PDA

View Full Version : Merger of 5000 - 8000 & 5500 - 9000



Anthony
22-03-2009, 09:33 PM
Dear friends,

I want to know from the persons of all departments working in government organisations of the effects of the merger of scales of 5000 - 8000 with 5500 - 9000.

Kindly post the designation in the lower grade of 5000 - 8000 and the promoted grade of 5500 - 9000 and the number of persons affected in your department.

This is required for a statistics.

With regards

Anthony

Anthony
31-03-2009, 05:09 AM
1107 members have vied this, but not a single soul, to post their comment. Hope that some one post their comment soon

jitendraacr
01-04-2009, 09:54 PM
Dear friend
In my organisation, Scale of 5000-8000/- was not existing. The CBDT people are worst sufferer from merger of these scales and they should come forward to provide the details. But you have to first mention your intention clearly for collecting such a data only then people come to you.
Jitendra

stashara
03-04-2009, 10:01 AM
Dear friends,

I want to know from the persons of all departments working in government organisations of the effects of the merger of scales of 5000 - 8000 with 5500 - 9000.

Kindly post the designation in the lower grade of 5000 - 8000 and the promoted grade of 5500 - 9000 and the number of persons affected in your department.

This is required for a statistics.

With regards

Anthony
Why not include 6500-.......... also and also there are Group C, Group B then Group B non.gaz./gaz. cadre in this khichdi without any discrimination with same grade pay. As for statistic I have been transmongrified from 5500 Gp. B Non-Gazeted to 6500 Gazetted without any change in grade pay and with just one promotional increment. No marks for guessing where benifits/ govt.'s savings are diverted.

sundarar
07-04-2009, 05:44 AM
Dear Sirs,


Some of the departments are in the process of review and they will come out with the revised structure of pay scales either by replacement or some upgradation effective from 1.1.2006. In respect of already upgraded scales in the pre-revised structure effective from 1.1.2006, there are certain problems.

The minimum aspects have been troubling the serving employees also particularly in respect of certain pre-revised scales to which upgraded pre-revised scales have been prescribed. Such upgraded pre-revised scales were prescribed only for the purpose of identifying the grade pay applicable for the upgraded pre-revised scale. The pay in the pay band will however be 1.86xpre-revised pre-upgraded scale. As on 1.1.2006, an employee where upgraded scales have been prescribed in the pre-revised structure, in his hand has (a) Original Pre-revised Scale (b) Upgraded Pre-revised Scale limited to grade pay purpose (c) revised pay in the pay band according to (a) and grade pay according to (b) both of which constitute revised pay.
Therefore, minimum pay in the pay band as applicable to corresponding pre-revised upgraded scale is not at all possible even if a person was drawing Rs.7300 in the scale of 6500-10500 that has been upgraded to 7450- .
On this count, both pensioners as well as the serving employees have been made to suffer at one stroke out of misinterpretation on minimum aspects.

Same way, the CCS(RP) Rule No.13 relating to pay fixation on promotion that stipulates stepping up of pay in case after adding the 3% notional increment to the existing pay in the pay band on promotion, if falls short of minimum of .........., Here too, it is subjective provision that in case change in the pay band also is involved apart from change in GP.

There is a hesitation to understand that minimum of PB and minimum of the pay in the pay band are not one and same in respect of all the 30 pre-revised scales (There are only 4 exceptions as discussed already in someother topic) and the said hesitation reflected in various OMs creating discrepancies.

The Anomaly Committee as well as ACP may nullify the anticipated issue amicably, let us hope.

What is wrong in prescribing the minimum pay in the pay band as applicable to the corresponding pre-revised upgraded pay scale for the serving employees if the 1.86 multiplied by existing pre-revised pay of pre-upgraded scale is lesser than such minimum?

Mr. A drawing min. pay Rs.6500 as on 31.12.2005 will get Rs.12090 + 4600 = 16690 (His pre-revised scale 6500-10500 is upgraded to 7450-11500 only for the purpose of determining his grade pay)

Mr.B who joined as a fresh recruit on or after 1.1.2006 in the pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500 will get Rs.12540+4600 = Rs.17140

Mr. C drawing min. pay Rs.7450 as on 31.12.2005 will get Rs.13860 + 4800 = (18660 (His pre-revised scale 7450-11500 is upgraded to 7500-12000 only for the purpose of determining his grade pay)

Mr. D drawing min. pay Rs.7500 as on 31.12.2005 will get Rs.13950+4800 = Rs.18750.

Mr. E who joined as fresh recruit on or after 1.1.2006 in the pre-revised scale of Rs.7500-12000 will get Rs.13350+4800= 18150.

If 50% of the maximum of the pre-revised scale is allowed for scales upto S-23 as against 40%, it may somewhat justify as the Gr.B scale commence from 5500-9000. Moreover, the difference between pay band minimum 9300-5200 = 4100; 15600-9300 = 6600; Whereas 37400-15600 = 21800. Is there some justification for this wide gap? The pay band minimum also shall have some proportion beyond 1.86 factor.

What is the net benefit from 1.1.2006. 40% of max. of pre-revised scale minus 30% of the same towards Income-Tax. 28% of max. of pre-revised scale is the net benefit for all scales having min. of PB less than 37400. It is to be noted that the DA for Jan - June 2006 has been sacrificied which is otherwise given as 12% of pre-revised pay (1.74+12).

Further, why there should be an option to fix pay on promotion either from date of promotion or from date of increment? Promotion is a one time affair in a period of about 5-10 years. So the fixation of pay on promotion can be from the date of promotion itself without any need for exercise of option. On the next increment, if a person served more than six months in the promoted grade he will draw increment on the basis of promoted pay. Otherwise, he will draw increment on the basis of pre-promoted pay. It is quite natural all personnel will opt for fixation from the date of increment if their promotion date is between 2nd January and 30th June. Hence option is not at all required.

Hope Anomaly Committee will address these issues suitably.
Best Regards
Sundarar.

badri mannargudi
07-04-2009, 10:24 AM
Dear friends,

Excellent presentation by Sunderarjee (Post # 5 in the instant thread). What a painstaking effort!
However, I have some reservations over the penultimate para. I do not see any redundancy in the provision. Unless there exists a provision for exercising such option, there may not be any room for getting two effective increments on 1.7. as A.O/PAO may take objection to the effect that pay fixation on the date of promotion is mandatory, a bitter but strong objection that will deny the poor G.S one increment on the following July 1st. Thus while it is true that each and every such officer may opt for such deferment, provision for exercising option must exist.
With regards,
Badri.

sundarar
07-04-2009, 12:11 PM
Dear Shri Badriji,

My proposal to avoid exercise of option is one way of `de-linking the pay fixation on promotion with next date of increment'.

What happens if an officer gets promoted after 1.7. of an year.
For the sake of exercising option, he has to opt for fixation of pay on promotion, from the date of promotion only. Though he can exercise the second option, it is no way beneficial to him.

Similarly, in the case of an officer who gets promoted after 2.1. of an year, he has to necessarily opt from the date of next increment only.

When promotion is a one time affair in a period of 5-10 years, linking the same with next date of increment brings postponement of fixation of pay in the pay band although gp is allowed on the date of promotion.

In this changed scenario of single increment date, the promotees particularly belonging to first half of the year, shall be allowed to get their pay fixed on the date of promotion itself without any need for exercise of option. On the increment date in the same year, they will as usual draw 3% of the revised pay as an increment to be added with the pay in the pay band. (Therefore, there may not be any need arise which I anticipated in my earlier post that whether the promotee served more than six months in the promoted grade or otherwise to determine 3% of revised pay of the promoted post or pre-promoted post.)

Best way is therefore, to delink the promotion pay fixation with date of increment. Both can happen on the respective due dates. It may look like 2 increments on 1st July in respect of promotees of first half of the year, but in reality, their promotion pay fixation is getting postponed to July and hence even after promotion, one could not get his due pay till his increment date falling thereafter, in respect of promotees of first half of the year.

It shall be viewed as an administrative reform, whereby the promotee is not put into any loss. In short, the promotee of second half of the year, as well as first half of the year shall be treated on par with respect to pay fixation on promotion. When everybody knows, what should be the best option, then what is the need for asking him to exercise. Instead, we can bring in the required changes in the existing system so that paper work will come down. This is only a suggestion and at the same time, to avoid any postponement of 3% firtment benefit till increment date of promotees of first half of the year. That is, the provision reg. postponement of increment to next year shall be removed (which itself appears as a punishment owing to promotion - like transfer on promotion) and the promotees of the first half of the year shall be allowed to get his pay fixed on the date of promotion, and to draw his increment on the due date irrespective of the promotion date, as in the case of the promotees of the second half of the year.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

badri mannargudi
07-04-2009, 08:01 PM
Dear Shri Badriji,

My proposal to avoid exercise of option is one way of `de-linking the pay fixation on promotion with next date of increment'.

What happens if an officer gets promoted after 1.7. of an year.
For the sake of exercising option, he has to opt for fixation of pay on promotion, from the date of promotion only. Though he can exercise the second option, it is no way beneficial to him.

Similarly, in the case of an officer who gets promoted after 2.1. of an year, he has to necessarily opt from the date of next increment only.

When promotion is a one time affair in a period of 5-10 years, linking the same with next date of increment brings postponement of fixation of pay in the pay band although gp is allowed on the date of promotion.

In this changed scenario of single increment date, the promotees particularly belonging to first half of the year, shall be allowed to get their pay fixed on the date of promotion itself without any need for exercise of option. On the increment date in the same year, they will as usual draw 3% of the revised pay as an increment to be added with the pay in the pay band. (Therefore, there may not be any need arise which I anticipated in my earlier post that whether the promotee served more than six months in the promoted grade or otherwise to determine 3% of revised pay of the promoted post or pre-promoted post.)

Best way is therefore, to delink the promotion pay fixation with date of increment. Both can happen on the respective due dates. It may look like 2 increments on 1st July in respect of promotees of first half of the year, but in reality, their promotion pay fixation is getting postponed to July and hence even after promotion, one could not get his due pay till his increment date falling thereafter, in respect of promotees of first half of the year.

It shall be viewed as an administrative reform, whereby the promotee is not put into any loss. In short, the promotee of second half of the year, as well as first half of the year shall be treated on par with respect to pay fixation on promotion. When everybody knows, what should be the best option, then what is the need for asking him to exercise. Instead, we can bring in the required changes in the existing system so that paper work will come down. This is only a suggestion and at the same time, to avoid any postponement of 3% firtment benefit till increment date of promotees of first half of the year. That is, the provision reg. postponement of increment to next year shall be removed (which itself appears as a punishment owing to promotion - like transfer on promotion) and the promotees of the first half of the year shall be allowed to get his pay fixed on the date of promotion, and to draw his increment on the due date irrespective of the promotion date, as in the case of the promotees of the second half of the year.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

Dear Srrjee,
In my view, the problem does not lie (no pun is intended) at the stage of promotion. It is all with respect (again, no pun intended) to the the date of next increment. They should not have fixed the minimum service of Six months as the eligibility of earning Annual Increment). Annual Increment can more or less be treated as a matter of right earned by virtue of having worked for a full year at the previous Pay). So promotion being another thing earned and it does not fall from sky into the hands of the G.S, it should not be disturbing the normal earning of increment on every 1st of July.
One may argue that in that event, a person joining Service on 30th June of a particular year would get "ANNUAL" increment on very next day. But this can not be avoided. Now, we have witnessed one who joined on 31st of January has got one increment more than the lesser mortal who joined the department on 1st of Feb. Assuming that nothing happens and things stand as they are now, all those who issue promotion orders may be kind enough to ensure that the orders are released in such a way that the promotees join the
higher post(on promotion) on or before January 1st.
with regards,
Badri

narayanan
07-04-2009, 09:16 PM
Dear friends,

Our learned friend Shri Sundararji has made a valuable suggestion with regard to delinking of increment on promotion from the annual increments due on 1st July every year.

If the is explicitly cleared in the governing rules, it will reduce a lot of confusion and heart burning amongst the majority of govt servants in addition to thel financial benefits.

Earlier, the procedure of exercising option for fixation of pay during promotion was to reduce the impact of 'one year condition' for getting annual increments. Now there is no such 'one year condition' prevailing.

As per the relevant rule (Rule 10 of RPR):-

"There will be a uniform date of annual increment, 1st July every year. Employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st July will be eligible to be granted the increment"

In my view, the rule allows drawing of increment on 1st July provided he is in the pay structure (ie. Pay Band and Grade Pay system adopted from 1.1.2006) and without considering other form of increments (ie. granted during promotion).

A promoted employee would have worked in the same pay structure before his promotion (not in same Grade Pay/Pay Band). Therefore, I think the condition of '6 months in the pay structure' is fulfilled even if the promotion is after 1st January to 30 th June. Therefore, I do doubt on requirement of an option for deferring the promotional increment till the 1st July to get it alongwith the annual increment.

Yes, there require micro analysis of all the provisions to prevent any disadvantages due to amalgamation of the existing procedure with 6CPC products.

With regards,

Narayanan.