PDA

View Full Version : Pre-revised scale of 8000-13500--GP:5400



shyamsundar
03-08-2011, 04:17 PM
Many pay scales have been revised upward along with grade pays. But this pay scale seems to be a neglected one by all. Considering the recent revisions that have taken place this scale should also be considered for upward revision along with the grade pay.

sundarar
13-08-2011, 03:29 PM
This particular pre-revised scale Rs.8000-13500 while placed in the revised structure has been bifurcated though the GP Rs.5400 is same, ie. PB2 and PB3. The one which placed under PB3 is prescribed as Gr.A (Entry) or Gr.A new scale.

The Annexure attached to OM dated 14.10.2008 indicates two different minimum revised pension for the same pre-revised scale 8000-13500. Those retired from Non-Gazetted posts carrying the said pre-revised scale were placed under PB-2, and their 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band is taken as 9300/2 = 4650. Those retired from Gazetted posts carrying the same pre-revised scale were placed under PB-3, and their 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band is taken as 15600/2=7800 ; Although the Grade Pay Rs.5400 for both category. Whether pensioner retired from same scale can be divided by virtue of Gazetted/Non-Gazetted category status attached to the post at the time of retirement? So, the varying min. pension.

Is there any remedial solution? As the revised pension under para 4.1 for all the 23 scale retirees are more than the minimum revised pension under para 4.2, this anomaly would have lost its sight. But it is quite possible, during next revision, it may definitely have adverse consequences.

While we continue to reiterate that a revised minimum shall totally correspond to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, the anomalous situation in r/o the above particular scale is altogether a different story.

ybhaskar23
14-08-2011, 10:49 AM
How True!!! Excellent Analysis. I wonder how the so called 6th CPC Chairman and its Members could not apply their minds and take note of this fundamental issue. Subsequently also the Government while issuing the 14th october letter never thought of this discrepancy.
God save this country!!
There appears to be a total Brain Drain.

vnatarajan
14-08-2011, 07:38 PM
Dear Sundarar,

Very correct.
However, you must be remembering the case of JCOs drawing equal or more pension than the COs in the case of Military pensioners.
This was perhaps offset recently by raising the minimum pension of the COs above that of the JCOs, otherwise being equal in GP compariosn.

Perhaps the GR A Gazetted category of post 2006 era can raise their voice and try for some relief!

I may be wrong. Pl chk.

vnatarajan

kssitaraman
22-09-2011, 09:50 PM
My elder brother, who is in his eighties, retired as SAO (Group 'B') from the Department of Telecom, in this pre-revised scale (S/15) in 1987, his dob being 2/1932. Though he held a Gazetted post while retiring, his pension has been fixed at lower level, i.e., at PB2. Obviously, some other criteria is being used by Govt for fixing pensions against this scale. I shall be happy to learn the latest position in this regard. I am asking my bro to submit an appeal.

I remember to have read somewhere that Finance Ministry is considering this very subject, but I am not sure.

K.S.Sitaraman

RKPATHAK
23-09-2011, 10:17 AM
There seems to be no neglect in the pay scale 8000-13500. If we multiply 8000 with 1.86 amount comes to Rs 14880, but cpc recommended rs 15600. The incumbent in this scale are benefited in comparison with lower scales. There should be some saturation point of satisfaction

kssitaraman
23-09-2011, 09:24 PM
Further to my posting of yesterday in this Thread, enquiries with a retired CAO from the Department of Telecom reveal the following: -

During the IV CPC period, there existed two gazetted posts with identical scale of Rs 2200-4000 with designations as – Senior Accounts Officer (SAO) and Assistant Chief Accounts Officer (ACAO), with the latter post meant for direct recruits and also for promotee officers from the other post according to a quota, both through UPSC, as the very designation indicates.

The V CPC carried forward these two posts along with their respective assignments and allotted its Scale of Rs 8000-13500 for both the posts, as was done by its predecessor, but describing the former post as Class II and the latter as Class I which description was prevalent at the time.

The VI CPC, vide Para 2.2.18 also carried forward the two posts and placed the former post of SAO in Pay Band 2 in Scale Rs 9300-34800 describing it as Group ‘B’ and placed the latter post (ACAO) in Pay Band 3 in Scale Rs 15600-39100 describing this post as Group ‘A’ Entry, with Grade Pay of Rs 5400 for both these posts. Viewers may also see Para 2.2.19.x. of the Commission’s Report, which is reproduced below.

[I]“x. The scale of Rs.8000-13500 is the entry grade for Group A posts for which the Running Band PB-3 has been recommended. Many Group ‘B’ posts had been extended the scale of Rs.8000-13500 even though these continued to be Group ‘B’ posts. All such Group ‘B’ posts shall now be placed in the running band PB-2 along with a grade pay of Rs.5400. To ensure that existing parity in terms of pay scale of these posts vis-*-vis the entry scale of Group A posts is not disturbed, the same grade pay of Rs.5400 has been prescribed.”

The Government has implemented the above Recommendation vide the Annexure to its OM of 14/10/2008.

Similar conditions may have existed in other Departments too, lest the V & VI CPCs would not have carried forward these two posts with identical scale in their Recommendations.

I see nothing more in this matter and hence so far as I am concerned the matter is closed, unless any clarifications are required in this write-up.

As for my bro: his pension revision seems to be in order. His promotion as SAO came after his retirement and he retired two years prematurely with full retirement benefits after duly completing 33 years qs.

K.S.Sitaraman.

RKPATHAK
24-09-2011, 07:24 AM
This I agree. Accounts cadre effected badly particularly the 7450-11500

kssitaraman
24-09-2011, 12:44 PM
The post of ACAO (now placed in PB3) was being treated as a promotional post though it had the same scale as that of SAO with the promotee officers from the latter post enjoying enhanced pay fixation benefits under FR.22. The post of SAO had its importance as the gateway to enter J.A.Grade and it continues to be so after being placed in PB2. There seems to be a strong case for placing the post of SAO also in PB3 for this and other reasons like the nature of duties assigned to this post and the post of ACAO being similar. If this is accepted, it will be found that the history of these two posts having identical scale from the IV CPC days continues during the VI CPC period also. This perhaps will pave the way for upgradation of the next lower Grades, which zre stated to be neglected from the Accounts Dept point of view. Of course, these ideas are far-fetched judging from today's situation.

K.S.Sitaraman.

kssitaraman
25-09-2011, 10:23 PM
The following sentence in my write-up at Post No.7 of 23/09/2011 in this Thread may be treated as DELETED, as it conveys an incorrect position: -

"Similar conditions may have existed in other Departments too, lest the V & VI CPCs would not have carried forward these two posts with identical scale in their Recommendations."

The correct position is - While the V CPC seems to have maintained status quo by allotting identical scale of Rs 8000-13500 for both the posts of SAO and ACAO, the VI CPC has in fact placed the superior latter post in Pay Banf 3 with new scale, as explained in Para 2.2.19.x. of its Report.

The error is much regretted.

kssitaraman
04-02-2013, 09:41 AM
Extract of a message taken from the Bharat Pensioners Samaj’s Website on this subject is reproduced below for information and guidance of this segment of the Pre-2006 pensioners in this Thread..

“Decision on the Recommendations of the 6th CPC and representation from JTS Group ‘A’ Pre-2006 Group ‘A’ Rs 8000-13500 Scale Pensioners thereon respectively—Postal Department Orders dated 09/07/2012 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxzJmujVle3cdF95YVJWUkpLZTA/edit?usp=sharing

K.S.Sitaraman.