it is absurd to link pay parity as per DOPT letter with QR for a particular grade for granting the same on non fuctional basis while there is no such mention in 6th apy commission report. 6th pay commission report only speak about pay parity with 2 yr difference wrt CIVIL SERVICES.
AT PRESENT JT DIR LEVEL OFFICERS ARE BADLY AFFECTED.
I request all to please identify them with their comments, so as to contact them separately. At present situation is very grim as those who are not affected by functional creteria are not interested to take part . We need to form core gp of all engg services asso to come on this platform and make a confederation of engg services asso for the purpose of pay parity only. I propose the name as Asso of Organized Gp A Engineering Services and the mandate shall be the pay parity. I request all asso to please nominate their rep for this gp. From IDSE asso the reps are my self Pradeep Agrawal Sh R K Gautam Sh Lalit Kumar
Pl fwd names of volunteers from other chapters of IDSE and other asso. Pl be in touch . You can mail also on this blog mail address. payparity@in.com
The pay parity is being interpreted as inclusion of eligiblity criteria as required for functional promotion.This means that before getting pb 4 grade pay one has to be as EE for min 10 years , for SAG one has to be functional SE for min period as specified for ACE. In case of IDSE one has to become functional ACE for specified period . This effectively means that IDSE officer are out of race for SAG NFSG. Similarly to get HAG NFSG , one has to be functional SAG for specified period of time. What an absurdity. However confederation of engg asso is trying to get some of the functional residency period reduced but even hen iot is not going to benefit IDSE and similar services. We should ask for not to mis non functional and functional promotion. In case of the Non functional upgradation the sole creteria is the Batch of IAS officer . Our representation shall be on these lines . I request u to please fwd me draft representation. I am going to upload the DOPT file letter as obtaind under RTI , ALL DOPT letter etc . Pl look on the blog
I do not think that DOPT has issued any QR for a particular non functional grade. If it is so then it may please be loaded on this blog so that a proper discussion could be done and consensus could be arrived at.
A careful analysis of the said order reveals that this order have stopped well short of the spirit behind such a landmark recommendation by the Pay Commission and its unqualified subsequent acceptance by the Government. By the inclusion of Para 2 in said order dt 24 April 2009, thereby requiring fulfillment of all eligibility conditions for such a financial up-gradation, which is only non-functional as per Para 1 above, the spirit behind the recommendation of the sixth Pay Commission and the acceptance of the said recommendation by the UPA Government has been seriously diluted. The requirement of fulfilling all the eligibility conditions for an up-gradation that is purely non-functional in effect means that this measure is going to benefit only a limited number of officers in organized central cadres, despite the fact that all are facing stagnation due to some reason or the other, such as DPC for promotion to the next higher grade not being held in time and lack of vacancies, etc. One of the eligibility conditions for getting promotion to a particular grade is the minimum number of years one has to serve in the immediate lower level. By requiring that this condition must be fulfilled for financial up-gradation to a particular grade, the order has seriously diluted the spirit of the Pay Commission recommendation and and its subsequent acceptance by the Government in the sense that it does not take cognizance of administrative inefficiency experienced by officers at various points in one’s career affecting their career growth. Ironically, it is these very administrative lapses on the part of various departments in not being able to properly protect the career growth of officers that the present order intends to set right. For instance, two officers of the same batch joining two different departments at JTS level will be benefited differently if one of them has served for a longer period at JTS level and shorter period at STS level as compared to the other. The officer serving for a shorter period at STS level may not be eligible for financial up-gradation to JAG, the next higher grade, because he may not have served for the required number of years at STS level. Two officers of the same batch in two different departments will be drawing different pays, even if they fulfill the benchmark required for promotion to the next higher grade. Is this what the Pay Commission intended when it tried to bring parity among officers of organized central cadres linking it with the batch of IAS officers alone with the idea that a central service officer should not be behind his IAS counterparts by more than two years? This is the para which has derailed an effective pay parity
Food for thought. This is the extract of contents of represenatation from one of the engg asso. All concerned are requested to pl fwd their suggestions.
Dear Mr Vinay, The above contents are with ref to a recent meeting held with DOPT officals and this has been accepted as fate accompli by the confederation, a said reality. This iterpretation is being accepted by almost all cadre controlling auth as I have spoken to some of them personally. I hope your doubts are true, but the facts are opposite Pradeep Agrawal,IDSE
This can not be correct. The VI CPC in its report only talks of pay parity on the basis of "BATCH". It no where speakes of requirement of a particular number of years of service in lower grade before consideration for pay parity on non functional basis to the higher grade. The new condition will effactively mean only one upgradation from the present grade if the officer is stagnating in the present grade. In case one has stagnated in previous grade and just been promoted, then even one upgradation will not be granted to him.The matter need to be persued at all levels. In case individual representatioins are required the same may be mobilised
we must go as per the IPS & IFS pay rules (note 3) amendments. These rules speak that whenever any IAS of particular batch is impaneled for the grade in pb3 or pb4 all batches of IPS/IFS senior by two years and not functionally promoted in that grade should be granted non functional upgradation. These amendments r carried out based on same recommendations. in fact sixth pay commission recommendations were only for group a organised services but while accepting the recommendations govt has extended this provision to IPS/IFS also. The requirement of residency service in particular grade is totally illogical and not required to be mat in non functional upgradation. In ACP the JEs r given Executive Engineer pay scale after 24 year of service, who r not even physically promoted as assistant Engineer, what to talk of 11 year of res period required in the grade of AEs.
we must strongly take up case along with other association to delink qr as applcable for functional grade promotion while granting pay parity.
Forget about others servces,if it is not done engineer officers within same deptt ie MES will be at great disadvantage compare to surveyor cadre officers who are also included in organised gp A services as clarified by ministry recently and have already benefitted over a time due to their timely promotion.
There is absolutely no doubt that the 24 Apr 2009 letter dilutes the provisions of Batch wise parity as recommended by the 6CPC. In fact this letter if implemented with QR criterion will create more of "DISPARITIES" rather than "PARITY". The implementation in the present form will not only create wide spread resentment but will also marr the spirit of parity as granted by 6CPC.
At the cost of repetition, I am reproducing extract of 6 CPC report:-
"Whenever any IAS officer of a particular batch is posted in the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in pay bands PB-3 or PB-4 , grant of higher pay scale on non-functional basis to the officers belonging to batches of organised Group A services that are senior by two years or more should be given by the Government."
The 6 CPC further says:-
"....This will not only ensure some sort of modified parity between IAS and other Central Group A services BUT WILL ALSO ALLEVIATE THE PRESENT LEVEL OF DISPARITY EXISTING BETWEEN PROMOTIONAL AVENUES AVAILABLE TO DIFFERENT AVENUES AVAILABLE TO DIFFERENT ORGANISED ORGANISED GROUP A SERVICES...."
Please note that while recommending Batchwise parity the 6CPC not only desired parity with IAS but mote essentially it intended PARITY AMONGST VARIOUS GP 'A' SERVICES THEMSELVES. This also essentially means that Batch definition also should be same for all services(Technical/ Non- technical).
In most of the Non-Technical Gp 'A' Org services, the batch/Allotment year has been defined as " ....year following the year of examination..." (Example Civil Accounts service, Indian defence Accounts Service, Indian Revenue service, Indian Economic Service etc.). The same needs to be applied to Technical services to ensure PARITY amongst Gp 'A' Organised services.
Stipulating QR and then granting NFFU will essentially defeat the very purpose and essence of 6CPC recommendations and need to be fought accordingly. It is only on the basis of this paragraph that we can get the amendments to 24 Apr letter. Any amount of other logical and emotional justifications will not work with the bureaucratic set up in the Govt.
The extract from 6CPC report quoted above is from Para 3.3.12 on Page 173-174 of the report and has been accepted by Govt of India vide vide Resolution No. 1/1/2008-IC dt 29/08/2008 published in The Gazette of India No. 304 dt 29/08/2008. Please refer Part 1-Sec 1- Annex I Part A Para (III) Pay scales of Central Services Group “A” Sl (i) in which granting of higher pay scale on non functional basis to the officers of organized group “A” services who are senior by two years to any IAS officer posted in Center have been accepted by the Govt. of India.
I suggest that any representation should be based on 6CPC recommendation and acceptance thereof. The above points if finds merit may find place in representation from the department(CSCC)/ Cadre controlling authority to DoP&T.
Through discussion on forum, we can only educate each other. However, in order to achieve fruitful results, the only way is to file individual representations to DOPT bringing out the background on the lines suggested by Sh Anand Bansal and then follow up the same through RTI if no favourable orders come. Moreover, the people sitting in E-in-C's branch who are tasked with forwarding draft proposal for approval of Screening Committee should present the proposal as per spirit of the 6th CPC recommendations and Cabinet Approval for the same without harping on eligibility criterion applicable for functional promotion. Methodology adopted for grant of NFSG should be the guiding principle.
Following is the draft representation. It is very much in draft stage . All are requested to please reword / rehase it to make it small, crisp and effective. The suggested representation will be finalized and submitted to the DOPT through our asso incl confederation. Pl post your views fast. As we are planning to take appt with the DOPT secy and the Director. Ref: Non Functional up gradation for Officers of Organized Group ‘A’ Services in PB-3 and PB-4 Non Implementation by the Cadre Controlling Authority in respect of IDSE officers of Ministry Of Defence. Sir, Minstry of Personnel and ----- vide their letter no---- and subsequent clarifications issued vide their letter no.--- has issued policy for implementation of VI th pay commission recommendations accepted by the Govt of India on implementation of the Pay Parity for Organized Group A services with IAS officers. The Govt of India by way of implementation of the recommendations of the VIth pay commission has tried to remove some disparity in the pay of officers belonging to different services. Indian Administrative Service has been made the ref point and the officers belonging to the other Organized Gp A services have been given financial up gradation to any grades after IAS officers two years junior to them have been promoted to that grade at the centre. In consonance to such policy and the acceptance of the recommendation of the VI th pay commission , cadre controlling authorities of various deptt were required to convene screening committees as per the Govt of India letter ref above and implement Govt decision in time bound manner. It is not out of place to mention that GOI vide letter no is monitoring the implementation of the VI th pay Commission recommendation----- It has come to our notice the cadre controlling auth has not even constituted the Screening Committees as yet and DPC proceedings for Non Functional financial up gradation as per Pay Parity with IAS to IDSE cadre officers of the MES under MoD has not started till date even after a lapse of ---months. In the mean time it has come to our notice during informal discussion with the MoD officials and other concerned officials dealing with the implementation of pay parity ,the DOPT letter dt--- para 3 is being interpreted out of context and not in the spirit of the Govt letter on pay parity. The spirit of the pay commission and the intention of the Govt is to grant pay parity to all officers of the Organized Gp A as compared of the IAS which is evident by following, a) DOPT letter no para annex I The non functional upgradation will be granted based on particular batch of IAS officer in the centre. Batches of such officers have already been communicated vide DOPT letter no. Such up gradation would not be linked to the vacancies in the grade.
In cont of my above post. b) para 2The upgradation granted under these rules will be purely non functional upgradation , personal to the officer . c)Para 5 all instructions for grant of NFSG would be applicable as exiting for NFSG in the event of penalty, disciplinary proceeding , suspension etc. d) Para 6 ,Grant of Non functional up gradation would be from the date of posting of the first officer belonging to the particular batch of the IAS officer at the centre. e)Para 10 Non functional up gradation to the next higher grade pay granted under the scheme is a fall back option only to be applied in case where officers of a particular service have not been granted promotion to a particular grade in normal course. f) the illustration given at para 11 is very clear ,as per the illustration the officers who have not got grade pay of Jt Secy would be given the NFSG grade pay of Jt Secy based on the IAS officer two years junior to him posted at the centre. Thus this illustration makes it very clear that officer shall be given pay parity /the batch parity if he has been found otherwise eligible.
cont... Obviously the eligibility criteria for the functional promotion with regard to officer being in a particular grade for specified period of time is not applicable and this criteria of functional promotion has been replaced with the condition that the IAS officer two years junior to him have been promoted functionally at the centre. It has come to our notice that cadre controlling auth are mixing criteria for functional and non functional up gradation ignoring the DOPT letter which have prescribed that the non functional up gradation is linked to the batch and not with serving functionally in a particular grade to become eligible for the next grade. The DOPT letter referring to meet all elgiblity criteria pertains to the grading on ACR , enquiry, penalties etc which shall not be construed as the requirement of serving in functional grade at STS, JAG or SAG level. The elgiblity of serving in functional grade for NFSG is opposite to each other and shall not be mixed as like consideration Zone in NFSG similar to the functional promiotion as being done. The very word pay parity and definition of batch as issued by the DOPt vide their letter no --- and the IAS batches grant of grade pay at various levels is very clear tthat officers of the organized Gp A sevices shall be granted NFSG upgradation based on their batcehes only and the condition of functional upgradation for serving in a particular grade is not applicable . The grant of Pay parity to organized Gp A services has been given to the organized Gp A services whereas grant of MACP , ACP has been given to officers and subordinates of other services . the scheme of ACP is very old and has been implemented in all deptt. The scheme of Pay Parity for grant of NFSG can be compared with the ACP scheme also though Non functional upgradation is equal to ACP scheme if not higher than the ACP. At best the grant of NFSG can be understood with the ACP scheme presently in vogue in all the deptt.In ACP scheme the eligibility is the completion nof min year of service and meet all eligibility cretieria for promotion but never any deptt have put restriction on functionally serving in a grade frpor specified period of time as per the RR rules.Under ACP scheme the eligibility criteria for grant of scale is same as for functional promotion . In case of ACP practically in engg deptt a JE has been given the upgradation of AE , EE scale on completion of specified period of total service irrespedtive of a JE being functionally in AE grade for a specified period of time . Under the ACP scheme A JE was given the scale of AE and EE , for EE scale the JE never worked as AE and they have beenin AE grade under ACP only still they were given EE scale inspite of the fact that ACP rule vide para -- mentions granting of payscale on the same eligibility criteria as taht for functional promotion to EE i.e. being in the grade fof AE for a period of –years as regards to MES. The same analogy amply makes it clear tthat interpretation of functional etc is not in order and opay parity implies that even in any organized service if there is an AEE for 25 years of service as on 01 jan 2006 he will be given the scla of Jt secy or Addl secy ( HAG) when an IAS offeir is given that grade as per the batch definition. The functional promotion thereafter will, be governed y the functional rules. The linking of functional and non functional upgradation can not be mixed as being say in NFSG grade of JAG for specified period does not entitle a person to get SAG grade because he has to be functionally in JAG grade for specified period of time to get the functional promotion , hence intermixing of two different set of rules are not warranted . Pradeep Agrawal, IDSE 1987 batch E-in-C's Br New Delhi
We must represent to concerned auth that VI pay commission has granted the batch parity and even my AEE should get the scale of counter part IAS officer without any rider If DOPT is not ready to listen then representation must be sent to PM office
Dear pradeep we must see what other group a org services r doing.The thought process that "one must complete the res period in immediate grade" may be the brain child of MOD lower staff. The AIR DD Engrs have prepared & fwd list to their ministry & the same is available at following links http://airddengineers.org/misc/bwlistnfup.pdf and http://airddengineers.org/misc/bwlistnfup2.pdf and http://airddengineers.org/misc/1991_to_1994_list.pdf . similarly the gazette published for grant of non funvtional HAG scale to Income Tas officers by govt is available at following link http://www.irsofficersonline.org/Documents/OfficalCommunique/11229200952537.PDF it can be seen that no criteria other than batch year is mentioned in the gazette , even present grade pay of the officer is not mentioned in the order.
In promotion guidelines for IAS officers, no residency period at any level has been given. Only total length of service is mentioned, that to on 1ST Jan of the year in which one becomes eligible, i.e. he can become STS in lee than 4 years & similarly for all other levels. Why not frame RRs according to these guidelines. Draft can be prepared with suitable ammendments and can accordingly be projected.
With residency period clause, if considered for parity, the gains will be only at JtDir level and that to very delayed i.e. very less arrears.
pl post your comments if any encl are there you can send on mail id payparity@in.com as well. The list sent by Sh RD Gupta in respect of air engineers is encouraging . I will ask some of the AIR officers about its fate.
I am in full agreement with draft representation posted by Pradeep and every one should represent on this line to dopt but i feel that first we should approach dopt for clarification on difference between nonfunctional upgradation and functional promotion. it is totally absurd that an officer who is stagnating at alower level and could not be promoted due mismanagement of cadre will not be given parity with ias of 2 years junior batch and will be given parity with an IAS officer of many years because of his no fault. this will be illogical and against the recommendation accepted by GOVT OF INDIA.We should approach IRS officers to know about their criteria followed for grant of HAG upgradation and also seek clarification from DOPT.I firmly believe that nfsg upgradation will be given on the basis of total no. of years of service if officer is fit on acr benchmark and clear of any disp charges.
I have enquired from AIR , the list as posted by Sh R D Gupta is not fwd by them to the ministry. They are under confusion on the same issue. RD sir has suggested that we should also prepare our list without mixing functional creteria. As suggested by Sh PAthak we are trying to arrange for a meeting with DOPT officials on the issue. RR amdt are under progress. We may request Sh R K Gautam to fwd RR amdt on priority to the MoD.
para 3.3.12 of sixth pay commission report:- Whenever any IAS officer of a particular batch is posted in the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in pay bands PB-3 or PB-4 , grant of higher pay scale on non-functional basis to the officers belonging to batches of organised Group A services that are senior by two years or more should be given by the Government.-------------This will not only ensure some sort of modified parity between IAS and other Central Group A services but will also alleviate the present level of disparity existing between promotional avenues available to different organised Group A services para 3.3.15 of sixth pay commission report:- A perusal of the memoranda submitted by various Group A Organized Services’ Associations reveals that even amongst these Services, there is wide variation in terms of career progression. While officers of some Services get promoted to the Senior Administrative Grade in 16 years, officers in some other Services take more than 26 years for the same promotion. Absolute parity amongst various Organized Group A Services for the purpose of promotions to SAG and HAG levels is not possible, as each cadre is designed and managed in a manner which is unique to itself. In any case, the recommendation made in para 3.3.12 will address this issue and bring about a degree of uniformity in the promotional avenues, pay and allowances of officers belonging to these Services having same seniority.
The justified cause is put forward in your comments about the visualization of 6CPC for NFSG based on IAS batch. As we all know, bureaucratic bottlenecks are dead against this to be extended to organized Gr-A services, this is why they recommended Terms and Conditions to be me to get the same.
We are now left with the followings:
1. Pressurise Government, to follow the recommendations of 6CPC in letter and spirit and extend pay parity without any residency period at next lower level, purely on the basis of Batch with 2 year lag. 2. If not, then amend our RR in line with IAS, having combine service criteria at all levels and no residency period thereon so that the T&C as per DoPT OM could be met for getting pay parity. 3. Definition of Batch shall be same as IAS.
This is not the time for only discussion, we all know most of the things said here. This is time to act and for action we are solidly behind you. I am forwarding the names of officers from our organization to co-ordinate with you. Kindly note their names and mobile nos. Please contact them on regular basis for future action.
Central Electricity Authority (CEA) 1 Sh Soumen Biswas, CPES, 9968680450 2 Sh M A Imam, CPES, 9911718313
Central Water Commission (CWC) 1 Sh Ashok Kharya, CWES, 9818247513 2 Sh Shekhar Jha, CWES, 9899175489
Mr Imam Thanx a lot for thought full inside.We would be meeting DOPT officials possibly with our senior officers. Before this we need to finalize our representation. My objective to discuss on blog is to create awareness and as many people as possible. Our ultimate aim shall be the RR amdt as per the IAS rules to avoid all problems. Pradeep Agrawal
A few points which need to be included in the representation regarding definition of batch are as under:-
(a) Since the parity is with reference to IAS, the definition of batch should also be the same as that in case of IAS. This is given in IAS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules and mention the year following the year in which the competitive exam is held, as the batch year. Even in case of IPS and IFS, the same definition is being adopted.
(b) The DOPT has defined batch year in r/o the officers belonging to Organized Group "A" as the year of joining. The delay in joining of Organized Group "A" officers especially those belonging to Engineering Services, is because the "Completion of Police Verification" is a prerequisite in case of these officers.
(c) In case of IAS, the "Police Verification" is not necessary to be carried out before their joining the Academy at Mussoorie.
(d) Thus, the Officers belonging to Organized Group "A" services are put to a disadvantage vis a vis their IAS counterparts on account of different system being followed for "Police Verification".
(e) I have got the above information mentioned in (a) and (c) above on these aspects from DOPT in response to RTI query.
At One time, only one issue of residency period at feeder post, should be taken up. Multiple issues at the same time may not dilute the point. Parity of eligibility for promotion should be same as that for IAS as given in their promotion guidelines. Prevalent stagnation will take care of residency at feeder post so far as functional promotion is concerned.
link to ips & ifs pay rule 2008 (amendments) is given below. http://www.persmin.nic.in/writedata/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/IPS_PayRules2008_English.pdf http://www.persmin.nic.in/writedata/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/IFS_PayRules2008_English.pdf we should initiate amendments to idse service rules for pay parity as well for functional promotion on similar lines. Please see note 3 of ips / ifs rules which deals with pay parity, very short & crips.
Though our contention of removing residency period have to remain undiluted, following interpretation of existing DOPT orders need consideration: Eligibility criteria & promotional norms condition indicate that you will be considered for next scale only if you are eligible as per RRs. However if eligible, you will be given the scale as per your batch seniority as per DOPT letter. This view is reinforced with DOPT clarification about HAG scale where HAG post does not exist in the service. Example: Jt Dir EEs wef 01.04.99 become eligible for Dir post wef 01.04.08 i.e. with nine years residency. Once found eligible they will be given the scale with respect to their batch as given in DOPT letter batchwise. (87 batch officers will be given wef 01.07.06). Accordingly, if screening committee insists on residency, which itself is unjustified, fixation should be done as above. Our fight to remove residency interpretation, if any, has to continue to make RRs at par with IAS.
why we r relating min length of service with this non functional upgradation. I want to submit the following. 1. Pay commission while recommending the pay parity in para 3.3.12 & para 3.3.15 has not imposed any such condition. In fact the org group a services batch senior by two years from empanelled batch of IAS takes care of all the eligibility criteria prescribed under central staffing scheme. The IAS r taking 20 years to get empanelled as joint secy whereas the CSS prescribed 17 years and IAS batches r getting physical promotion in 15-16 years in SAG scales in their respective states. 2. while accepting the above recommendations govt has added two more services viz IPS & IFS (to be given this non functional up gradation) besides org group a services. In their case there is nothing like Revised Pay Rules and there was an immediate requirement of for amendments to their service rules in order to give the benefit of revision of pay under 6 cpc. If u see the amendments of their service rules for this non functional up gradation it is very simple & crisp & reproduced below. “Note 3: Whenever any Indian Administrative Service officer of the State or Joint Cadre is posted at the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in pay band 3 or pay band 4, the members of Service, who are senior to such Indian Administrative Service officer by two years or more and have not so far been promoted to that particular grade, shall be appointed to the same grade on non -functional basis from the date of posting of the Indian Administrative Service officer in that particular grade.”
Incidentally these amendments to service rules for IPS & IFS r issued by DOPT, being the CCA for these services. These amendments r available at following links.
3. In view of above how DOPT can insist two sets of amendments in service rules one for IFS & IPS and other for org group ‘a’ services when the non functional upgradation was granted by the govt based on same recommendations of 6th CPC & same resolution notified.
Hello, I am writing on behalf of Geological Survey of India Scientific Officers' Association. The move that we took for proper implementation of batch-wise Pay Parity as per recommendations of the VI CPC are as below: 1. Mass representations were given to the Director General, GSI and to the Secretary, Ministry of Mines in 2009. 2. Several RTI enquries and representations to the Ministry of Mines, DoPT and Finance Ministry were placed concurrently. 3. Case has also been filed by a group of individual officers Jaipur CAT and then in Patna CAT where GSI, MoM, DoPT and Finance Minstry have been made parties. 4. Jaipur CAT had given verdict to implement Pay Parity as per the recommendation of the VIth CPC. 5. The Ministry is now under Contempt for non-implementation of the Court Verdict. However, Ministry of Mines is expected to implement Pay Parity following flawed interpretation of the DoPT order requiring feeder grade residency. 6. Few officers met Joint Secretary, DoPT requesting to bring out a clarification on Qualifying Residency as it was done for MACP scheme where it was clarified that Qualifying Resiedency does not mean feeder grade residency but residency from entry grade in the Group A Service. DoPT was non-commital at the meeting but indicated that they are working on some sort of clarification. It was clarified that Cadre controlling Authority of different services need to approach the DoPT highlighting problem for implementation etc. 7. However, the impression we received after discussin different DoPT officials of different levels is that ambiguity in the DoPT order for Pay Parity is perhaps intentional to reduce government expenditure and that Finance Ministry might be backing such ambiguity. 8. We also got the feeling from discussions with different DoPT officials and others that though we have a strong case, government is not likely to bulge unless they loose the case in Supreme Court SLP. 9. I would request to make concerted effort by not only the engineering services but all affected Organized Group A services. This would bring larger momentum to the cause.
We may be contacted:
Dr. Joy Gopal Ghosh, General Secreraty, GSISOA or Mr. N. Maran, President, GSISOA e-mail: gsisoa@gmail.com gsisoakolkata@gmail.com
Sir, undr the ministry of I & B , AIR & DD Engineers got the pay parity. but some officers deprieved due to below bench mark grading in the last five years ACRs from 2001 to 2005. I want to request to modify the order because Pay parity is not a prmotion its only a non functional upgradation then why they want ACR Very Good. most of poor employees are suffering. it should be removed in the eligibility criteria. u can not compare to the promotional eligibilty for JAG/SAG. pls do something or write a letter to DOPT for modify the criteria for pay parity it is time scale upgradation , not a promotion in PB3/PB4. email: kksing2010@yahoo.in
According to DOPT order NO-AB14017/64/2008-ESSTT(RR)dt 1/1/2011,1996as Director batch and level in IAS,The date of posting of officer in the grade in central staffing scheme w.e.f 1/7/2010 ,so batch of organised Group A of 1994 batch is elligble for Director non functional upgradation w.e.f.1/7/2010.However Min of I&B vide order no-2/2011-BA(E)dt 10/6/2011have been given upgradation w.e.f.1/4/2011 instead of w.e.f. 1/7/2010.
Giving pay parity as jt dir required 5 year service as EE which is not correct then no benifit wil be there . It should not be based on service as EE it shall be total sevice as an group A services as 9 years
Yes I agree with you. The pay parity is with IAS batch and in situation of delay in first promotion from AEE to EE results in further delay in getting even pay parity if eligibility is decided on promotional eligibility.
GSI HAS IMPLEMENTED FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF INCUMBENTS WEF 1 1 2006 (INCLUDES PRE 24 APRIL 2009 RETIREES BASED ON THEIR ELIGIBILITY AS PER EXTANT RRs APPLICABLE TO THEM) GSI MODIFIED THE RRs DULY TO COVER ALL THEIR IN SERVICE OFFICERS TO GET THE BENEFIT FOR EG AT SAG LEVEL, THEY PROVIDED ADDITIONAL PROVISION - "ELIGIBILITY OF 25 YRS GR A SERVICE WITH ONE YEAR AS SAG" - DECLARING THE CADRE AS "ORGANISED SERVICES WEF 1 1 2006, PUBLISHED " DIFFERENT STREAMWISE RRs FOR "CENTRAL GEOL.SERVICE" , "CENTRAL GEOPH SERVICE", CENTRAL ENGG. SERV." ETC IN GAZETTE OF INDIA TO COVER ALL THEIR S & T GR A CADRES . THESE RRs CAME INTO FORCE WEF OCT 2010 / LATER DATES FOR DIFFT STREAMS. ALL LEVELS - INCLUDING SAG AND HAG LEVELS ARE BEING COVERED. BEASED ON ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA WRT EXTANT RRS APPLICANLE T THE INCUMBENTS.
AS THE "BENEFIT OF PAY" IS TO BE GIVEN TO ":RETIRED OFFICERS ALSO " AS ON 1 1 2006, FROM TEIR "DUE DATES" , HAS ANY SERVICE/ MINISTRY/ DEPARTMENT COVERED THE PRE 2006 RETIREES?
PL ENLIGHTEM ME BY EMAIL v_nattu@hotmail.com or vnat39@gmail.com
I shall be filing a massive case on this discrimination of not coverung the pre 2006 Org Serv retirees , who are otherwise eligible as on 1 1 2006 of course wrt their due dates of 2 years seniority wrt the IAS batch to be considered.
MOST URGENT.
vnatarajan SAG Pensioner from GSI. (Pensioner activist)
You are requested to please post your views
ReplyDeletedelay is leading to frustration and demoralisation.People at the helm does not appear to be clear
ReplyDeletei think a core group should be formed which can coordinate with all other depts/ministry and updates can be informed to all members
ReplyDeleteit is absurd to link pay parity as per DOPT letter with QR for a particular grade for granting the same on non fuctional basis while there is no such mention in 6th apy commission report. 6th pay commission report only speak about pay parity with 2 yr difference wrt CIVIL SERVICES.
ReplyDeleteAT PRESENT JT DIR LEVEL OFFICERS ARE BADLY AFFECTED.
I request all to please identify them with their comments, so as to contact them separately. At present situation is very grim as those who are not affected by functional creteria are not interested to take part . We need to form core gp of all engg services asso to come on this platform and make a confederation of engg services asso for the purpose of pay parity only.
ReplyDeleteI propose the name as Asso of Organized Gp A Engineering Services and the mandate shall be the pay parity.
I request all asso to please nominate their rep for this gp.
From IDSE asso the reps are
my self Pradeep Agrawal
Sh R K Gautam
Sh Lalit Kumar
Pl fwd names of volunteers from other chapters of IDSE and other asso.
Pl be in touch . You can mail also on this blog mail address.
payparity@in.com
The pay parity is being interpreted as inclusion of eligiblity criteria as required for functional promotion.This means that before getting pb 4 grade pay one has to be as EE for min 10 years , for SAG one has to be functional SE for min period as specified for ACE.
ReplyDeleteIn case of IDSE one has to become functional ACE for specified period . This effectively means that IDSE officer are out of race for SAG NFSG.
Similarly to get HAG NFSG , one has to be functional SAG for specified period of time.
What an absurdity.
However confederation of engg asso is trying to get some of the functional residency period reduced but even hen iot is not going to benefit IDSE and similar services.
We should ask for not to mis non functional and functional promotion. In case of the Non functional upgradation the sole creteria is the Batch of IAS officer .
Our representation shall be on these lines . I request u to please fwd me draft representation.
I am going to upload the DOPT file letter as obtaind under RTI , ALL DOPT letter etc . Pl look on the blog
I do not think that DOPT has issued any QR for a particular non functional grade. If it is so then it may please be loaded on this blog so that a proper discussion could be done and consensus could be arrived at.
ReplyDeleteVINAY KUMAR
THE FIRST DOPT ORDER DATED 24TH APRIL 2009
ReplyDeleteA careful analysis of the said order reveals that this order have stopped well short of the spirit behind such a landmark recommendation by the Pay Commission and its unqualified subsequent acceptance by the Government.
By the inclusion of Para 2 in said order dt 24 April 2009, thereby requiring fulfillment of all eligibility conditions for such a financial up-gradation, which is only non-functional as per Para 1 above, the spirit behind the recommendation of the sixth Pay Commission and the acceptance of the said recommendation by the UPA Government has been seriously diluted. The requirement of fulfilling all the eligibility conditions for an up-gradation that is purely non-functional in effect means that this measure is going to benefit only a limited number of officers in organized central cadres, despite the fact that all are facing stagnation due to some reason or the other, such as DPC for promotion to the next higher grade not being held in time and lack of vacancies, etc.
One of the eligibility conditions for getting promotion to a particular grade is the minimum number of years one has to serve in the immediate lower level. By requiring that this condition must be fulfilled for financial up-gradation to a particular grade, the order has seriously diluted the spirit of the Pay Commission recommendation and and its subsequent acceptance by the Government in the sense that it does not take cognizance of administrative inefficiency experienced by officers at various points in one’s career affecting their career growth. Ironically, it is these very administrative lapses on the part of various departments in not being able to properly protect the career growth of officers that the present order intends to set right. For instance, two officers of the same batch joining two different departments at JTS level will be benefited differently if one of them has served for a longer period at JTS level and shorter period at STS level as compared to the other. The officer serving for a shorter period at STS level may not be eligible for financial up-gradation to JAG, the next higher grade, because he may not have served for the required number of years at STS level. Two officers of the same batch in two different departments will be drawing different pays, even if they fulfill the benchmark required for promotion to the next higher grade. Is this what the Pay Commission intended when it tried to bring parity among officers of organized central cadres linking it with the batch of IAS officers alone with the idea that a central service officer should not be behind his IAS counterparts by more than two years?
This is the para which has derailed an effective pay parity
Food for thought.
This is the extract of contents of represenatation from one of the engg asso.
All concerned are requested to pl fwd their suggestions.
Pradeep Agrawal, IDSE
E-in-C' br , New Delhi
Dear Mr Vinay,
ReplyDeleteThe above contents are with ref to a recent meeting held with DOPT officals and this has been accepted as fate accompli by the confederation, a said reality. This iterpretation is being accepted by almost all cadre controlling auth as I have spoken to some of them personally. I hope your doubts are true, but the facts are opposite
Pradeep Agrawal,IDSE
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKindly upload the info obtained through RTI from DOPT.
ReplyDeleteRajesh K Kaundal.
This can not be correct. The VI CPC in its report only talks of pay parity on the basis of "BATCH". It no where speakes of requirement of a particular number of years of service in lower grade before consideration for pay parity on non functional basis to the higher grade. The new condition will effactively mean only one upgradation from the present grade if the officer is stagnating in the present grade. In case one has stagnated in previous grade and just been promoted, then even one upgradation will not be granted to him.The matter need to be persued at all levels. In case individual representatioins are required the same may be mobilised
ReplyDeletewe must go as per the IPS & IFS pay rules (note 3) amendments. These rules speak that whenever any IAS of particular batch is impaneled for the grade in pb3 or pb4 all batches of IPS/IFS senior by two years and not functionally promoted in that grade should be granted non functional upgradation. These amendments r carried out based on same recommendations. in fact sixth pay commission recommendations were only for group a organised services but while accepting the recommendations govt has extended this provision to IPS/IFS also. The requirement of residency service in particular grade is totally illogical and not required to be mat in non functional upgradation. In ACP the JEs r given Executive Engineer pay scale after 24 year of service, who r not even physically promoted as assistant Engineer, what to talk of 11 year of res period required in the grade of AEs.
ReplyDeleteWith so many riders, are we getting "pay parity" or "pay disparity".
ReplyDeletewe must strongly take up case along with other association to delink qr as applcable for functional grade promotion while granting pay parity.
ReplyDeleteForget about others servces,if it is not done engineer officers within same deptt ie MES will be at great disadvantage compare to surveyor cadre officers who are also included in organised gp A services as clarified by ministry recently and have already benefitted over a time due to their timely promotion.
what our idse association practically doing to protect interest of all officers.
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely no doubt that the 24 Apr 2009 letter dilutes the provisions of Batch wise parity as recommended by the 6CPC. In fact this letter if implemented with QR criterion will create more of "DISPARITIES" rather than "PARITY". The implementation in the present form will not only create wide spread resentment but will also marr the spirit of parity as granted by 6CPC.
ReplyDeleteAt the cost of repetition, I am reproducing extract of 6 CPC report:-
"Whenever any IAS officer of a particular batch is posted in the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in pay bands PB-3 or PB-4 , grant of higher pay scale on non-functional basis to the officers belonging to batches of organised Group A services that are senior by two years or more should be given by the Government."
The 6 CPC further says:-
"....This will not only ensure some sort of modified parity between IAS and other Central Group A services BUT WILL ALSO ALLEVIATE THE PRESENT LEVEL OF DISPARITY EXISTING BETWEEN PROMOTIONAL AVENUES AVAILABLE TO DIFFERENT AVENUES AVAILABLE TO DIFFERENT ORGANISED ORGANISED GROUP A SERVICES...."
Please note that while recommending Batchwise parity the 6CPC not only desired parity with IAS but mote essentially it intended PARITY AMONGST VARIOUS GP 'A' SERVICES THEMSELVES. This also essentially means that Batch definition also should be same for all services(Technical/ Non- technical).
In most of the Non-Technical Gp 'A' Org services, the batch/Allotment year has been defined as " ....year following the year of examination..." (Example Civil Accounts service, Indian defence Accounts Service, Indian Revenue service, Indian Economic Service etc.). The same needs to be applied to Technical services to ensure PARITY amongst Gp 'A' Organised services.
Stipulating QR and then granting NFFU will essentially defeat the very purpose and essence of 6CPC recommendations and need to be fought accordingly. It is only on the basis of this paragraph that we can get the amendments to 24 Apr letter. Any amount of other logical and emotional justifications will not work with the bureaucratic set up in the Govt.
In continuation of my previous post......
ReplyDeleteThe extract from 6CPC report quoted above is from Para 3.3.12 on Page 173-174 of the report and has been accepted by Govt of India vide vide Resolution No. 1/1/2008-IC dt 29/08/2008 published in The Gazette of India No. 304 dt 29/08/2008. Please refer Part 1-Sec 1- Annex I Part A Para (III) Pay scales of Central Services Group “A” Sl (i) in which granting of higher pay scale on non functional basis to the officers of organized group “A” services who are senior by two years to any IAS officer posted in Center have been accepted by the Govt. of India.
I suggest that any representation should be based on 6CPC recommendation and acceptance thereof. The above points if finds merit may find place in representation from the department(CSCC)/ Cadre controlling authority to DoP&T.
Through discussion on forum, we can only educate each other. However, in order to achieve fruitful results, the only way is to file individual representations to DOPT bringing out the background on the lines suggested by Sh Anand Bansal and then follow up the same through RTI if no favourable orders come. Moreover, the people sitting in E-in-C's branch who are tasked with forwarding draft proposal for approval of Screening Committee should present the proposal as per spirit of the 6th CPC recommendations and Cabinet Approval for the same without harping on eligibility criterion applicable for functional promotion. Methodology adopted for grant of NFSG should be the guiding principle.
ReplyDeleteFollowing is the draft representation. It is very much in draft stage . All are requested to please reword / rehase it to make it small, crisp and effective.
ReplyDeleteThe suggested representation will be finalized and submitted to the DOPT through our asso incl confederation. Pl post your views fast. As we are planning to take appt with the DOPT secy and the Director.
Ref: Non Functional up gradation for Officers of Organized Group ‘A’ Services in PB-3 and PB-4
Non Implementation by the Cadre Controlling Authority in respect of IDSE officers of Ministry Of Defence.
Sir,
Minstry of Personnel and ----- vide their letter no---- and subsequent clarifications issued vide their letter no.--- has issued policy for implementation of VI th pay commission recommendations accepted by the Govt of India on implementation of the Pay Parity for Organized Group A services with IAS officers.
The Govt of India by way of implementation of the recommendations of the VIth pay commission has tried to remove some disparity in the pay of officers belonging to different services. Indian Administrative Service has been made the ref point and the officers belonging to the other Organized Gp A services have been given financial up gradation to any grades after IAS officers two years junior to them have been promoted to that grade at the centre.
In consonance to such policy and the acceptance of the recommendation of the VI th pay commission , cadre controlling authorities of various deptt were required to convene screening committees as per the Govt of India letter ref above and implement Govt decision in time bound manner. It is not out of place to mention that GOI vide letter no is monitoring the implementation of the VI th pay Commission recommendation-----
It has come to our notice the cadre controlling auth has not even constituted the Screening Committees as yet and DPC proceedings for Non Functional financial up gradation as per Pay Parity with IAS to IDSE cadre officers of the MES under MoD has not started till date even after a lapse of ---months.
In the mean time it has come to our notice during informal discussion with the MoD officials and other concerned officials dealing with the implementation of pay parity ,the DOPT letter dt--- para 3 is being interpreted out of context and not in the spirit of the Govt letter on pay parity. The spirit of the pay commission and the intention of the Govt is to grant pay parity to all officers of the Organized Gp A as compared of the IAS which is evident by following,
a) DOPT letter no para annex I The non functional upgradation will be granted based on particular batch of IAS officer in the centre. Batches of such officers have already been communicated vide DOPT letter no. Such up gradation would not be linked to the vacancies in the grade.
In cont of my above post.
ReplyDeleteb) para 2The upgradation granted under these rules will be purely non functional upgradation , personal to the officer .
c)Para 5 all instructions for grant of NFSG would be applicable as exiting for NFSG in the event of penalty, disciplinary proceeding , suspension etc.
d) Para 6 ,Grant of Non functional up gradation would be from the date of posting of the first officer belonging to the particular batch of the IAS officer at the centre.
e)Para 10 Non functional up gradation to the next higher grade pay granted under the scheme is a fall back option only to be applied in case where officers of a particular service have not been granted promotion to a particular grade in normal course.
f) the illustration given at para 11 is very clear ,as per the illustration the officers who have not got grade pay of Jt Secy would be given the NFSG grade pay of Jt Secy based on the IAS officer two years junior to him posted at the centre. Thus this illustration makes it very clear that officer shall be given pay parity /the batch parity if he has been found otherwise eligible.
cont...
ReplyDeleteObviously the eligibility criteria for the functional promotion with regard to officer being in a particular grade for specified period of time is not applicable and this criteria of functional promotion has been replaced with the condition that the IAS officer two years junior to him have been promoted functionally at the centre.
It has come to our notice that cadre controlling auth are mixing criteria for functional and non functional up gradation ignoring the DOPT letter which have prescribed that the non functional up gradation is linked to the batch and not with serving functionally in a particular grade to become eligible for the next grade. The DOPT letter referring to meet all elgiblity criteria pertains to the grading on ACR , enquiry, penalties etc which shall not be construed as the requirement of serving in functional grade at STS, JAG or SAG level. The elgiblity of serving in functional grade for NFSG is opposite to each other and shall not be mixed as like consideration Zone in NFSG similar to the functional promiotion as being done.
The very word pay parity and definition of batch as issued by the DOPt vide their letter no --- and the IAS batches grant of grade pay at various levels is very clear tthat officers of the organized Gp A sevices shall be granted NFSG upgradation based on their batcehes only and the condition of functional upgradation for serving in a particular grade is not applicable . The grant of Pay parity to organized Gp A services has been given to the organized Gp A services whereas grant of MACP , ACP has been given to officers and subordinates of other services . the scheme of ACP is very old and has been implemented in all deptt. The scheme of Pay Parity for grant of NFSG can be compared with the ACP scheme also though Non functional upgradation is equal to ACP scheme if not higher than the ACP.
At best the grant of NFSG can be understood with the ACP scheme presently in vogue in all the deptt.In ACP scheme the eligibility is the completion nof min year of service and meet all eligibility cretieria for promotion but never any deptt have put restriction on functionally serving in a grade frpor specified period of time as per the RR rules.Under ACP scheme the eligibility criteria for grant of scale is same as for functional promotion . In case of ACP practically in engg deptt a JE has been given the upgradation of AE , EE scale on completion of specified period of total service irrespedtive of a JE being functionally in AE grade for a specified period of time . Under the ACP scheme A JE was given the scale of AE and EE , for EE scale the JE never worked as AE and they have beenin AE grade under ACP only still they were given EE scale inspite of the fact that ACP rule vide para -- mentions granting of payscale on the same eligibility criteria as taht for functional promotion to EE i.e. being in the grade fof AE for a period of –years as regards to MES.
The same analogy amply makes it clear tthat interpretation of functional etc is not in order and opay parity implies that even in any organized service if there is an AEE for 25 years of service as on 01 jan 2006 he will be given the scla of Jt secy or Addl secy ( HAG) when an IAS offeir is given that grade as per the batch definition. The functional promotion thereafter will, be governed y the functional rules.
The linking of functional and non functional upgradation can not be mixed as being say in NFSG grade of JAG for specified period does not entitle a person to get SAG grade because he has to be functionally in JAG grade for specified period of time to get the functional promotion , hence intermixing of two different set of rules are not warranted .
Pradeep Agrawal, IDSE
1987 batch
E-in-C's Br
New Delhi
We must represent to concerned auth that VI pay commission has granted the batch parity and even my AEE should get the scale of counter part IAS officer without any rider
ReplyDeleteIf DOPT is not ready to listen then representation must be sent to PM office
Dear pradeep
ReplyDeletewe must see what other group a org services r doing.The thought process that "one must complete the res period in immediate grade" may be the brain child of MOD lower staff. The AIR DD Engrs have prepared & fwd list to their ministry & the same is available at following links http://airddengineers.org/misc/bwlistnfup.pdf and http://airddengineers.org/misc/bwlistnfup2.pdf and http://airddengineers.org/misc/1991_to_1994_list.pdf .
similarly the gazette published for grant of non funvtional HAG scale to Income Tas officers by govt is available at following link http://www.irsofficersonline.org/Documents/OfficalCommunique/11229200952537.PDF
it can be seen that no criteria other than batch year is mentioned in the gazette , even present grade pay of the officer is not mentioned in the order.
In promotion guidelines for IAS officers, no residency period at any level has been given. Only total length of service is mentioned, that to on 1ST Jan of the year in which one becomes eligible, i.e. he can become STS in lee than 4 years & similarly for all other levels. Why not frame RRs according to these guidelines. Draft can be prepared with suitable ammendments and can accordingly be projected.
ReplyDeleteWith residency period clause, if considered for parity, the gains will be only at JtDir level and that to very delayed i.e. very less arrears.
Link of IAS promotion guidlines is http://persmin.nic.in/EmployeesCorner/Acts_Rules/IASPromotionGuideLines.pdf
ReplyDeletehttp://persmin.nic.in/EmployeesCorner/Acts_Rules/
ReplyDeleteIASPromotionGuideLines.pdf
AIRDDENGRS details referred by Gupta Sir does not indicate residency clause. If these are accepted/approved list?
ReplyDeletepl post your comments if any encl are there you can send on mail id payparity@in.com as well.
ReplyDeleteThe list sent by Sh RD Gupta in respect of air engineers is encouraging . I will ask some of the AIR officers about its fate.
I am in full agreement with draft representation posted by Pradeep and every one should represent on this line to dopt but i feel that first we should approach dopt for clarification on difference between nonfunctional upgradation and functional promotion. it is totally absurd that an officer who is stagnating at alower level and could not be promoted due mismanagement of cadre will not be given parity with ias of 2 years junior batch and will be given parity with an IAS officer of many years because of his no fault. this will be illogical and against the recommendation accepted by GOVT OF INDIA.We should approach IRS officers to know about their criteria followed for grant of HAG upgradation and also seek clarification from DOPT.I firmly believe that nfsg upgradation will be given on the basis of total no. of years of service if officer is fit on acr benchmark and clear of any disp charges.
ReplyDeleteI have enquired from AIR , the list as posted by Sh R D Gupta is not fwd by them to the ministry. They are under confusion on the same issue. RD sir has suggested that we should also prepare our list without mixing functional creteria. As suggested by Sh PAthak we are trying to arrange for a meeting with DOPT officials on the issue. RR amdt are under progress. We may request Sh R K Gautam to fwd RR amdt on priority to the MoD.
ReplyDeletepara 3.3.12 of sixth pay commission report:-
ReplyDeleteWhenever any IAS officer of a particular batch is
posted in the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific
grade pay in pay bands PB-3 or PB-4 , grant of higher pay scale
on non-functional basis to the officers belonging to batches of
organised Group A services that are senior by two years or more
should be given by the Government.-------------This will not only ensure some sort of modified parity
between IAS and other Central Group A services but will also
alleviate the present level of disparity existing between
promotional avenues available to different organised Group A
services
para 3.3.15 of sixth pay commission report:-
A perusal of the memoranda submitted by various Group
A Organized Services’ Associations reveals that even amongst
these Services, there is wide variation in terms of career
progression. While officers of some Services get promoted to the
Senior Administrative Grade in 16 years, officers in some other
Services take more than 26 years for the same promotion.
Absolute parity amongst various Organized Group A Services for
the purpose of promotions to SAG and HAG levels is not possible,
as each cadre is designed and managed in a manner which is
unique to itself. In any case, the recommendation made in para
3.3.12 will address this issue and bring about a degree of
uniformity in the promotional avenues, pay and allowances of
officers belonging to these Services having same seniority.
RD Sir your post is very usefull. Similarly I request all to fwd their suggestions so we are ready for action without further delay.
ReplyDeleteRespected Pradeep Agrawalji,
ReplyDeleteThe justified cause is put forward in your comments about the visualization of 6CPC for NFSG based on IAS batch. As we all know, bureaucratic bottlenecks are dead against this to be extended to organized Gr-A services, this is why they recommended Terms and Conditions to be me to get the same.
We are now left with the followings:
1. Pressurise Government, to follow the recommendations of 6CPC in letter and spirit and extend pay parity without any residency period at next lower level, purely on the basis of Batch with 2 year lag.
2. If not, then amend our RR in line with IAS, having combine service criteria at all levels and no residency period thereon so that the T&C as per DoPT OM could be met for getting pay parity.
3. Definition of Batch shall be same as IAS.
This is not the time for only discussion, we all know most of the things said here. This is time to act and for action we are solidly behind you. I am forwarding the names of officers from our organization to co-ordinate with you. Kindly note their names and mobile nos. Please contact them on regular basis for future action.
Central Electricity Authority (CEA)
1 Sh Soumen Biswas, CPES, 9968680450
2 Sh M A Imam, CPES, 9911718313
Central Water Commission (CWC)
1 Sh Ashok Kharya, CWES, 9818247513
2 Sh Shekhar Jha, CWES, 9899175489
Good Luck
M A Imam, CPES
9911718313
Mr Imam
ReplyDeleteThanx a lot for thought full inside.We would be meeting DOPT officials possibly with our senior officers. Before this we need to finalize our representation. My objective to discuss on blog is to create awareness and as many people as possible.
Our ultimate aim shall be the RR amdt as per the IAS rules to avoid all problems.
Pradeep Agrawal
A few points which need to be included in the representation regarding definition of batch are as under:-
ReplyDelete(a) Since the parity is with reference to IAS, the definition of batch should also be the same as that in case of IAS. This is given in IAS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules and mention the year following the year in which the competitive exam is held, as the batch year. Even in case of IPS and IFS, the same definition is being adopted.
(b) The DOPT has defined batch year in r/o the officers belonging to Organized Group "A" as the year of joining. The delay in joining of Organized Group "A" officers especially those belonging to Engineering Services, is because the "Completion of Police Verification" is a prerequisite in case of these officers.
(c) In case of IAS, the "Police Verification" is not necessary to be carried out before their joining the Academy at Mussoorie.
(d) Thus, the Officers belonging to Organized Group "A" services are put to a disadvantage vis a vis their IAS counterparts on account of different system being followed for "Police Verification".
(e) I have got the above information mentioned in (a) and (c) above on these aspects from DOPT in response to RTI query.
Ajay
ReplyDeletepl mailyour info at payparity@in.com
At One time, only one issue of residency period at feeder post, should be taken up. Multiple issues at the same time may not dilute the point. Parity of eligibility for promotion should be same as that for IAS as given in their promotion guidelines. Prevalent stagnation will take care of residency at feeder post so far as functional promotion is concerned.
ReplyDeletelink to ips & ifs pay rule 2008 (amendments) is given below.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.persmin.nic.in/writedata/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/IPS_PayRules2008_English.pdf
http://www.persmin.nic.in/writedata/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/IFS_PayRules2008_English.pdf
we should initiate amendments to idse service rules for pay parity as well for functional promotion on similar lines. Please see note 3 of ips / ifs rules which deals with pay parity, very short & crips.
Though our contention of removing residency period have to remain undiluted, following interpretation of existing DOPT orders need consideration:
ReplyDeleteEligibility criteria & promotional norms condition indicate that you will be considered for next scale only if you are eligible as per RRs. However if eligible, you will be given the scale as per your batch seniority as per DOPT letter. This view is reinforced with DOPT clarification about HAG scale where HAG post does not exist in the service. Example: Jt Dir EEs wef 01.04.99 become eligible for Dir post wef 01.04.08 i.e. with nine years residency. Once found eligible they will be given the scale with respect to their batch as given in DOPT letter batchwise. (87 batch officers will be given wef 01.07.06). Accordingly, if screening committee insists on residency, which itself is unjustified, fixation should be done as above.
Our fight to remove residency interpretation, if any, has to continue to make RRs at par with IAS.
Suman
why we r relating min length of service with this non functional upgradation. I want to submit the following.
ReplyDelete1. Pay commission while recommending the pay parity in para 3.3.12 & para 3.3.15 has not imposed any such condition. In fact the org group a services batch senior by two years from empanelled batch of IAS takes care of all the eligibility criteria prescribed under central staffing scheme. The IAS r taking 20 years to get empanelled as joint secy whereas the CSS prescribed 17 years and IAS batches r getting physical promotion in 15-16 years in SAG scales in their respective states.
2. while accepting the above recommendations govt has added two more services viz IPS & IFS (to be given this non functional up gradation) besides org group a services. In their case there is nothing like Revised Pay Rules and there was an immediate requirement of for amendments to their service rules in order to give the benefit of revision of pay under 6 cpc. If u see the amendments of their service rules for this non functional up gradation it is very simple & crisp & reproduced below.
“Note 3: Whenever any Indian Administrative Service officer of the State or
Joint Cadre is posted at the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific
grade pay in pay band 3 or pay band 4, the members of Service, who are senior
to such Indian Administrative Service officer by two years or more and have not
so far been promoted to that particular grade, shall be appointed to the same
grade on non -functional basis from the date of posting of the Indian
Administrative Service officer in that particular grade.”
Incidentally these amendments to service rules for IPS & IFS r issued by DOPT, being the CCA for these services. These amendments r available at following links.
http://www.persmin.nic.in/writedata/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/IPS_PayRules2008_English.pdf
http://www.persmin.nic.in/writedata/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/IFS_PayRules2008_English.pdf
3. In view of above how DOPT can insist two sets of amendments in service rules one for IFS & IPS and other for org group ‘a’ services when the non functional upgradation was granted by the govt based on same recommendations of 6th CPC & same resolution notified.
R D GUPTA
UPSC 1982 BATCH
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI am writing on behalf of Geological Survey of India Scientific Officers' Association. The move that we took for proper implementation of batch-wise Pay Parity as per recommendations of the VI CPC are as below:
1. Mass representations were given to the Director General, GSI and to the Secretary, Ministry of Mines in 2009.
2. Several RTI enquries and representations to the Ministry of Mines, DoPT and Finance Ministry were placed concurrently.
3. Case has also been filed by a group of individual officers Jaipur CAT and then in Patna CAT where GSI, MoM, DoPT and Finance Minstry have been made parties.
4. Jaipur CAT had given verdict to implement Pay Parity as per the recommendation of the VIth CPC.
5. The Ministry is now under Contempt for non-implementation of the Court Verdict. However, Ministry of Mines is expected to implement Pay Parity following flawed interpretation of the DoPT order requiring feeder grade residency.
6. Few officers met Joint Secretary, DoPT requesting to bring out a clarification on Qualifying Residency as it was done for MACP scheme where it was clarified that Qualifying Resiedency does not mean feeder grade residency but residency from entry grade in the Group A Service. DoPT was non-commital at the meeting but indicated that they are working on some sort of clarification. It was clarified that Cadre controlling Authority of different services need to approach the DoPT highlighting problem for implementation etc.
7. However, the impression we received after discussin different DoPT officials of different levels is that ambiguity in the DoPT order for Pay Parity is perhaps intentional to reduce government expenditure and that Finance Ministry might be backing such ambiguity.
8. We also got the feeling from discussions with different DoPT officials and others that though we have a strong case, government is not likely to bulge unless they loose the case in Supreme Court SLP.
9. I would request to make concerted effort by not only the engineering services but all affected Organized Group A services.
This would bring larger momentum to the cause.
We may be contacted:
Dr. Joy Gopal Ghosh, General Secreraty, GSISOA
or Mr. N. Maran, President, GSISOA
e-mail: gsisoa@gmail.com
gsisoakolkata@gmail.com
Sir, undr the ministry of I & B , AIR & DD Engineers got the pay parity. but some officers deprieved due to below bench mark grading in the last five years ACRs from 2001 to 2005. I want to request to modify the order because Pay parity is not a prmotion its only a non functional upgradation then why they want ACR Very Good. most of poor employees are suffering. it should be removed in the eligibility criteria. u can not compare to the promotional eligibilty for JAG/SAG. pls do something or write a letter to DOPT for modify the criteria for pay parity it is time scale upgradation , not a promotion in PB3/PB4. email: kksing2010@yahoo.in
ReplyDeleteAccording to DOPT order NO-AB14017/64/2008-ESSTT(RR)dt 1/1/2011,1996as Director batch and level in IAS,The date of posting of officer in the grade in central staffing scheme w.e.f 1/7/2010 ,so batch of organised Group A of 1994 batch is elligble for Director non functional upgradation w.e.f.1/7/2010.However Min of I&B vide order no-2/2011-BA(E)dt 10/6/2011have been given upgradation w.e.f.1/4/2011 instead of w.e.f. 1/7/2010.
ReplyDeleteThats a grеаt рost аnd cеrtainly served tо
ReplyDeleteclеаг my braіn a littlе bіt
my wеb site ... Silver Jewellery for Boys
І'm glad that Google brought your site up for my search - it helped
ReplyDeleteStop by my page: spiral toe Ring
I hope уou don't mind me stopping by and thanking you for the article - it truly helped
ReplyDeleteAlso visit my web blog - Http://Www.Foodprocessing.Com/Wikis/Ingredients_Glossary/Index.Php?Title=User:Ismael98B
Looking in Yahoo гaised your wеbsites - I'm happy it did, cheers.
ReplyDeleteAlso visit my web site ... silver jewellery for women
Loоking in Gοogle brought up your blog - I'm happy it did, many thanks.
ReplyDeleteMy website :: saphire necklace
my web site - tin cup necklace
Giving pay parity as jt dir required 5 year service as EE which is not correct then no benifit wil be there . It should not be based on service as EE it shall be total sevice as an group A services as 9 years
ReplyDeleteYes I agree with you. The pay parity is with IAS batch and in situation of delay in first promotion from AEE to EE results in further delay in getting even pay parity if eligibility is decided on promotional eligibility.
DeleteGSI HAS IMPLEMENTED FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF INCUMBENTS WEF 1 1 2006 (INCLUDES PRE 24 APRIL 2009 RETIREES BASED ON THEIR ELIGIBILITY AS PER EXTANT RRs APPLICABLE TO THEM)
ReplyDeleteGSI MODIFIED THE RRs DULY TO COVER ALL THEIR IN SERVICE OFFICERS TO GET THE BENEFIT FOR EG AT SAG LEVEL, THEY PROVIDED ADDITIONAL PROVISION - "ELIGIBILITY OF 25 YRS GR A SERVICE WITH ONE YEAR AS SAG" -
DECLARING THE CADRE AS "ORGANISED SERVICES WEF 1 1 2006, PUBLISHED " DIFFERENT STREAMWISE RRs FOR "CENTRAL GEOL.SERVICE" , "CENTRAL GEOPH SERVICE", CENTRAL ENGG. SERV." ETC IN GAZETTE OF INDIA TO COVER ALL THEIR S & T GR A CADRES .
THESE RRs CAME INTO FORCE WEF OCT 2010 / LATER DATES FOR DIFFT STREAMS.
ALL LEVELS - INCLUDING SAG AND HAG LEVELS ARE BEING COVERED.
BEASED ON ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA WRT EXTANT RRS APPLICANLE T THE INCUMBENTS.
AS THE "BENEFIT OF PAY" IS TO BE GIVEN TO ":RETIRED OFFICERS ALSO " AS ON 1 1 2006, FROM TEIR "DUE DATES" , HAS ANY SERVICE/ MINISTRY/ DEPARTMENT COVERED THE PRE 2006 RETIREES?
PL ENLIGHTEM ME BY EMAIL v_nattu@hotmail.com or vnat39@gmail.com
I shall be filing a massive case on this discrimination of not coverung the pre 2006 Org Serv retirees , who are otherwise eligible as on 1 1 2006 of course wrt their due dates of 2 years seniority wrt the IAS batch to be considered.
MOST URGENT.
vnatarajan
SAG Pensioner from GSI.
(Pensioner activist)