|
Description of Anomaly
|
Official Comments
|
Reply By Staff Side
|
|
Anomaly in computation of Minimum Wage
(Item
No. 1)
|
As against the Minimum Wage decided to be Rs. 18000/- by the Govt. w.e.f.
01.01.2016, the Staff-Side has said that this should be not less than Rs.
26,000/-and the multiplication factor ought to have been 3.714 and not 2.57.
They have further asked for the pay matrix to be changed. Objecting to the
methodology adopted by the 7th CPC in computing the Minimum Wage, they have
given a number of reasons like the retail prices of the commodities quoted by
the Labour Bureau being irrational, adoption of the 12 monthly average of the
retail price being contents to the Dr. Avkrovd f ormula, the website of the
Agriculture Ministry giving the retail prices of commodities forming the
basis of computation of minimum wage provides a different picture, so on and
so forth.
However, when one compares this item with the three situations given in
DoPT’s OM.No.11/2/2016-JCA dated 16th August, 2016 and 20th February, 2017,
it does not appear that this satisfies any of them to be treated as an
anomaly.
|
The
7th CPC categorically stated that the principle adopted for minimum wage
determination is Dr. Aykhoyd formula. But deviated from the same while actual
computation was made. It becomes an anomaly under clause 1(a) of the
definition (see OM dated 16.08.2016).
|
|
3% Increment in all stages
(Item No. II)
|
The Staff-Side argues that in spite of the foreword to the Report making
it clear in para 1.19 that the prevailing rate of increment is considered
quite satisfactory and has been retained, an illustrative list appended by
them shows instances where the pay, gone up after the addition of annual
increment by 3%, falls short of what it would have been. They have quoted
para-5.1.38 of the report also which states that the rate of annual increment
would be 3%.
While what the Staff-Side has stated has its own merits, the fact of the
matter is that the principle followed here is whenever a stage of pay, after
addition of an increment, falls short of the nearest hundred by less than 50,
the employee would be entitled to get the amount mentioned in the immediately
next cell in the Pay-Matrix. However, when the gap is that of more than 50,
the pay, on addition of an increment, is rounded off to the nearest hundred
which travels backward.
For instance, if staying at Rs.46,100/- one gets an increment @ 3%,
instead of having his/her pay fixed at Rs. 47,483/- (which is the exact
figure), it will be Rs. 47,500/- (thus gaining by Rs. 13/-). Thus it is not a
case of permanent loss as the loss in one year is made good in the
second/third year. Considering this to he a situation of swings and
roundabouts, this may not be treated as a case of anomaly.
|
At
the stage of admission of the items for anomaly, it is not desirable to go
into the merit of the case. That will have to be the subject matter of discussion
at the meeting. The anomaly on this item has arisen due to the non-adherence
of the principle enunciated by the 7th CPC while actual are computed.
The item becomes an anomaly under clause (a) of the definition (see OM.No.
dated 16.08.2011).
|
|
Remove Anomaly due to index rationalization
(Item
No. VI)
|
The Staff-Side has taken exception to the index rationalization followed
by the 7th CPC while formulating its views as per which the fitment factor
varies and moves upward as one goes up the hierarchical ladder with the level
of responsibility and accountability also steadily climbing up
commensurately. The Staff-Side argues that the multiplication factor should
be one, i.e. 2.81.
Although the Staff-Side has remonstrated that the vertical relativity
will suffer distortion in the process, it has to be stated that it is a
policy decision about by the Staff-Side comes to be distorted when the pay of
a feeder-cadre post and that of a promotional post becomes same. In this case
it is not so. Hence it does not appear to qualify for being called an
anomaly.
|
The
vertical relativity between grades that was in existence has been distributed
by assigning different multiplication factor for different levels by the
commission. The so- called policy decision of the Government has only
compounded the anomaly. As stated against item no. (ii) The merit or demerit
of the issue is a matter for discussion at the meeting and cannot be employed
to decide admissibility or otherwise of an item. The item is an anomaly under
clause KO of the definition.
|
|
Minimum Pension
(Item
No. X)
|
The Staff-Side says the minimum pension fixed after 7th CPC should be
corrected and revised orders issued. From the brief explanatory note recorded
under this point, it appears that the CPC had sounded out D/o pension on what
the latter thought what the minimum pension should be. This is an exclusively
pension-related issue on which, as informed by the Staff-Side, D/o Pension
was asked for their views by the 7t1 CPC. Moreover, as will be evident, the
basic focus of DoPT’s Q.M. No. 11/2/2016-JCA dated 16th August, 2016 and 20th
February, 2017 is on taking on board those anomalies which are pay-related.
Hence, this item may be taken up separately by the Staff-Side with the D/o
Pension. Thus, instead of treating this as a case of anomaly, the Staff-Side
is requested to take it up with the D/o Pension separately.
|
Pension
related items are not to be excluded from the preview of the anomaly
committee. No such specific decision has ever been taken. May be main focus
is decided to be on pay related matters. That can be the view of the Govt.
The item is clearly within the ambit of definition of anomaly clause I (a)
where it is stated that the policy enunciated is deviated without the
commission assigning any reason. No reason is adduced by the 7th CPC to fix minimum
pension at 50% minimum wage. This is clearly an anomaly and requires to be
admitted as such and discussed at the meeting.
|
|
Date of effect of allowances HRA, Transport Allowance, CEA
etc.
(Item
No.XI)
|
The Staff-Side has demanded that the grant of the allowances (revised)
mentioned alongside should be made effective from 01.01.2016 and not from
01.07.2017.
This is a demand and cannot be treated as an anomaly. Moreover, the date
from which a benefit is to be made effective is something which can be
decided only by the Government. Hence, this may not be taken up at the NAC.
|
The
Govt. has the prerogative to decide upon on any issue. We have not questioned
that authority at all. it is the rationale behind the decision that is
questioned. While the 7th CPC has gone on record to state that its
recommendations are with effect from 1.1.2016 the decision to give effect to
revision of allowances from another date is a deviation and contravenes the
principle enunciated. The Govt may have sufficient reason to do so but that
can be explained at the meeting. The item is therefore an anomaly under
clause 1(a) of the definition. In this connection we may also state that
similar decision on earlier occasions were subjected to discussion and having
reached disagreement were referred to the Board of Arbitration. The
Government lost its case before the Board.
|
|
Anomaly in the grant of D.A instalment w.e.f 01.01.2016.
(Item
No. XVIII)
|
Here the Staff-Side has questioned the methodology adopted by the
Government in computing the DA instalment w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
It has, however, to be pointed out that even if there is merit in the
contention of the Staff-Side involving this item, it does not qualify being
called an anomaly when it is examined in the light of the three situations
which, as per DoPT’s Q.M. No. 11/2/2016-JCA dated 16th August, 2016 and 20th
February, 2017, would constitute anomalies.
|
When
the Govt. takes decision to deviate from the recommendation of Pay Commission
whereby either all or a section of employees are to incur financial loss, it
amounts to deviating from the policy or principle enunciated by the
commission. In the instant case in the face of recommendation to continue
with the existing scheme of DA, the Govt. has taken decision to reduce DA
entitlement. Apart from long term impact it also unsettles the principle. The
item is covered within the ambit of clause 1(a) of the definition (OM No.
Dated 16.08.2016). item has to be admitted.
|
|
Implement the recommendation on Parity in Pay Scale between
Sr. Auditor/Sr. Accountant of IA&AD and organized Accounts with
Assistant Section Officer of CSS.
(Item
No. XII)
|
The Staff-Side says that although the 5th, 6th and now 7th CPC’s have
recommended that the pay-scales of different cadres/categories/grades
requiring the same recruitment qualifications should be the same, denial of
the same benefit to the Statistical Assistants (SA’s) who are otherwise at
par with Assistant Section Officers (erstwhile ‘Assistant’) is a violation of
the principle. While ASO’s are placed in the Pay-Matrix of 7, SA’s are in the
Pay-Matrix of 6. This arrangement is stated to have disturbed the horizontal
relativity between the pay-scales of the SA’s in the Organized Accounts and
IA&AD Cadre and ASO’s in the CSS cadre. In conclusion, it has been
requested that SA’s should also be placed in Pay-Matrix no. 7.
Even if, the present case comes across as one of anomaly, it appears that
the interests of the Statistical Assistants only are involved. ASO’s of CCS
are coming into the question; but only as a reference point, by way of
comparison. Hence the Staff-Side is requested to take up this issue at the
Departmental Anomaly Committee concerned.
|
Where
an item is related to more than one department, the said item shall qualify
for admission at the NAC. The item is covered by clause i(c) of the
definition.
|
|
Technical Supervisors of Railways
(Item
No. XV)
|
This particular item is exclusively Railways-specific. The Staff-Side, NC
OCM) is requested to take it up at the Departmental Anomaly Committee of MR)
Railways.
|
We
shall take up the above issue in Railway DAC.
|
|
Anomaly in the assignment of replacement of Levels of
pay in the Ministry of Defence, Railways, Mines etc in the case of Store
Keeper
(Item
No. XVI)
|
Staff-Side says that although ‘Store keeper’ is one such category of
posts which is common to various Departments like Defence, Mines, Railways
etc and in spite of the nature of job, responsibilities being similar, the
pay-scale of storekeepers across all the Departments is not the same. It is
still less in the M/o Defence even after the entry-level qualifications which
were different before the 7th CPC stage, have been revised.
If what the Staff-Side remonstrates that even after the requisite changes
had been carried out in the R/Rules, the 7th CPC did not take any cognizance
of it is true, it has to be assumed that it is a policy decision of the
Government. Moreover, the issue appears to be M/o Defence-specific. The
Staff-Side is requested to take it up at the Departmental Anomaly Committee
meeting of the M/o Defence.
|
Where
an item is related to more than one department, the said item shall qualify
for admission at the NAC. The item is covered by clause i(c) of the
definition.
|
|
Anomaly arising from the decision to reject option-1 in pension
fixation
(Item
No. VII)
|
As per the ToR of the NAC, anomalies are basically pay-centric. Under
this point, the contention of the Staff-Side is pension-centric. Furthermore,
the Staff-Side has themselves clarified that post-7th CPC, Government had set
up a CoS headed by Secretary(Pension) to look into the first option
recommended by the 7th CPC. Eventually, this was not found feasible to be
implemented. With such a decision having been taken at the CoS level, it
cannot be called an anomaly. In view of this, we may inform the Staff-Side to
separately take it up with D/0 Pension without treating it as an anomaly that
can be taken up at the NAC.
|
It
the Govt deviates from the recommendation of the Pay Commission it give rise
so anomaly as the Pay Commission recommendations are in consonance with the
policy it had enunciated. In the instant case Govt. setup a committee to go
into the feasibility of implementation of the recommendation. Feasibility of
implementation cannot be the basis for rejecting a recommendation. The very
feasibility question itself will have to discussed at the meeting. The issue
is well within the ambit of definition of clause i (a) OM Dated 16.8.2016,
where the principle enunciated is disturbed by the Government.
|
|
Parity in Pay Scales between Assistants/ Stenographers in field /
subordinate officers and assistant Section Officer and stenographers in
CSS.
(Item
No. XIII)
|
Although the heading of this item is self-explanatory, the relevant text
given in the paper sent is not complete as the pay-scales of Assistants and
stenos posted in field have not been mentioned therein. Until their
pay-scales are known they cannot be compared to check whether there is indeed
any anomaly. The Staff-Side is requested to provide more information that is
relevant so that it can be properly examined to find out whether an anomaly
arises here or not.
|
We
shall send further details.
|
