PDA

View Full Version : Invalid Minimum of Pay Band



sundarar
01-11-2008, 10:51 PM
Dear Sirs,

I have posted the following new thread with Title `What is Minimum of Pay Band' under Promotion & ACP. I thought of reproducing the same here also. My intention for the same is to link the CCS(RP) Rule 13 with Rule 3(5) and Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 regarding minimum revised pension that has to be ensured, so as to conclude that the Minimum of Pay Band is an invalid nomenclature. On the contrary, Minimum Pay in the Pay Band only has the real meaning. At the end of my submission hereunder, I am hopeful of convincing that only Minimum Pay in the Pay Band has valid meaning in the case of promotees as well as pensioners and if this is in order, the O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 and CCS (RP) Rule 13 need to be provided with appropriate clarifications to make things clear, especially to Banks who will be determining the actual minimum revised/enhanced pension. The CCS (RP) Rule 13 in reality means the minimum pay in the higher pay band for stepping upto it. The Para 4.2 also means the same only, ie. minimum pay in the pay band corresponding to the post from which the pensioner has retired. When the Minimum of PB is not at all valid, my request is that the Pay in the Pay Band only has relevancy in all respects.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT IS THE MINIMUM PAY IN THE PAY BAND?

Dear Sirs, Kindly excuse me for any inconvenience in reading this submission for your valuable opinion and analysis please.

The CCS(RP) Rule No.13 indicates that:-
One increment equal to 3% of the sum of pay in the PB and the existing GP will be computed and rounded off to next multiple of 10. This will be added to existing pay in PB. However, if the pay in the PB after adding the increment is less than the minimum of the higher PB to which promotion is taking place, pay in the PB will be stepped to such minimum.

Now, the question arises, what is that minimum of the higher PB that has been referred to in the above Rule?
Answer lies in another question: What is that pay in PB after adding the increment will be lesser than the aforesaid minimum of the higher PB?
Is there any such Pay in the lower PB from which Promotion is taking place that may require to be stepped to `minimum of the higher PB'? NO.

For illustration purpose, Scale No.S-1 to S-23 have been taken to analyse the above questions?
(And in all promotion examples here, it is deemed that the individual was drawing minimum of the pre-promoted post. Even if with minimum, his pay could not be stepped to minimum of PB, then rest can very well be assumed)

Assuming that the individual was drawing minimum pay in the pre-revised scale and with the corresponding revised pay in PB - If a person with such revised pay in PB gets promoted to another post, whether his pay in PB after adding the increment will be lesser than the minimum of the higher PB. For example, let us take S-6 Scale; The revised pay for the minimum of S-6 pay will be Rs.6060. Whether this pay after adding the increment will become lesser than 5200 at any point of time, (which is supposed to be the minimum of the higher pay band that is carrying higher GP also in this case?). Actually, this pay after adding the increment will be lesser than the minimum pay in the higher pay band, ie. 7440 which is the corresponding revised pay for the minimum pay in the higher pre-revised payscale (S-7) to which promotion is taking place.

Since it is also indicated that `in cases where promotion involves change in the pay band also, the same methodology will be followed', let us take another example to suit this provision. If a person in S-8 Scale gets promoted to S-9 post, whether any stepping up is required - No. Because, the minimum pay in the higher Pay band itself is 9300(which is also the beginner of the PB and is being contended as minimum of PB). Suppose, if another person gets promoted from S-8 post to S-10 post, then whether his pay will be stepped upto 9300? If so, both will be drawing only 9300? No.
There must be some purpose for provision of stepping up and that can be realised only through the definition of Pay in the Pay Band - Pay drawn in running pay band.

Scale No. Pay PB Pay in PB GP
S-1 2550 5200-20200 5200 1800
S-2 2610 5200 1800
S-3 2650 5360 1800
S-4 2750 5530 1800
S-5 3050 5880 1900
S-6 3200 6060 2000
S-7 4000 7440 2400
S-8 4500 8370 2800
S-9 5000 9300-34800 9300 4200
S-10 5500 10230 4200
S-11 6500 12090 4200
S-12 6500 12090 4200
S-13 7450 13860 4600
S-14 7500 13950 4800
S-15 8000 14880 5400
NEWGR.A 8000 15600-39100 15600 5400
S-16 9000 16740 5400
S-17 9000 16740 5400
S-18 10325 19210 6600
S-19 10000 18600 6600
S-20 10650 19810 6600
S-21 12000 22320 7600
S-22 12750 23720 7600
S-23 12000 22320 7600

If we look at another angle, a person on promotion on 1.2.2006 from S-12 to S-15 prior to notification of CCS (RP) Rules, acquired an increase of Rs.2690 (Both pre-revised pay is assumed to be at minimum) whereas after notification, the difference in pre-promoted and promoted Band pay with GP has been Rs.1680/- because the amount 9300 is treated as minimum of the higher pay band and thus no stepping up becomes possible. On the contrary, in the event of treating the Pay in Pay band Rs.14880 minimum of higher pay in the pay band, the difference in amount will be Rs.3690. Now, whether the RP Rules are towards enhancement or otherwise in this case. In my view, it is definitely for enhancement in all respects. The actual amendment required is just to add : MINIMUM PAY IN THE HIGHER PAY BAND as against Minimum of the Higher Pay Band, especially because PAY IN PAY BAND MEANS PAY IN THE RUNNING PAY BAND.
The above amendment is so required, because it has already been decided vide Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 in determining minimum revised pension as 50% OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND + GRADE PAY corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. It was never spelt out as Minimum of Pay Band in this Para 4.2.

At the same time, the subsequent O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 has not noted the difference between Minimum of the Pay Band and that of Pay in the Pay Band, and even Banks have already been given incorrect impression about this factor. Keeping the Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 and the CCS (RP) Rule 3 (5), as the base dictionary for defining Minimum Pay in the Pay Band, both CCS(RP) Rule 13 as well as the O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 may require suitable to the extent PAY IN THE PAY BAND AS AGAINST MINIMUM OF PAY BAND.

These are my humble views, and I may be incorrect either totally or partly. I wish myself to stand corrected always. For kind information please.

Best Regards.

vnatarajan
02-11-2008, 10:54 AM
Hi

Dear Mr Sundarar

I can not but sincerely and deeply appreciate your excellent analysis, linkage and interpretations. To keep the momentum of the debate it so deserved and entitled for this thread, I feel like putting up a few supplementaries (purely frompre-2006 pensioners' pointof view!).

1.How many 'minimums' can there be in a PAY BAND?

2.If there are more than one 'minimum', then how do you define the respective 'starting and ending' points within the PAY BAND?

3.As you, me and somewhere I think Sudacgwb have been using some nomenclatures like SUB PAY BAND , RUNNING PAY BAND Etc., and to give meaning to the entire gamut and essence of all the arguments, is there a need to clarify everything?

For example in the MoF OM of 13th Sept 2008 (I think), for different pre 2006 pay-scales, concordant tables for each of them were shown, where each one of the old pay-scale had its own CORRESPONDING PAY BAND (?) (...or else what would you call it?) -and both these sets were shown under one main PAY BAND (appearing at the top of each such table).

Were these concordant tables with the so called :"'(same) running" PAY BAND at the top for a group of such, with individual "SUB" PAY BANDS meant only for revised pay fixation?
OR were they qalso meant for pension revision purposes as para 4.2 of the pension OM of 1st Sept 2008 could refer and concord?

As a (DECISION MAKER in my own way in my past GOVT. career and a) responsible authority, to avoid a galore of representations/ calrifications/ appeals from a wide cross-section of pensioners (some of them as highly placed as Retired Members of RAILWAY BOARD and HAG level Scientists/ Engineers/ Administrators etc), I would have paid a LITTLE BIT MORE ATTENTION in these aspects!

What is appalling is - even after a spate of appeals/ representations etc, no DENIAL or AFFIRMATION is appearing anywhere in the concerned Govt. sectors!

All the material put up in your rich presentation deserves full praise. You have made the forum lively.

vnatarajan

(Reg. current employees' pay fixations also, I do apprehend several contradictions- because of the same reason of merger of scale. For example case of promotee of S 6 scale may not be that easy!. I will not be surprised if somewhere some rule will be cited to interpret that he draw 'personal increments' in the old scale till he reaches the minimum of the new scale and then switch-over! This has happened earlier in some cases (when I was in service) where a 'HUGE' jump in pay was involved9 say on promotion or even on direct selection to a higher post within the same dept.)).

vijai kapoor
02-11-2008, 01:37 PM
Mr Natrajan,

Let us confine ourselves to the term used by 6 CPC as well as Para 4.2 of OM dated 01.09.08 i.e. Minimum of pay in payband plus grade pay corresponding to pre revised scale of the retiree which should have been interpreted as minimum of pay in payband corresponding to pre-revised scale plus grade pay corresponding to pre-revised scale. However we all know it has been wrongly interpreted as minimum of payband plus gde pay corresponding ot pre-revised scale of the retiree in OMs of 3.10.08 and 14.10.08 and which needs to be fought and get corrected from P&PW.
We should not talk of terms like Subband and what will be min and max of each subband because use of new terms not used by 6 CPC will only create confusion and make things easier for P&PW (to dismiss protests).

vnatarajan
02-11-2008, 02:36 PM
D/Mr Vijai Kapoor

I fully agree with your observation.

If MOF/ DOP/PW undo the confusion within a reasonable time, all our debates and departures will end in no time.

We shall await the answers to our reps. already sent!

vnatarajan.

sundarar
02-11-2008, 03:26 PM
Dear Sirs,

I am in full agreement with Shri Vijai Kapoor and your goodself.

It is the Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 to be read in letter and spirit for amending the Pension Table annexed to O.M. dt. 14.10.2008. My attempt was to establish that no minimum of pay band exists and serves any purpose. Even in the case of direct recruits after 2006, only the pay in the pay band is mentioned for the corresponding GP. No where minimum of PB has sanctity. The PB itself is meant for categorising the cadres which were earlier Gr.D, Gr.C, Gr.B, Gr.A (Now that Gr.D got abolished, it is going like PB 1, PB2, PB3, PB4 HAG). Actually, it is the running pay band to a corresponding pre-revised scale, only matters. As running pay band corresponding to a pre-revised scale has its own minimum and maximum w.r.t. the minimum and maximum of pre-revised scale, the minimum pay in a particular running pay band only could be the point of reference.

Thank you both for kind guidance. Best Regards.

ranganathan
02-11-2008, 10:43 PM
Dear shri. Sundar,

Yours is an excellent analysis of the issue of Minimum pay in the pay band Vis-a-vis, minimum of the payband . in summary the position is as under.

i) The pay bands in the 6th CPC cannot, by any logic, be taken to be the equivalent replacement to the pay scales of the different grades that existed under the 5th CPC. Each pay- band under the 6th CPC, in fact, is a chain of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC, with appropriate/ corresponding start points within.There were 34 graded pay scales in the 5th CPC era . Under the 6th CPC, related Revised Pay Rules, these have now been accommodated into 4 running pay bands apart from one newly created super time scale and two fixed scale above them. The pay scales grouped into each pay band have appropriate starting points in the pay band with distinct grade pay for each. This fact is settled beyond doubt, through the provisions in the ministry of finance RPR rules notification, vide. G.S.R. 622 (E) ed 29 Aug 08 and further confirmed in their OM: F. No. 1/7/2008-IC dated 30 Aug 08, regarding pay fixation and dop & pw OM. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 Aug accepting recommendations of the 6th CPC and OM even number, dated 01 Sep 08.



ii) On the same plank, different entry level basic pays have been fixed in the same Pay band, for direct recruits appointed after, 1-1-06, in the posts carrying different grade pays.


iii) The modifications notified in the order of 03 Oct 08, will result in two different minimum basic pays in the relevant pay band, for the same grade under the 5th CPC,; one for the serving employee and one for retired employee.

By the foregoing, little is left to doubt that the minimum of the pay band is not and cannot be construed as the minimum pay in the pay band, and for all purposes including pension and family pension of either pre or post 2006, pensioners, this minimum basic pay is the minimum pay in the pay band as notified in the finance ministry orders and confirmed in your first notified OM of 30 Sep 08.

Your examples under FR22, further reinforce the above correct position and the view all of us hold. I have no doubt that govt will open their eyes and correct their mistakes hopefully without our requirement to knock the doors of the courts of law.

regards.
PK Ranganahan.
-

sundarar
03-11-2008, 11:35 PM
Thank you very much Shri PKRji for your valuable observations.
As desired by all senior members of the Forum, I submit a draft letter for kind consideration of the Forum.

Best regards and thanks for providing an opportunity like this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To November , 2008.


Shri M.P.Singh,
Director (PP)
Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare,
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pensions
Loknayak Bhavan,
NEW DELHI-110 033. TELEFAX: 011-24624802


Dear Sir,

On behalf of the Pensioners of the Central Government, we would like to invite your kind attention to the O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A).pt. dated 14.10.2008 regarding Revision of Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners/Family Pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

The col.8 and 9 of Annexure-1 of the aforesaid O.M. indicates about the `sum of minimum of PB + GP/Scales’ for Pensioners and Family Pensioners to determine the minimum revised pension in respect of the corresponding pre-revised scale from which the Pensioners had retired.

While the said Annexure-1 to O.M. dated 14.10.2008 relates to minimum of PB, the O.M. F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, DoP&PW emphasizes about MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND + GP of the corresponding pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

It may kindly be noted that the MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND to a corresponding pre-revised scale can be none other than the minimum pay in the corresponding RUNNING Pay Band to such pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

As each pay band under the 6th CPC is a chain of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC, with appropriate/corresponding minimum in the running pay band, the minimum of Pay Band referred to in the Annexure-1 to O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 cannot be construed as the minimum pay in the pay band for the corresponding pre-revised scale of pay from which the Govt. servant had retired and started drawing pension. As such, the contention under Annexure-1 in this regard, actually is not in accordance with Para 4.2 of the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 and therefore, requires to be modified in line with the Para 4.2 of the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, DoP&PW.

We therefore request you to look into the matter for appropriate action in this regard.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

( )
Copy forwarded
To
The Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Department of Pension & Personnel’s Welfare
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pensions, Govt. of India,
Lok Nayak Bhavan,
NEW DELHI-110 033. - for kind information and necessary action please.

vnatarajan
04-11-2008, 07:59 AM
Dear All

Mr Sundarar, learned member, has taken the pains to prepare a draft on the CRITICAL ISSUE of the interpretation of the 'MINIMUM' of the PB.

Except for the word RUNNING(which may not be necessary at all as there is already a qualifying word - 'corresponding'), as a retired scientist Ifeel, the draft can be adopted for sending a number of individual appeals by post and Email to the DoP/PW immediately to keep alive our grievance issue. I am not competent to understand the language of the administrators and so others may kindly suggest amendments/ additions/ modifications etc so that all interested can send their appeals quickly.

However, can there be a line to suggest that if this appeal is attended to by the DOP/PW quickly, there may not be any need for issual of multiple PPOs in future, as the settling of this 'MINIMUM" issue may resolve many ambiguities!

(WE SHOULD GO AHEAD WITH APPEALS ON CORE ISSUES PENDING THE OTHER EXERCISE OF PREPARING THE ARTICLE FOR NEWSPAPERS)

Some actions to proceed further pl.

vnatarajan

(I and many of my colleagues/ copensioners have sent more than a hundred reps. to DOP/PW already in early/ middle/ late Oct 2008 on the injustice issue and none have recieved any response/ reply so far. I AM PERSONALLY INCLINED TO SEND MY SECOND APPEAL on the 'MINIMUM" issue by tomorrow/day-after- using Mr Sundaraar's draft, by email/post)

vnatarajan

vijai kapoor
04-11-2008, 12:50 PM
Actually the grievance arose with the issue of OM of 3.10.08 wherein P&PW used the term Minimum of Payband (irrespective of pre-revised scale) instead of minimum of pay in payband. OM of 14.10.08 deals mainly with enabling PSBs to pay it quickly what was already decided in OM of 3.10.08.
I have already (on 14.10) sent grievance against OM of 3.10.08 to them for this.
More and more people should send grievance at earliest to lend weight to the matter. That only may move them.

vnatarajan
05-11-2008, 11:52 AM
Thanks Mr Vijai.

I think enough material and references are available for all aggrieved pensioners/ family pensioners to send their appeals quickly.

vnatarajan