Important items of agenda for National Anomaly Committee Meeting - NC JCM Staff Side

Ph: 23382286

National Council (Staff Side)

Joint Consultative Machinery

For Central Government Employees

13-C, Ferozshah Road, New Delhi – 110001

E Mail : nc.jcm.np@gmail.com

No.NC-JCM-2017/7th CPC Anomaly

August 16, 2017

We send herewith items for inclusion in the agenda for the National Anomaly Committee meeting. There may be a few items, apart from these, as finalized items have only been circulated a few days amongst our constituents. We shall submit the same as soon as it is received.

Yours faithfully,

Shiv Gopal Mishra

Secretary

Agenda Items for NAC Meeting : Technical Supervisors of Railways

Item No 15 : Technical Supervisors of Railways

Technical Supervisors of Railways

                

The structure of Technical Supervisors in Railways and Defence, (Defence ordinance factorioes) being industrial / establishments had been identical and same, when the 6th CPC recommendations were accepted and implemented. The 7th CPC in para 11.12.105 have created the following structure in Defence ordinance factories (Page 519 of the 7th CPC report)

“Of the total pool of posts in GP 4200 and GP 4600, ten percent should be earmarked to be placed in GP 4800.

ii. The posts in GP 4800 should be filled up from personnel in GP 4200 and GP 4600 in the following manner:

·         70 percent of such earmarked posts should be filled up through promotion from GP 4600;

·         30 percent should be filled up through a Limited Departmental Competitive

Examination in which employees from both GP 4200 and GP 4600 would be eligible to compete. This will enable deserving and meritorious employees at GP 4200 too jump GP 4600 and go directly to GP4800 (level 8)

iii. 80 percent of the employees in GP 4800, will be eligible for non-functional upgrade to level 9 [GP 5400 (PB-2)] upon completion of four years in level 8, on a seniority cum-suitability basis”.

This recommendation by not extending to Railways Technical Supervisors have disturbed the horizontal relativities. There are no levels sanctioned in Railways beyond Grade Pay equivalent of Rs. 4600. The S/S demands that the structure recommended in the case of Defence may be adopted in the Railways to maintain the relativities that were in existence.

Agenda Items for NAC Meeting : Grant of GP 5400 to Senior Section Officer of Railways & AAOs of IA&AD

Item No 14 : Grant of GP 5400 to Senior Section Officer of Railways & AAOs of IA&AD and organised Accounts (Civil Accounts, Postal Accounts and Defence Accounts)

In Para 11.40.83 of its report, the 7 CPC has recommended the following:

“in line with our recommendations for organised Accounts Cadres, it is further recommend that the employees in Grade Pay 4800 should be upgraded on completion of 4 years’ service, to the existing GP 5400 (PB-2) VIZ., Level 9 in the Pay Matrix, on non functional basis”.

Under the sub-heading “Organised Accounts Staff” the 7 CPC has recommended the following:

“11.12.40 The Commission is therefore of the view that there is no justification for excluding officers in the organised accounting departments who ate at GP 4800 from this dispensation. It therefore recommends that all officers in organised accounts cadres (in the Indian Audit and Accounts 

Department, Defence Accounts Department, Idnian Civil Accounts organization, Railways, Posts and Telecommunications) who are in GP 4800 should be upgraded, on completion of four years’ service to GP 5400 (PB-2), viz., Pay Level 9, in the pay matrix”.

The non implementation of this recommendation disturbed the horizontal relativity between the pay scales SSO of Railways and AAOs in Organised Accounts and IA&AD and Section Officers of CSS and other Gr. B Gazetted officers.

This recommendation of the 7 CPC has not been implemented yet, leading to an anomalous situation which may be resolved without delay.

Agenda Items for NAC Meeting : Parity in Pay Scales between Assistants/Stenographers

Item No 13 : Parity in Pay Scales between Assistants/Stenographers in field/subordinate offices and Assistant Section Officer and Stenographers in CSS

7 CPC in Para 7.14.j, quoted the following the recommendation of 6 CPC:

“Time had come to grant parity between similarly placed personnel employed in field offices and in the Secretariat and this parity would need to be absolute till the grade of Assistant”.

With this quote, the 7 CPC recommended the following:

“The Commission accordingly strongly recommends parity in pay between the field staff and head quarter staff upto the rank of Assistants on two grounds – firstly the field staff are recruited through the same exam and they follow the same rigours as the Assistants of CSS and secondly there is no difference in the nature of functions discharged by both…”.

Denial of the same pay scale to field offices as of those cadres upto Assistant SO in CSS is in violation of the principles enuciated by the 7 CPC that cadres and categories having similar recruitment qualifications must carry identical pay scales. This also is causes horizontal relativity  between the pay sclaes of field level staff and those of CSS.

This recommendation need to be implemented in letter and spirit by granting the pay scale that Assistant Section Officers and Stenographers of CSS to Assistants and Stenographers of field offices so as to remove the anomaly.

Agenda Items for NAC Meeting : Parity in Pay Scale between Sr Auditor/Sr Accountant of IA&AD

Item No 12: Implement the recommendation on Parity in Pay Scale between Sr Auditor/Sr Accountant of IA&AD and organized Accounts with Assistant Section Officer of CSS

The 7 CPC in Para 11.12.137 of the report under the subheading ‘Organised Accounts Staff’, has recommended that “The Commission, in Chapter 7.1 has already taken a view with regard to Pay level of Assistants of CSS. The recommendation there-in will settle the parities as have been sought to be established”.

The 6 CPC in its report vide Para 3.1.14 recommended parity between field and Secretariat offices upto the level of Assistant (now Assistant Section Officer) the 6th CPC further stated that the recommendations made in Chapter 3.1 would also apply to IA&AD and organised Accounts (i.e. Civil Accounts, Postal Accounts, Defence Accounts and Railways Accounts) (Para 7.56.10). Further in Para 7.56.8 6 CPC stated that “…because it is recommending merger of pre-revised pay scales of 5500-9000 and 6500-10500 which will automatically place Assistants in CSS and SA in an identical revised pay band and grade pay”.

Despite this clear cut recommendation of granting the same pay scale to Assistant Section Officer in CSS (formerly Assistant) and SA in Organised Accounts and IA&AD the SA has been kept at pay matrix 6 where as the Assistant SO in CSS are place in pay matrix 7. As per the Govt. resolution dated 25th July 2016, this recommendation has not been rejected but it remains to be implemented.

The 5th, 6th , and now 7th CPC have stipulated and recommended that the Pay levels for the cadres/categories/grades having same recruitment qualification must carry identical pay scale. Denial of pay scale to SA at par with Assistant SO of CSS is clear violation of the afore stated principle which also disturbed the horizontal relativity between the pay scales SA in Organised Accounts and IA&AD and Assistant Section Officers of CSS.

Agenda Items for NAC Meeting : Date of Effect of Allowances – HRA, Transport Allowance, CEA etc.

Item No 11 : Date of Effect of Allowances – HRA, Transport Allowance, CEA etc.

The 7 CPC states that its recommendations once accepted must take effect from 1.1.2016. The Govt accepted this recommendation and made it effective from 1.1.2016 only for Pay where as allowances were made effective with effect from 1.7.2017. Salary package contains pay and allowances and cannot be bifurcated and treated separately. This issue had been the subject matter of the proceedings before the Board of Arbitration. 

The award of the Board of Arbitration in CA No. 8/1986 dated 4.1.1989 was accepted and implemented where as the award on the second occasion in CA No 2/2002 dated 15.4.2004 being the same has not yet been acted upon. The staff side demands that the grant of above stated allowances must be from 1.1.2016 as in the case of Pay.

Agenda Items for NAC Meeting : Minimum Pension

Item No 10 : Minimum Pension

In Para 10.1.26, and 10.1.27, the 7 CPC has dealt with the quantum of minimum pension. The 7 CPC has not adduced any reason as to why the demand of minimum pension as minimum wage is not acceptable. The Commission had asked for the opinion of the Deptt of Pension in the matter. From what is stated in the report, the Dept of Pension evaded answering the question. There had been no rationale in fixing 50% of Minimum wage as Pension. Pensioner also can’t live without need based minimum wage. 

The only point could have been probably considered with some rationale was that in the case of pensioner, the family Unit need not necessarily be 3 on the plea that the family consists of husband, wife and 2 children. Probably exclusion of children from the Pensioner family unit might be justified. From that view of the matter, the minimum Pension ought to have been fixed at MWx2/3 = Rs 12,000 (as present). The staff Side demands that the computation in respect of minimum Pension might be corrected and revised orders issued, adopting the sound rationale mentioned above.

Agenda Items for NAC Meeting : Bunching of steps in the Revised Pay structure

Item 9: Bunching of steps in the Revised Pay structure

In para 5.1.36, the 7 CPC envisaged that

“Although the rationalisation has been done with utmost care to ensure minimum bunching at most levels, however if situation does arise whenever more than two stages are bunched together, one additional increment equal to 3 percent may be given for every two stages bunched, and pay fixed fixed in the subsequent cell in the pay matrix”.

To give effect to the recommendations, orders were issued vide No. 1-6/2016-IC dated 7.9.2016 by the Deptt of Expr-IC.

In consonance with the recommendation, the said order stipulated that officers drawing pay where the difference is less than 3% shall not be entitled for this benefit.

However vide order No 1-6/2016-IC dated 03.08.2017, DOE, IC issued a clarification which was virtually to wipe off the benefit to a large number of employees. They placed 4 (four) conditions for the grant of Bunching benefit as under.

i) Benefit on account of bunching is to be extended when two or more stages get bunched.

ii) Benefit of one increment is to be extended on account of bunching of every two consecutive stages.

iii) As stipulated in MoF OM dated 07.09.2016, a difference of 3% to be reckoned for determination of consecutive pay stages, specific to each employee.

iv) All pay stages lower than the Entry pay in the 6th CPC pay structure indicated in the Pay Matrix contained in the 7th cpc Report are not to be taken into account for determining the extent of bunching.

Condition No (iv) has been incorporated as an afterthought it must be constructed as one contradictory to the very intention expressed in clear terms by the Commission.

The Staff Side demands that the condition No (iv) in the order cited may be deleted so as to provide the benefit of Bunching to all deserving employees.

Agenda Items for NAC Meeting : Lesser Pay in higher Level of Pay Matrix

Item No 8: Lesser Pay in higher Level of Pay Matrix

The construction of Pay Matrix has opened up very many anomalies. From the illustration given hereunder, it could be seen that a person in higher Pay level but drawing same basic pay of person in the lower pay level gets lesser pay. It could also be seen that certain stage in PB-2 GP 5400 has more benefit than a similarly placed employee in PB3 GP 5400. (see the table). The Pay Matrix therefore has to be changed to remove the anomaly.

The Basic Pay from the stage 3 of Level 9 of the Pay Matrix recommended by 7th Central Pay Commission shall be higher than of stage 1 of level 10 for a same amount of pre revised basic pay (Pay in Pay Band + Grade Pay) for the grade pay of Rs 5400 in PB 2 and Rs 5400 in PB 3. As per the 7th CPC chart on Pay Matrix the pay for level 9 and 10 are as follows:

Agenda Items for NAC Meeting : Anomaly arising from the decision to reject option No.1 in pension fixation

Item No 7 : Anomaly arising from the decision to reject option No.1 in pension fixation

The 7 CPC on considering various demands raised by the employees and Pensioners, while rejecting most of them at the instance or opinion tendered by the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare as also by the Defence Ministry in Para 10.1.67 recommended the following formulation for civilian employees including CAPF personnel who have retired prior to 01.01.2016.

The Govt in its resolution dated 4th August 2016 made its stand on the recommendation as under:

The doubt over the feasibility of implementation of the said recommendations had arisen due to the report tendered by the Secretary (Pension). It was no doubt an unprecedented step taken by Secretary (Pension).

The Govt., unfortunately and unethically too, set up a committee under the chairmanship of the same Secretary (Pension) to go into the very matter of feasibility, who had expressed that very doubt at the beginning and prior to the issuance of the resolution.

The Staff side was provided with an opportunity to represent before the Committee. They had pointed out that it was feasible to implement the recommendation with relevant official records that was supposed to have been kept alive by the Government. The submissions made by the Staff side is annexed. On the specious plea that the Service Books were not available in respect of all pensioners, the committee came to the conclusion that the recommendation is not feasible to be implemented. In fact the committee made a random study on the availability of the records and came to the conclusion that of the 100 cases they had taken up, in the case of 86, the relevant records were available. In other words, the Committee itself found that only 14% of the cases the records, i.e. the Service Books will not be able to be traced. The very fact that there are other equally relevant official records from where the requisite information of the number of years of service the pensioner has put in a cadre/Grade/scale of pay etc at the time of retirement was available, was not considered by the Committee. The Committee thus erroneously came to the conclusion that the recommendation is not feasible to be implemented.

The Committee then went on to suggest an alternative proposal, which was identical to what the 5th CPC had recommended but not acted upon due to huge financial outflow by the then Government. The staff side appreciating the fact that the said recommendation of 5 CPC, if implemented even now will not only benefit the pensioners but also will be capable of removing certain anomalies that might arise if option No 1 is implemented in the case of a few pensioners, suggested that apart from the two options recommended by the 7 CPC, the Committee’s suggestion could be considered as 3rd Option.

The rejection of the suggestion of the staff side and the recommendations of 7 cpc by the Govt regarding option No. 1 on the ground of “infeasibility” is untenable and creates a bad precedent in as much as a Govt Servant or a pensioner is made to suffer financially for the fault of the Govt of not maintaining the requisite official records for verification. For the fault of the Govt not having the records, the pensioners or the employees cannot be punished. The finding that the recommendation is not feasible for implementation is faulted as the committee itself has come to the conclusion that in 84% of the cases, the relevant records are available. The decision amounts to denial of benefit for a vast number of pensioners for the simple reason that in the case of small segment of pensioners the records are stated to be not available. The Committee’s findings are also erroneous on the ground that it did not consider whether alternate documents other than Service Books are available from where the claim of the pensioner could be verified.

From the above, it could be seen that Govt’s decision not to implement option No 1 recommended by 7 CPC is flawed and based upon factually erroneous premises and constitutes a clear cut anomaly. The said decision of the Govt requires to be revisited and pensioners given the benefit of option No 1.

We give a chart indicating the financial loss suffered by pensioners on account of the Govt decision in not implementing the recommendation of 7 CPC concerning option No 1.

Comparison of Basic Pension – option I vis-à-vis new Formula

(a)Annexure.

Copy of letter No NC-JCM-2016/7th CPC (Pension) dated October 17, 2016 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, Govt. of India, Sardar Patel Bhawan, New Delhi.

Dear Sir,

Sub: 7th  CPC recommendation. Pay determination in the case of Pre-2016 pensioners. Option No.1. Examination of feasibility.

Ref: Minutes of the meeting of the Committee in F.No. 38/37/2016 P&PW(A) Dated 10th October, 2016.

We refer to the discussions held on 6.10.2016 in the matter of feasibility of acting upon th 7th CPC recommendations (Option No.1) in the matter of pension computation and the minutes circulated under cover of the letter cited. At the outset, we would like to state that the members of the Staff Side, who were associated with the discussions, gained an impression that the Pension Department would not like to implement the recommendation of the 7th CPC connecting Option No. 1 provided to the Pensioners in determination of the revised pension. As has been pointed out by us during the discussions on 6th October, the Government has accepted the said recommendation with a rider of its feasibility of implementation. The attempt, therefore, must be to explore the ways and means of implementing the said recommendation, which benefits a large number of retired personnel, especially those retired prior to 1996. It is, therefore, highly doubtful how any alternate proposal in replacement of the accepted recommendation would be tenable.

We have the matter considered by various Pensioners Association as also the Federations of the Serving employees. We enumerate here under the feed-back we have received.

Even according to the exercise carried out by the Pension department, only in 18% of the cases, the service Books are reported to have been not available. Conversely it means that in 82% of the cases the records are available to operationalize option No.1. Besides, we find that on the basis of a random scrutiny that only 40% (Percentage varies from Department to Department depending upon the then prevailing career prospects) generally will opt to have pension fixation under the provisions of option No.1. It will work out to hardly 7% of the cases, where Service Books might not be available. As has been pointed out in the last meeting, 

Gradation/Seniority list is maintained for each Cadre by the Concerned Department, where the date of promotion to the cadre inter alia is indicated. The said gradation list will reveal may other details viz, the date of birth, date of entry into government service, date of promotion to the present cadre, whether eligible for next promotion, date of superannuation etc. This apart there are several other documents maintained by the Department, which will come in handy for apart there are several other documents maintained by the Department, which will come in handy for verification of the clam, viz, the pay bills, Establishment files containing promotion orders etc. 

In other words it is possible to verify the claim of any individual pensioner or family pensioner and take appropriate decision. In other words, there is no infeasibility question at all. It was also pointed out by many organisations that the retention period of Service Books in all major Departments of the Government of India is 5 years after the death of the Pensioner/ Family Pensioner and not 3 years after retirement as indicated by the Official side at the meeting. This apart, it may also be noted that the option has to be exercised by the concerned individual pensioner and he has to make a formal application to the concerned authorities. He is bound to substantiate his claim with documentary proof, whatever that is available with him.

As was pointed out by some of us in the last meeting, the non-implementation of an accepted recommendation on the specious plea of infreasibility will pave way for plethora of litigation. Apart from the administrative difficulties, the Pension Department would be saddled with if such litigations arise, it would be sad and cruel on the part of the Government to compel the pensioners to bear huge financial burden to pursue their case before the courts of law.

In view of this the Staff sife is of the firm view that the Government issue orders for implementation of Option No. 1 as there is no room for stating that the recommendatiomn is impossible to be implemented for those who are benefited by the said option.

We are aware that certain anomalies are bound to arise on implementation of option No.1 Anomalies have arisen in the past too. What is needed is to examine those anomalies and ensure that those are genuinely addressed.

It may be noted that even under the present dispension, no two Government servants are entitled for the same pension despite they being retired on superannuation from the same grade on the same day. The promotion in lower cadres especially Group B, C and D had been few and far between a decade back in many departments and continues to be the same situation in certain organisations of the Government of India. 

The vacancy based promotion system, one must admit, operates in a fortuitous manner. For no fault of the individual employee, he/she may retire without getting a promotion whereas his colleague due to sheer luck might get the promotion at the fag end of the career. The case of those employees who retired prior to the advent of ACP or MACP is really pathetic. They had to remain in certain departments in the same cadres for years together. They are in receipt of a paltry amount of pension through there is nothing distinguishable in their service careers for such deprivation. To deny them the benefit provided by the 7th CPC on the specious plea that the relevant records are not available with the Government may not only be unreasonable but also will not stand the test of judicial scrutiny.

As we have stated in the meeting, the alternative suggestion put forth by the official side is a welcome feature, for it might be a step in the right direction to remove the anomaly pointed out by the Official side when Option No.1 is implemented and will benefit those pensioners who got their promotion at the fag end of their career.. It is also likely to bring about certain extent of parity, if not full, between the old and the present pensioners. However it cannot be in replacement of the recommendation in respect of Option No.1 made by the 7th CPC. The alternate suggestion of the Pension Department may be offered as another option to the pensioners who are not benefited either by Option No.1 or 2 recommended by the 7th CPC. Such an option wil eliminate to a great extent the anomalies that might arise from the implementation of option No.1.

In fine, we request that:

The Pensioners/family pensioners may be allowed to choose any one of the following three options;

(a) 2.57 time of the present pension if that is beneficial.

(b) Option No.1. Recommended by the 7th CPC, if that is beneficial for them.

To determine the Pension on the basis of the suggestion placed by the Pension Department on 6.10.2016 i.e. extension of pension determination recommended by the 5th CPC (viz. arriving at notional pay in the 7th CPC by applying formula for pay revision for serving employees in each Pay Commission and consequent pension fixation) to all pre-2016 Pensioners/family pensioners, if that becomes beneficial to them.

As per the 7th CPC chart on Pay Matrix the pay for level 9 and 10 are as follows: