No.NC-JCM–2017/7th CPC Anomaly
August 16, 2017
The Dy.Secretary – JCA
Department of personnel & Training
New Delhi – 110 001
Ref: Your letter No.11/2/106-JCA dated 5/5/2017 and 17.7.2017
We send herewith items for inclusion in the agenda for the National Anomaly Committee meeting. There may be a few items, apart from these, as finalized items have only been circulated a few days amongst our constituents. We shall submit the same as soon as it is received.
Shiv Gopal Mishra
Item No 1:
Anomaly in computation of Minimum Wage
In Para 1.29 of Chapter 1 of the 7th CPC report, the learned Chairman of the Commission Justice Shri AK Mathur has approvingly quoted the following observation their Lordship in the Supreme Court in the case of Bhupendranath Hazarika and Another Vs. State of Assam (SC 2013 (2) Sec.516)
“……..It should always be borne in mind that legitimate aspirations of the employees are not guillotined and a situation is not created where hopes end in despair. Hope for everyone is gloriously precious and that a model employer should not convert it to be deceitful and treacherous by playing a game of chess with their seniority. A sense of calm sensibility and concerned sincerity should be reflected in every step. An atmosphere of trust has to prevail and when the employees are absolutely sure that their trust shall not be betrayed and they shall be treated with dignified fairness then only the concept of good governance can be concretized. We say no more.”
Naturally the recommendations of the 7th CPC ought to have been in consonance with the spirit of the observations made in Para 1.29, While determining the Minimum Pay (Chapter 4.2). The Commission is on record to state that it shall abide by the formula of Dr WR Aykroyd as amended by Supreme Court in the case of Workmen represented by Secretary Vs. Management of Reptakos Brett and Co. Ltd and Anr. on 31 October, 1991(Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 504, 1991 SCR Supl. (2) 129). In its submissions made to the Govt, the Staff Side had pointed out the errors and omissions crept in the computation of Minimum wage and its consequential impact. The Commission’s recommendations in this regard was clearly in violation of what has been stated in para 1.29 (quoted above). We annex for ready reference the extracts from our own submissions pertaining to this issue.
Our submission to Cabinet Secretary on 7th CPC:
“We are not in agreement with the methodology adopted by the 7th CPC in computing the minimum WAGE. We give hereunder briefly the reasons thereof.
1. The retail prices of the commodities quoted by the Labour bureau is irrational, imaginary and even absurd in respect of certain articles at certain places. The Staff Side had objected to the adoption of those rates in its meeting with the Commission on 9th June, 2015.
2.The adoption of 12 monthly average of the retail prices is contrary to Dr. Aykroyd formula. Same is the case with the reduction effected by the Commission on housing and social obligation factors. The house rent allowance is not a full compensation of the expenditure incurred by an employee for obtaining an accommodation. Therefore, no reduction on that count in arriving at the minimum wage is permissible. We may cite the minimum wage computation made by the 3rd CPC in this regard, The employees were in receipt of HRA even at that time. But still the 3rd CPC, and rightly, so, adopted the 7.5% as the factor for housing. In respect of the addition to be made for children education and social obligation as per the Supreme Court judgement, (25%) the Commission has reduced the percentage to 15% on the specious plea that the employees are separately given children education allowance. The Children education allowance is not a full reimbursement of the expenses one has to incur. After the liberalization of the Education Sector where private parties were allowed to set up universities and colleges, the expenses for education had increased heavily . No concession or allowance is granted to the employees for educating the children beyond the higher secondary levels. The earlier Pay Commission has only tried to compensate a little in the increasing cost of education and that too at the primary level, since even the Governmental institutions had started charging abnormal tuition and cp her fees.
3. The website maintained for the Agriculture Ministry depicts the retail prices of commodities which go into the basket of minimum wage computation. Even though the rates quoted by them vary from the real retail prices in the market, it provides a different picture. If one is to take the rates quoted by them for different cities and make an all India average of the prices as on 1.7.2015, it will work out to Rs. 10810. It will result in the computation of die minimum wage of Rs. 19880. Adding 25% for arriving at the MTS scale, it will rise to Rs. 24850. To convert the same as on 1.1.2016, 3% will be added as suggested by the 7th CPC. The final computation will be Rs. 25,596, when rounded off shall be Rs. 26000.
4. The Andhra Pradesh State Pay Commission in its report has taken the commodity prices at Rs. 9830.- as on 1.7.2013 which works out to a minimum wage of Rs. 18080. The wage of MTS will then be Rs. 22600 as on 1.7.2013, The Corresponding figure for 1.1.2016 shall be Rs. 26758 , rounded off to Rs. 27000.
5. The Staff side had computed the minimum wage as on 1.1.2014 at Rs. 26,000, taking the commodity price at Rs. 11344. The rates were taken on the basis of the actual retail prices in the market as on 1.1.2014( average prices of 8 Cities in the country) substantiated by the documentary evidence of Cash bill obtained from the concerned vendors. As on 1.12016, the minimum wage work out to Rs. 29339, rounded off to Rs. 30,000.
6. The 5th CPC adopted the rate of growth in the economy ( as reflected in the increase in the per capita net national produce at factor cost) over a period of ten years to arrive at the increase required to be made to arrive at the minimum wage. The per capita NNP at factor cost registered an increase of 65.28% over a period of ten years in 2013-14. If we apply the same percentage to the emoluments (Pay +DA) as on 1.1.2016 (assuming that DA will be 125% as on that date), the minimum wage as on 1.1.2016 for an MTS will have to be Rs. 26030, rounded off to Rs. 27000.
7. In para 4.2.9 of the report, the Commission has given a table depicting the, percentage increase provided by the successive Pay Commissions, according to which the 2″ CPC had made a paltry increase of 14.2%. The 3rd CPC gave a rise of 20.6, 4th 27.6, 5th 31.0 and 6th CPC 54%. While the per centage increase had been in ascending order all along, the 7th CPC has sought to reverse that trend ostensibly for reasons unknown. It was the meager increase of 14% provided for by the 2nd CPC that triggered the volatile situation in the civil service and led to all India strike encompassing all employees which lasted for 5 days in 1960.
8. In the case of Bank, Insurance and many other Public Sector Undertakings wage revision takes place once in 5 years. In the recently concluded agreement, Bank employees were provided more than 15% increase.
9. After the implementation of the Pay Commissions Report the AP State Employees have been given a wage structure based on a minimum wage far above the level of Central Government employees. In their case also wage revision does take place once in 5 years.
It could be seen from the above that the computation of minimum wage by the 7 CPC is prima facie wrong and computed on untenable premises and incorrect data. The minimum wage therefore requires re-computation and revision. Once the minimum wage gets revised, the fitment formula, the multiplication factor applied for determining the pay levels and the pay matrix itself will have to be consequently revised. “
It could be seen from the above extract that the Minimum Wage as on 1.1.2016 could riot have been computed at less than Rs 26000/- and consequently the multiplication factor ought to have been at 3.714. It is, therefore, demanded that the Minimum Wage and multiplication factor may be recomputed and Pay Level and Pay matrix changed in accordance with the revised minimum wage.
Item No. 2
3 % Increment at all stages
In Para 5.1.21, the Commission has stated that it has constructed the Pay Matrix, which has two dimensions i.e. horizontal and vertical ranges. The vertical range is supposed to denote the pay progression with the level. The steps are to reflect the annual forward progression of three per cent in each level. More specifically under the Caption “Annual increment” in Para 5.1.38, the Commission has emphatically stated that the annual increment is being retained at 3 percent. In the forward to the report, the Chairman Justice Shri AK Mathur (Para 1.19) writes “the prevailing rate of increment is considered quite satisfactory and has been retained.” This apart in para 4.1.17, the Commission states that the various stages within a level moves upward @ 3% p.a
Having stated categorically that a Govt servant must get his annual increment @3% of his pay, the recommendation that one’s pay on award of annual increment must move to the next cell in the matrix would become tenable only if the difference between the two cells is more than 3% of the Pay of the Govt servant. From the chart annexed it could be seen that it is not so at many stages warranting a revision of the Pay Matrix at those levels, where the employee gets less than 3% as his annual increment when he moves on to the next higher stage in the matrix.
ILLUSTRATION-I — LOSS IN INCREMENT
SI. No. in
Basic Pay in
Next above Basic Pay fixed as per pay matrix
Item 3 :
Removal of condition of 3% stipulated to grant bunching benefit :
One of the conditions stipulated for grant of Bunching increment is that the difference between the lower and higher pay should be atleast 3%.
It could be seen that at many levels of the Pay Matrix, the difference between one cell and another is less than 3% of the Basic Pay of the amount in the lower cell. However, the said lesser amount is still treated as one increment. In the circumstance to deny the government servant the Bunching increment on the ground that the difference is less than 3% is not reasonable. The said condition required to be removed. Given here under is the illustration which explains the issue.
(1) The pay as per the 7th CPC of MTS drawing pay of 7210 and 7430 in the pre-revised pay is bunched and fixed at Rs.19700. As per the bunching orders issued by Finance Ministry, the official drawing Rs.7430 in the pre-revised scale will get additional increment and will be fixed at Rs.20300/- with effect from 01.01.2016.
But the MTS officials drawing Rs.7660/- in the pre-revised pay are also getting revised pay fixed at Rs.20300 with effect from 01.01.2016.
It is requested that to remove the anomaly, the MTS officials who are drawing Rs.7660/- in the pre-revised scale may also be made eligible to get additional increment.
Item No 4
Fixation of Pay on Promotion
The Fundamental Rule 22 (I) (a) (i) is reproduced here under;
“When a Government Servant promoted / appointed to a higher post which involves assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to such permanent post, he will draw as initial pay the stage of the time scale next above his substantive pay in respect of the old post”.
In the existing Pay Matrix the vertical stages are same in most of the Levels, such Level 2 & 3, 6 & 7, 7 & 8, and 6 & 8 etc. Because of this, if an employee is promoted under the regular promotion scheme or MACP his pay will be almost the same. This has happened only because Rule 13 of the revised Pay Rules, 2016 the fixation of pay on promotion is stipulated in the manner stated in para 1 above. In other words, the omission of the words at the stage next above the notional pay in FR was changed to a cell equal to the figure so arrived at.
The above stated stipulation imposes reduced/ or no financial benefit to an employee on promotion. In many cases the benefit has now become equivalent to one annual increment. The clause in the existing FR subject to a minimum has also been omitted in the revised pay rules.
In the existing pay matrix, the stages are same in most of the levels such Level 2 & 3, 6 & 7, 7 & 8, 6 & 8 etc. In this situation, if an employee is promoted/upgraded under MACPS from one level to another level, his pay will be almost same as he may draw even without promotion.
For example, an employee (Senior Accountant) working in Level 6 (erstwhile GP 4200) and drawing pay of Rs 47600/- (Cell – II in Level 6) with effect from 01.07.2016 after annual increment, is granted MACPS to level 7 (erstwhile GP 4600) or promoted to the post of Asstt, Accounts Officer (AA D) to level 8 (erstwhile GP 4800) with effect from 01.04.2017, his pay will be fixed as under, as per Rule -13 of CCS (RP) Rules 2016 —
- Basic Pay in the revived pay structure (Level – 6) – 47600
- On upgradation under MACPS to Level -7 – 49000
- On promotion to higher level (AAO) Level – 8 – 49000
- On drawing one increment (without promotion or MACPS) – 490u0 Level — 6
It can be seen that there is no improvement on promotion/upgradation, which can never be the intention
Necessary amendment in the Rule-13 that – “on promotion/upgradation of an employee, if the stage/cell on pay fixation is equal in the promoted/upgraded level, he shall be placed at the next higher cell/stage in the promoted scale (Level)” — may be made.
Item No 5
Removal of Anomaly in Pay Matrix
The Pay of officials drawing different Grade Pay is fixed in the same stage in different pay level of 7th CPC Pay Matrix.
Pay (in the
The above table is depicting the pay fixation as per the Pay Matrix. The following anomalies may be noted.
a) Revised Pay of an employee who has drawn 28300 (SL-1) higher basic pay in the pre-revised scale is fixed at the same stage (74300) than the employees who have drawn lower basic pay in the pre-revised scale (see SL-2, SL-3).
b) Revised basic pay of an employee who had drawn 28470 (SL-4) higher basic pay in the pre-revised scale is fixed at the same stage 74300 thanthe employees who have drawn basic pay in the pre-revised scale (see SL-1, 51-2, SL-3)
c) Revised basic pay of an employee whose revised basic comes to 81238 (SL-5) in the revised scale is fixed at a stage (83300) equal to the employees who revised basic pay comes to 81212 (see SL-7,8,9)
d) Revised basic pay of employees drawing GP of 4200, 4600, 4800, 7600 (SL-6,7,8,9) are fixed at the same stages from index Serial 9 to 20 (44900 to 62200) of level -6 (4200 GP), stages from index serial 1 to 12 (44900 to 62200) in Level -7 (4600 GP) and stages from index-2 to 10 (49000 to 62200) of Level — 8 (GP-4800) are one and the same in the feeder cadre and promoted level. As a result officials who are promoted from Level 6 to 7 and from Level 7 to 8 are the losers as their pay on promotion will be fixed in the cell which would be equal to the amount in the lower level after addition of one increment.
e) An employee who is drawing more pay in the pre-revised pay is being fixed less in the revise pay eg. Revised Basic Pay drawing 21320 with GP 5400 will he fixed at 69000 on 01.01.2016 (Level 10) where as basic pay of an employee drawing 21300 with GP 5400 will be fixed at 69200 on 01.01.2016 (Level 9).
f) Similarly when an employee drawing 4600 GP (Level 7) is granted MACP to 4800 GP (level 8) there is no change in his revised basic pay as per Pay Matrix.
Construction of pay matrix is done in such a way that on promotion in most of the cases the fixation falls at the same stage (even though pay level is lower and higher) thus the benefit on promotion is only the annual increment. If minimum benefit of two increments is not ensured on promotion, that will act as disincentive to the employees for accepting promotion.
Item No 6
Anomaly due to index rationalization
In para 5.1.19 the 7th CPC has stated that the existing entry pay at each level corresponding to successive grade pay in each band from PB 2 onwards has been enhanced by an “Index of rationalisation “according to which for the pay levels in PB 2 where constructed with a factor of 2.62, in PB 3 with 2.67, PB 4 with 2.72 and HAG, HAG + apex level with 2.81 and for Cabinet Secretary with 2.78.
This is done on the plea that the role and responsibility and accountability increases at each step in the hierarchy. It was for the same reason, the 5th and 6th CPCs assigned higher pay scales/pay bands to senior officers in the Govt.
No doubt, the role, responsibility and accountability increases when one move up from the lower level of hierarchy to higher levels. That was precisely the reason that the Pay, Perks, benefits and privileges provided to them are higher. If such differential multiplication factors are used for construction of Pay at the time of each CPC, it will result in serious disturbance to the vertical relativity. This apart, it may be noted that during period between 2006 and 2016, there had been no specific addition to the responsibilities warranting higher pay packets. In other words, the construction of Pay Level from PB2 onwards by varying multiplication factor disturbs the vertical relativity and if continued unabated will drastically alter the ratio between minimum and maximum salary in the Govt. As of date the ratio between minimum salary and maximum salary stands at 1:17.36 which was supposed to have been at a desirable level of 1:10.
In view of the fact that the minimum wage had not been constructed properly the staff side requests that the lower Pay Levels must also be constructed on the basis of the multiplication factor of 2.81, i.e. all the Pay Levels are to be computed by applying multiplication factor of 2.81 which will enable to raise the minimum wage to Rs 19670 and the ratio between minimum and maximum would be down to 1:15.8.
Item No 7.
Anomaly arising from the decision to reject option No. 1 in pension fixation
The 7 CPC on considering various demands raised by the employees and Pensioners, while rejecting most of them at the instance or opinion tendered by the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare as also by the Defence Ministry in Para 10.1.67 recommended the following formulation for civilian employees including CAPF personnel who have retired prior to 01.01.2016.
The Govt in its resolution dated 4th August 2016 made its stand on the recommendation as under:
Revision of Pension of pre 7m CPC retirees
The Commission recommend the following pension formulation for civil employees including CAPF personnel who have retired before 0.1.0.1.20.16(i) All the Civilian personnel including CAPF who retired prior to 01.01.2016 (expected date of implementation of the Seventh CPC recommendations) shall first be fixed in the Pay Matrix being recommended by this Commission, on the basis of the Pay Band and Grade Pay at which they retired, at the minimum of the corresponding level in the matrix. This amount shall be raised, to arrive at the notional pay of the retiree, by adding the number of increments he / she had earned in that level while in service, at the rate of three percent. Fifty percent of the total amount so arrived at shall be the revised pension (ii) The second calculation to be carried out is as follows The pension, as had been fixed at the time of implementation of the VI CPC recommendations, shall be multiplied by 2.57 to arrive at an alternate value for the revised pension.(iii)Pensioners may be given the option of choosing whichever formulation is beneficial to them. It is recognized that the fixation of pension as per formulation in (i) above may take a little time since the records of each pensioner will have to be checked to ascertain the number of increments earned in the retiring
Both the options recommended by the7th Central Pay Commission as regards pension revision be accepted subject to feasibility of the implementation. Revision of pension using the second option based on fitment factor of 2.57 be implemented immediately. The first option may be made feasible after examination by the Committee comprising Secretary (Pension) as Chairman and Member (Staff). Railway Board, Member (Staff), Department of Posts, Additional Secretary Financial Adviser, Ministry of Home Affairs and Controller General of Accounts as Members
The doubt over the feasibility of implementation of the said recommendations had arisen due to the report tendered by the Secretary (Pension). It was no doubt an unprecedented step taken by Secretary (Pension).
The Govt., unfortunately and unethically too, set up a committee under the chairmanship of the same Secretary (Pension) to go into the very matter of feasibility, who had expressed that very doubt at the beginning and prior to the issuance of the resolution.
The Staff side was provided with an opportunity to represent before the Committee. They had pointed out that it was feasible to implement the recommendation with relevant official records that was supposed to have been kept alive by the Government. The submissions made by the Staff side is annexed. On the specious plea that the Service Books were not available in respect of all pensioners, the committee came to the conclusion that the recommendation is not feasible to be implemented. In fact the committee made a random study on the availability of the records and came to the conclusion that of the 100 cases they had taken up, in the case of 86, the relevant records were available. In other words, the Committee itself found that only 14% of the cases the records, i.e. the Service Books will not be able to be traced. The very fact that there are other equally relevant official records from where the requisite information of the number of years of service the pensioner has put in a cadre/Grade/scale of pay etc at the time of retirement was available, was not considered by the Committee. The Committee thus erroneously came to the conclusion that the recommendation is not feasible to be implemented.
The Committee then went on to suggest an alternative proposal, which was identical to what the 5th CPC had recommended but not acted upon due to huge financial outflow by the then Government. The staff side appreciating the fact that the said recommendation of 5 CPC, if implemented even now will not only benefit the pensioners but also will be capable of removing certain anomalies that might arise if option No 1 is implemented in the case of a few pensioners, suggested that apart from the two options recommended by the 7 CPC, the Committee’s suggestion could be considered as 3rd Option.
The rejection of the suggestion of the staff side and the recommendations of 7 cpc by the Govt regarding option No. 1 on the ground of ” infeasibility ” is untenable and creates a bad precedent in as much as a Govt Servant or a pensioner is made to suffer financially for the fault of the Govt of not maintaining the requisite official records for verification. For the fault of the Govt not having the records, the pensioners or the employees cannot be punished. The finding that the recommendation is not feasible for implementation is faulted as the committee itself has come to the conclusion that in 84% of the cases, the relevant records are available. The decision amounts to denial of benefit for a vast number of pensioners for the simple reason that in the case of small segment of pensioners the records are stated to be not available. The Committee’s findings are also erroneous on the ground that it did not consider whether alternate documents other than Service Books are available from where the claim of the pensioner could be verified.
From the above, it could be seen that Govt’s decision not to implement option No 1 recommended by 7 CPC is flawed and based upon factually erroneous premkus and constitutes a clear cut anomaly. The said decision of the Govt requires to be revisited and pensioners given the benefit of option No 1.
We give a chart indicating the financial loss suffered by pensioners on account of the Govt decision in not implementing the recommendation of 7 CPC concerning option No 1.
Comparison of Basic Pension — option I vis-a-vis new Formula
Scale of Pay
, No. of
Loss of Account of denial of Option-1
Copy of letter No.NC-JCM-2016/7th CPC (Pension) dated October 17, 2016 addressed to the Secretary ,Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, Govt. of India, Sardar Patel Bhawan,New Delhi.
Sub: 7th CPC recommendation. Pay determination in the case of Pre-2016 pensioners. Option No. 1. Examination of feasibility.
Ref: Minutes of the meeting of the Committee in F.No. 38/37/2016 P&PW(A)Dated 10th October, 2016
We refer to the discussions held on 6.10.2016 in the matter of feasibility of acting upon the 7th CPC recommendations (Option No. 1) in the matter of pension computation and the minutes circulated under cover of the letter cited. At the outset, we would like to state that the members of the Staff Side, who were associated with the discussions, gained an impression that the Pension Department would not like to implement the recommendation of the 7th CPC concerning Option No. 1 provided to the Pensioners in determination of the revised pension. As has been pointed out by us during the discussions on 6th October, the Government has accepted the said recommendation with a rider of its feasibility of implementation. The attempt, therefore, must be to explore the ways and means of implementing the said recommendation, which benefits a large number of retired personnel, especially those retired prior to 1996. It is, therefore, highly doubtful how any alternate proposal in replacement of the accepted recommendation would be tenable.
We have the matter considered by various Pensioners Associations as also the Federations of the Serving employees. We enumerate hereunder the feed- back we have received:
Even according to the exercise carried out by the Pension department, only in 18% of the cases, the service Books are reported to have been not available. Conversely it means that in 82% of the cases the records are available to operationalize option No.1. Besides, we find that on the basis of a random scrutiny that only 40% (Percentage varies from Department to Department depending upon the then prevailing career prospects) generally will opt to have pension fixation under the provision is of option No.1. It will work out to hardly 7% of the cases, where Service Books might not be available. As has been pointed out in the last meeting, Gradation/Seniority list is maintained for each Cadre by the Concerned Department, where the date of promotion to the cadre inter alia is indicated. The said gradation list will reveal many other details viz. the date of birth, date of entry into government service, date of promotion to the present cadre, whether eligible for next promotion, date of superannuation etc. This apart there are several other documents maintained by the Department, which will come in handy for verification of the clam, viz, the pay bills, Establishment files containing promotion orders etc. In other words it is possible to verify the claim of any individual pensioner or family pensioner and take appropriate decision. In other words, there is no infeasibility question at all. It was also pointed out by many organisations that the retention period of Service Books in all major Departments of the Government of India is 5 years after the death of the Pensioner/ Family Pensioner and not 3 years after retirement as indicated by the Official side at the meeting. This apart, it may also be noted that the option has to be exercised by the concerned individual pensioner and he has to make a formal application to the concerned authorities. He is bound to substantiate his claim with documentary proof, whatever that is available with him.
As was pointed out by some of us in the last meeting, the non- implementation of an accepted recommendation on the specious plea of infeasibility will pave way for plethora of litigation. Apart from the administrative difficulties, the Pension Department would be saddled with if such litigations arise, it would be sad and cruel on the part of the Government to compel the pensioners to bear huge financial burden to pursue their case before the courts of law.
In view of this the Staff side is of the firm view that the Government issue orders for implementation of Option No. 1 as there is no room for stating that the recommendation is impossible to be implemented for those who are benefited by the said option.
We are aware that certain anomalies are bound to arise on implementation of option No.1 Anomalies have arisen in the past too. What is needed is to examine those anomalies and ensure that those are genuinely addressed.
It may be noted that even under the present dispensation, no two Government servants are entitled for the same pension despite they being retired on superannuation from the same grade on the same day. The promotion in lower cadres especially Group B, C and D had been few and far between a decade back in many departments and continues to be the same situation in certain organisations of the Government of India. The vacancy based promotion system, one must admit , operates in a fortuitous manner. For no fault of the individual employee, he/she may retire without getting a promotion whereas his colleague due to sheer luck might get the promotion at the fag end of the career. The case of those employees who retired prior to the advent of ACP or MACP is really pathetic. They had to remain in certain departments in the same cadres for years together. They are in receipt of a paltry amount of pension though there is nothing distinguishable in their service careers for such deprivation. To deny them the benefit provided by the 7th CPC on the specious plea that the relevant records are not available with the Government may not only be unreasonable but also will not stand the test of judicial scrutiny .
As we have stated in the meeting, the alternative suggestion put forth by the official side is a welcome feature , for it might be a step in the right direction to remove the anomaly pointed out by the Official side when Option No.1 is implemented and will benefit those pensioners who got their promotion at the fag end of their career.. It is also likely to bring about certain extent of parity, if not full, between the old and the present pensioners. However it cannot be in replacement of the recommendation in respect of Option No.1. made by the 7th CPC. The alternate suggestion of the Pension Department may be offered as another option to the pensioners who are not benefited either by Option No. 1 or 2 recommended by the 7th CPC. Such an option will eliminate to a great extent the anomalies that might arise from the implementation of option No. 1.
In fine, we request that:
The Pensioners/family pensioners may be allowed to choose any one of the following three options,
(a) 2.57 time of the present pension if that is beneficial.
(b) Option No. 1. Recommended by the 7th CPC, if that is beneficial for them
( c). to determine the Pension on the basis of the suggestion placed by the Pension Department on 6.10.2016 i.e. extension of the benefit of pension determination recommended by the 5th CPC (viz. arriving at notional pay in the 7th CPC by applying formula for pay revision for serving employees in each Pay Commission and consequent pension fixation) to all pre-2016 Pensioners/family pensioners, if that becomes beneficial to them.
Item No 8
Lesser Pay in higher Level of Pay Matrix
The construction of Pay Matrix has opened up very many anomalies. From the illustration given hereunder, it could be seen that a person in higher Pay level but drawing same basic pay of person in the lower pay level gets lesser pay. It could also be seen that certain stage in PB-2 GP 5400 has more benefit than a similarly placed employee in PB3 GP 5400. (see the table). The Pay Matrix therefore has to be changed to remove the anomaly.
The Basic Pay from the stage 3 of Level 9 of the Pay Matrix recommended by 7th Central Pay Commission shall be higher than of stage 1 of level 10 for a same amount of pre revised basic pay (Pay in Pay Band + Grade Pay) for the grade pay of Rs 5400 in PB 2 and Rs 5400 in PB 3. As per the 7th CPC chart on Pay Matrix the pay for level 9 and 10 are as follows:
As per the Th CPC chart on Pay Matrix the pay for level 9 and 10 are as follows:
GP 5400 in
GP 5400 in PB 3
Lesser pay in
Higher Grade pm
Pre revised Pay in Pay Band
Pre Revised Pay (Pay + GP)
Revised Pay in Level 9
Revised Pay in Level 10
Lesser Pay in
Bunching of steps in the Revised Pay structure
In para 5.1.36, the 7 CPC envisaged that
“Although the rationalisation has been done with utmost care to ensure minimum bunching at most levels, however if situation does arise whenever more than two stages are bunched together, one additional increment equal to 3 percent may be given for every two stages bunched, and pay fixed in the subsequent cell in the pay matrix”.
To give effect to the recommendations, orders were issued vide No.1-6/2016-IC dated 7.9.2016 by the Deptt of Expr-IC.
In consonance with the recommendation, the said order stipulated that officers drawing pay where the difference is less than 3% shall not be entitled for this benefit.
However vide order No 1-6/2016-IC dated 03.08.2017, DOE, IC issued a clarification which was virtually to wipe off the benefit to a large number of employees. They placed 4 (four) conditions for the grant of Bunching benefit as under.
i) Benefit on account of bunching is to be extended when two or more stages get bunched.
(ii) Benefit of one increment is to be extended on account of bunching of every two consecutive stages.
(iii) As stipulated in MoF OM dated 07 09.2016, a difference of 3% to be reckoned for determination of consecutive pay stages, specific to each employee.
(iv) All pay stages lower than the Entry pay in the 6th CPC pay structure indicated in the pay Matrix contained in the 7th cpc Report are not to be taken into account for determining the extent of bunching.
Condition No (iv) has been incorporated as an afterthought it must be construed as one contradictory to the very intention expressed in clear terms by the Commission.
The Staff Side demands that the condition No (iv) in the order cited may be deleted so as to provide the benefit of Bunching to all deserving employees.
Item No 10
In Para 10.1.26, and 10.1.27, the 7 CPC has dealt with the quantum of minimum pension. The 7 CPC has not adduced any reason as to why the demand of minimum pension as minimum wage is not acceptable. The Commission had asked for the opinion of the Deptt of Pension in the matter. From what is stated in the report, the Dept of Pension evaded answering the question. There had been no rationale in fixing 50% of Minimum wage as Pension. Pensioner also can’t live without need based minimum wage. The only point that could have been probably considered with some rationale was that in the case of pensioner, the family Unit need not necessarily be 3 as in the case of serving employees. In the case of serving employee, the family unit is taken at 3 on the plea that the family consists of husband, wife and 2 children. Probably exclusion of children from the Pensioner family unit might he justified. From that view of the matter, the minimum Pension ought to have been fixed at MWx 2/3 = Rs 12,000 (as present). The staff Side demands that the computation in respect of minimum Pension might be corrected and revised orders issued, adopting the sound rationale mentioned above.
Item No 11
Date of Effect of Allowances -HRA, Transport Allowance, CEA etc.
The 7 CPC states that its recommendations once accepted must take effect from 1.1.2016. The Govt accepted this recommendation and made it effective from 1.1.2016 only for Pay where as allowances were made effective with effect from 1.7.2017. Salary package contains pay and allowances and cannot be bifurcated and treated separately. This issue had been the subject matter of the proceedings before the Board of Arbitration. The award of the Board of Arbitration in CA No. 8/1986 dated 4.1.1989 was accepted and implemented where as the award on the second occasion in CA No 2/2002 dated 15.4.2004 being the same has not yet been acted upon. The staff side demands that the grant of above stated allowances must be from 1.1.2016 as in the case of Pay.
Item No 12:
Implement the recommendation on Parity in Pay Scale between Sr Auditor/Sr Accountant of IA&AD and organized Accounts with Assistant Section Officer of CSS.
The 7 CPC, in Para 11.12.137 of the report under the subheading ‘Organised Accounts Staff’, has recommended that “The Commission, in Chapter 7.1 has already taken a view with regard to Pay level of Assistants of CSS. The recommendation there-in will settle the parities as have been sought to be established”.
The 6 CPC in its report vide Para 3.1.14 recommended parity between field and Secretariat offices upto the level of Assistant (now Assistant Section Officer). the 6th CPC further stated that the recommendations made in Chapter 3.1 would also apply to IA&AD and Organised Accounts (i.e. Civil Accounts, Postal Accounts, Defence Accounts and Railway Accounts) (Para 7.56.10). Further in Para 7.56.8 6 CPC stated that “….because it is recommending merger of pre-revised pay scales of 5500-9000 and 6500-10500 which will automatically place Assistants in CSS and SA in an identical revised pay band and grade pay”.
Despite this clear cut recommendation of granting the same pay scale to Assistant Section Officer in CSS (formerly Assistant) and SA in Organised Accounts and IA&AD the SA has been kept at pay matrix 6 where as the Assistant SO in CSS are place in pay matrix 7. As per the Govt. resolution dated 25th July 2016, this recommendation has not been rejected but it remains to be implemented.
The 5th, 6th and now 7th CPC have stipulated and recommended that the Pay levels for the cadres/categories/grades having same recruitment qualification must carry identical pay scale. Denial of pay scale to SA at par with Assistant SO of CSS is clear violation of the afore stated principle which also disturbed the horizontal relat ,city between the pay scales SA in Organised Accounts and IA&AD and Assistant Section Officers of CSS.
This anomaly may be rectified by placing the SA also in Pay matrix 7.
Item No 13
Parity in Pay Scales between Assistants/Stenographers in field /subordinate offices and Assistant Section Officer and Stenographers in CSS
7 CPC in Para 7.1.4.j, quoted the following the recommendation of 6th CPC:
“Time had come to grant parity between similarly placed personnel employed in field offices and in the Secretariat and this parity would need to be absolute till the grade of Assistant”
With this quote, the 7 CPC recommended the following:
“The Commission accordingly strongly recommends parity in pay between the field staff and head quarter staff upto the rank of Assistants on two grounds — firstly the field staff are recruited through the same exam and they follow the same rigours as the Assistants of CSS and secondly there is no difference in the nature of functions discharged by both…. ”
Denial of the same pay scale to field offices as of those cadres upto Assistant SO in CSS is in violation of the principles enunciated by the 7 CPC that cadres and categories Laving similar recruitment qualifications must carry identical pay scales. This also is causes horizontal relativity between the pay scales of field level staff and those of CSS.
This recommendation need to be implemented in letter and spirit by granting the pay scale that Assistant Section Officers and Stenographers of CSS to Assistants and Stenographers of field offices so as to remove the anomaly.
Item No 14
Grant of GP 5400 to Senior Section Officer of Railways & AAOs of IA&AD and organised Accounts (Civil Accounts, Postal Accounts and Defence Accounts)
In Para 11.40.83 of its report, the 7 CPC has recommended the following:
“in line with our recommendations for organised Accounts Cadres, it is further recommend that the employees in Grade Pay 4800 should be upgraded on completion of 4 years service, to the existing GP 5400 (PB-2) VIZ., Level 9 in the Pay Matrix, on non functional basis”.
Under the sub-heading “Organised Accounts Staff” the 7 CPC has recommended the following:
“11.12.40 The Commission is therefore of the view that there is no justification for excluding officers in the organised accounting departments who ate at GP 4800 from this dispensation. It therefore recommends that all officers in organised accounts cadres (in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Defence Accounts Department, Indian Civil Accounts organization, Railways, Posts and Telecommunications) who are in GP 4800 should be upgraded, on completion of four years’ service to GP 5400 (PB-2), viz., Pay Level 9, in the pay matrix.”
The non implementation of this recommendation disturbed the horizontal relativity between the pay scales SSO of Railways and AAOs in Organised Accounts and IA&AD and Section Officers of CSS and other Gr. B Gazetted officers
This recommendation of the 7 CPC has not been implemented yet, leading to an anomalous situation which may be resolved without delay.
Item No 15
Technical Supervisors of Railways
The structure of Technical Supervisors in Railways and Defence,( Defence ordinance factorioes) being industrial / establishments had been identical and same, when the 6th CPC recommendations were accepted and implemented. The 7th CPC in para 11.12.105 have created the following structure in Defence ordinance factories (Page 519 of the 7th CPC report).
“Of the total pool of posts in GP 4200 and GP 4600, ten percent should he earmarked to be placed in GP 4800.
The posts in GP 4800 should be filled up from personnel in GP 4200 and GP 4600 in the following manner:
70 percent of such earmarked posts should be filled up through promotion from GP 4600;
30 percent should be filled up through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination in which employees from both GP 4200 and CP4600 would be eligible to compete. This will enable deserving and meritorious employees at GP 4200 to jump GP 4600 and go directly to GP4800 [level 8].
iii. 80 percent of the employees in GP 4800, will be eligible for non-functional upgrade to level 9 [GP 5400 (PB-2)] upon completion of four years in level 8, on a seniority cum-suitability basis.”.
This recommendation by not extending to Railways Technical Supervisors have disturbed the horizontal relativities. There are no levels sanctioned in Railways beyond Grade Pay equivalent of Rs 4600. The S/S demands that the structure recommended in the case of Defence may be adopted in the Railways to maintain the relativities that were in existence.