Thursday 1 January 2015

Addition of four countries to visit on LTC for CG Employees



Central Government is considering to provide an another four foreign countries (Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka) for visiting on Leave Travel Concession (LTC) for central government employees…

Maldives, Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal likely on LTC map: Times of India News

NEW DELHI: Following PM Narendra Modi’s visit to Nepal for the Saarc summit, the government is mulling a proposal to provide leave travel concession (LTC) for government employees to four countries — Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka — to boost tourism in the neighbourhood. The LTC will be modeled on the schemes for the north-east and J&K which helped increase tourism and fueled economic improvement in the two regions.

Incidentally, there has been a sharp dip in tourist arrivals from all four countries in the last few years. While Sri Lanka remains one of India’s top source countries, tourism arrivals declined by 11% in 2013 while arrivals from Maldives dropped by 10% between 2012 and 2013.

Similarly, the number of tourists from Nepal came down by 9% while Bhutan, which has a small share of tourists (15,016), saw a drop of 1% in the same period.

Sources in the tourism ministry said, “Introducing LTC for 20 lakh government employees could encourage greater people to people exchange among the Saarc countries. But there will have to be some reciprocal arrangement. We are working on that.” Sources said India was in touch with the countries to consider the proposal’s viability.

At the Saarc summit, Modi had highlighted the need for better connectivity in the region. In his speech, he had said, “It is still harder to travel within our region than to Bangkok or Singapore; and, more expensive to speak to each other.”

There are a large number of Buddhists in the region and India hopes to capitalize on that. Besides Lumbini in Nepal, other significant spots for Buddhists are in India including Bodh Gaya, Sarnath and Kapilvastu. Modi also flagged off a Kathmandu-Delhi bus but plans for greater rail and road connectivity were stonewalled after Pakistan blocked two agreements in Nepal.

Read more on Times of India

7th Pay Commission by IRTSA Delegates in the meeting at Jodhpur

Discussion with 7th Pay Commission by IRTSA Delegates in the meeting at Jodhpur

Clarifications sought by Chairman and Members of the 7TH CPC during the Powerpoint Presentation and Oral Evidence by IRTSA Delegation at Jodhpur

ISSUES RAISED BY CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF 7TH CPC DURING & AFTER THE PPP IN THE MEETING WITH IRTSA

During the presentation Chairman, Secretary & the Members of 7th CPC had inter-acted with IRTSA delegates and sough clarifications for their doubts.

Presentation made through 46 slides was well received by 7th CPC. We have tried to reproduce it almost in same manner as happened. There may be some minor deviation in the language, but spirit of discussion has been truly maintained. Presentation and interaction which lasted about an hour
was very friendly and Hon’ble 7th CPC heard IRTSA with positive frame of mind and rapt attention.

1. Ques. (by Chairman 7th CPC ) You said that Senior Technicians are taking instructions from JEs, likewise Ch.OS from SSE and you also told that it is Office of Senior Section Engineer which controls all activities and all of them working within that – It appears that there is clear command line available, How it interferes in your Grade Pay?
Ans. i. Principle recommended by 6th CPC, which was also accepted by Govt, that, the senior post should be given with Higher Grade Pay need to be followed duly considering duties, responsibilities, accountabilities, etc.
ii. 5th CPC recommendations & Supreme Court Judgement supports this argument.
iii. Take an example: A senior technician welder working in Bogie Frame manufacturing section is responsible to the extent of welding done by him, where as a Technical Supervisor is responsible for the quality & quantity of output of not only that of welder but for entire section which may contain 20 to 30 Technicians besides others.
iv. More than that man, material, machine, other infrastructure, etc are controlled by Technical Supervisors, which posses’ higher responsibility & accountability than other posts.
v. Similar the case of certification of train, P.Way, Bridge, Power Distribution, Locos, etc.
vi. Categories like Ch.OS don’t have direct responsibility on performance & safety of Railways, whereas JE/SSE and their counterparts (CMT, Store) in all Technical Depts. born direct responsibility in core activities of Railways.

2. Ques. Is all 4 tier of Technicians work under your category in all areas?
Ans. Yes. In all areas 4 tier of Technicians, along with one Group ‘D’ category besides clerk, material / stores clerk, OS, Ch.OS work under our category.

3. Ques. Who writes ACRs for Ch.OS who are working in office of SSE?
Ans. Respective AMWs/AEs/AEEs etc.

4. Ques. Why can’t SSE write ACRs for Ch.OS who are working in their office?
Ans. SSEs who are in the same GP of Rs.4600 cannot write the ACRs for Ch.OS.

5. Ques. Who writes ACRs of Senior Technicians who work under JEs?
Ans. Senior Technicians’ ACR are written by SSEs even though Senior Technicians work under JEs.

6. Ques. What would be the reason for non application of common multiplication factor of 3.25 to SSE (S-13) scale by 5th CPC?
Ans. i. 5th CPC has applied common multiplication factor of 3.25 to all scales except to SSE (S-13) scale.
ii. This had been done merely to accommodate a new scale in Gazd scale (Rs.7500-12000) above S-13.
iii. SSE scale had been kept Rs.50 below than Rs.7500, ie.Rs.7450.

7. Ques. How the disadvantage of non-application 3.25 multiplication factor carried through to 6th CPC?
Ans. i. Initially 5th CPC recommended Rs.7000-11500 to SSE compressing it the newly introduced Gazetted scale.
ii. If 3.25 multiplication factor had been followed by 5th CPC, the scale might have been placed in 8000-12000 during 5th CPC and correspondingly Rs.5400 GP in 6th CPC.
iii. After the implementation of 5th CPC recommendations, based on demand from staff side when Govt. decided to modify the scale of SSE (S-13) instead of placing it in scale 8000-12000, it had been decided to modify minimum of the scale from Rs.7000 to Rs.7450 to keep it below newly created scale of Rs.7500-12000.
iv. Since corresponding increase of Rs.450 had not been done for maximum of scale, Span of the scale has been reduced to 18 years which was 20 years for all other scales.
v. The principle of 6th CPC to calculate the Grade Pay as 40% of maximum of the fifth pay commission scales put SSE scale in further disadvantageous position since maximum of scale was low because of 18 years span & non application of 3.25 multiplication factor.

8. Ques. You said that there were proposals sent to Fin. Ministry from Railway Ministry to upgrade the Grade Pay of SSE from Rs.4600 to Rs.4800 and that have been returned back without throwing proper light into it, can you produce copy of the proposals?
The proposals and communications between both the Ministries were very well available with Railway Board. (Later Secretary Pay Commission confirmed availability of Railway Board proposals sent to Fin. Ministry)

9. Ques. Is there any link available between the cadre of Group ‘C’ and ‘B’?
Ans. No. Promotional avenue from Technical Supervisors in Group ‘C’ to Group ‘B’ is restricted to the vacancies arising from 4200 Group ‘B’ posts, which may be around 0.5%.

10. Ques. As you said, Previous Pay Commissions recommended Group ‘B’ status to your scale DoPT also given their orders, it is only Rly Ministry not followed the classification, is it not Railways to take decision?
Ans. i. It is true that Railways have not implemented the classification of posts recommended by Pay Commissions & DoPT orders.
ii. We bring to your notice, submission made by DoPT before 5th CPC that even though there were some exemptions in following the classification rules, but the effort was to ensure that posts carrying similar functions were given the same classification.
iii. Similarly placed posts in departments like CPWD, Ordinance Factory, MES, Department of Telecom etc are all classified as Group ‘B’ Gazetted.
iv. State Governments which are following central pay commission pattern have also followed DoPT orders in classification of posts.
v. Railway Board also agreed on the need to increase the managerial posts (from the pool of senior supervisor) on functional justification, but didn’t implement.
vi. Hon’ble 7th CPC is requested to give specific instruction for Railways not to deviate from classification rules recommended for all Government Departments.

11. Ques. What are all the reasons for lack of promotion to your category?
Ans .i. Recruitment happens in the apex scale of Group ‘C’ in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600 with Graduate in Engineering qualification and Railways is the only dept which recruit Engineering Graduates in Group ‘C’.
ii. Available Group ‘B’ posts are very meagre to the extent of 4200 only.
iii. For example in Mechanical department of Integral Coach Factory sanctioned cadre strength of Group ‘B’ is only 16. Cadre strength of Technical Supervisors including Design in Mechanical Department (JE & SSE) is 1200.There are roughly 60 Engineering Graduate entrants are available many of them completed 20 years of service. There is no enough opportunity available because of meagre Group ‘B’.
iv. Confining Cadre Restructure within each Group.
v. Combined cadre structure for Group ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ is not available in Railways.
vi. Apex scale of SSE never received the benefit of CRC.
vii. Upgradation from Group ‘D’ to Group ‘C’ and Group ‘B’ to Group ‘A’ is being done in Railways, but no upgradation done from Group ‘C’ to Group ‘B’.
viii. Ratio of Group A & B Gazetted officers viz-a-viz Group C are the lowest on the Railways as compared to all other Departments.
ix. During previous 8 years number of Group-B employees in Central Govt Departments have increased by 36% even though employee strength reduced by 25%, But Railways never increased Group ‘B’ posts.
x. Gazetted posts were not increased in tune with increase of Railways performance including financial performance. Railways outlay was increased from Rs.60,600 crores during 10th plan to Rs.5.5 lakh crore during 12th plan Railways. Many of increased activities / work load are being managed by outsourcing, since there is negative growth in staff strength.

Source: www.7thpaycommissionnews.in

7th Pay Commission on 12-12-2014 at Jodhpur

IRTSA DELEGATES MET 7th Pay Commission on 12-12-2014 at Jodhpur

IRTSA Delegation meets 7th CPC on 12-12-2014 at Jodhpur
Well organised & impressive presentation on the issues of Technical Supervisors/ Supervising Engineers

Jodhpur, 12th Dec, 2014
IRTSA delegates met 7th Central Pay Commission and presented a strong case on the demands pertaining to Technical Supervisors / Supervising Engineers. Through an exclusive well organised and impressive Power Point Presentation and an exhaustive inter action with the entire Pannel – including the Chairman and all Members of the Commission.

The team included the following Senior CEC Members of IRTSA:
1. Er.Darshanlal, Working President / IRTSA
2. Er.K.V.Ramesh, Seniorjoint General Secretary/ IRTSA
3. Er.O.N.Purohit, Central Treasurer/ IRTSA
4. Er.M.K.Bhatnagar,Zonal Secretary IRTSA RCF
5. Er.jatana, joint General Secretary/ IRTSA
6. Er.j agatar Singh, joint General Secretary/ IRTSA

1. In his introduction speech Er.Darshanlal, Working President IRTSA thanked 7th CPC for giving the chance for oral evidence and explained about IRTSA & the category. He said that apex category of Technical Supervisors had received raw deal always and their pay scale, promotional avenue are grievously inadequate. Graduate Engineers recruited in the GP of Rs.4600 remains in same Grade Pay without any promotion & 1 Es after getting one promotion to SSE remains in same Grade Pay for many years. He also told that proposal sent by Railway Board to Finance Ministry to upgrade the Grade Pay of SSE has not understood well and returned back. MACPS have not brought expected relief and motivation o the category. Group ‘B’ (Gaz) recommended by Pay Commissions were not implemented in Railways. He also told that SSE scale has been downgraded compared to others and there is heretical confusion.

2. Er.K.V.RAMESH, SeniorJGS / IRTSA made a Power Point Presentation on main demands pertaining to Technical Supervisors / Supervising Engineers. (A copy of the PPP is placed on the Website of IRTSA)

Following main points were explained in the PP presentation
1. Direct responsibility shouldered by the category in Production, repair maintenance of rolling stock, locos, P.Way, Bridges, Power distribution, Signal & Telecommunication, machinery plant & equipments, Design Drawing, Chemical & Metallurgical lab, Stores, IT etc were explained.

2. Hierarchy of Technical Supervisors in Indian Railways – Supervision of Five grades of Skilled & semi skilled besides ministerial category including Chief Office Superintendent etc.

3. Determination of new Grade Pay / Pay scale by job Evaluation duly taking into account Duties, responsibilities and accountabilities shouldered by each category / post and Technical categories which shoulder direct responsibilities who should be placed one grade higher than-non technical supporting categories (as prior to 5th CPC).

4. a. Replacement Grade Pay of Rs.4800 to j E and Rs.5400 to SSE.
b. Similarly placed posts of CMA, DMS & j E/ IT should be granted the pay at par with Junior Engineer.
c. Similarly placed posts of CMS, CDMS & SE/ IT should be granted the pay at par with Senior Section Engineer.

5. Disturbance of vertical relativity between JE and Sr.Technician who work under J E in violation of 5th & 6th CPC recommendations were highlighted.

6. Categories which were in the Pay Scale of 425-700 during 3rcl CPC are placed in the GP of Rs.4800] 4600, whereas I E-I who were in the pay scale of Rs.550-750 are placed in the GP of only Rs.4200.

7. Disregard to Duties & Responsibilities shouldered by SSE.

8. Exclusive pay scales (Rs.840-1040 & 840-1200) recommended by 3rd CPC for Technical Supervisors were diluted and many categories who were in two grade below are placed in GP Rs.5400/ 4800 by 6th CPC.

9. Scale of SSE was placed over Group ‘A’ & Group ‘B” posts previously but now degraded.

10. Un-just multiplication factor adopted by 5th CPC and the disadvantage carried through to 6th CPC.

11. Highest Recruitment Qualification of Gradate in Engineering with one year training and stagnation of Engineering Graduates in recruitment grade for more than 20 years.

12. Discrimination in the Grade Pay of CMA-l which has the element of DR with Gradate in Engineering.

13. Incumbents of SSE, CMS, CDMS & Sr.Er/ IT are stagnated in same grade till 4th CPC.

14. Meager number of Posts in Group A & B vis-a-vis Group C on the Railways as compared to all other Central Government Departments.

15. Promotion chances limited to vacancies arising in 4200 Group ‘B’ posts.

16. Non implementation of previous pay commission recommendations DoPT orders on classification of posts as Group-B Gazetted.

17. Posts carrying similar functions have to be given the same classification as per DoPT’s submission to 5th CPC.

18. Cadre restructuring didn’t bring any relief to senior supervisors (SSE/ CMS/ CDMS).

19. Number of Gazetted posts increased by 36% in other Govt. Departments over last 8 years, but not in Railways.

20. Necessity to have combined cadre structure for Group ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C”.

21. Requirement of higher number of managerial posts to meet out the increased plan outlay of Railways during 12th plan and to manage huge outsourcing.

22. Anomalies and Improvements required to be done in MAPCS & Time bound promotions to Technical Supervisors/ Supervising Engineers.

23. Allowances pertaining to the category.

INTER-ACTION BY CPC PANEL: Honorable Chairman 7th CPC interacted with IRTSA team to clarify his doubts beside Secretary and other Members who also interacted with IRTSA team. Details of the Inter-action will follow.

Source: www.7thpaycommissionnews.in

Search This Blog