|Family pension for mentally retarded or physically handicapped dependents|
|Amendment to the Rule 170(1) of General Financial Rules (GFR), 2017|
|Expected DA from July 2017|
No 6 – 7th Pay Commission – Expectations and Suggestions
Krishnamoorthy Ramarathnam says
From the nomenclature of CCL, it is evident that a mother may not necessarily take care of a child. Father too may have to take care of his child. Physical presence may not be necessary for taking care of somebody as one-can employee maids/tutors or other persons for such purpose.
At present, only female employees are enjoying the benefit of 730 days CCL having 2 children upto 18 years of age. Don’t you feel that the same benefit should be extended to the male employees also whose spouse is not a government employee or is unemployed/housewife.
Logically speaking, more often than not a women’s husband is found to be employed, whereas a man’s wife may not be employed. In other words she may be a housewife or homemaker.
It is also seen that a male employee has a single income i.e. he happens to be the sole bread earner for his family whereas a women employee comes under double-income group.
CCL is therefore, more necessary for a male government servant whose spouse is unemployed or is a housewife than a women employee whose spouse is employed and falls under double-income group. They are comfortable with their income as they can very well employee maids/ tutors and other persons for taking care or looking after their children below 18 years.
Hence, in my opinion CCL should be extended to the male government employees (whose spouse is unemployed) also having children below 18 years.
IT MAY FINALLY BE CONCLUDED THAT CCL CAN BE AVAILED OF BY ANY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WHOSE SPOUSE IS UNEMPLOYED OR BY ONE OF THE SPOUSES IF BOTH ARE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
I think this point should find a place in the forthcoming 7th Pay Commission.
Women employees only may be given the benefit of 730 CCL but without pay as in the case of Extra ordinary leave. Strictly NO WORK, NO PAY policy should be applied to this case also . That is, their period of CCL availed of may be treated for calculating the length of service, but they should not be entitled to any pay for the said period.
Hope my suggestion will be kindly acknowledged.