Thursday, 31 August 2017
Shiva Gopal Mishra
National Council (Staff Side)
Joint Consultative Machinery
for Central Government Employees
13-C, Ferozshah Road, New Delhi - 110001
No.NC-JCM-2017/7th CPC /Fin
August 14 2017
The Additional Secretary,
(Sh. Pramod Kumar Das)
Government of India,
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi
We write this with reference to the discussions the staff side had with you on 21st July, 2017,when the official side explained the various recommendations of the Allowances Committee and the Government's decisions thereon. It is however, our considered opinion that the said allowances committee did not consider various submissions made by the Staff side both orally and in writing especially on those allowances, which has a universal application. Had it been really addressed, the reduction in the transport allowance in the case of employees in the lower strata of hierarchy would not have happened. No justification had been advanced by the 7th CPC for the reduction of the House rent allowance rates by a universal 0.8 factor. The Committee has also not enlightened us as to how the said factor had been applied while making cosmetic changes in the rates. The Committee did not consider the following glaring and untenable and incorrect conclusions of the 7‘h CPC despite that the Staff Side pointed out it in their written submissions.
(i) The house rent allowance is one such allowance which is not cost indexed. As on 1.1.2016, the date on which the pay was revised, the DA stood at 125%. What justification could be offered to reduce the rates by 0.8%is inexplicable. By deferring the date of revised allowance by 18 months, i.e. with effect from 1.7.2017, the Government has enormously gained financially. The actual financial outflow on account of the revision of pay and allowances has thus become less than even what was projected by the 7th CPC. The Committee should have known that on all previous occasions, where the date of effect of pay and allowances had differed, the Govt. had granted Interim Relief and merger of DA. No such decision had been taken by the Government, prior to the setting up of the 7th CPC. Even the precedence on which the committee wrongly relied upon, had been set aside by the Board of Arbitration, not once but twice.
(ii) The cosmetic changes effected in the rates of HRA which is published to have benefited about 7.5 Iakhs employees is not correct but exaggerated.
(iii) The Committee's decision to retain some of the department specific allowances was on the suggestion made by the concerned heads of departments. The Staff side view had not been considered at all.
(iv) The Pension committee’s recommendation to reject Option No. 1 on the ground of infeasibility is further reflective of the attitude of the Government towards the employees and pensioners.
On 30th June, 2016 the staff side had a meeting with the group of Ministers headed by Shri Rajnath Singh, the Honourable Home Minister, when an assurance was held out to revisit the computation of the Minimum wage and multiplication factor. We were informed that the Committee headed by you would consider as to how the assurance could be implemented. Despite three rounds of meeting with you, nothing tangible in this regard has happened. In our earlier submissions we had pointed out with facts and figures as to how the 7'h CPC erred in their computation of the Minimum wage and how could never be less than Rs.26000 as on 1.1.2016. We are afraid that the repetition thereof would not serve any purpose. However, as desired by you, we give hereunder certain glaring, iniquitous and unjustified factors, the rectification of which could be the least the Government could do while revisiting the computation of Minimum wage and multiplication factor.
1. Dr. Aykhroyd formula does not speak of any averages. The commodity prices of a particular date is to be taken into account for the computation of minimum wage as on that date. Since the pay is cost indexed, the fluctuation in prices of commodities in future is taken care of by grant of dearness allowance. The 7th CPC took the average prices of various commodities between 1.7.2014 to 30.6.2015 to compute the minimum wage. This is clearly impermissible. If this error alone is set right, the minimum wage shall work out at Rs. 19294 and the MF at 2.76 (See Annexure 1)
2. The 7th CPC reduced the housing component by 4.5%. This was in line with the computation formula adopted by the 6tth CPC. Such reduction on the specious plea that Central Government employees are given HRA separately was ostensibly incorrect as the quantum of HRA provided for is insufficient to meet the expenses incurred by an individual employee for hiring an accommodation. The point however, we would like to mention is that the 7th CPC did not notice that the 6th CPC had increased / retained the rate of HRA whereas the 7th CPC for no valid reason reduced all the three rates by a uniform factor of 0.8. The said decision reduced the HRA in metro cities by 6% in classified cities by 4% and in unclassified towns by 2%. Averaging out to 4%. It must be in the fitness of things, that the unwarranted reduction of housing component is restored especially in the background of the Allowance Committee refusing to restore the erstwhile rates. The computation of the minimum wage if this correction is carried out would be as in annexure 2. The minimum wage would then work out to Rs. 20232 and the multiplication factor at 2.89. This is when the commodity price is taken not as the average for 12 months but the actual price as on 1.7.2015.
3. The Honourable Supreme Court had directed that 25% must be added to arrive at the actual minimum wage in order to enable the employees to meet out various social obligations. Children education was on of the minor components of the social obligations mentioned by Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court delivered its verdict, education in the country was in the public domain and was almost free up to the secondary level. The advent of the neo liberal economic policies, imparting education to the children has become one of the costly affairs. The reduction effected by the 7th CPC to the extent of 10% attributable to children education is totally unjustified and in our opinion even amounts to non adherence to the supreme Court directive in the matter. If this error is rectified, the Minimum wage would be Rs. 21873 (MF 3.12) , the commodity prices being Rs. 9885 (actual as on 17,2015) and would be Rs. Rs. 20391 if computation is done on the basis of the average of the commodity prices as was done by the 7thCPC. The MF In the said two cases would be 3.124 and 2.913 respectively. (See annexure 3 and 3A).
4. The 7th CPC has adopted the family at 3 Units. This is no doubt in consonance with Dr. Aykhroyd formula. The family is taken consisting of husband, wife and two children, value assigned being 1+,O.8,+O.6,+O.6. In the present day society to assign a lower value for women is a misplaced and outdated notion. The gender equality demands that the family unit must be taken at 3.2. ( 1+1+0.6+0.6) Two workings are given in Annexure 4 and 4A. In annexure 4 commodity price is what it should be i.e. the actual prices as on 1.7.2015 and in annexure4 A the same is what is taken by the 7th CPC. The minimum wage in Annexure 4 shall be Rs. 19981 (MF2.94) and in the latter case the MW shall be Rs. 19193 and the MF at 2.74) Please see annexure 4 and 4A for detailed working.
The 6th CPC while formulating the Pay band and Grade pay system had applied varying multiplication factors to create the four pay bands. They had relied upon the same argument that the skilled workers are entitled to have better pay packets than the unskilled or semi skilled labourers. The 7th CPC has advocated the same theory to apply varying Multiplications factors for creating pay levels. The successive application of different multiplication factors has disturbed the vertical relativity and if this theory is perennially adopted in the construction of pay scales the present equilibrium will be drastically altered. The ratio between the minimum and maximum pay in Government sector has been widening ever since the 5th CPC recommendations were adopted. The 7th CPC has relied upon the private sector wage pattern for justifying this practice. On quite a number of occasions, the previous Pay Commissions had advocated against the wage determination in Government and Public Sector on the basis of the fair wage comparison with the private sector as the functions and assigned responsibilities and objectives are essentially incomparable. Large scale contractorisation and outsourcing have already come into stay in Governmental organizations with consequent suppression of wages at the levels of semi skilled and unskilled levels. We are not presently on the ethical aspect of this unfair practice, which a welfare Government ought not have indulged in. We are to state that by application of different multiplication factors (i.e. Upto pay level 5 =2.57, pay level 6-9=2.62,Level 10-13A=2.67, Level 14-16 =2.72,Level 18:2.78 and level 17:2.81. By applying the multiplication factor at 2.81 for the Secretary level officers, the 7th CPC tacitly admitted that the minimum wage should not have been less than Rs. 19670. (i.e. 2.81 x 7000 = 19670) In this connection we would also like to bring to you notice that the Government has now unilaterally altered the multiplication factor and Pay matrix in respect of Level 13 from 2.57 to 2.67. Assigning a lower multiplication factor to the officers of level 13 appears to be a conscious decision of the 7th CPC as the Government’s executive order in 2008 to place the staid level of officers at a higher level had disturbed the then existing vertical relativity in the Governmental hierarchy. It is, therefore, the considered opinion and suggestion of the staff side that the Government must come forward to apply the uniform multiplication factor of 2.81 at all levels both for the construction of the pay levels as also for the pay fixation in the new Pay levels for the existing employees. If our suggestion is accepted, the Minimum wage would be raised to Rs. 19670 with the multiplication factor at 2.81.
We request you to kindly convene a meeting of the staff side to cause discussions on the above submissions and arrive at a mutually acceptable conclusion.
Shiv Gopal Mishra.
Exemption for travel in airlines other than Air India - reg. (Click the link below to view)
Recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) - bunching of stages in the revised pay structure under Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 (Click the link below to view)
Recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission - Implementation of decision relating to the grant of Children Education Allowance (Click the link below to view)
Recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission - Implementation of decisions relating to Special Allowance for Child Care for Women with disabilities (Click the link below to view)
Implementation of the recommendations of Seventh Central Pay Commission - abolishment of Sumptuary Allowance (Click the link below to view)
Implementation of Governments decision on the recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission - Abolishing Desk Allowance
(Click the link below to view)
Inspection Questionnaire for CBS HOs/SOs and AOICO inspection on HO/SBCO (Click the link below to view)
Tuesday, 29 August 2017
Monday, 28 August 2017
Increase in minimum pay and fitment formula - Note Submitted by JCM National Council staff side to senior officers committee headed by Shri Pramod Kumar Das, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure on 14th August 2017.
Revision of rates of Allowances - extension of Government decision on the recommendations the 7th Central Pay Commission in respect of employees of Quasi - Government Organisation, Autonomous Organisations, Statutory Bodies set up by and funded/controlled by the Central Government
Click on the following link to see :
Implementation of recommendation of the Seventh Central Pay Commission - Grants of various Allowances to Central Government Employees.
To view click on the following link:
Sunday, 27 August 2017
PROCEDURE FOR BOOKING OF AIR-TICKETS ON LTC
No. 31011/5/2014-Estt (A.IV)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel,Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training
Establishment A-IV Desk
North Block, New Delhi-110 001
Dated: August 21, 2017
Subject:- Procedure for booking of air-tickets on LTC – clarification reg.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s O.M. of even no. dated 23.09.2015 on the subject noted above and to say that as per the extant instructions, whenever a Government servant claims LTC by air, he/she is required to book the air tickets directly from the airlines (Booking counters, website of airlines) or by utilizing the services of the authorized travel agents viz. ‘M/s Balmer Lawrie & Company’, ‘M/s Ashok Travels & Tours’ and ‘IRCTC’ (to the extent IRCTC is authorized as per DoPT O.M. No. 31011/6/2002-Est(A) dated 02.12.2009) while undertaking LTC journey(s).
2. In this regard, references are received in this Department seeking clarification whether the aforesaid condition of booking the tickets through authorized travel agents needs to be followed in cases where a non-entitled Government servant travels by air on LTC and claims the entitled train fare.
3. The matter has been examined in consultation with Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance and it is hereby clarified that in case of non-entitled Government servants travelling by air on LTC and claiming entitled rail fare, the condition of booking the air tickets through authorised travel agents viz. ‘M/s Balmer Lawrie & Company’, ‘M/s Ashok Travels & Tours’ and ‘IRCTC’ may not be insisted upon. In rest of the cases, the condition of booking the tickets through authorised modes shall continue to follow.
(Surya Narayan Jha)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Postal services were hit in the two districts as departmental staff – clerks, post masters and postmen who were members of the National Federation of Postal Employees (NFPE) went on a day’s strike, pressing for 10-point charter of demands.
After the Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) – postal employees serving in rural areas called off their week-long strike on Tuesday night, the departmental staff struck work on Wednesday, in response to the call given by NFPE, affiliated to the All India Postal Employees Union (AIPEU).
Except head post offices in the two districts, most of the sub post offices remained closed, sources said. Services such as deposits and withdrawals under small savings remittance and withdrawal of money sent from abroad and delivery of posts were affected, sources said.
P. Nagarajan and N. Arivazhagan, district president and secretary respectively of the NFPE, said the strike was total in Ramanathapuram district as most of the 57 sub-post offices in the district were closed.
Sources in postal department, however, said more than 20 sub-post offices remained opened as employees who were members of the Federation of National Employees Organisation did not join the strike.
In Sivaganga and Karaikudi divisions, the strike was total, G. Nagalingam, Sivaganga division secretary of NFPE, said. Almost all the 38 sub-post offices in the division and most of the about 60 sub-post offices in Karaikudi division remained closed, he said.
The employees were pressing for filling of vacancies such as postal assistants, sorting assistants, mail guard and mail men. They demanded that the GDS be given the status of civil servants and pay scales for casual, part time, contingent and mazdoor workers be fixed in accordance with Sixth and Seventh Pay Commissions.
They also demanded five working days in a week and scrapping of the new pension scheme and fix 50% of the last drawn pay as the minimum pension.
Sources: The Hindu