Friday, February 28, 2014

DOS 4600 Grade Pay Case - Status

Status of CAT case for Rs.4600 Grade Pay in the Hon`ble CAT, Chennai:-

Final Argument is now posted for 15th April, 2014.    

Counter Received from the Department on 25th Oct 2012.     Rejoinder submitted in March, 2013.

Hearing was held on 4th December 2012 and not held on 10th January, 2013, 20th March, 2013 (due to boycott of courts by lawers).    Next hearing was held on 9th April, 2013.     No hearing took place on 11th June, 2013 once again due to boycott of courts by Lawyers.         This is the 3rd time no hearing has taken place.   Hearings were also on 28th June and 18th July, 2013 & 12.8.2013 (court boycott).   Hearing got posted/postponed to 3rd & 13th then postponed to 23rd September, 2013, 10th Oct, 2013 & 9th Dec 2013, 3rd January 2014, 6th February 2014, 3rd March, 2014 and 13th March, 2014, 21st March, 2014 & 1.4.2014.    The next hearing is on 15th April, 2014.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

On MACP & Promotion as Inspector, STA gets 3% Inc + 4600 Gpay but gets only 3% Increment on his promotion as DOS

Recently, many CExcise Commissionerates have issued MACP orders in which STAs who have completed 10 years in the post of STA with same Grade pay of Rs.4200 has been granted MACP with Rs.4600 Grade pay.

The STAs have been given Rs.4600 Gpay with 3% increment in Pay band on promotion to the post of Inspector.   And MACP also guarantees the same benefit.

But, when some were promoted as DOS, they were given nothing till issue of order dated: June, 2013 which grants just 3% increment with same Grade pay of Rs.4200.   Many DOSs are losing their morale that they have started saying that they could have remained without promotion as they can get Rs.4600 Gpay on completion of 10 years of service in the same post/gpay of Rs.4200 instead of promotion as DOS where they get just 3% increment.     A fallback option (MACP) is better than the original one.   Is this rational?

The Hon`ble CAT case hearing has been getting postponed for one reason or another.  However, based on this instance of MACP itself (which requires no further evidence), the case stands brighter chance to win (If and when the hearing takes place) due to this.    Department has now asked for 3 months time for filing reply to rejoinder (which was filed in Feb-2013)  in the hearing on 6th Feb, 2014.    Next hearing has been fixed on 3rd March 2014.

Lets hope for the best.

Saturday, August 31, 2013

3% Increment for promotion between posts carrying same grade pay especially Rs.4200 - What was MACP benefit?

What is the benefit given to persons (On MACP) who were in Rs.4200 grade pay (feeder cadre & promotion cadre in same grade pay), prior to issue of order of 3% increment on 7th January, 2013.  

As it is now emphasized that MACP benefit should not be higher than promotion benefit, (which  was NIL on promotion till issue order dated: 7th Jan 2013) was the benefit on MACP also NIL if any one was eligible for MACP (if it precedes his promotion).      It means that people who were in 4200 grade pay were given Rs.NIl as benefit on MACP (if it precedes promotion) and treated as if one  MACP has been given.     Is this logical and reasonable?  

MACP is not related to promotional grade pay but it envisages placement in the next immediate higher grade pay as RP rules, 2008.

Similar situation and grant of one increment is already in place in Auditors (AT SENIOR LEVEL) case where two posts - feeder and Promotional post remain in two different pay bands like PB2 Rs,9300 with Rs.5400 Grade pay & PB3 Rs.15600 with Rs.5400 Gpay.    In this case, MACP also takes both pay bands as different.    In this case, both MACP and Promotion benefit remain equal.    Here, atleast the fixation will be at minimum of Rs.15600/- if the person promoted has basic pay lesser than Rs.15600/-.   This is atleast different from Rs.4200 Gpay case.
If any one had become eligible for MACP prior to promotion (working in the feeder cadre post carrying Gpay of Rs.4200 which has promotion post carrying same grade pay of Rs.4200, what was benefit given during the period from from 1.1.2006 to 6.1.2013 (prior to order dated 7th Jan 2013)?    If it is NIL, then is it not illogical and denial of benefit due? (as benefit on promotion was NIL as both posts carried same Gpay of Rs.4200).    This appears to be not logical and is unreasonable.

Legal route appears to be the only solution to all these disparities/discrepancies.  

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

3% increment posts in same grade pay in 6th Pay Commn - Recent order

Dear friends,
Deptt. of Expenditure has issued order dated: 7.1.2013 granting 3% for posts carrying same Grade pay.

It would be logical to say that when Feeder & Promotion cadre posts carry same grade pay, it should be either merged into one post or the promotion cadre post should be assigned higher grade pay.     But, instead of granting higher grade pay, a partial step has been taken in this regard.    When we look at all the other feeder and promotion cadres, on PROMOTION, everyone gets 3% increment in Pay Band and the Grade pay applicable to the promotion post excepting the case of PB2 Gpay 5400 to PB3 5400.    Here atleast the change of pay band is involved.   When a person's pay falls short of the minimum of the pay band, he will be fixed at starting of Rs.15600 + Rs.5400 (though he was in PB2 9300 with 5400 gpay).    But, till date, the only isolated case where the promotion benefit has been ZERO is in the case of merged scale 5000-5500 with Grade pay of Rs.4200 till date.   In order to offset this, the benefit of 3% Increment has been given by this order it seems.

However, it seems that this order is not applicable to all the cases where Grade pay of Feeder and Promotion post is same.   Because, the terms mentioned citing terms of  OM No. 169/2/2000-IC dated 24.11.2000:- 
1) that only in cases where it was not found feasible to appropriately restructure cadres in question on functional, operational and administrative considerations, extension of the benefit of fixation of pay under FR 22(I)(a)(1) could be considered on the merits of each case, provided all the conditions precedent for the grant of this benefit were fully satisfied and promotion to the post in question actually involved assumption of higher responsibilities. 
2) the feeder and promotion cadres should have been placed in the identical (same) pay scales as per 5th Pay Commission. 

Hence, this order appears that it would be applied on case to case basis depending the factors mentioned.   It would be for the individual departments to ascertain whether this is applicable based on the conditions mentioned in the said order.

In the case of DOS, though it was thought to be applicable, it seems to be not so as (only till 20.9.2005 the feeder and promotion cadre of STA and DOS L-II were lying in Rs.5000 basic) DOS post remained in a different grade pay of Rs.5500 whereas feeder cadre post of STA was in Rs.5000 basic prior to 6th pay commission itself ie., from 20.9.2005.    As this order specifically says that the pre-revised scale should have been in the same pay scale for feeder and promotion post ie., Rs.5000 for both feeder and promotion cadre or Rs.5500 for both feeder and promotion cadre.   But, situation here is different as prior to 6th Pay commn, i.e., w.e.from 20.9.2005 itself DOS and STA remained in different pay scales of Rs.5500 and Rs.5000 respectively.

Though I was under the impression that it would be applicable to the STAs who have been promoted to DOS post, it appears to be not so when we go thro the conditions mentioned in the order (went thro again and again and could come to a conclusion like this).

There may be similar situations in other departments also where same grade pay may have been in existence but with were with different pay scales prior to 6th Pay Commission.

Saturday, December 22, 2012


Pl. find below the MACP clarification (received by email from CGemployees News):-
Posted: 21 Dec 2012 12:50 AM PST
Grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme-Clarification for Railway Employees...
An another clarification order has been issued by the Railway Board to its employees regarding the Grade Pay would be admissible under MACP to an employee holding feeder post in a cadre where promotional post is in the same Grade Pay. The nodal department of the Union Government, DOPT has informed the the financial upgradations under ACP/MACP Schemes cannot be to higher Grade Pay than what are be allowed to an employee on his normal promotion...
The Railway Board order has been reproduced and given below for your consideration...
Railway Board

RBE No.142/2012
New Delhi, dated 13/12/2012
The General Manager/OSDs/CAO(R)
All Indian Railways & PUs
(As per mailing list)
Sub:-Grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme-Clarification reg.
References have been received from Zonal  Railways seeking clarification as to what Grade Pay would be admissible under  MACP Scheme to an employee holding feeder post in a cadre where promotional post is in the same Grade Pay. The matter has been examined in consultation with Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T), the nodal department of the Government on MACP Scheme and it is clarified that ACP/MACP Schemes have been introduced by the Government in order to mitigate the problems of genuine stagnation faced by employees due to lack of promotional avenues.   
Thus, financial upgradations under ACP/MACP Schemes CANNOT be to higher Grade Pay than what are be allowed to an employee on his normal promotion. In such cases financial upgradation under MACP Scheme would be granted to the same Grade Pay.
This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Directorate of the Ministry of Railways.
Hindi version is enclosed.
(N.P. Singh)
Dy. Director/Pay Commission-V
Railway Board
Source: AIRF & NFIR

Friday, August 31, 2012

DY OFFICE SUPDT - ONE TIME INCREMENT - IF deprived, represent to the Chairman, CBEC

Dear DOS of CE & Customs,
If you are deprived of one time increment benefit, then represent to the Chairman, CBEC for it with copy to Ministerial Federation for taking up the issue with the Board.   Here is my representation.   You may customise according to your position and represent.   Givenbelow:-


Deputy Office Superintendent,


The Chairman,
Central Board of Excise & Customs,
New Delhi. (Through proper channel)

Respected Sir,

Sub: One time increment – Deprival of benefit to Deputy Office Superintendents due to
non-acceptance of Revised Option - Request for issue of orders/instructions –

I would like to humbly bring the following for issue of necessary orders/instructions to enable Deputy Office Superintendents like me to get the benefit of one time increment for which order has been issued vide Office Memorandum No.10/02/2011-E.III/A dated 19th March, 2012 of Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi granting One time increment for those who had their increment from February 2006 to June 2006 prior to implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendations (copy enclosed as Annexure-I).

2. I was working as DOS Level-II and my increment month was April, prior to merger of DOS Level-I & DOS Level-II. In order to get the one time increment benefit, I had given Revised Option citing letter F.No.A-26017/131/2008-Ad.IIA dated 15th December, 2009 (copy enclosed as Annexure-II) of Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi which had permitted revision of option on implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendations.

3. Based on the revised option given by me, the Pay Fixation Statement & Arrears Bill was sent to PAO, Central Excise, Chennai. But the same has been returned that my case is not covered under One time increment order dt.19.3.2012 (copies of Bill Return Memos enclosed as Annexure-III).

4. On merger of DOS Level-I & DOS Level-II, pay fixation was done granting the benefit of merger w.e.from April, 2006 prior to implementation of 6th Pay Commission. 6th Pay Commission being an unforeseen event, the revision of option for Dy. Office Superintendents was allowed by the Board vide letter dated 15th December, 2009 on the grounds that if revision of option has resulted from Notification of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, a Govt. Servant may be allowed to revise the option for fixation of pay within one month from the date of issue of the OM dated 29.1.2009 and all the Cadre Controlling Authorities were requested to take necessary action in terms of aforesaid OM dated 29.1.2009.  Since revision of option was permitted vide letter dated 15th Decmeber, 2009, I exercised for revision of option as getting pay fixation on 20.9.2005 itself was beneficial to me, but only till grant of one time increment.    Now, one time increment which is an unforeseen event has occured, I have again given revised option to avail the benefit.   But, the same has been returned by the PAO though Pay fixation was made and arrears bill was prepared.   It is to be stated here that I would not have revised my option at all (as per letter dt.15.12.2009), if one time increment benefit was in place on pay commission's notification itself.    Since it is a new development but one of the benefits of 6th Pay Commission, I have given revised option which is not being accepted by the PAO.    Denial of such benefit which is an unforeseen event, does not render any justice.  

5. Though one time increment is one of the benefits of 6th Pay Commission which has been announced only now and the order dated 15th December, 2009 covers it by default, it is not being accepted by PAO. Denial of revision of option is not justified in view of the unforeseen circumstances and I am deprived/denied of genuine opportunity for no fault of mine.

8. I would like to further add that mine is not an isolated case and there are many Dy. Office Superintendents similarly placed persons spread through out the Department in all Commissionerates who have been deprived of and denied the benefit due to non-acceptance of revised option.

10. In view of the above submissions, I request for issue of necessary clarification/order with regard to letter dated: 15th December, 2009 to enable submission and acceptance of revised option, which is solely due to unforeseen circumstances/event i.e., one time increment which is one of the benefits of 6th Pay Commission granted w.e.from 1.1.2006.

I shall be so grateful for doing the needful in this regard.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Copy submitted to:

The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise,
                                            . - for kind information. (Through proper channel)

Copy to: All India Central Excise and Service Tax Ministerial Officers Association
                - for information and necessary action.

Friday, July 20, 2012

One Increment on promotion in posts carrying same Grade pay - Is it the solution?

Our leaders have demanded for something lesser and the same has been now agreed as a final solution.   Here I mean the ONE INCREMENT for posts lying in the same Grade pay but are Feeder & Promotional post to each other.

The fact which was failed to be noted is that When a person for example, remains in Rs.4200/- Grade pay (I think this situation prevails in merged scales of 5000-5500-6500), he is able to achieve the 3% Increment Plus Next Immediate Higher Grade pay On MACP itself.    Pl. note: MACP is a fall back Option (Which is the substitute option as a last resort) which itself guarantees 3% Increment & Next Immediate Grade pay.    A substitute option (Last resort) is able to guarantee these benefits.   What is guaranteed by MACP is not in place in actual promotion.    ABSOLUTELY IRRATIONAL and UNREASONABLE and NOT JUSTIFIED.

Similar situation and grant of one increment is already in place in Auditors (AT SENIOR LEVEL) case where two posts - feeder and Promotional post remain in two different pay bands like PB2 Rs,9300 with Rs.5400 Grade pay & PB3 Rs.15600 with Rs.5400 Gpay.    In this case, MACP also takes both pay bands as different for grant of MACP.    In this case, both MACP and Promotion benefit remain equal.    Here, atleast the fixation will be at minimum of Rs.15600/- if the person promoted has basic pay lesser than Rs.15600/-   But, the same cannot be the case with regard to merged scales of Rs.5000-6500 because promotion benefit falls short of MACP benefit.

When separate identity of posts are to be maintained, then grade pay should also be different for the feeder and promotional post.

Anyhow, I have cited this MACP point in my OA pending in CAT.     The next hearing will be on 23.7.2012.   No reply/counter so far from the Department side.      The argument has to be - what is achievable by MACP is not achieved even on promotion?     This itself will take care of the case and cause.

Bye for now.