Monday, 21 December 2015

Is attendance compulsory for Central Government employees on the implementation day (01.01.2016) of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations?

Is attendance compulsory for Central Government employees on the implementation day (01.01.2016) of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations?

attendance-compulsory-for-Central-Government-employees


Central Government employees are wondering if there will be any consequences of taking leave on January 1, 2016, the date of implementation of the 7th Pay Commission report.

The recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission regarding the salaries and perks for the Central Government employees will come into effect from January 1, 2016 onwards. Many are curious to find out the connection between the date of implementation of 7th CPC and reporting to work on the day.

Normally, the date of joining work, date of getting the promotion, date of receiving the increments, transfer date, and retirement dates are very important for a Central Government employee. In the average service period of a Central Government employee, he/she is likely to witness two or three Pay Commissions. Keeping this in mind, it would be better to not absent oneself on January 1, 2016.

“All Central Government employees are advised to report to work on January 1, 2016 (Friday).”

“This is especially so for those who are on long leave. It will help them avoid a lot of problems in future.”

“If 01.01.2016 is announced as a holiday, it will be better to report to work the next day.”

If the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission are going to be implemented from 01.01.2016 onwards, then the employees will have to come to work that day to accept these recommendations. If he/she is absent on the day, then the day they return to work will be treated as the day they had accepted the new recommendations.

If an employee not to report on the date of implementation of recommendations of new pay commission, this could delay the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission. This could also cause financial losses too due to pay revision as per the recommendations of new pay commission.

According to rules, in order to qualify for the annual increment, an employee has completed 6 months or more in the revised pay structure as per 6th CPC, as on 1st July. A delay of even a single day could deny you an increment, as per the rule.

It is not easy to calculate the date of promotion for Central Government employees. Normally, promotions are granted with retrospective effect. Let us assume that the promotion was given with effect from 01.01.2016. Not reporting to work on that day could cause a number of problems.

Since the government rules are bound to be changed arbitrarily, one can never be sure of the kind of troubles it could cause them. Therefore, it is better to go to work on 01.01.2016.

The recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission were implemented on 01.01.2006, a Sunday. Therefore, the next day was taken as the assumption date. One might remember that the government had issued another order to avoid the confusions that resulted due to this.

Even those who are on long leave for any particular reason are advised to report to work on January 1, 2016 at least and then continue with their leave. This will help them avoid a lot of problems.

Change of nomenclature of the posts of Assistant of Central Secretariat Service

Change of nomenclature of the posts of Assistant of Central Secretariat Service

G.I., Min. of Per. & Trg., O.M.F.No.21/12/2010-CS.I(P), dated 21.12.2015

Approval of the competent authority is hereby conveyed for change of nomenclature of the posts of Assistant of Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Clerk of Central Secretariat Clerical Service (CSCS) as under:

dopt-orders-on-change-of-name-of-clerical-cadre


The change in nomenclature comes into force with immediate effect.

The necessary amendments to Central Secretariat Service Rules, 2009 and Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962 will follow.

Authority: www.persmin.gov.in

7th Pay Commission recommendation: A big challenge facing government

7th Pay Commission recommendation: A big challenge facing government

7th-Pay-Commission-recommendation-big-challenge-facing-government


New Delhi: Seventh Pay Commission recommendation is a big challenge facing the central government to accept its.

All central government employees, officers, Unions and association protested against the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations and they demanded a re-look at the Seventh Pay Commission report.
The Confederation of Civil Service Associations (COSCA), representing thousands of officers of 20 civil services, including Indian Police Service (IPS), met finance minister Arun Jaitley early this month.

The purpose of that meeting was to press their demand that the group of secretaries of revision pay panel report headed by cabinet secretary, which will examine the report before the Cabinet nod, must not be dominated by one service, read IAS.

What they want is the removal of the edge that the IAS enjoys so far, something that was fiercely opposed by one member in the Pay Commission, thereby making it difficult for the government to draw a conclusion.
“The government can’t make the pill more bitter than it is. We expect the government instead to sweeten the Commission’s recommendations further,” says IRS officer Jayant Misra, who is also the convenor of COSCA.

“We have also appealed to the finance minister and cabinet secretary that the the group of secretaries of revision pay panel report must not have more than 25 per cent members from one particular service so that the report can be examined objectively and impartially.”

The Central Secretariat Service which is considered the backbone of the Central government ministries and the one that comprises over 12,000 employees, is planning a massive agitation in the coming week near North Block. They will protest against what they call an unfair treatment meted out by the Pay Commission because “some officers with vested interests” misled the Commission.

The Trade unions also protested the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations and said the proposed hike was lowest in many decades and were not in sync with inflation.

If the government decides to accept the Pay Commission recommendation as it is. The government will take a hit of Rs 39,100 crore on account of salary hikes and another Rs 29,300 crore from allowances. Of the allowances, a whopping Rs 17,200 crore will be on account of only one allowance — house rent.

If the government delays implementing the Pay Commission report, it can save some allowances amount.
While the pay hike per se will be retrospective, with government servants getting arrears with effect from January 1, 2016 if the government accepts it as the effective date, the payment on account of allowances is prospective in nature.

Money is, however, not the only challenge that the government has to cope with at this juncture.

The bigger challenge is how to arrest the growing discontent among various layers of civil servants who are at loggerheads with each other. Whereas IPS, IRS, IIS among others want parity with IAS in terms of rank and pay, the next layer, the Central Secretariat Service, has its angst against their immediate superiors in the civil services hierarchy.

“We are not in a tussle with the IAS. But many Group “A” services officers don’t want us to move up the ladder. We have taken the agitation path, as the Pay Commission did not even hear us out because of some officials with vested interests,” says Rakesh Kumar, general secretary of the Central Secretariat Service Forum.

However, the Finance Ministry has set up a cell in the Expenditure Department headed by joint secretary R K Chaturvedi for a period of one year with effect from November 20, 2015 to implement the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission.

The cell will give all the inputs to the group of secretaries of revision pay panel report headed by cabinet secretary for examining the report before cabinet nod.
Inputs With ET

Lok Sabha during next week will take up The Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Bill, 2015 – PIB Report

Lok Sabha during next week will take up The Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Bill, 2015 – PIB Report
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs
20-December-2015 11:39 IST

As Winter session enters final lap, Rajya Sabha to take up some pending Bills
18 Bills with allotted discussion time of over 43 hours on unfinished agenda for Rajya Sabha
Upper House to discuss role of Arunachal Pradesh, price rise
Lower House to take up Payment of Bonus and National Waterways Bills
12 Bills passed and 6 introduced in Lok Sabha during this session so far; 1-0 in Rajya Sabha

With only 3 sittings left next week for the current Winter session of Parliament and hardly any legislative business transacted in Rajya Sabha so far, the All Party meeting convened by the Chairman of Rajya Sabha on Friday this week raised the prospects of passage of some of the pending Bills in the Upper House during the remainder of this session.

A total of 18 Bills for which the Business Advisory Committee of Rajya Sabha has allotted a total of 43.50 hours for discussion is on the unfinished agenda of the House. Of these, the House is likely to take up The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Bill, 2015, The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill,2015, The Atomic Energy (Amendment) Bill,2015, The Appropriation Bills pertaining to Supplementary Demands for Grants (General) for 2015-16 and Excess Demands for Grants (General) for 2012-13, all passed by the Lok Sabha during this session and The Whistle Blower Protection (Amendment) Bill,2015, The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Bill,2015, as passed by the Lok Sabha earlier and The Child Labour (Protection and Regulation) Amendment Bill,2012, on which the Standing Committee presented its Report in December,2013.

Rajya Sabha is also likely to discuss next week the role of Governor of Arunachal Pradesh as agreed to by the Government at the All Party Meeting besides growing intolerance endangering the unity and diversity of the country and prices of essential commodities and food grains.

Lok Sabha during next week will take up The Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Bill,2015 and The National Waterways (Amendment) Bill,2015 for which discussion time of 2 and 3 hours respectively has been allotted.

Besides, the Lower House will take up short duration discussion on the situation in Nepal and the State of Indo-Nepal relations and resume discussion on Sustainable Development Goals, which was part discussed during the last session.

Work done during Winter session so far During the current Winter session that commenced on November 26th, 12 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha while 6 new Bills have been introduced.

Bills Passed were : The Carriage by Air (Amendment) Bill,2015, The Bureau of Indian Standards Bill,2015, The High Court and the Supreme Court Judges (salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Bill,2015, The Indian Trustees(Amendment) Bill,2015, The Industries (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill,2015, The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill,2015, The Atomic Energy (Amendment) Bill,2015, Discussion and Voting on Supplementary Demands and Excess Demands for Grants and the related Appropriation Bills, The Sugar Cess (Amendment) Bill,2015, The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Bill,2015 and The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill,2015.

All the 6 new Bills introduced relating to arbitration and conciliation, commercial jurisdiction of High Courts, atomic energy, payment of bonus to workers, industries and sugar cess were passed by the Lok Sabha.
Lower House held two day special discussion on commitment to the Constitution the occasion of 125th Birth anniversary of Dr.BR Ambedkar besides taking up issues of intolerance, floods in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, drought situation in the country and price rise.

Three suo-moto statements were made in the house by the concerned ministers regarding the visit of External Affairs Minister to Islamabad, initiatives relating to road transport and highways for regional connectivity with focus on North-East and climate change.

On the other hand, Rajya Sabha passed only Bill pertaining to Negotiable instruments while no new Bills were introduced in the House during the ongoing winter session so far.

The Upper House discussed commitment to the Constitution, floods in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh and Indo-Nepal relations. External Affairs Minister made a suo-moto statement on her visit to Islamabad.

Flaws in OROP concept – Ranson

Flaws in OROP concept – Ranson

The concept of One Rank One Pension (OROP) is to bridge the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners, and also future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. In armed forces, equality in service has two components, namely, rank and length of service.

Hence, two armed personnel in the same rank and equal length of service should get same pension irrespective of date of retirement and any future enhancement in rates of pension be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. The proposal per-se sounds legitimate and reasonable but seems to be lopsided and without much merit.

The OROP concept has been developed with respect to the basic pension and not the residual pension. The pension has two components viz.(a) Basic Pension (b) Residual Pension or better known as monthly carry home pension after deduction of commuted portion of pension. The basic pension is fixed with respect to the last basic pay drawn.

The residual pension is the sum total of basic pension plus dearness relief minus commuted portion of pension. Whatever may be the basic pension but what it matters to a veteran is his monthly carry home pension or residual pension. Therefore the residual pension should be more important and relevant than the basic pension to a veteran.

Hence the concept and approach of OROP with respect to basic pension needs to be changed to remove the basic flaw and more emphasis to be given to the Residual Pension. This will ensure that all veterans of the same rank and seniority irrespective of their date of retirement are given the same rate of monthly residual pension.

After the implementation of 6 CPC in 2006 the veterans retired post 2006 got higher basic pension as compared to pre-2006 veterans. Though post 2006 veterans got higher rate of basic pension but it did not render them higher rate of residual pension (monthly carry home pension after deduction of commuted portion). As a matter of facts, the pre-2006 veterans who are drawing less basic pension than the veterans of post 2006 are in receipt of more residual pension than post 2006 veterans.

This is nothing but true and no pre-2006 veterans would dispute it. But, somehow, the argument for OROP was developed on the basis of all veterans with same rank and seniority must be given same rate of basic pension without realizing that same rate of basic pension for all pre-2006 and post-2006 veterans will vitiate the existing financial parity and unnecessarily tilt the balance to give undue advantage to pre-2006 veterans without any rhyme or reason.

In the existing system old veterans (pre-1.1.2006) are already drawing more residual pension (monthly carry home pension after deduction of commuted portion) and any sort of upgradation in basic pension to them will not only lead to widen the gap and enable the past veterans to get more residual pension than the post 1.1.2006 veterans but also put all post-2006 veterans in great financial loss for no rhyme or reasons. The following two live examples will prove the above point:-


Example- 1. The basic pension of a Lt col who retired on 31.12.2000 was revised to Rs. 26265 as on 1.1.2006 post 6 CPC. The pension Commutation value is Rs. 3624. His present residual pension is Rs. 53896. (B.P.26265 + 119% DA Rs. 31255 – commuted portion Rs. 3624= Rs. 53896)
Example-2. Another Lt.Col who retired on 30.6.2010 draws basic pension of Rs.31350. Commuted portion is Rs. 15675. His present residual pension is Rs. 52982 which is less by Rs. 914 as compared to the veteran who retired in 2000 ( Rs. 53896 – 52982 = Rs. 914 per month).

Note:- For the sake of argument just think of a situation when the basic pension of the Lt col mentioned at example -1 is fixed at par with another Lt col mentioned at example-2 i.e. Rs. 31350. With a basic pension of Rs. 31350, the residual pension works out to Rs. 65033 pm (Rs.31350 plus 119% DR minus Rs.3624 commuted portion = 65033) which higher by 12051 as compared to the residual pension of the Lt col who retired post 2006. In this case will the residual pension of the later be stepped up at par with the former? What are we fighting for? And whose interest is being looked after with present OROP concept? Is there any flaw in the concept of OROP?

From the above illustration one can see that the veteran who retired during 5 CPC draws Rs. 914 more than the veteran retired with higher rate of basic pension post 6 CPC. Further, all those veterans who retired pre-2006 and had completed 15 years of post retirement are already drawing much higher residual pension. This being the factual position on ground how can pre 2006 veterans justify their demands for OROP in its present form. Therefore the hue and cry being made by all pre-2006 veterans is uncalled for and unreasonable. 

A very pertinent point to be highlighted here is that though the basic pension of post 2006 veteran is fixed at higher level than the veteran of pre-2006 yet in reality the later gets more carry home pension than the former as given in the above illustration. Besides the above the veteran mentioned at example-1 above will start drawing his full pension from 1.1.2016 by which time his residual pension will be much higher than the pensioners retired post 2006. 

This phenomenon will more or less continue till the post 2006 retiree completes 15 years of post retirement period and starts drawing his full pension or until the difference in residual pension get negated by virtue of increases in future dearness relief. This means that the existing rules governing payment of residual pension to all past veterans are in order and are intended to protect the interest of all past veterans. Therefore the question of OROP for all and sundry does not arise in the first place. 

However, on completion of 15 years of post retirement by the post 2006 veterans’, the old veterans (pre-2006) will be placed in disadvantageous state and therefore needs to be given financial up gradation at par with post 2006 retiree. The 7 CPC is round the corner and is likely to be implemented very soon. And all veterans retired up to the last date of 6 CPC will be given the same rate of pension as per fixation formula to be accepted. Again all veterans will be back square one again and the same problem will crop up for future retirees. 

In the back drop the OROP is presently needed for post 2006 retirees at par with pre 2006 veterans and not vice versa as pre-2006 veterans are in receipt of higher residual pension than the post-2006 retirees. Therefore the basic concept of OROP needs to be revamped totally to ensure that all veterans with same rank and length of service get equal rate of residual pension irrespective of his/her basic pension whether it is higher or lower. Further the basic pension of pre-2006 should only be revised with respect to post 2006 retiree in case the former draws less residual pension than the later.

As far as commutation of pension is concerned it is well known that the commuted amount is refundable with interest to govt. over a period of 15 years after which one starts earning his full pension. Since the commutation value is refundable the old veterans cannot make a stand or argue that they got less commutation value than the post 2006 retirees. After implementation of 7 CPC, the amount payable on account pension commutation to future retirees will be much more than the amount received by a person retired during 6 CPC. The present concept of OROP to ensure same basic pension to a veteran with same rank and length of service is in another way is to hoodwink the government to give pension commutation parity to all pre-2006 veterans at par with post 2006 veterans without having to refund it to government with interest. This is a gross injustice to all post 2006 veterans.

The successive CPCs had already given pension parity as per ranks to all officers’ community. Therefore the need of the hour is to implement the concept of OROP for PBORs, War widows and family pensioners first to remove all kinds of existing anomalies. The pension of old and new veterans (pre-2006 and post 2006) who have completed 15 years of post retirement and drawing full pension need only be revised and not all and sundry. As given in the illustration above, the pre-2006 veterans are already drawing more residual pension than the post 2006 veterans, hence their cases are not required to be looked into and they do not deserve the OROP concept as they are already drawing more residual pension.

I am a post 2006 veteran and draw less residual pension than the veterans retired during 3rd, 4th and 5th CPC. Can the OROP concept ensure that I get the same rate of residual pension as that of the past pensioners? The real concept of OROP, therefore, should be to ensure that all veterans of the same rank and length of service whether pre-2006 or post 2006 retirees get the same amount of carry home pension (residual pension) and not to give any sort of linkage to the basic pension which will give a wrong picture as illustrated above. Also it is not true to believe that higher the basic pension higher the residual pension. 

In fact it works other way round that higher the basic pensions lower the residual pension. If the OROP concept is not changed to ensure same level of residual pension for all with the same rank and length of service it will lead to an unhealthy situation where the pre-2006 veterans will attain monetary benefits for no rhyme or reason and the post 2006 veterans will be left high and dry without any monetary gains. The judicial review team may look into these aspects and to ensure that veterans who are already drawing more residual pension than the veterans of post 2006 is not given any financial upgradtion in the name of OROP which is not a well conceived idea and it revolves around basic pension and not the residual pension which is the final amount that a veteran gets from the government every month as his/her pension.

(View and Opinions expressed in this article belong to its writer Mr.Ranson)

Flash News

Expected DA July 2017 for CG Employees and Pensioners

Expected DA July 2017 for CG Employees and Pensioners Dearness Allowance is not an attractive word among CG Employees and Pensioners ...