+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Pay band and pay in the pay band

  1. #1
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    569

    Question Pay band and pay in the pay band

    What is a Pay Band and What is a Pay in the Pay in the Pay Band -
    These are the basic criteria in fixing revised pay as well as minimum revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Similarly, these are very much valid for fixation of revised pay on promotion after 1.1.2006.

    A Pay Band consists of running pay in the pay band corresponding to
    various pre-revised scales of pay grouped together under such Pay band. It has various grades under a single pay band. It starts its journey from the bottom of the pay band, which bottom is so happened to be a pay in the pay band also to a corresponding
    lowest pre-revised scale within that particular pay band. The scales S-4, S-9, Gr.A Entry and S-24 having corresponding minimum of the pay band as well as minimum pay in the pay band PB-1, PB-2, PB-3 and PB-4 respectively.

    A Pay in the Pay band is running pay in the pay band corresponding to particular stage of a particular single scale of pay. For remaining scales other than the 4 indicated above, the minimum pay in the pay band corresponds with respective minimum of the pre-revised scale.

    Thus, a bottom/minimum of the pay band can never correspond to all pre-revised scales grouped under that particular pay band, but can only correspond to the lowest pre-revised scale grouped under that particular pay band by virtue of multiplying with 1.86 mf over bottom of such lowest pre-revised scale for PB-1 to PB-3. For PB-4 the multiplication factor is different. .

    The K.S. Krishnaswamy case Judgment pointed out that `It is common knowledge that an increase in the pay scale in any recommendation of a pay commission is a corresponding increase in the pay scale'.

    The increase in the pay scale by virtue of 6th Pay Commission is
    required to be passed on in toto to the serving employees in all respects even in the case of promotion after 1.1.2006.

    If we see the cases of those who were promoted to a particular higher grade prior to 1.1.2006, their pay in the pay band as on 1.1.2006 is determined by application of 1.86 mf over the pre-revised pay held by them as on 31.12.2005. On the contrary, for a direct recruit after 1.1.2006 to such a promoted grade the pay in the pay band is fixed quantum according to the grade pay of the promoted grade. Here, the new entrant's pay in the pay band happens to be more than the employee promoted before 2006 and got his pay revised in such promoted grade w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The anomaly is being scrutinised and pay being stepped up department wise.

    At the same time, wherever their pre-revised scale of pay got upgraded/replaced to/with a higher pre-revised scale of pay as on 1.1.2006, their pay does not get refixed in such upgraded/replaced pay scale before revision of their pay but their last pay on 31.12.2005 in the pre-upgraded scale only gets application of 1.86 mf over the same for deriving the corresponding pay in the pay band. Here the anomaly arising out of a new recruit to such a replaced/upgraded post getting higher pay in the pay band than serving employee as on 1.1.2006, is not considered for removal.

    Further, on promotion of a serving employee the fitment benefit by way of 3% over his pre-revised basic pay to be added to pay in the pay band of the pre-promoted grade, can be stepped upto the level of bottom/minimum of the pay band (NOT BOTTOM/MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND), if on addition of such 3% fitment benefit, the pay in the pay band is lesser than bottom/minimum of the pay band.
    Here too, the post-2006 promotee happens to draw lesser pay than
    that of a new entrant to that promoted grade after 1.1.2006.
    This anomaly also is not considered for removal under the contention that a promotion and recruitment are two different things.

    The Pay Commission implementation took place on 1.9.2008.
    Prior to that date, an employee promoted after 1.1.2006 to a particular grade and fixed at minimum of that scale and another recruited to that grade after 1.1.2006 were drawing same minimum basic of the pre-revised scale of pay applicable to such promoted/recruited grade. On implementation of 6th CPC recommendation, since the promotee's pay in the pay band is restricted to bottom of the pay band (that is not necessarily correspond with the pre-revised scale of the promoted post - exceptions the aforesaid 4 scales) as against bottom of the pay in the pay band, the direct recruit of post-2006 who too got his pay fixed at bottom of the pre-revised scale, by virtue of fixed amount of pay in the pay band as applicable to the grade pay admissible for the pre-revised scale, draws more pay in the pay band, than his counterpart, viz. post-2006 promotee of same pre-revised basic.

    The aforesaid anomaly is due to the concept that a Pay in the Pay band can be irrespective of pre-revised scale and only a Grade Pay will correspond to a single pre-revised scale held before 31.12.2005.
    In other words, the differentiation between a Pay band and a Pay in the Pay Band though explicit, it is being maintained that a minimum of the pay band and a minimum of the pay band are one and same.

    While the revised pay as per 6th CPC reco. consists of both pay in the pay band and grade pay - both the elements will naturally correspond to a particular scale of pay., what has been implemented is part-correspondence with pre-revised scale to the extent of grade pay but not in respect of pay in the pay band. Thus, THE INCREASE IN THE PAY SCALE FROM 1.1.2006 AS RECOMMENDED BY 6TH CPC IS NOT EFFECTED AS A CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN THE PRE-REVISED SCALE IN TOTO. The anomaly in the case of post-2006 promotees can be removed only by modifying the provision that where after adding the 3% fitment benefit to the pay in the pay band of a promoted employee, if found lesser than MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND, the same has to be stepped upto such MIMINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND and not upto Minimum of the Pay Band.
    This is particularly so, because the 4 minimum of pay band are not corresponding to remaining 25 pre-revised scale minimum.

    The Recent AFT Judgment in respect of pensioners delivered on 14.9.2010 directed to look into the definition part of `pay in the pay band'. Thus, as long as there is no clear cut definition to the terminology `Pay Band' is available, and as long as it is different from pay in the pay band for remaining 25 scales, stepping up referred to on promotion shall be to the minimum of the pay band and not pay band minimum.

    More and more analysis may be required to ascertain What is a Pay Band and What is a Pay in the Pay Band.

  2. #2
    Senior Member tvenkatam is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    641

    Default

    Dear Sir,

    The 6th Pay Commission in its report recommended the four distinct running pay bands with each pay band (PB-1, PB-2, PB-3 & PB-4) carrying different Grade pays. Every post is to be assigned appropriate grade pay and the corresponding pay band.

    An employee (new entrant) on appointment to a post will be supposedly placed at the minimum of the pay in the pay band attached to that post and with the corresponding grade pay. On promotion to a post carrying higher grade pay, his pay in the pay band shall be increased by one increment besides granting the higher grade pay. If the grade pay attached to the promotional post happens to correspond with the higher pay band, then the pay on promotion will be raised to the minimum pay in the higher pay band subject to the condition that the pay raised by an increment falls short of the minimum pay in the pay band of promotional post. This original recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission ensured that a new/direct recruit always draws a lower pay than a serving employee in any given post. The resolution adopted by the Government subsequently also mentioned nothing about the concept of ‘entry pay’ to new entrants.

    Incorporation of the Rule 8 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 which introduced the ‘Entry Pay’ in the pay band for direct recruits made all the difference and formed the cause for the anomaly. This anomaly was not a direct result of the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission but due to its faulty implementation by the Implementation Cell of Ministry of Finance.

  3. #3
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    569

    Default Minimum less than Minimum

    Quote Originally Posted by tvenkatam View Post
    Dear Sir,

    The 6th Pay Commission in its report recommended the four distinct running pay bands with each pay band (PB-1, PB-2, PB-3 & PB-4) carrying different Grade pays. Every post is to be assigned appropriate grade pay and the corresponding pay band.

    An employee (new entrant) on appointment to a post will be supposedly placed at the minimum of the pay in the pay band attached to that post and with the corresponding grade pay. On promotion to a post carrying higher grade pay, his pay in the pay band shall be increased by one increment besides granting the higher grade pay. If the grade pay attached to the promotional post happens to correspond with the higher pay band, then the pay on promotion will be raised to the minimum pay in the higher pay band subject to the condition that the pay raised by an increment falls short of the minimum pay in the pay band of promotional post. This original recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission ensured that a new/direct recruit always draws a lower pay than a serving employee in any given post. The resolution adopted by the Government subsequently also mentioned nothing about the concept of ‘entry pay’ to new entrants.

    Incorporation of the Rule 8 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 which introduced the ‘Entry Pay’ in the pay band for direct recruits made all the difference and formed the cause for the anomaly. This anomaly was not a direct result of the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission but due to its faulty implementation by the Implementation Cell of Ministry of Finance.
    Dear Sir,
    Thanks for giving the discussion a good start.

    As I have indicated that the anomaly between a pre-2006 appointee/promotee and a post-2006 promotee/appointee is being removed by stepping up the pay on promotion/appointment on par with the junior is being removed by inter departmental anomaly Committee,
    the actual anomaly occurs in the case of post-2006 promotee when compared with a post-2006 promotee.

    To illustrate with an example:

    Mr. A was promoted to the scale S-7 and got fixed his pay at minimum of the scale Rs.4000/- in the pre-revised scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 on 1.4.2008. While a similar employee Mr. B who was receiving the same pay in the same scale on 31.12.2005 gets his pay in the pay band
    on 1.1.2006 by application of 1.86 mf which works out to Rs.4000x1.86 = Rs.7440, as far as Mr. A, 3% of his pre-promoted revised pay gets added to his existing pay in the pay band, but not stepped upto Rs.7440
    when after adding the 3% increment with the existing pay in the pay band, the same happens to be lesser than 7440. Because, as per the provision of CCS(RP) Rules, it can be stepped upto only the minimum of the pay band, ie. Rs.5200, which is not at all possible.

    My view is that a minimum pay in the pay band should always correspond with a minimum pay of its respective pre-revised scale minimum.

    First, it is to be noted that minimum of the 4 pay bands, while corresponding with the minimum of the lowest scale grouped under respective pay band particularly because, the pay in the pay band
    corresponding with the minimum of such a lowest scale is also same.
    But in respect of remaining scales grouped within the same pay band,
    the case is not so. Every pay scale minimum has its respective
    minimum pay in the pay band.

    The pay in the pay band is nothing but running pay in the pay band.
    At the same time, it cannot be lower than the corresponding pay in the pay band of a particular pre-revised scale of pay. While Grade Pay
    on promotion corresponds with a particular pre-revised scale of pay applicable to the promoted post, the minimum pay in the pay band on promotion also should correspond with the minimum of the promoted post's pre-revised scale. Otherwise, the Revised Pay on promotion,
    may not be corresponding with the pre-revised scale of the promoted post, in toto.

    Similarly, in the case of upgraded/merged scales, though the grade pay is allowed as applicable to the upgraded/merged scale, the pay in the pay band as applicable to the upgraded scale is not allowed.
    To illustrate, the pay scale Rs.6500-200-10500 has been upgraded to Rs.7450-225-11500. While, the GP Rs.4600 applicable to the upgraded grade is allowed, there is no change in the pay in the pay band. On upgradation, the pay in the pay band shall be Rs.7450x1.86=Rs.13860,
    and where it is less than this amount, it shall be stepped upto this amount, which happens to be the corresponding minimum of the pay in the pay band. If a person was drawing Rs.7100/- on 1.1.2006 in the pre-revised scale Rs.6500-200-10500 and when the scale gets upgraded to Rs.7450-225-11500, his pay in the pay band is only Rs.7100x1.86=Rs.13210, but not Rs.13860. The GP Rs.4600 however is given because it is said to have been as applicable to the upgraded scale. There cannot a minimum less than a minimum.

    As long as it is maintained that both pay band and pay in the pay band are one and same, this problem do occur. The minimum of the pay band and the minimum of the pay in the pay band can never be one and same except the 4 scales I referred, viz. S-4, S-9, Gr.A Entry and S-24.

    Because in the case of serving employees, such cases may be rare and hence the impact has not been realised. In the case of pre-2006 pensioners, very hectic discussions had been taking place in Gconnect Discussion Forum and even cases are filed in courts to establish the fact that a minimum of the pay in the pay band will always correspond with its corresponding pre-revised scale minimum/bottom.

    The concept must be clear. There can be no minimum pay in the pay band irrespective of its pre-revised scale minimum, and even in the aforesaid 4 scales the minimum of the respective pay bands happens to be the minimum of the pay in the pay band also. As such, the same minimum can never be minimum of the pay in the pay band for remaining scales grouped alongwith it under a same pay band.

    As I concluded in my post that more and more analysis may be required in this regard, further discussion will bring added clarity on the issue.

  4. #4
    Senior Member tvenkatam is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    641

    Default

    Dear Sir,

    As you had emphasized in your post above, the minimum of the pay band and the minimum of the pay in the pay band can never be one and same except the 4 scales namely S-4, S-9, Gr.A Entry and S-24. For instance in the case of PB-2 (9300-34800) the pre-revised pay scale of S-9 with the grade pay of 4200 has the pay in the pay band of 9300 at par with the minimum of the pay band PB-2. The other pre-revised scales subsumed in the running pay band of PB-2 with the grade pay of 4600 and 4800 also seemingly assigned the same minimum of the pay band i.e 9300 but has different ‘entry level pay in the pay band’ (12540 for GP 4600 and 13350 for GP 4800) in terms of Rule 8 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. The entry level pay in the pay band of a post corresponds to the grade pay attached to that post. An employee, whether new entrant or promotee, should draw a pay not less than the entry level pay in the pay band to avoid any anomaly.

    In the present dispensation, a new entrant is entitled to ‘the entry level pay in the pay band’ of the post while a promotee to the same post is not entitled to the minimum pay assigned to the post or ‘the entry level pay in the pay band’ of the post. Doesn’t this read ridiculous?

  5. #5
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,180

    Default

    Dear Sundarar and tvenkatam,

    Both your presentations and analysis are very clear.

    The dogmatic authorities, both in DOPT / MOF-DOE and DPPW (in case of pensioners) are fully aware of the CHAOS that has been created by them, without working out the "OBVIOUS" difference that would be made by not prescribing the ENTRY LEVEL PAY for DR at the bottom of the respective PAY BAND/ or at the bottom of the NOTIONAL MINIMUM "IN" THE PAY BAND where the Departmental Promotees are involved.

    Lack of application of mind or reasoning is very clear.

    There is no willingness to correct the damagaes done.

    Pay and Pension are Employees' Fundamental Prerogatives and are linked to their "every day service" for which they are paid for.

    Therefore the FRs/ SRs/GFRs always protect the identitiy of the same wrt Employees- whether in service or in retirement.

    WITHOUT ANY RHYME OR REASON, the methodology adopted in dealing with proper linkage even at the MINIMUM between the pre and post 2006 emoluments by revision have become GROSSLY ERRONEOUS, QUETSIONABLE AND DETRIMENTAL to the concerned in many cases.

    PAY BANDS GET THE IDENTITY INSTEAD OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S PAY IN THE PAY BAND.

    A SUPERFLUOUS SUPPLEMENTARY CALLED "GRADE PAY" INTRODUCES A CONFUSING ELEMENT AS THEY NEITHER "CORRESPOND" TO THE OLD PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES (eg S28 & S29 different scales having same GP) NOR THEY ARE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE SANCTITY OF THE "SIGNIFICANCE" OF THE "GRADE" BY THE ODD CREATION CALLED "PAY BANDING"

    IF GPs HAVE THE VITAL ROLE TO PLAY, WHY HAVE SO MANY PAY BANDS?

    START FROM 3500 AND END AT 67000 WITH GPs AS THE "GRADE" SEPARATORS!

    THEN WHY HAVE "PAY SCALE SYSTEM" ALSO FOR A FEW ELITE LEVELS? WAS IT NECESSARY? OTHER THAN FIXED PAY INCUMBENTS OF S33 AND S34, NO PAY SCALES WERE REQUIRED AT ALL!

    The Employees Associations are not addressing the issues properly nor the NAC is serious about the issues involved.

    MANY OF THE "ANOMALY" PROBLEMS CAN BE SET RIGHT/ COURT CASES CAN BE AVOIDED IF DUE RESPECT IS PAID TO FRs/ AND SRs/ and GFRs and DUE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE ENFORCED AT THE EARLIEST, IF:

    1. CORRECT REVISED PAY IS ACCORDED IN THE PAY BANDS CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE REVISED PAY FOR THE SAME POST CARRYING THE EQUIVALENT SCALES OF PAY ON EITHER SIDE OF THE NOTIONAL CUT OFF DATE AS PER THE "FITMENT TABLEs" FOR BOTH EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONERS.

    2.NO Senior PROMOTEE CAN DRAW LESS PAY THAN A DR.

    3.THERE CAN NOT BE DISCRIMINATION IN EMOLUMENTS/ viz pay & ALLOWANCES SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR "SERVICE" TAGS like HQ vis a vis Field etc).

    I hope the Employees Associations and mature Employees take up the issues seriously and TAKE ACTIONS TO PLUG THE LOOP-HOLES / WEAKNESSES/ GREY AREAS of the PAY BAND system so that the ID of the EMPLOYEE's EMOLUMENTS/ PAY is not lost at any point of time as it is governed by FR and has a very serious implication forever till the existence of even their Family succeeding them for family pension!

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 15-10-2010 at 07:26 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    569

    Default Replacement scale/higher replacement scale

    Thanks to Respected Shri VNji.

    Further, it is observed from Clarification No.6 of DOE(Implementation Cell) OM dated 13.9.2008 -
    Procedure for placing employees in upgraded scales in case of merger of scales/upgradations recommended by the Sixth CPC.
    (i) Where all posts in one or more pre-revised scales are merged with a higher pre-revised scale and given a common replacement scale/grade pay..... the incumbents will automatically granted the replacement pay scale/grade pay recommended by the Commission. Their pay will be fixed in accordance with the fitment table annexed to this Department's O.M. dated 30.8.2008.

    - Keeping the above clarification in view, in r/o 5000-8000, 5500-9000 scales that were merged with 6500-10500, all those who were drawing minimum pay in the respective two scales, viz. 5000 and 5500 on 1.1.2006, should have got their pay fixed in the revised structure at 6500 x 1.86 = 12090 and allowed the grade pay Rs.4200. In respect of those
    in other stages of the said two scales, fitment shall be as per the fitment table meant for 6500-10500 at corresponding revised stage's pay.
    I am not aware whether such is the case in reality, in respect of serving employees.
    Shri TVji and other friends may be able to confirm the actual position in this regard.

    The clarification (ii) in the same para of the said OM says-
    Similarly, in the case of upgradations recommended by the PC, ie. where all posts in a particular grade have been granted a higher replacement pay scale/grade pay........., the incumbents will automatically be granted the replacement pay scale/grade pay recommended by the Commission. Their pay in the pay band will be fixed with reference to their fitment table corresponding to pre-revised pay scale. However, the grade pay corresponding to the upgraded post will be granted.

    Here, in the case of 6500-10500 scale that was upgraded to 7450-11500, the pay in the pay band shall be fixed with reference to the fitment table applicable for Rs.7450 and the grade pay will be Rs.4600. Whereas, if we observe the clarification, it gives a meaning that only grade pay will be corresponding to the upgraded post, but pay in the pay band will be corresponding to the pre-upgraded post. So, a person drawing min. pay Rs.6500 as on 1.1.2006 will get his pay fixed at Rs.7450 x 1.86 = 13860 or he will get his pay fixed at
    6500 x 1.86= 12090 although the GP Rs.4600 is granted..

    Actual position will clarify the clarification in reality.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Victor is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    New Delhi
    Posts
    1,425

    Default

    The current position is that only the Grade Pay of the higher pre-revised scale is granted (both in cases of merger and upgradation), whereas the pay in the pay band is fixed with reference to the actual pre-revised basic pay DRAWN on the date of option.

    Victor

  8. #8
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    569

    Default Basic Pay corresponding to Merged/Higher Replacement Scale from 1.1.2006

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    The current position is that only the Grade Pay of the higher pre-revised scale is granted (both in cases of merger and upgradation), whereas the pay in the pay band is fixed with reference to the actual pre-revised basic pay DRAWN on the date of option.

    Victor
    Thanks Shri Victorji.

    Whereas, the Note under the said Clarifications on CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 vide OM dated 13.9.2008 of the Dept. of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) prescribes the following:
    "CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 define the term "Basic Pay" in the Revised Pay structure as the pay drawn in the prescribed pay band plus the applicable grade pay........ In respect of HAG+ and above, basic pay means the pay in the prescribed scale.

    The question here naturally arises, as to what will be the replacement scale as referred to
    in the Clarification No.6 in r/o merged/upgraded scales. Ultimately, the basic pay in the revised pay stucture shall correspond with the merged/replaced scale. Otherwise, the purpose will not be solved. Only for the purpose of a grade pay, the revision of upgraded/merged scale cannot be lower than the corresponding revised pay. The
    confusion here is arising out of what is a pay band and what is a pay in the pay band and
    whether a basic pay in the revised structure comprises of pay in the pay band together with GP, both applicable to the corresponding pre-revised scale. If the corresponding
    pre-revised scale undergone a revision in the pre-revised structure, then the revised scale only shall undergon revision in the revised structure.

    Such was not the case in the previous Pay Commission Recommendation. In the case of
    Sr. Stenographers, whose pre-revised (IVth Pay) scale Rs.1400-2600 was revised to
    Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 as a replacement scale, those who were drawing lesser pay than Rs.1640, had got their pay stepped upto Rs.1640 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 itself.

    Assuming that pay band gp aspects are not involved, the revised pay would have got fixed at minimum of the replaced scale. Here too, the pay in the pay band corresponding to Rs.7450 should have been allowed. Same shall be the case in r/o merged scale too. While the pre-merged/pre-replaced scale is no longer valid as the merged/replaced scale had assumed in place as on 1.1.2006, the corresponding revision shall be in toto according to the same.

    I am not sure whether this aspect has been treated as an anomaly and it has been appropriately taken up for removal of the same.

    However, this aspect has a reducing impact as far as pensioners of pre-2006. Just because, the definition of pay in the pay band is not well understood, the minimum of the pay band of 4 scales has been treated as minimum of the pay in the pay band for remaining 25 scales, to derive 50% of the same alongwith 50% of grade pay which alone corresponds with respective pre-revised scale, for comprising minimum revised pension from 1.1.2006.

    As Shri Victorji has stated the current position, the post-2006 retirees from those merged/replaced higher scales, too will be facing a reducing impact on their basic pension particularly owing to denial of pay in the pay band corresponding to the merged/replaced higher scale.

  9. #9
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    569

    Default

    "CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 define the term "Basic Pay" in the Revised Pay structure as the pay drawn in the prescribed pay band plus the applicable grade pay........ In respect of HAG+ and above, basic pay means the pay in the prescribed scale".

    Every pre-revised scale has various stages within it starting from minimum to maximum.

    Every stage (Pay) of pre-revised scale will definitely have its corresponding revised pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

    So, the minimum of pre-revised scale will also have its own corresponding revised pay
    w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

    As clarified in the OM referred to in the previous post, pay drawn in the prescribed pay band plus the applicable grade pay constitutes the BASIC PAY in the Revised Structure w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

    A Basic Pay in the Revised Structure will have a bottom/Minimum.

    Such a bottom/Minimum of the Basic Pay in the Revised Structure shall/will correspond
    to respective bottom/minimum of the pre-revised scale's basic pay.

    Whether it is the case of merged higher scale or replacement scale or promoted post's scale, the basic pay in the revised structure shall correspond with respective minimum/bottom of the pre-revised scale on 1.1.2006. The Grade Pay factor is only a component of such a Revised Basic Pay but not corresponding in toto with the pre-revised basic pay in the absence of corresponding pay in the pay band.

    ULTIMATELY, WHETHER A HAG+ AND ABOVE SCALE HOLDER OF PRE-2006, OR A <HAG+ SCALE HOLDER OF PRE-2006, IT IS THE REVISED BASIC PAY THAT MATTERS WITH EFFECT FROM 1.1.2006. Wherever, on revision of pay from 1.1.2006 or on fixation of pay on promotion from 1.1.2006 onwards, such a revised pay cannot be lower than that corresponding to pre-revised basic pay.

    Where is the need for stepping upto payband minimum in the case of promotion, and allowing only GP applicable to the promoted post's scale or merged higher scale (when the GP happens to be same for remaining two lower grades too)/replacement scale? Clarification/Modification/Corrigendum involving pb alias ppb and gp.

    LET THE MINIMUM REVISED PAY BE APPLICABLE TO CORRESPONDING MINIMUM PRE-REVISED PAY IN TOTO ON THE AFORESAID EVENTS, IE. MERGER/REPLACEMENT/PROMOTION.

    Otherwise, the revised pay may happen to be lesser than that corresponding with the minimum of the ultimate pre-revised scale as discussed in the illustration.

  10. #10
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    569

    Default Minimum Pay drawn in the Running Pay Band

    CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 defined the term Pay in the Pay band as `pay drawn in the running pay bands specified'

    A Minimum Pay drawn in the prescribed running pay band will always
    be equal to corresponding bottom of the pre-revised scale.

    The purpose for introduction of Pay Band/Grade Pay aspects in the revised structure cannot wipe out an existing Minimum Pay drawn in the prescribed running pay band by replacing the same with a running pay corresponding to bottom of a lowest pre-revised scale grouped under a specified pay band either for the purpose of determining minimum revised pension corresponding to pre-revised scale from which a pensioner retired.

    Since every pre-revised scale minimum has its corresponding minimum revised pay in the specified running pay band, stepping up of pay of a promotee after 1.1.2006 to such a minimum revised pay in the pay band if after giving promotional fitment benefit, the pay in the pay band happens to be lesser than such minimum.

    The recent AFT, Chandigarh Judgments pronounced on 14.9.2010 and 25.11.2010 and presently available at www.rrewa.org website have
    cleared all doubts about the particular aspect relating to Pay in the Pay band that has to be interpreted as defined under the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 and given effect accordingly. By this well settled position,
    it is now made clear that a Pay Band and Pay in the Pay Band are not one and same. There cannot be a minimum pay in the pay band irrespective of a pre-revised scale, while only a minimum of the pay band exists irrespective of a pre-revised scale.

    The 6th CPC has nowhere indicated that 50% of minimum of the pay band plus 50% of Grade Pay applicable to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, will costitute minimum revised pension.

    The 6th CPC has also nowhere indicated that 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired plus 50% of Grade Pay applicable to pre-revised scale from which the pensiner had retired, will constitute minimum revised pension.

    THE 6TH CPC HAS ACTUALLY PRESCRIBED SUM OF 50% OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND AND 50% OF GRADE PAY APPLICABLE TO PRE-REVISED SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED, WILL CONSTITUTE MINIMUM REVISED PENSION. THE RESOLUTION NOTIFIED
    ON ACCEPTANCE OF THE RECOMMENDATION HAS ALSO REITERATED THE SAME. THE EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS DATED 1.9.2008 ALSO HAS
    REITERATED THE SAME.

    Therefore, the executive instructions dated 3.10.2008 in r/o pre-2006 pensioners may become null and void by virtue of the settled position through the AFT Judgments referred to above. Since every pre-revised scales have corresponding minimum pay in the specified running pay bands, the said minimum pay in the running pay bands specified for all the 29 pre-revised scales so that the Banks can re-calculate the applicable minimum revised pensioner wherever, the same is beneficial.

    Secondly, the AFT Judgments also brought out a specific view point that a higher rank retiree cannot draw less pension than a lower rank retiree.

    In the case of pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service but more than 10/20 years, it is a fact that a higher scale retiree with more than 10/20 years service happen to draw less than a post-2006 retiree of a lower rank with 10/20 years service. Thus, since `the object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all the persons of the same class equally irrespective of their date of retirement', the Executive Instructions dated 10.12.2009 that extended the provisions of EI dated 2.9.2008 for pensioners retired from 1.1.2006, shall be made to cover all PRE-2006 PENSIONERS so as to become eligible for payment of full pension on the basis of 10/20 years qualifying service w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

  11. #11
    Member R.Devaraju is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Sir,
    Kindly refer to your view on pre 2006 pensioners that " the Executive Instructions dated 10.12.2009 that extended the provisions of EI dated 2.9.2008 for pensioners retired from 1.1.2006, shall be made to cover all PRE-2006 PENSIONERS so as to become eligible for payment of full pension on the basis of 10/20 years qualifying service w.e.f. 1.1.2006". What you have stated is the ultimate solution. But do you think the GOI will do it automatically. Not at all. The only way is mobilizing maximum noumber of pre-2006 pensioners to start legal battle.

  12. #12
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    569

    Default Departmental Remedies

    Quote Originally Posted by R.Devaraju View Post
    Sir,
    Kindly refer to your view on pre 2006 pensioners that " the Executive Instructions dated 10.12.2009 that extended the provisions of EI dated 2.9.2008 for pensioners retired from 1.1.2006, shall be made to cover all PRE-2006 PENSIONERS so as to become eligible for payment of full pension on the basis of 10/20 years qualifying service w.e.f. 1.1.2006". What you have stated is the ultimate solution. But do you think the GOI will do it automatically. Not at all. The only way is mobilizing maximum noumber of pre-2006 pensioners to start legal battle.

    Dear Sir, Thanks for your kind views and I agree with the same. With regard to legal remedy, please take note of the following:
    Admission of Application in CAT

    The Rule 20/21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 as downloaded from the CAT website, is reproduced below for kind information:

    "20. Application not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted –

    (1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances."

    Irrespective of the above, even for pre-2.9.2008 but post 1.1.2006 cases, the Executive Instructions were issued only after an year or so, in Dec. 2009. To that extent
    considerable number of representations must have reached the Policy Makers in between apart from the existing D.S.Nakara case Judgment that must have been relied upon mainly for extending the provisions accordingly.

    Whereas, in the case of pre-2006 pensioners, although the same well settled position is very much valid, it is a pre-requisite that the Policy Makers get an opportunity
    to reconsider and come out with a final decision, which is due as on date. The purpose of repeating the prayers again and again is to draw the attention in this regard so as to explore any possibility of suo moto decision favourable to the aggrieved pensioners who are of course minority in general. Since the very D.S. Nakara case Judgement has already settled the position, which had been discussed at length on various occasions in this Discussion Forum, it is quite possible that the Policy Makers may do it automatically, once the major anomaly relating to Pay in the Pay Band gets settled by virtue of recent AFT Judgments referred to above, or even much before that too. The `thapas' of 2 years by the Pensioners Community will definitely acquire the mysterious blessings of Lord Shri Krishna..

    Meanwhile, individual aggrieved pensioners can very well try to avail the available remedial mechaisms, viz. submitting representations etc. so that the demand can get the required strength and support. But, the awareness of the issue involved is yet to reach the entire group of pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service, I think.

    Moreover there may be very senior pensioners, who would have retired even prior to 1.1.1986 with less than 33 years qualifying service and it may not be possible for them to get mobilised owing to geographical and other compulsions. Still, directly or indirectly all the Senior Veterans retired with even more than 33 years service, have been all along supporting this cause to the maximum possible extent, and hence the issue is live even now. Our wholehearted thanks at this moment, for their valuable support.

    Considering all these factors, an automatic solution without much struggle for proving the existing well settled position again and again, a motherly attitude as a gesture is naturally expected by all Pre-2006 pensioners on any of their grievances for earliest settlement so that they can get their due entitlements without much delay.

  13. #13
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    569

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvenkatam View Post
    Dear Sir,

    As you had emphasized in your post above, the minimum of the pay band and the minimum of the pay in the pay band can never be one and same except the 4 scales namely S-4, S-9, Gr.A Entry and S-24. For instance in the case of PB-2 (9300-34800) the pre-revised pay scale of S-9 with the grade pay of 4200 has the pay in the pay band of 9300 at par with the minimum of the pay band PB-2. The other pre-revised scales subsumed in the running pay band of PB-2 with the grade pay of 4600 and 4800 also seemingly assigned the same minimum of the pay band i.e 9300 but has different ‘entry level pay in the pay band’ (12540 for GP 4600 and 13350 for GP 4800) in terms of Rule 8 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. The entry level pay in the pay band of a post corresponds to the grade pay attached to that post. An employee, whether new entrant or promotee, should draw a pay not less than the entry level pay in the pay band to avoid any anomaly.

    In the present dispensation, a new entrant is entitled to ‘the entry level pay in the pay band’ of the post while a promotee to the same post is not entitled to the minimum pay assigned to the post or ‘the entry level pay in the pay band’ of the post. Doesn’t this read ridiculous?
    Dear Shri TVji,

    Please see the posts under thread `Stepping up of Pay' started by Shri Victorji under Pay Fixation topic.

    The latest Orders dated 22.12.2010 and 7.1.11 issued by the DOE may also please be seen.

    I have a doubt with regard to Note 7 and Note 10 under CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 on stepping up of pay. While Note 10 says stepping up is possible only in case the senior is drawing more pay than the junior in the lower grade, the Note 7 under same Rule 7 also provides for stepping up of pay of senior. Whether for Note 7 the condition that senior should have drawn more pay than the junior is not applicable? That means, if a senior in a particular grade draws more pay prior to 1.1.2006 and after revision of pay if his pay happens to be less than his junior under any circumstances, whether stepping up is permissible? How a junior's pay other than promotion can be more than a senior after 1.1.2006. Under Rule 7 whether only seniority matters and pay does not matter?.

    Please share your views in this regard.

    Sundarar

  14. #14
    Senior Member jaleelethiyil is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    119

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by sundarar View Post
    Dear Shri TVji,

    Please see the posts under thread `Stepping up of Pay' started by Shri Victorji under Pay Fixation topic.

    The latest Orders dated 22.12.2010 and 7.1.11 issued by the DOE may also please be seen.

    I have a doubt with regard to Note 7 and Note 10 under CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 on stepping up of pay. While Note 10 says stepping up is possible only in case the senior is drawing more pay than the junior in the lower grade, the Note 7 under same Rule 7 also provides for stepping up of pay of senior. Whether for Note 7 the condition that senior should have drawn more pay than the junior is not applicable? That means, if a senior in a particular grade draws more pay prior to 1.1.2006 and after revision of pay if his pay happens to be less than his junior under any circumstances, whether stepping up is permissible? How a junior's pay other than promotion can be more than a senior after 1.1.2006. Under Rule 7 whether only seniority matters and pay does not matter?.

    Please share your views in this regard.

    Sundarar
    Sir,
    Note 7 of rule 7 of Railway Service rule(RP) 2008 is given below.
    "Where in the fixation of pay under sub-rule(1),the pay of a Railway servant,who,in the existing scale was draing immediately before the 1st day of January,2006 more pay than another Railway ervant junior to him in the same cadre,gets fixed in the revised pay band at a stage lower than that of such junior,his pay shall be stepped up to the same stage in the revised pay band as that of the junior".
    But as per my knowledge no chance of such situation.We can see so many cases as mentioned in note 10.

  15. #15
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    569

    Default

    As pointed out by Shri Victorji in the thread indicated in my previous post, DOPT has issued orders vide OM dated 22/12/2010 (http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/CS/Steppingup.pdf) giving the benefit of stepping up of pay to senior Assistants/PAs who were promoted before 1.1.2006 w.r.t. to their junior Assistants/PAs who were promoted during 1.1.2006 to 31.8.2008 and who got the benefit of fixation of pay at 13,860.

    Subsequently, another order dated 7.1.2011 has followed on the stepping up of pay wherein the stepping up of pay was carried out in accordance with both Note 7 and Note 10 under Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008.

    My query is what is the difference between Note 7 and Note 10 and whether conditions
    prescribed under Note 10 are equally applicable to stepping up under Note 7 too.

    Thanks once again.

  16. #16
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    569

    Default

    In one of the Circular issued by RB, it is indicated that `Sixth CPC has not prescribed minimum pay in the pay band for the purpose of fixation of pay on promotion in the case of any grade and, fixing of minimum pay in the pay band in the case of each grade pay for departmental promotees would defeat the very purpose of introduction of running pay band'.

    Whereas, without correlating with the lowest stage of the pre-revised scale, a corresponding running pay band cannot start its journey. On promotion to a higher grade, pay would have been fixed at the lowest stage of pre-revised scale of the said higher grade till 31.12.2005 and even till implementation of 6th CPC recommendation. On implementation, the promotional fitment benefit got reduced to that of financial upgradation under ACP, according to me. In both the cases, while GP applicable to the higher grade is granted - the running pay in the pay band after adding the benefit of 3% of revised pay with it, if happens to be lesser than a running pay in the pay band applicable to lowest stage of the pre-revised scale of the promoted grade, it can be stepped upto minimum of the pay band, only in the case of promotion. As we had seen so far, a minimum of the pay band can also plays the role of minimum of the running pay in the pay band only in respect of 4 pre-revised scales corresponding to minimum of PB1, 2, 3, and 4. There are many intermittent pre-revised scales within a particular pay band and when promotional benefits are granted, the same are more or less similar to that of ACP benefits, according to me. Our forum members may please clarify this aspect with their valuable inputs.

    For want of minimum pay in the pay band just because the same is not specifically prescribed by the 6th CPC owing to the fact that it is nothing but corresponding to lowest stage of the pre-revised scale that is very much derivable, the due promotional benefits can not be fixed at a stage lower than the minimum of the pay in the pay band, ie. below the lowest stage of the pre-revised scale of the higher post in the revised structure.

    The question is, whether a minimum pay in the pay band is required to be prescribed specifically by a Pay Commission under the given situation. The manner and methodology of interpretation during implementation, led to several reducing impacts in respect of promotees to higher grades, higher scale holders owing to merger as well as upgradation, pensioners for the purpose of deriving minimum revised pension, etc.

    It is quite significant to note that the Dept. of Expenditure, vide their U.O. dated 14.12.2009 to DOPT while clarifying, have gone on record that `since the minimum pay in the pay band in the revised structure corresponding to the stage of Rs.5500 (pre-revised scale of Rs.5500-9000), is more than the minimum of the pay band PB-2(ie.) Rs.9300/- no benefit of bunching is admissible in this case'.

    It is also said in the same U.O. Note that `6th CPC has not prescribed a minimum pay in the running pay band w.r.t. minimum entry level pay prescribed for direct recruits appointed on or after 1.1.2006'.

    Thus, it is quite surprising to note that except for the induction level direct recruits of post-2006, in all other cases including pre-2006 pensioners, a clear cut MINIMUM PAY IN THE PAY BAND CORRESPONDING TO LOWEST STAGE OF THE PRE-REVISED SCALE IS VERY MUCH AVAILABLE W.E.F. 1.1.2006 ONWARDS, and for establishing this available fact, the pensioner community of pre-2006 is driven towards seeking intervention of the Judiciary because all communications to them maintain that a pay band minimum and a minimum of the pay in the pay band are one and same.

    The RB Circular indicated above says minimum pay in the pay band is not prescribed for promotees of post-2006 while the DOE U.O. Note denies bunching of benefits by citing the very minimum pay in the pay band which is corresponding to lowest stage of the pre-revised scale, but lesser than the minimum of the PAY BAND.

    The serving employees who got promoted after 1.1.2006 can very well share their views in this aspect for better understanding.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Minmum In The Pay Band Or Minimum Of The Pay Band
    By RSundaram in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 23-10-2010, 05:14 PM
  2. Invalid Minimum of Pay Band
    By sundarar in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-11-2008, 10:52 AM
  3. Fixation of pay in pay band PB-2 after 01-01-06
    By Anil in forum Pay Fixation
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 11:47 PM
  4. wanted pay band and entire scopre
    By asmurali in forum 6th Pay Commission
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15-07-2008, 08:43 AM
  5. Review of model for Pay Band change on Promotion
    By murthy in forum 6th Pay Commission
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-04-2008, 04:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts