One MACP is adjusted against 2 promotions - Anomaly - some discussions in Gconnect forum

Thread: One MACP to Rs.4600 Grade pay adjusted against 2 Promotions - Unique anomaly

Ramnath posted on 1.9.2015

In our Department (Central Excise), we have Tax Assistant (Rs.2400 Gpay) and its promotional post Senior Tax Assistant (4200 Grade pay) & its promotional post - Deputy office Supdt. (Rs.4200 Gpay with 3% Increment). Then Dy. Office Supdt. gets promoted to Admn. Officer (4600 Gpay).

One situation is:

A few Senior Tax Assistants in Rs.4200 Grade pay have been granted MACP to 4600 Grade pay prior to promotion to Dy. Office Supdt. Then they have been promoted as Dy. Office Supdt. As MACP already granted, no fixation on promotion. After some years as Dy. Office Supdt., they have been promoted as Admn. Officers (Rs.4600 Grade pay). Hence, no fixation. Here, one MACP of Rs.4600 Grade pay is adjusted against 2 Promotions.

MACP envisages placement in the next immediate higher grade pay. Hence, a Tax Assistant drawing Grade pay of Rs.2400 is placed in Rs.2800 Grade pay. Then on promotion as senior Tax Assistant, he is granted Rs.4200 Grade pay. Likewise, a Senior tax Assistant (Rs.4200 Grade pay) is given Rs.4600 Grade pay on MACP. (Only Rs.5400 gpay in PB2 & PB3 have been mentioned to be different Grade pays as per Para 8.1 of MACP Order). As 3% increment (illogical) order dt.7.1.2013 has been issued & made applicable to Rs.4200 grade pay posts (feeder and promotional), a Senior Tax Assistant is drawing lesser Grade Pay on Promotion than on MACP which is a great anomaly.

I have been fighting the case of Grade pay in the Hon`ble CAT, Chennai Bench which is in final stages. Hope to get positive verdict on this sooner.

I welcome views of other boarders.
Ramnath.

soodeep posted on 2.9.2015

Is promotion within same pay band & grade pay still exists? (Senior Tax Assistant (4200 Grade pay) to the promotional post - Deputy office Supdt. (Rs.4200 Gpay with 3% Increment) 

 

Ramnath posted on 2.9.2015

I am fighting the case in CAT Chennai Bench since 2011 which is nearing its final stages.

soodeep posted on 3.9.2015

Agreed with the cause. But, MACP should be effective from 01.09.2008, the date from which MACP came into force after submission of report of 6 CPC.

Ramnath posted on 3.9.2015

In our Department persons have been granted MACP w.e.from 1.9.2008 (they are eligible from 1.9.2008 itself) with 4600 Gpay. But, they were getting ZERO on promotion till order of 3% for posts carrying same gpay was issued on 7.1.2013. Hence, MACP benefit is more than actual promotion.

Victor posted on 5.9.2015

The benefit of MACP cannot be more than actual promotion as MACP is basically a sort of compensation in the event of non-promotion. 

 

Ideally the feeder post and promotion post should have different grade pay as this signifies seniority in a cadre. But if there is a conscious decision to keep the two posts in the hierarchy with the same grade pay then the MACP would also be to the same grade pay.

In this regard the Record of Discussions of 3rd meeting of the Joint Committee on MACPS held on 20.4.2011 may also be referred to (Last Item on page 4 - 'Promotion in the identical Grade Pay'
(http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/Cir...2010-JCA-1.pdf)

Victor

Ramnath posted on 8.9.2015

Thank you Mr.Victor for your response. Very happy to interact after a very long time. I differ from your view.

The MACP is based on the principle of grant of NEXT IMMEDIATE HIGHER GRADE PAY and as per 8.1 of MACP order, PB-2 5400 Gpay and PB3 5400 Gpay though they are in same Gpay are to be treated as different grade pay for MACP. Hence, on MACP one should get only next immediate higher grade pay. The meeting referred by you was held in 2011. At that point of time, the posts in 4200 gpay used to get ZERO financial benefit on promotion. So, it means MACP should be also ZERO and should be taken as granted one MACP. How can this be?

 

The posts that were placed in same Gpay of 4200 (5000 & 5500 scale of pay) should have been merged w.e.from 1.1.2006. Wherever it was not done, the promotion benefit should match MACP benefit. However, in our Department there existed two lines of promotion. Since 6th Pay Commn was implemented on 30.8.2008, but with effect from 1.1.2006 retrospectively, the posts could not be merged on 1.1.2006 itself as it would lead to revision of RR, etc. which cannot be done retrospectively and would lead to so many problems as there 2 channels of promotion. If there had been single channel of promotion, this would have been easier (like in many departments).

 

The meeting between Official side and staff side held in 2011, the minutes has been issued to cater to convenience of admn. rather than to be based on Logic. The order granting 3% increment was issued on 7.1.2013. Hence, till that time, if the promotion benefit is ZERO, can be MACP granted also be ZERO but taken as if one MACP has been granted. This violates the basic rule of MACP (which envisages placement in the next immediate higher grade pay).

 

For this clarification to withstand, the merger should be on 1.1.2006 itself. Keeping the posts separately till merger date (which is after 1.1.2006 on 18.12.2013 in our department), the anomaly will be in existence. This wont withstand any legal forum - I strongly feel.

Once again thank you for your response.

Regards,
Ramnath