+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Clarifications still required on issues arising out of MACPS of May, 2008

  1. #1
    Senior Member tvenkatam is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    641

    Default Clarifications still required on issues arising out of MACPS of May, 2008

    Dear Friends,

    It is a known fact that the ACP Scheme of August, 1999 was diluted in the Modified ACP Scheme of May, 2009 based on the recommendations of SCPC. There could have been few queries, had the date of effect of both the revised pay structure and the MACP Scheme been one and the same. The new pay regime having been brought into effect from 01.01.2006, the compatible MACP Scheme was given effect only from 01.09.2008. The scale of pay/grade pay assured and the monitory benefit by way of increment, etc., on account of promotion/upgradation varied widely both under old pay structure and new pay structure. There had, however, been no problems as long as the upgradations under the ACP Scheme of August, 1999 were granted and the pay was fixed under the pre-revised pay structure. During the interim period of 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008, the implementation of erstwhile ACP Scheme has the overriding effects of old pay structure on the new pay regime and gave rise to a number of doubts/queries requiring clarifications of DOPT.

    The O.M. of May 19, 2009 which introduced the Modified ACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.2008 also contained certain guidelines for counting/ignoring promotions/upgradations granted in the past (?) for the purpose of granting upgradations under MACP Scheme. Following are the areas which may need to be clarified by DOPT.

    1. The term “in the past” referred to in Para 5 of the MACP Scheme must be clarified to include the period up to 31.08.2008 i.e. up to the last date of implementation of the erstwhile ACP Scheme. The illustration-1 under para 5 of MACP Scheme relates to cases in which promotions/ upgradations were granted to the merged grades prior to 01.01.2006. This illustration shall mutatis mutandis apply to the cases of promotions/ upgradations granted among the merged grades between 01.01.2006 and 31.08.2008 as well. Since the existing illustration gives to misconstrue the term ‘in the past’ (in para 5 of MACPS) to mean the period ‘prior to 01.01.2006’, a clarification may be necessary.
    2. Ignoring promotions/ upgradations earned up to 31.08.2008 between the merged grades shall be only for the purpose of granting upgradations under the Modified ACPS. DOPT may clarify that there would be no refixation of pay discounting the benefit of promotion already effected on such past promotions/ upgradations earned up to 31.08.2008 to the merged grades.
    3. The pre-revised pay scale of 6500-10500 has since been upgraded to 7450-11500 with the grade pay of 4600. A reference to the scale of 6500-10500 in the Illustration-1 under para 5 of the MACP Scheme has become infructuous and may have to be deleted.
    4. Para 6.1 of the MACP Scheme prescribes the method of fixation of pay in respect of ACP upgradations granted between 01.01.2006 and 31.08.2008. This para essentially reminds only of the option already available to the employees vide second proviso to Rule 5 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. As one of the options, an employee can have his pay fixed in the revised pay structure w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with reference to his pre-revised scale as on 01.01.2006. Under this option, his pay on upgradation will be fixed under FR 22 on the date of upgradation (with 3% of basic pay as increment) with grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale of pay granted under the ACP Scheme of August, 1999. This aspect needs to be mentioned specifically for better understanding of the provisions of para 6.1 of the MACP Scheme.
    5. Fixation of pay under FR 22 on promotion/ upgradation has to be in terms of Rule 13 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 providing for addition of one increment equal to 3% of the basic pay to the pay in the pay band even in cases where the grade pay of both lower and promoted posts are the same.
    6. Para 8 of the MACP Scheme states that promotions earned in the post carrying same grade pay in the promotional hierarchy as per Recruitment Rules shall be counted for the purpose of MACPS. Section I (ii) of Part B and Part C of the First Schedule to the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, inter alia, provide for merger of posts in the pre-revised scale of 5000-8000 and 5500-9000 while the scale of 6500-10500 has already been upgraded and merged with 7450-11500. Any promotions/ upgradations granted (upto 31.08.2008) between the scale of 5000-8000 and 5500-9000 or between 6500-10500 and 7450-11500 shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradations under MACPS. In case these posts recommended by SCPC for merger are not merged on functional considerations and the identity of posts are retained with identical grade pays for both the posts, then the provisions of para 8 comes into play. The promotions in future (from 01.09.2008) between these posts of same grade pay will be counted for the purpose of MACPS.

    Government will also have to ensure that the individual Departments initiate necessary action expeditiously to merge the posts to which the same grade pays have since been assigned with amendments to the RRs so as to avert cases of future promotions between the posts of same grade pay.


  2. #2
    Senior Member svsankar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Yeddumailaram, Medak
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Sir,
    Earlier surplus redeployed past service was not counted for ACP but one on own willingness transferred to lower grade past service was counted for ACP. This has taken a turntable in the present MACP. Surplus redeployed past service is counted, but one on own willingness transferred to lower grade past service is not counted for MACP. Any comments on this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Anthony is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    CHENNAI
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Dear Mr. TVenkatam,

    I would like to concentrate on point No.2 of your comment.

    "2. Ignoring promotions/ upgradations earned up to 31.08.2008 between the merged grades shall be only for the purpose of granting upgradations under the Modified ACPS. DOPT may clarify that there would be no refixation of pay discounting the benefit of promotion already effected on such past promotions/ upgradations earned up to 31.08.2008 to the merged grades. "

    Here in Railways, the promotions earned in the past (prior to 01/01/2006) are ignored for grant of MACPS and not the pay which was fixed on their promotions. They still enjoy the pay fixed. They have another benefit of MACPS and another pay fixation of an additional 3% increment.

    But, for those who have been promoted after 01/01/2006, (especially on competitive exams within the department) their promotions were nullified including the pay which was fixed before the implementation of the pay commission.

    I don't know why this type of partiality. Those employees who have cleared on competitive exams for promotions are more or less Juniors and would have put in lot of effort to clear the exams and get the promotion. They might not have completed 10 years in the same grade pay. These employees are the most affected parties. As a one time measure, I would suggest that ONE TIME EXEMPTION to give the benefit of pay fixation to those employees promoted on or after 01/01/2006 and the date of notification.

    With regard to point No.5 "5. Fixation of pay under FR 22 on promotion/ upgradation has to be in terms of Rule 13 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 providing for addition of one increment equal to 3% of the basic pay to the pay in the pay band even in cases where the grade pay of both lower and promoted posts are the same. "

    I hope, in all the promotions, one way or the other some responsibility increases to the post for which one is promoted. In that case, as you have said, 3% increase in pay should be necessary for motivation of the employees.
    Now that the staff side of the anomaly committee have asked for 10% rise on promotions, hope it is also implemented.

    Sir, you have done a wonderful analysis, hope that the anomaly committee have a look on the points you have raised.

    Anthony

  4. #4
    Junior Member liji is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Anthoniji,

    Yes, the staff side had asked for 10% increment on promotion. But I couldn't find that if there is same grade pay ie., 5000 & 5500 scales, (4200 gp) where promotions earned after 1.1.2006, they asked for a fixation on promotion. They asked to add to clarification 2 that " promotion from one grade pay to another", this will again make problems to merged scales, where some one get promotion after 1.1.2006. pl. think and clarify

    liji
    Last edited by liji; 16-12-2009 at 03:39 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member tvenkatam is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by svsankar View Post
    Sir,
    Earlier surplus redeployed past service was not counted for ACP but one on own willingness transferred to lower grade past service was counted for ACP. This has taken a turntable in the present MACP. Surplus redeployed past service is counted, but one on own willingness transferred to lower grade past service is not counted for MACP. Any comments on this.
    Dear Mr. SVSankar,

    It appears to me that your query has an error as regards counting of surplus redeployed past service. Surplus redeployed past service was counted for ACP vide Condition No. 14 of the ACP Scheme of August 1999. The same is counted even under the MACP Scheme of May 2009 and as such there seems to be no deviation in the new rule. Past service on redeployment to a higher grade and temporary service not qualifying for redeployment did not qualify for upgradation under ACPS so is under MACPS.

    In case of unilateral transfer on own request, the regular service rendered in the previous organization was counted for upgradation under ACP Scheme of August 1999. It was also clarified subsequently in July 2001 that the past service rendered before transfer to a lower post would be counted for upgradation in the hierarchy of new post. Para 9 of MACP Scheme takes care of these provisions existed in the erstwhile scheme. For this purpose the term “post carrying same grade pay” appearing in Para 9 of MACPS must be construed to mean “post carrying same or higher grade pay” keeping in view the same spirit that necessitated the clarification of July 2001.

    Para 24 of MACPS, however, imposes a penalty in case of an employee after getting promotion/ACP seeks unilateral transfer on a lower post or lower scale depriving him of the first ACP again in the fresh service in the new department. This provision seems illogical and is at variance with the erstwhile ACP Scheme.
    Last edited by tvenkatam; 17-12-2009 at 01:12 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member svsankar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Yeddumailaram, Medak
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvenkatam View Post
    Dear Mr. SVSankar,

    It appears to me that your query has an error as regards counting of surplus redeployed past service. Surplus redeployed past service was counted for ACP vide Condition No. 14 of the ACP Scheme of August 1999. The same is counted even under the MACP Scheme of May 2009 and as such there seems to be no deviation in the new rule. Past service on redeployment to a higher grade and temporary service not qualifying for redeployment did not qualify for upgradation under ACPS so is under MACPS.

    In case of unilateral transfer on own request, the regular service rendered in the previous organization was counted for upgradation under ACP Scheme of August 1999. It was also clarified subsequently in July 2001 that the past service rendered before transfer to a lower post would be counted for upgradation in the hierarchy of new post. Para 9 of MACP Scheme takes care of these provisions existed in the erstwhile scheme. For this purpose the term “post carrying same grade pay” appearing in Para 9 of MACPS must be construed to mean “post carrying same or higher grade pay” keeping in view the same spirit that necessitated the clarification of July 2001.

    Para 24 of MACPS, however, imposes a penalty in case of an employee after getting promotion/ACP seeks unilateral transfer on a lower post or lower scale depriving him of the first ACP again in the fresh service in the new department. This provision seems illogical and is at variance with the erstwhile ACP Scheme.
    Sir
    Thank you very much for the clarification on surplus redeployed. I had mistook the seniority clause for ACP.
    My second query was on Para 24 only.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Clarifications/Corrections by Min of Finance
    By spenke in forum Promotion, ACPS & MACPS
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 25-09-2010, 02:01 PM
  2. Replies: 61
    Last Post: 26-01-2010, 07:35 PM
  3. ACP clarification required
    By jayakumarbalaji in forum Promotion, ACPS & MACPS
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 16-04-2009, 09:09 PM
  4. What Qualification is required in Group A in MIT
    By jayantskathe in forum Promotion, ACPS & MACPS
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-04-2009, 10:11 AM
  5. acp on nov 2008
    By ramanareddy in forum Promotion, ACPS & MACPS
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-10-2008, 11:17 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts