NC JCM Staff Side explained about ‘Proposed Pay Structure and Rate of Increment’
NC JCM Staff Side explained about ‘Proposed Pay Structure and Rate of Increment’ in its memorandum as follows…
Proposed Pay Structure and Rate of Increment
The preceding chapters we have dealt with the various principles of pay determination as was enunciated by the successive Pay Commissions. The 6th CPC introduced the new concept of Pay Band and Grade Pay. We are not able to comprehend any logical methodology having been adopted by the 6th CPC in constructing the Pay Band and Grade Pay. In the ultimate analysis, we found that there had been no uniform multiplication factor. It varied from 2.2 time to 3.
The changes effected by the Government while implementing the recommendations of the 6th CPC further compounded the confusion. The 6th CPC in the body the report stated that they have upgraded certain pay scales having appreciated the contention made by the employees organizations. They merged certain other pay scales in an effort to delayering the functions. But the new pay that emerged from such upgradation/merger was not equivalent to the higher pay scales in the said group.
For instance, the erstwhile pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, 5500-9000 and 6500-10500 were merged. The multiplication factor for pay band construction was 1.86 times of the minimum. Therefore the pay band for the pre merged pay scales was deferred to begin at Rs.9300/-. Having merged, the pay band must have begun at 12,090/-, i.e. 1.86 times of 6500/- in which the other pay scales were merged.
The manner in which the Grade pay was devised is also questionable. At the lower level the Grade Pay progresses @ Rs.100/- ,i.e. 1800, 1900, 2000, etc. The pay in the Band + Grade Pay at the entry level is 5200 + 1800 = 7000. An employee is entitled for 3% increment every year. He gets a financial benefit of Rs. 210 every year on account an increment whereas on promotion his grade pay gets increased by just Rs.100/- only. The Grade Pay was devised at 40% of the maximum of the pre revised time scale of pay. The maximum of any time scale of pay will depend upon the rate of increment and the span of the scale of pay. The ratio between the minimum and the maximum of all pay scales was not uniform, rather it could not be
uniform. Therefore prescribing Grade Pay as a percentage of such variable maximum in our opinion was erroneous. Normally fitment benefit represent the gap between pre revised minimum and the revised minimum. The 6th CPC recommendation of Grade Pay did not serve this purpose also. Having been expressed in absolute quantum amount it gave varied benefit in different pay bands as also at different stages in the same pay bands.
The Grade Pay system brought about various anomalies, which were raised at the NAC but found no resolution despite discussions on several occasions in the last 6 years. We are of the firm view that the 7th CPC should revert to the Pay Scale System which has been time tested. We have constructed the pay scales maintaining the relativities with the time scale of pay suggested by both 5th and 6th CPC.
While constructing the pay scales we have taken the rate of increments at 5% instead of 3% presently available. We have done so on the ground that most of the PSUs including the banking industries provide the incremental rate at 5% and over a period of time it raised the salary level of the personnel. We therefore request that the 7th CPC may recommend the rate of annual increment at 5%. Incidentally we may also state that the uniform date of increment prescribed by the 6th CPC has encountered certain problem and anomalies. We therefore suggest that the 7th CPC may recommend, for administrative expediency, two specific dates as increment dates, Viz. 1st January and 1st July. Those recruited/appointed/promoted during the
period between 1st January and 30th June will have their increment date on 1st January and those recruited/appointed/promoted between 1st July and 31st December will have it on 1st July next year. This apart we request the Commission to specifically recommend that those who retire on 30th June or 31st December are granted one increment on the last day of their service.
We have also felt that a further reduction in the number of pay scales is needed. While constructing the pay scales we have removed those pay scales pertaining to Grade Pay of Rs.1900, 2000, 2400, 4600, 8700 and the scale of pay of Rs. 75500-80000. We are of the opinion that the instrument of Special Pay which was in operational earlier should be brought back to address the need of intermediary grades in certain organizations.
Presently, functional promotion is made to the next hierarchical position whereas MACP promotion is Grade Pay based, irrespective of the fact whether a particular Grade Pay exist in the hierarch or not in the concerned department. Our suggestion to reduce the number of pay scales go a great extent to obviate the difficulty encountered due to the dual system of promotion.
We have constructed the pay scales up to S- with a time span of 20 years and the pay scales S- with a span of 10 years. The pay of the Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary has been kept as a fixed amount as has been the recommendation of the 6th CPC. With our suggestion made elsewhere in this memorandum four time bound promotion the question of stagnation is unlikely to
occur. Even if it happens in the most rarest of the rare case it can be addressed by the suggestion of an automatic grant of Stagnation Increment allowing the pay of the concerned employee to cross over the maximum. The pay scales constructed by us are given in Table.