Tuesday, 5 January 2016

Comparison of 7th Pay Commission and 6th CPC Pay excluding HRA

Comparison of 7th Pay Commission and 6th CPC Pay excluding HRA

Comparison of 7th Pay Commission and 6th CPC Pay excluding HRA – NFIR provides data that shows that increase in pay by way of revision pay proposed by 7th pay commission from the Level 1 to 6 is marginal and from Level 7 there is no increase


During  discussions  with the Hon’ble  MR and the Board (CRB,  FC,  MS) on 23rd December 2015, the NFIR  General Secretary  has expressed that there is all-round  unhappiness on 7th CPC recommendations as in many cases the ‘Take  Home Pay’  is either very marginal  or less than  what  is  received  by the  employee  now.

The  Federation  also  disputed  the estimated financial  implications  (Rs.28,500 crores)  and said that the estimated  expenditure  has been exaggerated.  It was also brought to the notice of the MR the retrograde recommendations  of 7th CPC,  while the case of Railway employees  of various categories  was not dealt adequately and the Railway  Ministry  has unfortunately  not apprised the inadequacies of Grades Pay and Pay Band of 6th CPC to the Chairman,  7th CPC.

Table–II  indicates  6th  CPC minimum pay in GP+  Pay Band without  HRA.

Table-II  (a)  gives 7th CPC  minimum  pay  without   HRA  (staff  in occupation   of Railway quarters are not entitled for HRA).

[A comparison  of Table-II with Table-II (a) shows minus  ‘Take  Home Pay’   for employees of Level- I  to Level-6 of Pay Matrix and equally  marginal  increase to those  in Level-7,  8 & 9 of Pay Matrix. Again  in Level- 10 the ‘Take  Home  Pay’  will be less than the present amount. Overall position  will be either “minus” or “marginal increase”.  The Income Tax deduction would further worsen.]


TABLE- II          VI th CPC pay at the minimum of the Pay bands without HRA as on 01/01/2016
Pay Band
GP
PAY
DA
HRA
TR/ALL
GROSS
PF
PTAX
CGIS
DED
NET
PB-I
5200-20200
1800
7000
8750
0
1350
17100
840
150
30
1020
16080
PB-I
5200-20200
1900
7730
9663
0
1350
20643
928
200
30
1158
19485
PB-1
5200-20200
2000
8460
10575
0
3600
24635
1015
200
30
1245
23390
PB-I
5200-20200
2400
9910
12388
0
3600
28298
1189
200
30
1419
26878
PB-I
5200-20200
2800
11360
14200
0
3600
31960
1363
200
30
1593
30367
PB-11
9300-34800
4200
13500
16875
0
3600
33975
1620
,200
30
1850
32125
PB-Il
9300-34800
.   4600
17140
21425
0
3600
42165
2057
200
30
2287
39878
PB-Il
9300-34800
4800
18150
22688
0
3600
44438
2178
200
60
2438
42000
PB-Il
9300-34800
5400
20280
25350
0
7200
52830
2434
200
60
2694
50136
PB-Ill
15600-39100
5400
21000
26250
0
7200
54450
2520
200
120
2840
51610
PB-I11
15600-39100
6600
25350
31688
0
7200
64238
3042
200
120
3362
60876
PB-111
15600-39100
7600
29500
36875
0
7200
73575
3540
200
120
3860
69715

TABLE-II (a)  VII th CPC pay at the minimum of the level without HRA as on 01/01/2016
LEVEL
PAY
DA
HRA
TR/ALL
GROSS
PF
PTAX
CGIS
DED
NET
GROSS DIFF
NET DIFF
1
18000
0
0
1350
19350
2160
200
1500
3860
15490
2250
-590
2
19900
0
0
1350
21250
2388
200
1500
4088
17162
608
-2323
3
21700
0
0
3600
25300
2604
200
1500
4304
20996
665
-2394
4
25500
0
0
3600
29100
3060
200
1500
4760
24340
803
-2538
5
29200
0
0
3600
32800
3504
200
1500
5204
27596
840
-2771
6
35400
0
0
3600
39000
4248
200
2500
6948
32052
5025
-73
7
44900
0
0
3600
48500
5388
200
2500
8088
40412
6335
534
8
47600
0
0
3600
51200
5712
200
2500
8412
42788
6763
789
9
53100
0
0
7200
60300
6372
200
2500
9072
51228
7470
1092
10
56100
0
0
7200
63300
6732
200
5000
11932
51368
8850
-242
11
67700 –
0
0
7200
74900
8124
200
5000
13324
61576
10663
700
12
78800
0
0
7200
–86000
9456
200
5000
14656
71344
12425
1629

Source: NFIR

NFIR compares 7th pay commission pay matrix and 6th pay commission pay

NFIR compares 7th pay commission pay matrix and 6th pay commission pay

NFIR-compares-7th-pay-commission-pay-matrix-and-6th-pay-commission-pay


NFIR compares 7th pay commission pay matrix and 6th pay commission pay including HRA – NFIR concludes that net benefit is marginal at Level-1, and minus  at Level–2. When taking income tax deduction in to account pay increase at higher levels will also be minimal


During  discussions  with the Hon’ble  MR and the Board (CRB,  FC,  MS) on 23rd December 2015, the NFIR  General Secretary  has expressed that there is all-round  unhappiness on 7th CPC recommendations as in many cases the ‘Take  Home Pay’  is either very marginal  or less than  what  is  received  by the  employee  now.

The  Federation  also  disputed  the estimated financial  implications  (Rs.28,500 crores)  and said that the estimated  expenditure  has been exaggerated.  It was also brought to the notice of the MR the retrograde recommendations  of 7th CPC,  while the case of Railway employees  of various categories  was not dealt adequately and the Railway  Ministry  has unfortunately  not apprised the inadequacies of Grades Pay and Pay Band of 6th CPC to the Chairman,  7th CPC.

As  desired  vide  note  dated  23/12/2015,  the  Federation   furnishes  the  following  details  as Annexures to this letter.

(a) Table –I   gives   the  position   of  6th   CPC   minimum   pay   in  Pay  Band   &  Grade   Pay (PB-I   to PB-3) as on 01/01/2016.

(b) Table-I  (a) explains  the 7th CPC minimum pay from Level-1 to Level-12  of the Pay Matrix . A comparison  of Table-I  with Table-I (a)  reveals that the net benefit is marginal at Level-1, minus  at Level–2.

However,  there  may be substantial  increase   from Level- 7  and above.  If Income Tax deduction  takes place, the increase will fall.

6th And 7th Cpc Pay Comparison Table

TABLE-1                VI th CPC pay at the minimum of the Pay bands as on 01/01/2016
Pay Band
GP
PAY
DA
HRA
TR/ALL
GROSS
PF
PTAX
CGIS
DED
NET
PB-I
5200-20200
1800
7000
8750
2100
1350
19200
840
150
30
1020
18180
PB-I
5200-20200
1900
7730
9663
2319
1350
21062
928
200
30
1158
19904
PB-I
5200-20200
2000
8460
10575
2538
3600
25173
1015
200
30
1245
23928
PB-1
5200-20200
2400
9910
12388
2973
3600
28871
1189
200
30
1419
27451
PB-I
5200-20200
2800
11360
14200
3408
3600
32568
1363
200
30
1593
30975
PB-II
9300-34800
4200
13500
16875
4050
3600
38025
1620
200
30
1850
36175
PB-II
9300-34800
4600
17140
21425
5142
3600
47307
2057
200
30
2287
45020
PB-II
9300-34800
4800
18150
22688
5445
3600
49883
2178
200
60
2438
47445
PB-II
9300-34800
5400
20280
25350
6084
7200
58914
2434
200
60
2694
56220
PB-III
15600-39100
5400
21000
26250
6300
7200
60750
2520
200
120
2840
57910
PB-III
15600-39100
6600
25350
31688
7605
7200
71843
3042
200
120
3362
68481
PB-III
15600-39100
7600
29500
36875
8850
7200
82425
3540
200
120
3860
78565


TABLE-
(a)VII th CPC pay at the minimum of the Pay Matrix level as on 01/01/2016
LEVEL I
PAY
DA
HRA
TR/ALL
GROSS
PF
PTAX
CGIS
DED
NET
GROSS DIFF
NET DIFF
1
18000
0
4320
1350
23670
2160
200
1500
3860
19810
4470
1630
2
19900
0
4776
1350
26026
2388
200
1500
4088
21938
2715
-216
3
21700
0
5208
3600
30508
2604
200
1500
4304
26204
5335
2276
4
25500
0
6120
3600
35220
3060
200
1500
4760
30460
6350
3009
5
29200
0
7008
3600
39808
3504
200
1500
5204
34604
7240
3629
6
35400
0
8496
3600
47496
4248
200
2500
6948
40548
9471
4373
7
44900
0
10776
3600
59276
5388
200
2500
8088
51188
11969
6168
8
47600
0
11424
3600
62624
5712
200
2500
8412
54212
12742
6768
9
53100
0
12744
7200
73044
6372
200
2500
9072
63972
14130
7752
10
56100
0
13464
7200
76764
6732
200
5000
11932
64832
16014
6922
11
67700
0
16248
7200
91148
8124
200
5000
13324
77824
19306
9344
12
78800
0
18912
7200
104912
9456
200
5000
14656
90256
22487
11691

Source: NFIR

Posting of Government employees who have differently abled dependents – Dopt Orders on 5.1.2016

Posting of Government employees who have differently abled dependents – Dopt Orders on 5.1.2016

No.42011/3/2014-Estt.(Res)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training
North Block, New Delhi,
dated the 05th January, 2016
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Posting of Government employees who have differently abled dependents- reg.

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OM of even number dated 06.06.2014 and 17.11.2014 exempting a Government employee, who is also a care giver of disabled child, from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative constraints. The word ‘disabled’ includes (i) blindness or low vision (ii) hearing impairment (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy (iv) leprosy cured (v) mental retardation (vi) mental illness (vii) multiple disabilities and (viii) autism.

2. The matter regarding the scope of ‘disabled’ has been examined in consultation with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities. Considering the fact that the child suffering from “Thalassemia” and “Haemophilia” requires constant caregiver support and it would be imperative for the Government employees to take care of their child suffering from “Thalassemia” and “Haemophilia” on continuous basis, it has been decided to include “Thalassemia” and “Haemophilia” in the term of ‘disabled’ defined in Para 3 of the above mentioned OM dated o6.06.2014-

3. The term ‘disabled’ as defined herein and in OM dated 06.06.2014 and 17.11.2014 is applicable only as grounds for seeking exemption from routine transfer/rotational transfer of a Government employee who have disabled child.

4. All the Ministries/Departments are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all concerned under their control.

Encl: As above.
(G. Srinivasan)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India
Authority: www.persmin.gov.in
Click the order

7th Pay Commission – Report falls well short of the Standard expected of it – An Agonized Veteran

7th Pay Commission – Report falls well short of the Standard expected of it – An Agonized Veteran


Grievances of retired veterans can be brushed aside easily as responses of an ungrateful government, but to cause demoralisation among those still in the fight is to cause grave damage to the nation which can have potentially serious impact on its core interests. No country ever became a great power by putting down its own military.

7th Pay Commission – “Report falls well short of the Standard expected of it” – Representations made by various civilian bodies are analysed in the report, those made by the armed forces are ignored entirely.”


Recent media reports suggest that the three service chiefs have together written a letter to the defence minister protesting the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission, and seeking its review insofar as the armed forces are concerned, by a suitable committee with representation from the military.

At the same time, while addressing the annual Commanders Conference of the three services on board the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said everything would be done to ensure that the fighting efficiency of the armed forces remained high.

There is some mismatch in these two seemingly separate but related developments. While many of the issues of concern to the armed forces will, hopefully, be set right, what is disconcerting is the underlying theme which, through pay structures, downgrades the stature of the military institution. This is a potentially damaging scenario which needs discussion, as the morale of fighting men and the equipment they fight with are not different things, but two sides of the same coin.

The real problem is not the recommendations of any Pay Commission or the ongoing agitation by armed forces veterans, but the approach that is increasingly being adopted by the country towards the one institution which stands by the homeland in weather both fair and foul. In terms of recognition of the armed forces as an institution, governments of all hues, past and present, have had an approach which borders on schizophrenia.

There is high rhetoric on the regard in which the military is held by everyone; yet, no effort is spared to denigrate its leadership or to downgrade its stature. In the early 1960s, when the Army Chief protested and then resigned over the promotion of a clearly unsuitable senior officer, Prime Minister Nehru first assured General Thimayya that he would get the issue resolved and, on the very next day, castigated the chief in quite derogatory language in the Lok Sabha. The person in question was elevated and a year later, led his troops to a demoralised retreat from the battlefield which was even more traumatic than the defeat itself.

In 1973, despite the armed forces having provided the nation with a spectacular victory just two years earlier, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s government, following the Third Pay Commission report, had no hesitation in reducing the pensions of retiring military men just as it increased those of their civilian counterparts. In the middle 1980s, when then army chief made a perfectly valid comment that the armed forces were as interested in good governance as others, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi got Defence Minister Sharad Pawar to humiliate the general by remarking in the Lok Sabha that military officers were trained to fight wars but were not well equipped to make such comments, which need not be taken seriously.

In 1998, the government of Prime Minister Vajpayee summarily dismissed then Naval Chief Vishnu Bhagwat without any notice, going so far as to fly in his successor into New Delhi quite stealthily in an aircraft belonging to the Research and Analysis Wing. Two years after the Kargil War, a visibly disinterested Prime Minister Vajpayee was present on July 26 at a ceremony to commemorate the victory gained at considerable sacrifice of young lives even as, on the same day, three prime ministers, past and present, along with several MPs, stood at a crematorium to pay respect to an assassinated MP who had been a dacoit and had cruelly murdered 22 of her own innocent countrymen; both houses of Parliament were adjourned for a day. These are just a few episodes better known publicly; many more can be cited. If this is not reflective of a split persona, nothing is.

In other major democracies, there are instances of military leaders having been asked to resign or even dismissed – the most infamous one being the sacking of US General Douglas Macarthur, a World War II hero, by President Truman during the Korean War. But there the former was clearly acting in defiance of the political directive. There have been cases where senior military men have been asked to resign on moral grounds, but never have efforts been made to downgrade the stature of the armed forces as an institution. In the same country, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sits as a full member of the National Security Council alongside his superior, the Secretary of Defence (the equal of our defence minister).

This is where India stands almost alone. The approach of the Seventh Pay Commission falls in this latter category. For it to argue, as it has, that in the pay matrix, senior officers of the armed forces stand on the same footing as their civilian counterparts, actually better, is more devious than naïve, as its members were well aware that only a miniscule percentage of the former reach those positions and at a later age, when large numbers of the latter do so at a much younger age. Another pointer to the discrimination is that while representations made by various civilian bodies are analysed in the report, those made by the armed forces are ignored entirely. There are many glaring instances of such insensitivity in the recommendations made by this body.

The argument that in any democracy, the civilian leadership must have primacy over the military is valid only so long as the meaning of that relationship is understood. If by this ‘superiority’ is implied that the civil bureaucracy must merit higher status and remuneration than its military counterpart then the thesis deserves to be challenged and refuted.

For those who have served in the armed forces, and this writer is one, the morale of the men in uniform is the first prerequisite to fighting efficiency. Demoralisation, for any reason, is both debilitating and defeating; it was poor morale, not outdated equipment (the Chinese did not have any better), that sent us running back in 1962. Various measures, some tangible – discipline is one of them – and others more indirect, are needed to sustain and foster high morale. This is a 24/7 and 365-day activity; and status in society and government, of which fair remuneration is an important factor, must merit serious attention of those in authority, both civil and military.

Sadly, the Seventh Pay Commission report falls well short of the standard expected of it. Therefore, if the three Service Chiefs have been concerned enough to address their political superior, it is for good reason. Grievances of retired veterans can be brushed aside easily as responses of an ungrateful government, but to cause demoralisation among those still in the fight is to cause grave damage to the nation which can have potentially serious impact on its core interests. No country ever became a great power by putting down its own military.

Source: Business Standard

Raise income tax exemption limit to Rs 5 lakh: Unions

Raise income tax exemption limit to Rs 5 lakh: Unions

New Delhi: Trade unions today asked the government to increase the income tax exemption limit to Rs 5 lakh and the minimum wage to Rs 18,000 besides raising the minimum monthly pension to Rs 3,000 for all.

They also sought a special package for victims of the recent Tamil Nadu floods.

These demands were raised under a 15-point charter submitted by 11 central trade unions to Finance Minister Arun Jaitley during pre-Budget consultations held here. The Union Budget for the next financial year, 2016-17, is slated to be presented in Parliament in February end. It will take effect from April 1.

“We have demanded a minimum wage of Rs 18,000 per month which is higher than our earlier demand of Rs 15,000,” Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh Zonal Organisation Secretary Pawan Kumar said after the meeting.

The Seventh Pay Commission has recommended Rs 18,000 as minimum monthly wage for central government employees and it should be the benchmark, he said.

All Indian Trade Union Congress Secretary D L Sachdev said: “We have also demanded Rs 3,000 minimum monthly pension for all and asked for a special package for flood ravaged Tamil Nadu to provide relief to workers as well as industry in the next Budget.”

Sachdev said that in view of price rise “we have also demanded from the government to increase the income tax exemption limit to Rs 5 lakh per annum”.

The union have also asked that fringe benefits like housing, medical and educational facilities and running allowances in railways should be exempted from Income Tax.

Unions also demanded that PSUs should be strengthened and expanded and the disinvestment of government shares in profit making PSUs should be stopped.

Besides, they said that the budgetary support should be provided for revival of potentially viable sick PSUs.

On the price rise, the charter said: “Take effective measures to arrest the spiralling price rise especially of food and essential items of daily use. Ban speculative forward trading in essential commodities, check on hoarding and universalise and strengthen Public Distribution System.”

Expressing concerns over steel and aluminium sectors, the unions said: “Relentless and increasing flow of import of industrial commodities including capital goods must be contained and regulated to prevent dumping and also to protect and promote domestic industries and prevent loss of employment.”

It also said that “FDI should not be allowed in crucial sectors like defence production, Railways, financial sector, retail trade and other strategic sectors. In other areas, terms and conditions for FDI should be made public.”

PTI

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 ...