st July every year, is totally unjustified we may demand increment at 4% per annum and the same should be drawn after completion of one year of service as in existence at present.The sixth pay commission has not recommended that merger of DA with basic pay at any stage. This is unacceptable. The present arrangement should continue.The Sixth Pay Commission salaries at the top have gone much more and bleak as you go down and down.We do not wish to express our opinion on other subjects, as we are awaiting the reactions of the Leaders of the other concerned Unions and as well as Leaders of the JCM.We urge the Government and the Department of Posts to rectify these anomalies or otherwise the employees will be pushed to launch trade union agitations including industrial strike to achieve these genuine reasonable demands.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Subject:- CCS (LTC) Rules, 1988 - Relaxation for travel by air to visit
F.No. 31011/412007-Estt.(A)Government of IndiaMinistry of Personnel, Public Grievances & PensionsDepartment of Personnel & TrainingNew Delhi, dated,2 May, 2008
OFFICE MEMORANDUMThe undersigned is directed to say that in relaxation of CCS (LTC) Rules, 1988, the Government have decided to permit Government servants to travel by air to North Eastern Region on LTC as follows:-(i) Group A and Group B Central Government employees will be entitled to travel by Air from their place of posting or nearest airport to a city in the NER or nearest airport ..(ii) Other categories of employees will be entitled to travel by air to a city in the NER from Guwahati or Kolkata.(iii) All Central Government employees will be allowed conversion of one block of Home Town LTC into LTC for destinations in NER.2. These orders shall be in operation for a period of two years from the date of issue of this O.M.3. Data regarding number of Government employees availing LTC to NER may be maintained.4. In their application to the staff serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, these orders issue after consultation with the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral of India.~~. (A. K. Chaturvedi)Under Secretary to the Government ofIndiaTel: 23092313
F.No. 31011/412007-Estt.(A)Government of IndiaMinistry of Personnel, Public Grievances & PensionsDepartment of Personnel & TrainingNew Delhi, dated,2 May, 2008
OFFICE MEMORANDUMThe undersigned is directed to say that in relaxation of CCS (LTC) Rules, 1988, the Government have decided to permit Government servants to travel by air to North Eastern Region on LTC as follows:-(i) Group A and Group B Central Government employees will be entitled to travel by Air from their place of posting or nearest airport to a city in the NER or nearest airport ..(ii) Other categories of employees will be entitled to travel by air to a city in the NER from Guwahati or Kolkata.(iii) All Central Government employees will be allowed conversion of one block of Home Town LTC into LTC for destinations in NER.2. These orders shall be in operation for a period of two years from the date of issue of this O.M.3. Data regarding number of Government employees availing LTC to NER may be maintained.4. In their application to the staff serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, these orders issue after consultation with the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral of India.~~. (A. K. Chaturvedi)Under Secretary to the Government ofIndiaTel: 23092313
“Public servant must be told of all ACR entries”
All entries, “good” or “bad” made by a superior in the annual confidential report (ACR) of a government employee must be communicated to him or her, the Supreme Court held on Monday (12.5.08). The Bench, of Justice H.K.Sema and Justice Markandya Katju rejected the Center’s contention that only an adverse entry had to be made known.Writing the judgment, Justice Katju said non-communication of an entry “is arbitrary’ because it deprived the employee of an opportunity of making a representation and praying for its upgrade. ‘Moreover, the object of writing the confidential report and making entries in them is to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve his performance.”“Fairness and transparency in public administration require that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the ACRof a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him (or her) within a reasonable period so that he (or she) can make a representation for its up gradation,” the Bench said.This would apply to an employee under the State or its instrumentality.“If we hold that only a ‘poor’ entry is to be communicated, the consequences may be that persons getting ‘fair’ ‘average’ or ‘good’ entries will not be able to make a representation for their upgrade and this subsequently adversely affect their chances or promotion (or get some other benefit),” the Bench said.It held that if the September 10, 1987, Office Memorandum was interpreted to mean that only adverse entries (i.e., ‘poor’) needed to be communicated it would become arbitrary and illegal.
Morale boosterThe Court made it clear that even an ‘outstanding’ entry should be communicated since that would boost the morale of the employee and make him /her work harder.Once a representation was made against an entry, the authority concerned must make a fair decision within a reasonable period. “We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be a n appeal from Caesar to Caesar,” the Bench said.“All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration and would result in fairness to public servants. The state must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible.”In the instant case, Dev Dutt, working in the Border Roads Engineering Service, was not considered for promotion as Superintending Engineer as he did not have the benchmark of “very good” entry; he got only a ‘good ‘entry for 1993-94. His petition before the Gauhati High Court that this was not communicated to him was dismissed.Allowing his appeal against that judgment, the Bench said though he had retired, the ‘good’ entry must be communicated to Mr. Dutt and if an upgrade was allowed, he should be considered for promotion retrospectively. If promoted, he would be entitled to all consequential benefits with eight per cent interest a year.
All entries, “good” or “bad” made by a superior in the annual confidential report (ACR) of a government employee must be communicated to him or her, the Supreme Court held on Monday (12.5.08). The Bench, of Justice H.K.Sema and Justice Markandya Katju rejected the Center’s contention that only an adverse entry had to be made known.Writing the judgment, Justice Katju said non-communication of an entry “is arbitrary’ because it deprived the employee of an opportunity of making a representation and praying for its upgrade. ‘Moreover, the object of writing the confidential report and making entries in them is to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve his performance.”“Fairness and transparency in public administration require that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the ACRof a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him (or her) within a reasonable period so that he (or she) can make a representation for its up gradation,” the Bench said.This would apply to an employee under the State or its instrumentality.“If we hold that only a ‘poor’ entry is to be communicated, the consequences may be that persons getting ‘fair’ ‘average’ or ‘good’ entries will not be able to make a representation for their upgrade and this subsequently adversely affect their chances or promotion (or get some other benefit),” the Bench said.It held that if the September 10, 1987, Office Memorandum was interpreted to mean that only adverse entries (i.e., ‘poor’) needed to be communicated it would become arbitrary and illegal.
Morale boosterThe Court made it clear that even an ‘outstanding’ entry should be communicated since that would boost the morale of the employee and make him /her work harder.Once a representation was made against an entry, the authority concerned must make a fair decision within a reasonable period. “We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be a n appeal from Caesar to Caesar,” the Bench said.“All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration and would result in fairness to public servants. The state must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible.”In the instant case, Dev Dutt, working in the Border Roads Engineering Service, was not considered for promotion as Superintending Engineer as he did not have the benchmark of “very good” entry; he got only a ‘good ‘entry for 1993-94. His petition before the Gauhati High Court that this was not communicated to him was dismissed.Allowing his appeal against that judgment, the Bench said though he had retired, the ‘good’ entry must be communicated to Mr. Dutt and if an upgrade was allowed, he should be considered for promotion retrospectively. If promoted, he would be entitled to all consequential benefits with eight per cent interest a year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)