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

Press Information Bureau 

Government of India

Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs

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.

Read More »

Is Attendance compulsory for Central Government Employees on the implementation day (01.01.2016) of the 7th CPC Recommendations?

Is Attendance compulsory for Central Government Employees on the implementation day (01.01.2016) of the 7th CPC Recommendations?

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 1st, 2016.

“All Central Government employees are advised to report to work on January 1st, 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, 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 existing rules, in order to qualify for the annual increment, an employee has completed 6 months or more in the revised pay structure, 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 1st, 2016 at least and then continue with their leave. This will help them avoid a lot of problems.

Source: www.7thpaycommissionnews.in

Read More »

Wage hike in 7th Pay Commission and Trade Union Action

Wage hike in 7th Pay Commission and Trade Union Action

Wage hike and trade union action

Comrades ,

The 7th CPC has cheated the 35 lakhs Central Government Employees and 50 lakhs pensioners, by announcing meagre 14.29% wage hike, in actual term of increase for serving employees after deduction of Income tax, enhanced subscription of CGEIS, licence fee, CGHS etc the net increase is actually varies from 1% to 4 % increase.

The similar situation was existing for central Government employees during the 5th CPC , as the 5th CPC had recommended 20% wage hike after strike notice was served then the Third Front Government agreed to provide 40% wage hike, recently the 6th CPC had provided 54% wage hike.This is lowest wage hike by any pay commission.

The Central Government Employees are having 10 years wage revision against the basic principle of 5 years wage revision adopted by all other Government agency such as Banks Employees, PSU employees etc. The bank employees were initially offered around 10% wage hike , after sustained trade union action they got 15% wage hike from with effect from 1st November 2012. Cumulatively it works out to more than 35 % wage hike for 10 years. The AP and Telangana state government employees got recently 40 % wage hike the pay commission of AP had also adopted Dr. Aykroyd formula and 15th ILO norms and fixed at Rs 13,000/- minimum wage as on 1st July 2013 , if we calculate the minimum wage on this basis for the Central Government Employees the minimum wage works out to Rs 25,000/- and fitment formula of 3.57 .

Comrades let us fight united under the NJCA banner to achieve a decent wage hike, the 7th CPC has erred in the calculation of minimum wage for the Central Government Employees it has fixed at Rs 18000/ against the staff side demand of Rs 26,000/-. while calculating the minimum wage as per Dr. Aykroyd formula and 15th ILO norms the 7th CPC has taken wrong prices of the essential items for example the price of one kg of pulses as Rs 97.84 against the market price of Rs 180/- , similarly the price of one kg of rice and wheat as Rs 25.93 against the market price of Rs 50/- & Rs 40, and 7th CPC has modified the Dr. Aykroyd formula and 15th ILO norms. The 7th CPC has taken 125% DA into consideration, at present the DA is likely to cross 125% , the prices of essential commodity including rice and pulses are showing increase in last month and further rise due to floods and draught in many states.

Overall the 7th CPC has erred in calculation of minimum wage for the Central Government Employees there by denying the correct fitment formula and justify wage hike. Comrade it is time to mobilize, educate and prepare for trade union action. Like bank employees we should also get justify wage agreement.

Comradely yours

(P.S.Prasad)

General Secretary

Source: http://karnatakacoc.blogspot.in/

Read More »

Grant of Nursing Allowance to Assistant Nursing Officers working in Railway Hospitals

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

RAILWAY BOARD

No.E(P&A)I-2012/AL/1

New Delhi dated 08.12.2015

The General Managers

All Indian Railways and PUs.

Sub: Grant of Nursing Allowance to Assistant Nursing Officers working in Railway Hospitals.

Nursing Allowance in respect of Assistant Nursing Officers (ANOs) working in Railway Hospitals was discontinued vide Board’s letter of even number dated 13.05.2014 on the consideration that they perform overall supervision of nursing services and are not involved actively in nursing activities.

2. Subsequently the issue in respect of restoration of Nursing Allowance to Assistant Nursing Officers was raised by the Indian Railways Promotee Officers Federation (IRPOF) as an Agenda Item No.8 in the Meeting of IRPOF with full Board. This issue was also raised by NFIR in the PNM Forum and by AIRF vide their reference dated 13.07.2014.

3. Revised duties & responsibilities of Para Medical Staff working in Railway Hospitals has been issued vide Board’s letter No.2014/H-1/10/18/Para Medical Staff dated 15.10.2015 in accordance with the accepted recommendations of the Committee constituted to review the duties and responsibilities of para Medical Staff including Assistant Nursing Officers working in Railway Hospitals. As per the revised duty list Nursing Officer will be actively involved in patient care. In the circumstances the Board’s letter of even number dated 13.05.2014 may be treated as withdrawn and as such ANOs would be eligible for Nursing Allowance.

Sd/-

(S.R Kauaujia)

Joint Director Estt. (P&A)

Railway Board

Source: NFIR

Read More »

7th Pay Commission has Recommended Higher Grade Pay for Auditors.

7th CPC recommends that officers in organised accounts cadres viz., Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Defence Accounts Department, Indian Civil Accounts Organisation, Railways, Post and Telecommunications who are in GP 4800 will be upgraded, on completion of four years’ service to GP 5400 (PB-2) and will be placed in Pay level 9, in the pay matrix.

Officers in accounts cadres to get higher grade pay – 7th CPC Recommendations

7th Pay Commission recommends higher grade pay for officers in organised accounts cadres from GP 4800 to GP 5400 PB-2.

Organised Accounts Staff

11.12.134 The demands made in respect of the organised accounts cadre of the Ministry of Defence by the Confederation of Defence Recognised Association are focused on two posts viz., Senior Auditors and Assistant Accounts Officers.

Senior Auditors

They have contended that Senior Auditor of organised Accounts cadres have traditionally been at par with Assistants and that the existing parity between them has been disturbed by the government upgrading the level of Assistant from GP 4200 to GP 4600, while Senior Auditors remains at GP 4200. To advance their case, they have stated that a job evaluation of the Audit staff of IA&AD and Assistants of CSS carried out by Administrative Staff College, Hyderabad at instance of III CPC, gave a higher job rating to Auditors than Assistants of CSS.

In 1984, the government bifurcated the Audit cadre of IA&AD into Auditors (20 percent) and Senior Auditors (80 percent) and granted the pay scale of Assistant of CSS to Senior Auditors. The IV CPC, had, after above consideration, taken the view that there should be broad parity in the pay scales of the staff in IA&AD and other accounts organisations. The recommendation  of  IV  CPC  was  accepted  by  the  government  and implemented  w.e.f. 01.01.1986 for audit and from 1 April, 1987 for accounts in case of IA&AD and other Accounts Departments and Senior Auditors have been given same pay scale of Assistant of CSS.

Analysis and Recommendations

The Commission, in Chapter 7.1, has already taken a view with regard to pay level of Assistants of CSS. The recommendation there in will settle the parities as have been sought to be established.

Assistant Accounts Officers

They have contended that the existing parity between Assistant Account Officer (AAO) of organised accounts cadre and Section Officers of CSS was disturbed by granting Non Functional upgradation to GP 5400 (PB-3) after four years of service to the latter. They have stated that in the original scheme of things, Section Officer(A)/ Assistant Accounts Officer of organised accounts were also included for non functional upgradation to GP 5400 (PB-3) after four years as evident from English release dated 14 August, 2008 of Press Information Bureau. Para 10 (v) of this English release reads “Government has continued the present position of granting Group `A’ scale to Group `B’ officers after 4 years of service and these officers would be placed in PB-3 instead of PB-2 recommended by the VI CPC. This would benefit Group `B’ officers of the Railways, Accounts Services, CSS, CSSS and DANICS and DANIPS.”

Analysis and Recommendations

The Commission notes that non-functional upgradation from GP 4800 to GP 5400 (PB-3), on completion of four years of service, has been accorded to a number of posts by the government in 2008 viz., Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service, Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service, Officers of the Central Secretariat Service and those of Central Secretariat Stenographers Service as well as other similarly placed Headquarters Services. This has also been extended to Group `B’ Officers of the Departments of Posts and Revenue. While extending this benefit, officers in GP 4800, both in Headquarters and in the field formations of these two organisations have been covered. In 2015, this benefit was also extended to Section Officers in the Indian Coast Guard.

The Commission is therefore of the view that there is no justification for excluding officers in the organised accounting departments who are at GP 4800 from this dispensation. It therefore recommends that all officers in organised accounts cadres (in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Defence Accounts Department, Indian Civil Accounts Organisation, Railways, Post and Telecommunications) who are in GP 4800 should be upgraded, on completion of four years’ service to GP 5400 (PB-2), viz., Pay level 9, in the pay matrix.

Read More »

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)

Read More »

Issue of Pensioners Identity Card to pensioners – Pension Portal Issued Orders on 17.12 . 2015

No.41/21/2000-P&PW(D)

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS

DEPARTMENT OF PENSION & PENSIONERS WELFARE

LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET,

NEW DELHI, DATED THE 17th December, 2015

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Issue of Pensioners Identity Card to Pensioners

The undersinged is directed to say that the revised instructions laying down guidelines/specifications for issue of Identity Card for pensioners have been issued vide this Department’s OM of even no. dated 12.08.2015 and 20.08.2015. Meetings were also taken on this issue by Secretary (Pension) with the representatives of all Ministries/Departments on 3rd/4th September 2015. A copy of the minutes of the meeting is again sent herewith.

2. This Department has procured a duplex thermal Colour Printer. This printer was launched by Hon’ble MOS(PP) on 26.11.2015 at Vigyan Bhawan in the Awareness Workshop on Bhavishya. Plastic Identity Cards generated through Bhavishya Software were issued to the retiring/retired employees of the Departments under MOS(PP). Specimen copy of Identity Card is enclosed.

3. It is requested that necessary action to issue Plastic Identity Cards to the employees retiring from your Ministries/Departments and attached and subordinate offices under your control may be taken. In house / outside printing facility may be used as appropriate depending on the requirements.

Enclosures : as above

Sd/-

(Harjit Singh)

Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of India

Source:http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D3/D03ppw/PPWD_181215.pdf

Read More »

Analysis and Recommendations of 7th Pay Commission on House Rent Allowance

Analysis and Recommendations of 7th Pay Commission on House Rent Allowance

Allowances related to Housing : House Rent Allowance (HRA) : Presently, HRA is payable at the following rates:

There are a large number of demands for paying HRA as a percentage of (Basic Pay + DA), instead of as a percentage of Basic Pay alone, as at present. Representations have also been received regarding enhancement of percentage rates and having only two classifications of Metros and Non-metros (instead of the present classification of X, Y and Z cities).

PBORs of uniformed forces have vehemently argued for doing away with the concept of Authorized Married Establishment and the requirement of a minimum age of 25 years for grant of Compensation in Lieu of Quarters (CILQ).

Analysis and Recommendations: Compensation towards the housing needs of Central Government employees is covered in three ways:

1. As a component of Basic Pay when it is initially fixed (based upon the Aykroyd formula)

2. As a constituent of Dearness Allowance [the AICPI(IW), on which the DA is currently based includes a weight of 15.27% towards housing], and

3. In the form of House Rent Allowance

In view of the fact that the DA calculation methodology that is being followed does include a certain weightage for housing, the demand to pay HRA as a percentage of Basic Pay + DA is not justified.

To arrive at the appropriate rates of HRA, the Commission used a two-fold approach: (i) It compared the rise in housing compensation with the cost of housing in major X, Y and Z category cities over the period 2006 to 2013, and (ii) It compared, de novo, the HRA after the rise in Basic Pay proposed with representative house rents in major X, Y and Z category cities.

For (i) above, the table of comparison (for a hypothetical employee whose Basic Pay was ?1000 in 2006) is given below:

As is clear from the above table, compensation for housing in 2013 was 1.79 times that in 2006 for Class X cities, 2.07 times for Class Y cities and 2.92 times for Class Z cities.

During the same period, the weighted (by population of cities) average rise 31 in housing index for Class X cities was 1.69 times, for thirty most populated Class Y cities it was 2.10 times, and for twenty-five most populated Class Z cities it was also 2.10 times.

Thus, it can be safely concluded that the rise in housing compensation has largely kept pace with the rise in rental values in all categories of cities.

However, if a zero-based comparison of HRA with house rents is carried out the Commission observed that today there are websites that give a good idea of the prevalent house rents in various cities. From the information available on the websites, it was observed that with the increase in Basic Pay proposed (and consequent rise in HRA with the rationalized percentages), most of the employees will be able to afford a rented house as per their

entitlement.

Considering all these factors, and in line with our general policy of rationalizing the percentage based allowances by a factor of 0.8, the Commission recommends that HRA should be rationalized to 24 percent, 16 percent and 8 percent of the Basic Pay for Class X, Y and Z cities respectively.

However, the Commission also recognizes that with the current formulation, once the new pay levels are implemented, the compensation towards HRA will remain unchanged until such time as the pay and allowances are next revised. Going by the historical trend this event is likely to be a decade away. Some representations have been received stating that towards the later part of the ten year period the HRA compensation falls considerably short of the requirement. Having regard to this, the Commission also recommends that the rate of HRA will be revised to 27 percent, 18 percent and 9 percent when DA crosses 50 percent, and further revised to 30 percent, 20 percent and 10 percent when DA crosses 100 percent.

Currently, in the case of those drawing either NPA or MSP or both, HRA is being paid as a percentage of Basic Pay+NPA or Basic Pay+MSP or Basic Pay+NPA+MSP respectively. HRA is a compensation for expenses in connection with the rent of the residential accommodation to be hired/leased by the employee and is graded based on the level of the employee, and therefore should be calculated as a percentage of Basic Pay only. Add-ons like NPA, MSP, etc. should not be included while working out HRA.

The Commission also took note of the link between increase in HRA and increase in house rent. There was a sharp rise in the index from the first half of 2009, immediately following VI CPC recommendations. The All India House Rent Index32 chart given below demonstrates this:

Read More »

Reservation in Promotion – Minister replied in Rajya Sabha

The DoPT Minister replied in Parliament, while answering a question about the stand of Central Government on reservation in promotion cases involving Central Government employees as follows…

“The reservation in promotion is provided to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) at the rate of 15% and 7.5% respectively in posts and services under the Central Government. As on 1.1.2013, the representation of SCs and STs was 17.55% and 7.72% respectively.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 19.10.2006, in the matter of M. Nagaraj & Ors. V/s Union of India, while upholding the validity of the Constitutional Amendments made in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, inter-alia, observed that the State will have to collect quantifiable data of backwardness, inadequacy of representation before providing reservation in promotion.

In order to provide impediment free reservation in promotion to SCs and STs, the Constitutional (One Hundred and Seventeenth Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha by the Government in September, 2012. The Bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 17.12.2012 and transmitted to the Lok Sabha for consideration and passing. The Bill could not be considered in the 15th Lok Sabha and lapsed on the dissolution of 15th Lok Sabha. The issues emanating from the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment dated 19.10.2006 in M.Nagaraj case is under examination.”

Authority: Rajya Sabha Q&A

Read More »

Abolishment of the practice of interview for Group B and C posts

The Central Government has decided to dispense with the interview for all Group ‘C’ and non-gazetted Group ‘B’ category in Central Government by 31.12.2015. If a Department considers interview absolutely necessary for any specific posts, then clearance of Department of Personnel & Training is necessary.

Further, the State Governments have also been requested on 4th September 2015 and 29th September, 2015 to undertake similar exercise in respective States in consultation with State Public Service Commissions or other agencies involved in the recruitment for junior level posts. This issue was also deliberated during a meeting held on 8th September, 2015 and in a one day workshop organized on 16th November, 2015 in which the State Secretaries of Personnel/General Administration Department were invited.

This was stated by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office Dr. Jitendra Singh in a written reply to a question by Shri Anil Desai in the Rajya Sabha today.

Read More »