Option under FR 22 in the case of financial upgradation
As per part B and C of CCS Revised Pay Rules, 2008, revised pay scales have been fixed along with upgraded scales after completion of 4 years of continuous service for certain common categories of employees such as Section officers etc and certain posts in ministries/departments.
To illustrate, pre-revised pay scales of Income tax Officers, Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise have been revised from pre-revised Pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 to 8000-13500 on completion of continuous service of 4 years. In the 6CPC pay structure, grade pay of these officers would be upgraded from Rs.4800 (PB-2) to Rs.5400 (PB-2) on completion of 4 years of continuous service.
Government also allowed an increment of 3% during this financial upgradation for Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise and Income tax Officers etc in terms of Rule 13(i) of CCS Revised Pay Rules, 2008, as per order F.No:A.26017/98/2008-Ad.II(A) dated 17.12.2009 of Central Board of Excise and Customs (ministry of finance) and HRD/CM/175/15/2008-09/Pt-2/1249 dated 31.12.2009 of Income tax department.
GConnect was told that many of the Offices have correctly allowed their employees to exercise option under F.R.22(I)(a)(1) for fixation of pay for this financial upgradation either on the date of completion of 4 years of service or on the date of immediate annual increment on 1st July of the year. However, in some of the offices employees who have been given financial upgrdation are not allowed to exercise their option under F.R.(I)(a)(1) for getting their pay fixed on the date of their immediate next increment on the wrong notion that option under F.R.(I)(a)(1) could be exercised only during promotion.
Fixation of pay in the case of financial upgradation on completion of four years of service, after getting option under F.R.(I)(a)(1) is in line with Rule 13 (i) of CCS Revised Pay Rules, 2008 and the clarification dated 13.11.2008 issued by Government on CCS revised Pay Rules, 2008. We just reproduce here the relevant portion of these provisions.
“13. Fixation of pay o promotion on or after 1.1.2006- In the case of promotion from one grade pay to another in the revised pay structure, the fixation will be done as follows:-
(i) One increment equal to 3% of the sum of the pay in the pay band and the existing grade pay will be computed and round off to the next multiple of 10”
“Clarification 2: The method of Fixation or pay on promotion after 01.01.2006
On promotion from one grade and another/financial upgradation under ACP, a Government servant has an option under FR 22(I)(a)(1) to get his pay fixed in the higher post either from the date of promotion, or from date of next increment, viz. 1st July of the year”
It is apparent that this financial upgradation is a promotion from one grade pay to another, which is covered by Rule 13(i) of CCS Revised Pay Rules, 2008 and exercising option under FR 22(I)(a)(1) is permitted in the case of financial upgradation in terms of Clarification dated 13.11.2008.
The very purpose of allowing option under FR 22(I)(a)(1) in this situation is to avoid pay anomaly. If an employee who has completed 4 years regular service as on 2nd Feb 2010 was not allowed to exercise the option of postponing the fixation of his pay to immediate next annual increment date viz., 1st July 2010, he will not be eligible for the annual increment as on 1st July 2010 as he would not have completed 6 months of service in the revised pay structure as on 1st July 2010.
On the other hand another employee who is junior to the former and completes 4 years of regular service as on 15th August 2010, will be eligible for annual increment as on 1st July 2010 and also for the increment out of financial upgradation subsequently in the same year i.e as on 15th August 2010. Obviously, this situation would create pay anomaly among these two employees.
How could the pay of a junior employee could surpass that of a senior one whose pay is said to be upgraded. We feel this is a classic example for failure of administration that implements a law by ignoring its very spirit.
One of our friends said that this issue is identical to the issue of change of increment month to July of every year for who were receiving annual increments from February to June in the pre-revised pay scale prior to 6CPC. However, both of these issues are not identical. The issue relating to change of increment month of all employees to July every year irrespective of their date of joining, would at most make the pay of junior employee equal to that of a senior employee. On the contrary, the denial of employee’s right to exercise their option at the time of financial upgradation would result in junior employee getting more pay than the senior one.
We suggest the employees affected in this issue to insist for reply in writing from their administration which could facilitate them for taking up the matter at a higher level.