7th CPC-SOME FLAWS OBSERVED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH NEED RECTIFICATION BY GOVERNMENT:
1. Retention of 3% increment on basic pay in case of promotion leads to lower financial benefits than the existing benefits:
In the matter of increment on promotion, the Chairman and the Members of the VII CPC have erred, since the financial benefit would be much lower than what a government servant would have got under VI CPC recommendation on promotion, because the existing benefit on promotion carry change in grade pay apart from 3% increase in Pay+Grade Pay.
The following illustration shall show the huge difference:
Suppose an employee whose Pay is Rs.24210/- and the Grade pay is Rs. 5400 totaling to Rs.29610(in the Pay band of 15600-39100), gets his next promotion to the Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- he will be entitled to the following hike in total remuneration under the existing VI
CPC recommendation:
Rs.29610 x 3% increment =Rs.890
Difference in Grade Pay from Rs.5400 to Rs.6600= Rs.1200
Total increase of increment in basic pay and Grade Pay= Rs.2090
D.A. at 125% as on 1/1/2016 on Rs.2090 = Rs.2613
HRA at 30%(assuming X city) on Rs.2090 =Rs.627
Total monetary benefit = Rs.5330/-
Whereas the net monetary benefit under VII CPC recommendation, as a result of promotion in the above case will be much lower than the above illustration as shown under:
Equivalent Basic Pay for Rs.29610 come to Rs 77700 as per pay matrix
Rs.77700 x 3% increment =Rs.2331(rounded to 2300)
D.A. at 0% as on 1/1/2016 on Rs.2300 = 0
HRA at 24%(assuming X city) on Rs.2300 =Rs.552
Total monetary benefit = Rs.2852/-only as against the existing Rs.5330/- leading to shortage of Rs. 2478/- This is a big blunder committed by the VII Pay commission.
Therefore the increment on promotion should be at least 5 to 6% to bring the benefit of increment on promotion to the existing level.
2. Non recommendation for merger of 50% of D.A. with basic pay when D.A. crosses 50% is a great disappointment:
The long standing demand of the central government employees for merger of 50% D.A with basic was not implemented by the government on the excuse that the VI CPC had not made such a proposal. The VII CPC is totally silent about this aspect. It appears no one has demanded the same before the VII CPC for consideration.
It is quite surprising that such a vital issue of non-recommendation of merger of D.A with basic pay when D.A crosses 50% is not being opposed by any central government associations or pointed out by the media. Had it been recommended by the VII CPC, the government would have implemented the same and the benefit of hike in salary as a result of merger of D.A with basic when it cross 50%, would be so vast that no government servant would crave for a need for timely setting up of next VIII Central Pay commission.
3. Disparity in fitment factor among existing and new recruits at various pay levels:
The grant of higher percentage of fitment benefit to new recruits at 2.62 factor(37% increase on Pay+Grade Pay), 2.67) factor(42% increase on Pay+Grade Pay) and 2.72 factor(47% increase on Pay+Grade Pay) etc., is reminiscent of VI Pay Commission’s recommendations which led to disparity among promotees and new recruits. Uniform method should have been adopted. There are chances of persons with more service in a particular pay level getting equal salary with his junior by one or 2 year. This needs rectification.
4. Likely disparities in pension fixation whereby junior may get more pension than the seniors as a result of recommendation under option 2:
The VII CPC has recommended a factor of 2.57 for multiplication of existing basic pension to arrive at revised basic pension. This of course shall not lead to any disparity in pay fixation.
Where as the 2nd option to get the pension fixed as per the number of increments drawn in the particular pay level prior to retirement, may result in great disparities whereby the juniors may get much more than senior pensioners who retired in a higher pay with more basic pension, but with less number of service in the promoted post which he would have held at the time of retirement. Because for arriving at pension under the 2nd option, only the number of years served by a government servant in the particular level of pay at the time of retirement should be taken into consideration as per VII CPC recommendation for exercising the second option.
Therefore in order to arrive at a correct picture to ensure equal pension for civilians for equal number of years, the number of years of service at various level should be taken into account in all the levels from the date of joining the government service till retirement.
5. Suggestion of the Chairman, VII CPC, to do away with setting up of future central pay commissions and give proportionate hike annually to avoid financial burden is a wrong proposal:
The Pay Commissions are set up by the government, to look into the current salary structure and to recommend the hike needed in the pay and other allowances on the basis of the current economic scenario. The Pay Commissions recommendations are not meant for providing financial benefit for the past 10 years, but for future 10 years. The additional financial implication of about Rs.1,02,100 crore i.e. 23.55% in the existing financial liability for implementation of the recommendation is only for one year. i.e.2016-17 which proportionately gets increased every year for the next 10 years. Therefore the suggestion of the Chairman to do away with setting up any more pay commissions and instead to grant proportionate rise in salary every year is a big flaw. It is not clear what the Hon’ble Chairman of the VII CPC really want to suggest. Such a suggestion really shall baffle all the financial experts since the very quantum of additional increase in salary every year comes on the basis of recommendation of the pay commission. Does the Chairman suggest to government to grant further increase in salary every year over and above what the VII CPC have recommended?
6. Questions that need to be answered by the Pay Commission/Government:
a). While adequate amount is provided out of the minimum basic pay of Rs.18,000/-for monthly food items for 3 persons of a family unit which is quite sufficient even for 6 members in a family, but adequate provision is not made towards house rent and educational aspects. The House Rent admissible in X Cities at 24% for Rs.18000/- comes to only Rs.4320/- No family can get a good accommodation for this rate even in Z category cities. There should be a minimum of at least Rs.8000/- as House Rent Allowance in X category cities and a maximum ceiling of Rs.25000/- should be imposed, since persons in higher basic pay stand to get hefty amount as House Rent Allowance which is not advisable.
b). There is no point in granting Children Education Allowance only upto 12th Standard. Anyone with 12th Std. qualification can at the most go for a helper job or MTS in government offices. Certainly no welfare government will have such a narrow concept of making the wards of government employees limit their education upto 12th Std. with a view of providing them menial jobs. Therefore government should encourage high level education and pay Children Education Allowance upto Post Graduation level.
CONCLUSION:
Except for the above flaws which need to be rectified, the recommendations of the VII CPC are by and large beneficial and therefore there should be no cause for resentment among the central government employees. They should rejoice over the benefits offered by the VII CPC since the recommendations of the VII Pay Commission are going to yield huge financial benefits in the long run. However, there is a need to take up the matter with the government on the issues which really need intervention by the government to set right the anomalies.
In a nutshell the Chairman and Members of the VII CPC have done a commendable job and fulfilled their mission successfully ensuring justice to all levels of central government employees without any need for worrying about their bread and butter. They really deserve appreciation for presenting an employee friendly report which surely is far beneficial in the history of pay commissions constituted so far.
M.DORAI
Deputy Director
ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL
(Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India)
Rajajinagar,Bangalore-560010- is the Author of this article
M.DORAI | doraiesic@gmail.com
Source: scm-bps.blogspot.in