Friday, October 29, 2010

Allocation of candiclatetso postarc ircles .o'rinatecl Inspectors of Postrs ol.) lhe trasis of Combined Examination1, 1008

Department of Posts India vide Memo No. 7- 26120I O -SPB-II dated 27 October.2010 alloted 8 (eight)candidates to Uttarakhand Postal Circles of the Department of Posts namely as under :-

1- Mohd Mohsin
2- Gaurav Gautam
3- Sandeep Butola
4- Atul Mishra
5- Brahm Dev Pandey
6- Ram Bali Roy
7- Kadamba Singh
8- Vinay kant

Inspector Posts & ASP Association Uttarakhand Circle Branch Dehradun welcome all successful candidates to the Uttarakhand Circle and wish them all success in life

Circle Secretary

ADDITIONAL REJOINDER STATEMENT

ADDITIONAL REJOINDER STATEMENT OF THE APPLICANTS TO THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS
1. The averments made and contentions raised in the Reply Statement filed on behalf of the respondents in so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the facts stated hereunder are incorrect, untrue and hence denied.
2. With reference to the averments in paragraph 2 it is submitted that it is not correct to say that the applicants made misleading statements in the rejoinder statement. It is submitted that the applicant stated only true and correct facts in the rejoinder statement and the averments to the contrary are emphatically denied. It is submitted that it is evident from Paragraph 10.43 of Annexure R-1 4th CPC recommendations, the higher pay scale for Inspector of Posts was considered on the basis of arduous nature of duties attached to the post of Inspector of Posts. However, the 4th CPC recommended the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300 for the reason that there was no direct recruitment in the cadre of Inspector of Post at that time. But the 4th CPC recommended that as and when the direct recruitment is introduced in the cadre of IPO, the Government may examine the pay scale which would then be suitable for these posts. The 4th CPC found parity of employment with the Inspectors of other Departments like Central Excise, Customs etc. Therefore, there is no question of recommending the scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900 by the 4th CPC as the same was left to the Department at the time of introducing direct recruitment to the cadre of Inspector Posts. The averments to the effect that the 4th CPC did not equate the Inspector Posts with analogous posts in other Central Organisation like CBDT/CBEC is opposed to facts and hence stoutly denied. It is submitted that on the basis of the recommendation of 4th & 5th CPC the direct recruitment element was introduced at the level of Inspector Posts. It is a fact that in Annexure A-4 Recruitment Rule the scale of pay is shown as Rs.5500–9000. However, it is worthy to note that as on the date of issuance of Annexure A-4 Recruitment Rules, the pay scales of Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS were also Rs.5500-9000.
3. With regard to the averments in paragraph 3, it is submitted that 6th CPC in Para 7.6.14 upgraded the pay scale of Inspector of Posts to Rs.6500-10500 to maintain parity among Inspectors in CBDT/ CBEC and Assistant in CSS, which was recognised by the 5th CPC. Since 6th CPC recommendations were implemented with effect from 01.01.2006, the scale of pay of Rs.6500-10500 was granted to Inspector of Posts with effect from 01.01.2006 only and not from an earlier date. The respondents have admitted that the 6th CPC had recommended the upgradation of the pay scale of Inspector Posts to Rs.6500-10500 to remove the disparity. Even after admitting the fact, the respondents are again trying to continue the disparity which was recommended to be set right by the 6th Central Pay Commission. The scale of pay prior to 01-01-2006 is immaterial for the reason that the pay revision was effected with effect from 01-01-2006 and as on 01-01-2006 the Inspector of Posts and other equated categories are in the same pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500. Therefore, the Inspector of Posts are entitled to the grade pay of Rs. 4600/- granted to other equated categories. It is not the case of the applicants that they are first to be equated with the other categories and to grant the Grade Pay of other category, but it is the specific case of the applicants that they are equated with the Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC and Assistants of Central Secretariat Service and therefore, they are entitled to the same Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- granted to the other equated categories.
4. With reference to the averments in paragraph 4 and 5, it is submitted that the respondents have admitted that the pay scales recommended by the 5th CPC & 6th CPC and accepted by the Government for Inspector Posts, Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS were the same. It is submitted that 6th Central Pay Commission in the Para 3.1.3 recommended to maintain parity with the similarly placed personnel employed in field offices and the Secretariat. In the recommendation it was clearly mentioned that this parity would need to be absolute upto the grade of Assistants and beyond that, it may mot be possible or even justified to maintain complete parity because the hierarchy and carrier progression would need to be different taking in view of functional consideration and relativity across the board. A true extract of the Para 3.1.3 of 6th CPC is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-20. The said recommendation was accepted by the Government and was acknowledged in Para 4 of Annexure A-11 OM dated 16.11.2009. The averment to the effect that by the issuance of OM dated 13.11.2009 and 16.11.2009, the grade pay of officials in pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 underwent a change i.e to grade pay of Rs 4600 is not correct as the Assistants in the Central Secretariat were in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 as on 01.01.2006 as evidenced by Annexure A-6. The Department of Posts submitted proposal to the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance for extending the benefit of OM dated 13.11.09 and 16.11.09 clearly stating that pay scale of Inspector Posts was Rs.6500-10500 as on 01.01.2006 and that the parity agreed to in the pay scales of Inspector Posts with Assistants(CSS) and Inspectors CBDT/CBEC has been disturbed. It was categorically mentioned that Inspector Posts were holders of pay scale of Rs.9300-34800(Pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500) in the light of recommendation of 6th CPC in para 7.6.14 placing Inspector Posts at par with Assistants and Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC and as such they are entitled to the revised grade pay of Rs.4600 at par with Inspectors CBDT/CBEC and Assistants. A photocopy of the Proposal made by the Department and the reply given by Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, furnished under the Right to Information Act as per letter dated 14-09-2010 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-21. From Annexure A-21, it is evident that the combined proposal was made by the Department of Posts for Grade pay of Inspector Posts, Assistant Superintendent of Posts and Superintendents of Posts demanding Grade pay of Rs.4600, Rs.4800 and Rs.5400 respectively, whereas the justification was only for Inspector Posts. The averments of the Respondents that the proposal was not agreed to by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance for the reason that Inspector Posts were not in the Pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 01.01.2006 is opposed to facts. In the reply given against the proposal, the Department of Expenditure has stated that prior to 01.01.2006, the Pay scale of Inspector Posts was Rs.5500-10500 and not as on 01-01-2006 as is evident from the reply in Annexure A-21.
5. With regard to the averments in paragraph 6, it is submitted that 5th CPC had given equal scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 to Inspector Posts and Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC. Ministry of Finance as per Annexure A-5 OM dated 21.04.2004 had upgraded the pay scale of Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC to Rs.6500-10500, whereas no such upgradation was given to Inspector Posts. Against this disparity, some Inspector Posts of Karnataka Circle approached Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore Bench and filed OAs No. 424/2006 and 211/2007 and the above O.A’s were disposed of by Order dated 27-07-2007. In paragraph 4 of the above Order dated 27-07-2007 the Hon’ble Tribunal has categorically observed that
“ After hearing the counsel for the parties at length we note that the first respondent (Department of Posts) has not made any effort to ascertain the circumstances under which the pay scales of officers under CBDT and CBEC including the post of Inspectors has been revised. No reasons are also forthcoming in the Annexure A3 order for revising the pay scales of Inspector of Income Tax. It was for the first respondent(DOP), before taking the decision on the representations made by the Inspector of Posts seeking parity, to ascertain from the CBDT the circumstances under which the pay scales of Income Tax Inspectors were revised from Rs.5500-9000 recommended by V Pay commission and sanctioned by the Government, to Rs.6500-10500. This does not appear to have been done.”
It is submitted that as the 6th Central Pay commission was already constituted to set right the anomalies and had not given its report, Hon’ble CAT had directed the applicants/respondents to produce a copy of the Order along with the representation to be made before the 6th CPC for information. A true copy of the Order of the Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore Bench in O.A No. 424/2006 and connected case dated 27.07.2007 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-22. Accordingly the matter was taken up before the 6th CPC and the anomaly was set right by the 6th CPC by recommending pay parity to Inspector Posts with Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC. The fact that the pay scale of the Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC were upgraded to Rs. 6500-10500 with effect from 21-04-2004 is not all a ground for discriminating the Inspector of Posts after recognising parity with the other analogous posts. The averments to the contrary are emphatically denied.
6. With reference to the averments in paragraph 7 and 8, it is submitted that the role and responsibilities of the cadres of Inspector Posts, Inspector CBDT/CBEC and Assistant in CSS were considered by expert bodies namely the 5th & 6th CPC and recommended parity with Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC. In the reply given by the Ministry of Finance against the proposal of Department of Posts, it was stated that Inspector Posts were in the pay scale of Rs.5500-10500 prior to 01.01.2006 hiding the fact that as on 01.01.2006, the pay scale was upgraded to Rs.6500.10500, which has been accepted by the respondents in Para 8. The contention of the respondents that the granting of Grade pay of Rs.4600 to the inspector Posts would mean that the Inspectors and Assistant Superintendent have to be kept in the same Grade Pay Rs.4600 OR to revise the Grade pay of ASP, which would have a chain reaction on PS Group ‘B’, Junior Time Scale & Senior Time Scale and which tend to disturb the horizontal and vertical relativity is whimsical. Even if the Grade Pay of both Inspector of Posts and Assistant Superintendent of Posts Office are in the same Grade Pay that by itself would not create any difficulty for the reason that in other Departments also the grade pay of feeder category and promotion post are allowed as one and the same as given in the illustrations furnished by the applicants in the rejoinder statement. The respondents have admitted that the illustrations given with respect to two promotional posts in the same grade pay are correct. Hence, The Inspector Posts and ASPOs may be placed in the same grade pay of Rs.4600 and this will not have any cascading effect of any other cadre of the DOP and other Central Govt. Organisations. The All India Association has already given the consent to place Inspector Posts and ASPOs in the same grade pay Of Rs.4600 as per their letter dated 24-06-2010. A photocopy of the above letter dated 24.06.10 submitted to the 2nd respondent-Director General, Department of Posts by the General Secretary, All India Association of Inspectors and Assistant Superintendent Posts is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-23. Therefore, it will not lie on the mouth of the respondents to contend that since the ASPO’s are in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- that grade pay cannot be granted to the Inspector Posts and the said contention is entirely untenable.
7. With regard to the averments in paragraph 9, it is submitted that as per Annexure A-11, it was clarified by the Ministry of Finance that in case of upgradation of Posts as a result of recommendation of 6th CPC, the grade pay corresponding to the upgraded post should be given. Ministry of Finance as per Annexure A-9 OM dated 13.11.2009, revised the grade pay corresponding to pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 to Rs.4600. It is evident from the Para 7.6.14 of 6th CPC and as accepted by the respondents, that the pay scale of Inspector Posts was upgraded to pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f 01.01.2006. Therefore, the Inspector of Posts are entitled to the Grade pay of Rs.4600 with effect from 01-01-2006 as in the case of Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC. Annexure A-19 is attached with the rejoinder statement and the averments to the contrary are denied.
8. With reference to the averments in paragraph Para 10 and 11, it is submitted that the matter related to role, functional responsibilities, hierarchical structures and recruitment rules etc. have already been considered by the 5th & 6th CPC and recommended parity to Inspector Posts with Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS. Parity recommended by the pay commission cannot be ignored after accepting the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission. As far as the hierarchical structure is concerned, it is worthy to note that Inspector Posts are the feeder cadre for promotion to Superintendent of Posts, similar to those Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC and CSS. Inspectors and Assistants are the feeder cadre for promotion to the posts of Superintendent and Section Officer respectively. Even though an Inspector of Post is promoted as ASPOs based on his seniority in the cadre of Inspector, for promotion to the post of Superintendent the feeder post is Inspector of Post and the seniority is reckoned only from the date of promotion/appointment to the cadre of Inspector of Posts and not from the date of promotion as ASPOs. Therefore, the existence of the post ASPOs between the cadre of Inspector and Superintendent is irrelevant, immaterial and inconsequential for granting of the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to the Inspector. The same has been agreed to by the Association in Annexure A-23. Moreover, Inspector Posts coming under Group ‘B’ Non gazetted should not be given lesser grade pay than that of Group ’C’ posts which is lower in the hierarchical structure.
9. With regard to the averments in Paragraph 12 it is submitted that it is evident from Annexure A-21 that the combined proposal was sent by the Department Of Posts to Ministry of Finance, for Grade pay of Inspector Posts, Assistant Superintendent of Posts and Superintendents of Posts demanding Grade pay of Rs.4600, Rs.4800 and Rs.5400 respectively, whereas the justification was only for Inspector Posts. The reasons furnished by the Ministry of Finance for rejecting the proposal are also not correct. The respondents are stating that the Inspector Posts cannot be compared with the post of Assistant of CSS / Inspectors and analogous posts in CBDT and CBEC even after admitting the fact that the pay scales recommended by the 5th CPC & 6th CPC and accepted by the Government for Inspector Posts, Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS are the same and Pay scale of Inspector Posts was upgraded to Rs.6500-10500 by the 6th Central Pay Commission to remove the disparity. The respondents are trying to establish the parity among the Group ’B’ posts of the Department of Posts and CBDT/CBEC & CSS, which were at the different scale of pay before the 6th CPC. The pay scale of Section Officers of CSS before the 6th CPC was Rs.6500-10500 whereas the pay scale of Superintendent of Posts was Rs.7500-12000. Further, the averment of the respondents that only Group ’B’ posts in Department of posts are comparable to those of Group ‘B’ posts in CSS/CBEC/CBDT, is against the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission in Para 3.1.3 of Annexure A-20 and accepted by the Government, wherein it is stated that the parity would need to be absolute upto the grade of Assistant and beyond this it might not possible or even justified to grant complete parity. The respondents have admitted that only the expert body like Pay Commission and Nodal Department are competent to take decision on such matters. 5th and 6th CPC had already recommended parity to Inspector posts with Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS and therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to raise contentions against the recommendations of the Commission. The averment of the respondents that the above OA is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties is totally misconceived. The above averments is made by the deponent casually without any basis. The deponent failed to note the fact that the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure which is the nodal Ministry is arrayed as the first respondent in the O.A. It is submitted that the Pay Commission is not a necessary party in the O.A. As it is not involved in the lis.
All contentions raised in the Additional Reply Statement are devoid of any force or merit and are liable to be rejected out right. The applicant is entitled to all the reliefs prayed for in the Original Application and the above Original Application is only to be allowed with costs.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Latest Position on Important Issues

1. Revision of Grade Pay for IP:

File is still pending in the Establishment Division of the Directorate. Recruitment Rules of Income Tax Officers in CBDT and Superintendents in CBEC are required for further processing the case. Members may please help the CHQ to procure the same so that it could be submitted to the Department.

2. Result of PS Group B exam :

It is likely to be announced by the end of November 2010 or first week of December 2010.

3. PS Group B DPC for the year 2010:

It is likely to be held in November 2010. Exact date of DPC is yet to be fixed.

4. Outsourcing of examinations:

It is likely to be finalized by January 2011. All examinations are likely to be conducted on objective type.

5. Revision of Honorarium of Invigilators for departmental examinations.

Case is under consideration by the department. Department is in the process of collecting information on amount being paid for invigilators by the SSC/UPSC. Information from the UPSC is awaited. Members may please help the CHQ to procure the rates being paid by SSC/UPSC so that it could be shared with the Department.

6. Revision of Fixed stationery charges for the Sub Division:

File is reported to be sent to Finance Ministry for concurrence.

Deputation of ASPs and IPs to the Department.

Postal Directorate has called for applications for deputation of ASPs and IPs to the Department vide no. 4-1/2010-SPB-II dated 12-10-2010
Sub:- Deputation of ASPs and IPs to the Department.
Services of ASPs and IPs are required in the Directorate. It is, therefore, requested that only such ASPs and IPs, who are willing to be deputed in the Directorate and have cleared their probation period and are not due for promotion with in the next two years, may submit their applications to their respective Circles for necessary action. An advance copy of the application may be sent to the Directorate by the applicants.
-Sd-
(SURAJ BHAN)
Asstt. Director General(SPN)

Enhancement of House Building Advance based on 6CPC scales and sanction of additional Amount

The Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi, has decided that their Office Memorandum dated 27.11.2008 on House Building Advance will take effect from 1st January 2006.

Accordingly, the Ministry has decided that in respect of Loans sanctioned between 1.1.2006 till 27.11.2008, the Eligibility may be worked based on pay in the pay bands and differential amount between this and amount earlier sanctioned may be sanctioned to the Officers. This is subject to the following conditions :

a) the Entire amount sanctioned earlier should not have been drawn;

b) there will be no deviation from approved plan for which original loan was sanctioned. However,revised cost on the same plan can be considered.

c) Actual entitlement shall be worked out based on formula contained in Office Memorandum dated 17-10-2000.

d) the entire amount of advance and interest shall be recovered before retirement of Government Servant.

e) The Ceiling of Rs. 7.50 Lakhs and 1.80 Lakhs respectively shall remain unchanged.

f) Supplementary Mortgage Deed, Personal Bond and Sureties will be drawn and
executed at the expense of the loanee.

g) The applications for enhancement/differential loan shall be submitted within 6 months of this Order, that is, on or before 13.01.2011.

h) Enhancement shall be granted only once for each employee.

For further details, download Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2010.

Monday, October 18, 2010

Effective No. of Candidates for GDS Recruitment

Effective No. of Candidates for GDS Recruitment

The Postal Directorte has issued instructions reg "Effective No. of Candidates" for GDS Recruitment vide Memo No. 19-27 / 2010-GDS Dt. 07.10.10.

Modified instructions on Recruitment of GDS thro Employment Exchange - Clarification of term "Effective No. of Candidates"

Attention of all concerned is invited to Para 3 of this Dte Order No. 19-4 / 97-ED & Trg Dt 19.08.98 which provided that "in case the notification and public advertisement so issued fail to elicit any response within the stipulated date or if the effective number of candidates applied for the post is less than 3, the vacancies will be re-notified to the Employment Exchange & fresh advertisement issued calling for nominations etc within 15 days"

2. The term "effective No. of candidates / applications" has undergone judicial scrutiny by CAT, Hyderabad in OA No. 516 / 2009 in the mater of Shri.Chennuri Raju vs Union of India & relying on judgement of High Court of Madras in WP No. 22500 & 20422 / 1999 in similar case CAT, Hyderabad has held in its judgement on 15.06.10 that "three effective applications mean three applications should be received and even if one of the candidates amongst the three applicants is eligible, the selection should be finalized"

3. The issue has been considered in this Dte in the light of the aforesaid judgement and i am directed to convey that term "effective No. of Candidates" finding a mention in the order of this Dte ibid may be interpreted to mean that three applications from the different candidates should be received and even if one of the candidates amongst the three applicants is found eligible, the selection should be finalized in conformity with the interpretation as referred to in Para 2 above.

Promotion into STS of IPoS Group A cadre

Promotion into STS of IPoS Group A cadre
Postal Directorate has issused list of JTS officers promoted into STS vide memo no. 4-5/2010-SPG dated 08-10-2010.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Dilution of parity among Assistants of field Offices and Secretariat

This article is written by Shri.Ranjit.R who works for Debts Recovery Tribunal as Recovery Inspector at Ernakulam

It seems there had been a lot of hues and cries when parity among field Offices and the Secretariat was finally accomplished on submission of the Sixth Central Pay Commission Report to the Government of India. This was evident from a speedy, rather hasty, decision by the Government, subsequent to implementation of the Sixth CPC Report, to enhance the Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- to Rs.4,600/- to the Assistants/ Personal Assistants of the Secretariat, though parity was initially approved by the Government. The consequent and immediate representations of the similarly placed in the field offices for parity based on the Sixth CPC recommendations are, presumably, ‘pending consideration’! (?). This can be prolonged till it is submitted before the next Pay Commission for a decision, as practiced.

I feel it apposite to reproduce relevant excerpts from the Sixth Central Pay Commission Report in respect of parity before discussing the issue:

Click here to get the relevant Excerpts from Sixth Pay Commission Report

Excerpts from Sixth Central Pay Commission Report

1.2.18 Parity between field offices and secretariat has been proposed as, in Commission’s view, equal emphasis has to be given to the field offices in order to ensure better delivery.

2.2.19 Scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 have been merged to bring parity between field offices; the secretariat; the technical posts; and the work shop staff. This was necessary to ensure that due importance is given to the levels concerned with actual delivery. It is also noted that a large number of anomalies were created due to the placement of Inspectors/equivalent posts in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants/ Personal Assistants of CSS/CSSS in the scale of Rs.6500-200-10500. The scales of Rs.5500-175-9000 and Rs.6500-200-10500, in any case, had to be merged to resolve these anomalies.

3.1.1 The various Secretariats of the Ministries and Departments of Government of India together constitute the headquarters organisation. The Secretariats are chiefly involved in matters relating to formulation of policy and ensuring that these policies are executed in a coordinated and effective manner. Actual execution of these policies, however, is left to field agencies outside the Secretariat, which may be either attached or subordinate offices or quasi‑Government/ autonomous/ public sector undertakings.

Disparity between Secretariat and field offices

3.1.2 Historically, various services in the Secretariat have been given an edge over analogous posts in the field offices. This was done on the ground that office staff in their counter parts in field offices perform routine work relating to routine matters concerning personnel and general administration, etc. Another argument that is used to justify the edge for various posts in Secretariat is that in Secretariat, level jumping occurs and personnel in the grade of Assistant etc. submit files directly to decision making levels of Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, etc.

3.1.3 Higher pay scales in the Secretariat offices may have been justified in the past when formulation of proper policies was of paramount importance. The present position is different. Today, the weakest link in respect of any Government policy is at the delivery stage. The field offices are at the cutting edge of administration and may, in most cases, determine whether a particular policy turns out to be a success or a failure in terms of actual benefit to the consumer. Accordingly, the time has come to grant parity between similarly placed personnel employed in field offices and in the Secretariat. This parity will need to be absolute till the grade of Assistant. Beyond this, it may not be possible or even justified to grant complete parity because the hierarchy and career progression will need to be different taking in view the functional considerations and relativities across the board.

3.1.4 A parity has long been established between the posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in Secretariat and field offices. The position becomes different for posts above UDC level; with the Assistant in Secretariat offices being placed in higher pay scale vis-à-vis those working in field offices. Earlier, the respective pay scales of Rs.5500-9000 and 5000-8000 existed for Assistants in Secretariat and in Field offices. This disparity was aggravated in 2006 when the Government further upgraded the pay scales of Assistants belonging to Central Secretariat Service to Rs.6500-10500.

3.1.6 Assistants working in other Secretariat organisations like AFHQ, MEA and various other non-participating Ministries/ Organisations etc. have been denied this and are stridently demanding similar higher pay scales from the Government.

3.1.7 The Government, however, did not concede this parity and have referred the issue to this Commission for taking a final view thereon.

Recommendations

Designation


Pre-revised Scale


New Pay Scale

Assistant


Rs.6500-10500


PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4200
[which has been improved and modified to Rs.9300-34800]

Section Officer


Rs.7500-12000



Rs.8000-13500 *


PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800
[which has been improved and modified to Rs.9300-34800]
PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.5400 *
[which has been improved and modified to Rs.9300-34800]

* (on completion of four years)

The Sixth Pay Commission had recommended parity in terms of hierarchical structure of Office Staff in field offices and Secretariat up to the level of Assistants/Personal Assistants and the Government had accepted this recommendation. But, contrary to this, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure vide O.M No.1/1/2008-IC dated 16.11.2009 has extended the pay structure of Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- in the Pay Band PB2 to Assistants and Personal Assistants belonging to Central Secretariat Service, Armed Forces Head Quarter Service, Indian Foreign Service B and Railway Board Secretariat Service and their counterpart Stenographer Services with effect from 01.01.2006, which will cover, SSC, CVC, UPSC etc, and like-wise extended the pay structure of Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/- to the Section Officers.

One of the tricky reasons they attribute to this is that there is an element of direct recruitment to the posts of Assistants/Personal Assistants of the Central Secretariat, and that too through an All India Competitive Examination. It is pertinent to mention here that the Staff Selection Commission, through an All India Competitive Examination, selected all staff including those who are on the Pay Band PB2 in the so called field offices all over India to the service on direct recruitment.

Therefore, there cannot be any differentiation between the Section Officers/ Assistants/ Personal Assistants in the Central Secretariat Service and their counter parts in the field offices, which are constituted by the Central Government itself. Besides, the aforesaid O.M says that with the issue of their own O.M of even number dated 13.11.2009 the grade pay of Rs.4,600/- has already been introduced in the case of office staff in field offices also. The office staff in field offices mentioned therein refers to the Inspectors of the Customs & Central Excise and the Income Tax, whereas, the Section Officers and Assistants/ Personal Assistants working in the field offices who are in the Pay Band PB2 continue to receive grade pay of Rs.4,600/- and Rs.4,200/- respectively.

It is very important to mention here that the Sixth Central Pay Commission, headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna, was highly just by recommending merger of the three different pay scales of Rs.5000‑8000, Rs.5500‑9000 and Rs.6500‑10500 to bring parity between field offices, the secretariat, the technical posts and the work shop staff, and fixing it at the Pay Band Rs.9300-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4200/-. The fact that the Officers and Staff in Field offices often have more work load due to limited manpower in their respective organisations also need to be considered. Hence it is only just and proper to bring parity with the Secretariat and Field Offices, as justified and recommended by the Commission and as accepted and approved by the Government.

In judicial side, I would like to point out following decisions which are in line with my observations above.



* The Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in its decision dated 18.12.2007 in Winston Samuel v. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others [OA No.711/2006] had held that jobs with identical functions should have identical pay scales. The Central Administrative Tribunal, vide its order, has extended the grade of Rs.4,600/- to its employees in Pay Band PB2 corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.5,500-175-9,000.
* It is held by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati in its decision dated 05.12.2007 in the matter of Alok Acharjee and others v. Union of India, Secretary, Home Affairs and others [OA No.323/2006] that an order of court in a case of pay fixation will equally apply to all those similarly placed even if they are not party to the case.
* The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Hiranmoy Sen and others [reported in SCC (L&S) 271] has held that equal pay for equal posts can be applied if there is complete and wholesale identity between two groups (posts).
* It was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Rajesh Mohan Sukhla and others [reported in SCC (L&S) 286] that equal pay for equal work will be applicable irrespective of the sources of recruitment.
* It is now well settled that a decision given by a Court or Tribunal should be applicable to all persons similarly situated as held by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta in its decision dated 27.06.2003 in A. Gowri Sankara Rao v. Union of India and others [OA No.328/2001].
* The Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur in its decision in January 2004 in Nem Singh v. Union of India and Others has held that Government should give the benefit of a final decision to all similarly placed persons and should not unnecessarily send people to Court [OA No.273/2002 and M.A No.127/2002].
* The law has already been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indra Pal Yadav and Anr. V. Union of India and Ors [reported in 1985 (2) SCC 648] that those who could not come to the Court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in the Court. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of the Court.
* Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gopal Krishna Sharma and Ors. V. State of Rajasthan and Anr [reported in 1999 (3) SCC (L&S) 544] wherein also it was held that the benefit of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment is to be extended to all even those who did not join as a party before the Court.
* The Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Abraham Titus and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors etc [reported in 1992(19) ATC 722] has also held that when a court after analysis of rival pleas enunciated a proposition of law and based on those propositions, allows certain relief to some civil servants who are applicants before it, normally, it behoves the Administration to extend the benefit without any discrimination.

Several guidelines/ strictures/ directions derived from the judgments, including the few cited above, could have been considered by the various Administrative Authorities in the respective Departments/ Ministries. The Government cannot merely deviate from the findings of Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna by bringing feeble justification such as the posts in the Secretariat are filled through All India Competitive Examinations and more merit is involved there.

Instead the Government may consider bringing the so called similarly placed, or those drawing similar pay scales, by classifying the posts into three, like Ministerial (posts of Assistant, Steno Gr. ‘C’), Technical (professional posts in the fields of Engineering, Accounts and Medical) and Executive (like various posts of Inspectors/ Intelligence Officers in the executing departments/ enforcement agencies of Income-Tax, Central Excise, etc.). This may reduce the dispute of parity at least in the future.

Concluding, it is my request, as well as of many others’ in the field offices throughout India who are deprived of the Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- on the parity aspect of Sixth CPC recommendation, to bring the Grade Pay of Section Officers and Assistants/ Personal Assistants in the field offices at par with that of the Secretariat. Justice may neither be delayed nor denied.

[with inputs on various citations from my colleague Mr. Regi K. George, Personal Assistant]

Monday, October 4, 2010

Bonus

Dte likely to release Bonus orders today.Productivity Linked Bonus for 2009 - 10 - 60 days. Sixty Days
Ceiling limit For Regular Employees Rs.3500 Max.& For GDS Rs.2500 Max

Dte Memo No : 26-04 / 2010-PAP Dt. 01.10.10.