PDA

View Full Version : Consequences of uniform date of increment



tvenkatam
03-01-2010, 03:25 PM
Dear friends,

Making an employee to wait for more than 12 months to get the next increment is admitted to be an anomaly by the Anomaly Committee in its meeting of December 12, 2009. Consequently the official side of the Committee is said to have agreed to issue orders to cover those in service between 1.1.2006 and 1.7.2006 as a one time measure. This would effectively mean that those employees whose date of appointment/promotion falls between 02.01.2006 and 30.06.2006 will be granted an additional increment as on 01.01.2006 as a one time measure. This provision will, no doubt, ensure that the annual increment is not delayed beyond the prescribed time limit at the time of switch over to the revised pay structure.

However, in cases of new appointments and promotions including financial upgradations granted subsequently between 2nd January and 30th June each year, the first increment will fall due between 12 and 18 months after the pay fixation on appointment/promotion. This is also an anomaly. It may appear that this aspect will be taken care of if the provision of option under FR-22 is exercised.

All employees who are newly appointed between 2nd January and 30th June will not have the protection of FR-22 and will earn annual increment only after 12 to 18 months. Employees promoted/granted ACP upgradation between 1st July and 1st January will earn one notional increment on the date of promotion/upgradation and one annual increment on 1st July of next year. Those employees promoted/granted upgradation between 2nd January and 30th June will, in the normal course, earn one notional increment on the date of promotion/upgradation and the annual increment after a lapse of 12 to 18 months. Even on invoking the provision of option under FR-22, the notional increment will get delayed by 1day to 6 months. The principles of FR-22 are altogether different and the provisions there under may not be relied upon to provide the requisite remedy to the anomaly of the above kind.

The stipulation requiring an employee to complete six months and more as on 1st July for grant of annual increment may have to be done away with so as to enable every employee to invariably earn annual increment on 1st July and notional increment on the date of promotion/upgradation. Option under FR-22 should be available in addition, when needed.

nsdev007
03-01-2010, 06:06 PM
the concept of uniform date of increment emanates from the attempt of dopt to unify date of recruitment and promotion (deemed). The css rules, danics/danips rules and rr framed by various dept in home ministry define approved service as:

in respect of direct recruits, 1st july of year following year of examination
in respect of promotees; 1st July of the year of empaneling (dpc year)

in respect of dr's the order says they are entitled for notional pay from 1st July if delay in joining of more than 3 months is not attributable to the candidate.

the said service is countable for acp and qualifying service for promotion even if actual date of joining differs.

however, various other depts are yet to modify the recruitment rules accordingly.

N S Dev

svsankar
03-01-2010, 09:40 PM
The concept of one date of increment for completed six months of service shall also avoid postponement of increment due to EOL availed by many of our colleagues, which used to result in lot of pay anamolies while on promotion.
On the other side if person is on EOL for 6 months his increment will stand postponed by 18 months infact will be drawn after 24 months exactly and not 6 months as it used to be earlier.
Mr Dev's quote on bringing one date for promotion and direct recruitment shall minimise the losses in drawal of increment for new appointees and promotees and should be practised in principle by all departments and recruiting agencies.
regards,
svsankar.

narayanan
03-01-2010, 10:58 PM
Dear friends,

The term 'annual' referes to 365 days of an year. Therefore, the annual increment is required to be given on 366th days after the previous increment excluding the non duty days). If the increment date goes beyond 366th date cannot be called as annual increment.

However, till 6CPC, the annual increments were granted on or before 366th day and brought to 1st day of the concerned month. Even if, the employee joined on 31st of a month, he will get his next increment 1st of the same month of the next year. There was no restriction of number of days to be completed in the particular month. Since the application of the rule was not created any confusion or anomaly so far, there was no grievencs to any one. In these cases, there won't be any case in which granting of annual increment is done beyond 366 days. It means that if one completes 11 months and atleast 1 day in the 12th month, his service period would have rounded off to 12 months for the purpose of granting annual increment.

The condition of six months prescribed by 6 CPC appears to have no reasonable nexus with the nature of increment given (annual). If the service period condition for granting annual increment is six months, it can reasonably be called as 'half yearly increment' and not 'annual increment'. The new concept justifies the administrative convenience wheras it lacks pragmatic approach.

In the new concept, a person, who took loss pay leave during 1st July to December 31, will be getting his increment on the next 1st July itself whereas another person on leave 1st July to 1st January (just one day more) will have to wait for two years to get one increment.

Therefore, in my view, the new concept has no sound basis. In order to bring increments to 1st July to all, instead of the new concept, the following idea can be applied:

In the new structure, increment amount is not fixed one. It is the amount calculated at 3% of the pay (Pay in PB+GP) and round off to next 10. There won't any difficulty in calculating part of increment in respect of the days/months of service compted. By giving that amount as the annual increment for 1st July, all problem will be solved.


Eg:A person joined on 2nd January and his total pay was fixed at 20000. He would have completed 5 months and 30 days which may be round to 6 months. Annual increment to be calculated for six months.

Increment = 20000 x 3% x 6/12 = 300, which may be granted on 1st July.

Please record opinions by our learned friends.

with regards,
Narayanan

tvenkatam
04-01-2010, 10:17 AM
Dear Mr. Narayanan,

The proposal of ‘proportionate increment’ sounds much better compared to the present system of dispensation in grant of increments

svsankar
04-01-2010, 09:57 PM
Seems to be a great idea. Really some dopt personnel should see this method. The universal principle of double jeopardy shall be avoided to an individual. gconnect can also highlight this topic on main page.

parimel
05-01-2010, 08:35 PM
Take my case

My reqular increment was April 2006.

I lose the increment on July 2006.

I got promotion on 8th January 2008. (because of 7 days)

I lose the increment on July 2008. (Pay fixed at minimum, so no option)

Already two increment lost. If my future promotion are in January, I will lose more than that. What can I tell.

narayanan
05-01-2010, 09:51 PM
Dear friends,

Thank you all.

The term 'proportionate increment' correctly suits the need of the hour. If such a system is introduced, justice can be done to all and requirement of uniform date of increment will also be fulfilled.

The discussion had in the Anomaly committee tried only to resolve the anomalies happened during 2.1.2006 to 30.6.2006 in respect of employees on roll as of 1.1.2006. The problem will continue to persists in the case of all others who joined/promoted/availed leave without pay, etc. after 1.1.2006. I strongly feel, this issues are not reached before the Anomalies Committee.

With regards,

Narayanan

badri mannargudi
06-01-2010, 01:05 PM
Dear friends,

Making an employee to wait for more than 12 months to get the next increment is admitted to be an anomaly by the Anomaly Committee in its meeting of December 12, 2009. Consequently the official side of the Committee is said to have agreed to issue orders to cover those in service between 1.1.2006 and 1.7.2006 as a one time measure. This would effectively mean that those employees whose date of appointment/promotion falls between 02.01.2006 and 30.06.2006 will be granted an additional increment as on 01.01.2006 as a one time measure. This provision will, no doubt, ensure that the annual increment is not delayed beyond the prescribed time limit at the time of switch over to the revised pay structure.

However, in cases of new appointments and promotions including financial upgradations granted subsequently between 2nd January and 30th June each year, the first increment will fall due between 12 and 18 months after the pay fixation on appointment/promotion. This is also an anomaly. It may appear that this aspect will be taken care of if the provision of option under FR-22 is exercised.

All employees who are newly appointed between 2nd January and 30th June will not have the protection of FR-22 and will earn annual increment only after 12 to 18 months. Employees promoted/granted ACP upgradation between 1st July and 1st January will earn one notional increment on the date of promotion/upgradation and one annual increment on 1st July of next year. Those employees promoted/granted upgradation between 2nd January and 30th June will, in the normal course, earn one notional increment on the date of promotion/upgradation and the annual increment after a lapse of 12 to 18 months. Even on invoking the provision of option under FR-22, the notional increment will get delayed by 1day to 6 months. The principles of FR-22 are altogether different and the provisions there under may not be relied upon to provide the requisite remedy to the anomaly of the above kind.

The stipulation requiring an employee to complete six months and more as on 1st July for grant of annual increment may have to be done away with so as to enable every employee to invariably earn annual increment on 1st July and notional increment on the date of promotion/upgradation. Option under FR-22 should be available in addition, when needed.

My dear friends!

While the one time relaxation by granting increments to all to those who were on Pay Rolls as on 31.012.2005 and are in service as on 01.07.2006 (irrespective of the actual month of annual increment under the erstwhile Pay Rules) is understandable, I am afraid the condition of minimum six months service to earn increment should continue. If this condition is removed, then, if a person who joins Government service on 30th of June of a particular year, he should be granted annual(???) increment would become due on the very next day.

Having said that, my personal opinion is that there may be two dates of Annual increments, namely 1st of January (for such of those who had joined Service/new post on promotion between 1st of January to 30th of June of the previous year) and 1st of July (for such of those who had joined Service/new post on promotion between 1st of July to 31st of December of the previous year) so that no person would be waiting for more than one year to earn the first increment (either on Recruitment or on promotion). (Already we have a system of getting DA twice annually)

With Regards,
Badri

badri mannargudi
06-01-2010, 01:35 PM
Dear friends,

Thank you all.

The term 'proportionate increment' correctly suits the need of the hour. If such a system is introduced, justice can be done to all and requirement of uniform date of increment will also be fulfilled.

The discussion had in the Anomaly committee tried only to resolve the anomalies happened during 2.1.2006 to 30.6.2006 in respect of employees on roll as of 1.1.2006. The problem will continue to persists in the case of all others who joined/promoted/availed leave without pay, etc. after 1.1.2006. I strongly feel, this issues are not reached before the Anomalies Committee.

With regards,

Narayanan

While the suggestion of "Proportionate increment" is undoubtedly attractive, from administrative point of view, it may lead to several dates of Annual(?!) increment and theoretically there may be as many dates of increments as is the number of employees, thereby, the Establishement may find it difficult to keep track (even in this Computer era).

As an aside, a question arises in my mind as to what would be my friends' reaction if the suggestion is accepted and the Government on its turn decided to adopt the actual date of completion of Age of 60 as the date of Super annuation).

With regards,
Badri

badri mannargudi
06-01-2010, 01:40 PM
Dear friends,

Thank you all.

The term 'proportionate increment' correctly suits the need of the hour. If such a system is introduced, justice can be done to all and requirement of uniform date of increment will also be fulfilled.

The discussion had in the Anomaly committee tried only to resolve the anomalies happened during 2.1.2006 to 30.6.2006 in respect of employees on roll as of 1.1.2006. The problem will continue to persists in the case of all others who joined/promoted/availed leave without pay, etc. after 1.1.2006. I strongly feel, this issues are not reached before the Anomalies Committee.

With regards,

Narayanan

While the suggestion of "Proportionate increment" is undoubtedly attractive, from administrative point of view, it may lead to several dates of Annual(?!) increment and theoretically there may be as many dates of increments as is the number of employees, thereby, the Establishement may find it difficult to keep track (even in this Computer era).

As an aside, a question arises in my mind as to what would be my friends' reaction if the suggestion is accepted and the Government on its turn decides to adopt the actual date of completion of Age of 60 as the date of Super annuation).

With regards,
Badri

narayanan
06-01-2010, 09:35 PM
While the suggestion of "Proportionate increment" is undoubtedly attractive, from administrative point of view, it may lead to several dates of Annual(?!) increment and theoretically there may be as many dates of increments as is the number of employees, thereby, the Establishement may find it difficult to keep track (even in this Computer era).

As an aside, a question arises in my mind as to what would be my friends' reaction if the suggestion is accepted and the Government on its turn decided to adopt the actual date of completion of Age of 60 as the date of Super annuation).

With regards,
Badri

Dear Badriji,

Your presence has created a greater momentum to the discussion. Thank you.

I would like to clarify the reservation expressed by you. The 'proportionate increment' under discussion will be given on 1st July only and that too once after joining, promotion, etc. Thereafter, no need of keeping seperate increment date in respect of that employee. He will get his annual increment on 1st July subsequently followed in normal way.

Illustration:
Date of first appointment: 15.2.2007
Pay (inclusive of GP) on appt: 20000
Annual Increment on 1.7.2007 (in the present system) : NIL, not comleted 6 months
Proprtionate Increment on 1.7.2007 (for 5 months): 20000 x 3% x 5/12 = 250
Total pay as on 1.7.2007 : 20000 + 250 = 20250
Annual increment on 1.7.2008 = 20250 x 3% = 607.50 -=== 610

Thus annual increment can be granted as per normal practice once the proportionate increment is granted at initial stage.

At present the date of retirement is taken as the month end in which one complete 60 years of age. The proportionate increment under proposal is also based on same principle by taking full month irrespective of the date of joining in that month.

I hope I have clarified the situation.

Regards,
Narayanan

sa8298
12-01-2010, 03:16 PM
the concept of uniform date of increment emanates from the attempt of dopt to unify date of recruitment and promotion (deemed). The css rules, danics/danips rules and rr framed by various dept in home ministry define approved service as:

in respect of direct recruits, 1st july of year following year of examination
in respect of promotees; 1st July of the year of empaneling (dpc year)

in respect of dr's the order says they are entitled for notional pay from 1st July if delay in joining of more than 3 months is not attributable to the candidate.

the said service is countable for acp and qualifying service for promotion even if actual date of joining differs.

however, various other depts are yet to modify the recruitment rules accordingly.

N S Dev

It is really great for me to have come to know the provisions that the qualifying service for ACP is to be calculated not from the actual date of joining but from a date prior to that. May I be informed about the relevant orders for that purpose and also if the cut off date is not the date of joining, then what would be the cut off date for calculating the qualifying service. Is it the date fo the offer letter, or the date of apoplication made by the candidate.

jaleelethiyil
22-07-2010, 10:17 AM
Dear friends,

Making an employee to wait for more than 12 months to get the next increment is admitted to be an anomaly by the Anomaly Committee in its meeting of December 12, 2009. Consequently the official side of the Committee is said to have agreed to issue orders to cover those in service between 1.1.2006 and 1.7.2006 as a one time measure. This would effectively mean that those employees whose date of appointment/promotion falls between 02.01.2006 and 30.06.2006 will be granted an additional increment as on 01.01.2006 as a one time measure. This provision will, no doubt, ensure that the annual increment is not delayed beyond the prescribed time limit at the time of switch over to the revised pay structure.

However, in cases of new appointments and promotions including financial upgradations granted subsequently between 2nd January and 30th June each year, the first increment will fall due between 12 and 18 months after the pay fixation on appointment/promotion. This is also an anomaly. It may appear that this aspect will be taken care of if the provision of option under FR-22 is exercised.

All employees who are newly appointed between 2nd January and 30th June will not have the protection of FR-22 and will earn annual increment only after 12 to 18 months. Employees promoted/granted ACP upgradation between 1st July and 1st January will earn one notional increment on the date of promotion/upgradation and one annual increment on 1st July of next year. Those employees promoted/granted upgradation between 2nd January and 30th June will, in the normal course, earn one notional increment on the date of promotion/upgradation and the annual increment after a lapse of 12 to 18 months. Even on invoking the provision of option under FR-22, the notional increment will get delayed by 1day to 6 months. The principles of FR-22 are altogether different and the provisions there under may not be relied upon to provide the requisite remedy to the anomaly of the above kind.

The stipulation requiring an employee to complete six months and more as on 1st July for grant of annual increment may have to be done away with so as to enable every employee to invariably earn annual increment on 1st July and notional increment on the date of promotion/upgradation. Option under FR-22 should be available in addition, when needed.

Govt side accepted one additional increament on 01/01/2006 to those staff whose increament falls on jan to june is not intented to those who have appointed or promoted after 2006 as per my understanding.I think this is for those who received last increment between jan and june on 2005.As it is a one time measure,giving one increament to those promoted/appointed after 2006 is not possible.This problem will come every year and only solution is excercising option on promotion.Any way change of GP will get from date of promotion.

vvenkateswarrao
19-10-2010, 10:53 AM
The IAS babus have always created problems to the employees. Why they should decide on one date of increment per year? Why not two dates. viz January and July. There would not have been any anomaly.

RKPATHAK
19-10-2010, 10:56 AM
Increment should at least be quarterly basis if old system of monthly increment can not be restored

jaleelethiyil
19-10-2010, 07:52 PM
The IAS babus have always created problems to the employees. Why they should decide on one date of increment per year? Why not two dates. viz January and July. There would not have been any anomaly.

Sir,
Airport Authority Of India(AAI) is a Under taking and previously followed this type of two date increament system. AAI is not covered by CPC but now switched over to uniform increament system.Now their increament date is on 1st april.For standardisation, proportionate method is adopted for one time.Those who got increament on jan was given 0.75% and 2.25% to those employees increament falls on july as one time measure on april 1st for standardisation.After words as usual 3% increament will continue.