• Counting of specific periods for Increment
• Increment while on Leave
• Increment, if Govt. servant dies while on Leave
• Advance increments granted to Stenographers of Subordinate Offices on qualifying speed test in shorthand at 100/120 w.p.m., in the 7th CPC Scenario

(Updated on 12.09.2022)

Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
Establishment (Pay-I) Section

INCREMENT

Department of Personnel and Training has issued instructions from time to time regarding various provisions governing the subject of increment. The essence of these instructions has been summarized in the following paras for guidance and better understanding:

Counting of specific periods for Increment

1. In cases where a person has been selected for regular appointment and before formally taking over charge of the post for which selected the person is required to undergo training, training period undergone by such a Govt. servant whether on remuneration of stipend or otherwise may be treated as duty for the purpose of drawing increments.

[Para 3 of OM No. 16/16/89 -Estt.(Pay-I) dated 22.10.1990]

2. The provisions of FR 26 which provide for counting of broken spells in officiation in the higher post for increment, continue to apply for increment under Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008.

[OM No. 19/2/2013 -Estt.(Pay-I) dated 12.12.2013]

3. Consequent upon the implementation of CCS (RP) Rules 2008, increments in the revised pay structure are to be regulated in terms of Rule 10 of the CCS (RP) Rules 2008. This rule states that “there will be a uniform date of annual increment viz. 1st of July every year. Employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st July will be eligible to be granted the increment.”

4. Except as provided under the conditions laid down in this Department’s OM No. 13017/20/85 -Estt.(L) dated 18.02.1986, qualifying service of less than six months on account of EOL (without medical certificate) between 1st July of the previous year till 30th June of the year under consideration shall have the effect of postponing the increment to 1st July of the next year. The same stipulation will also be applicable to those cases where the increment became due on 01.07.2006. In terms of this Department’s OM No. 13017/20/85-Estt.(L) dated 18.02.1986, EOL granted for the following purposes automatically counts as qualifying service for pension and for increments without any further sanctions:

• (i) EOL granted due to inability of a Government servant to join or rejoin duty on account of civil commotion; and
• (ii) EOL granted to a Government servant for prosecuting higher technical and scientific studies.

[OM No. 16/2/2009 -Estt.(Pay-I) dated 02.07.2010]

Increment while on Leave

5. According to Rule 40 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, a Government servant who proceeds on Earned Leave or Commuted Leave is entitled to leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on Earned Leave or Commuted Leave. Consequently, if the normal date of increment of a Government servant falls during a period when he remains on Earned Leave/ Commuted Leave/ Half Pay Leave/Leave not due, the benefit of such increment is actually paid to him only from the date he joins duty on expiry of leave though the actual date of next increment remains unaffected.

[Para 1 of OM No. 16/13/88-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 16.02.1989]

Increment, if Govt. servant dies while on Leave

6. In the case of a servant who dies while on any kind of leave for which leave salary is payable, a lump-sum ex-gratia payment, in addition to the normal entitlements under leave, may be allowed to the member of family as specified in Rule-39-C of CCS (Leave) Rules,1972. The ex-gratia payment shall be equivalent to the difference between the amount of leave salary as well as cash equivalent of leave salary admissible as per rules and 39A of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 thereof and the amount of leave salary as well as cash equivalent of leave salary which would have been admissible if the benefit of the increment falling due during currency of leave period until date of death was allowed from its due date without waiting for re-joining duty by the Govt. servant. The Head of the Department may issue necessary order sanctioning the amount of ex-gratia in each individual case.

[Para 2 of OM No. 16/13/88 -Estt.(Pay-I) dated 16.02.1989]

Advance increments granted to Stenographers of Subordinate Offices on qualifying speed test in shorthand at 100/120 w.p.m., in the 7th CPC Scenario

7. The advance increment(s) to Stenographers of Subordinate Offices on qualifying speed test in shorthand at 100/120 w.p.m. shall be regulated as under with effect from 01.01.2016:

(i) The Stenographer who is recruited on the basis of speed test in the shorthand at 80 w.p.m. may be granted one advance increment on qualifying speed test in shorthand at 100 w.p.m. and one more advance increment on qualifying speed test in shorthand at 120 w.p.m. while in service. However, if a stenographer who is recruited on the basis of speed test in the short hand at 80 w.p.m. directly qualifies the speed test in shorthand at 120 w.p.m. while in service, he/she may be granted two advance increments.

(ii) The Stenographer, who is recruited on the basis of speed test in the shorthand at 100 w.p.m., may be granted one advance increment on qualifying speed test in shorthand at 120 w.p.m. while in service.

(iii) These speed tests shall be conducted by properly constituted Authorities including Departmental Authorities.

(iv) These advance increments shall be granted from the date of passing the test.

(v) These advance increments shall not be absorbed in future increments and the date of next increment after the grant of these advance increments shall remain the same. No option for fixation of pay from the Date of Next Increment shall be available/allowed for fixation of pay on account of these advance increments.

(vi) The amount of these advance increments shall be treated as a separate element in addition to the basic pay and it should be counted as pay for all purposes. Further, once these advance increments are taken into account for the purpose of fixation of pay on promotion or being placed in a higher scale on grant of MACP or due to revision of Pay Scale or Pay Structure etc., these advance increments no longer continue as a separate element.

(vii) In respect of the Stenographers, who become eligible for grant of these advance increments consequent upon the implementation of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016, they may be granted one/two advance increments (as the case may be) in the vertical Level, in which the Government Servant is placed on the date of passing the test, as illustrated below:

(a) For granting two advance increments:

(b) For granting one advance increment:

(viii) Benefit of these advance increments will not be treated as an anomaly for the purpose of stepping of pay of seniors.

[Para 3 of OM No. 1/7/2017-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 24.07.2020]

Note: List of the OMs mentioned in this document is annexed. In case any reference to the relevant OM is required, the same may be accessed from the Archive Section of DOPT’s website.

ANNEXURE

List of OMs mentioned in this Document

1. DoPT OM No. 16/16/89 -Estt.(Pay-I) dated 22.10.1990
2. DoPT OM No. 19/2/2013 -Estt.(Pay-I) dated 12.12.2013
3. DoPT OM No. 16/2/2009 -Estt.(Pay-I) dated 02.07.2010
4. DoPT OM No. 16/13/88 -Estt.(Pay-I) dated 16.02.1989
5. DoPT OM No. 1/7/2017 -Estt.(Pay-I) dated 24.07.2020
6. DoPT OM No. 13017/20/85 -Estt.(L) dated 18.02.1986

DoPT INCREMENT PDF

The post DoPT instructions regarding the subject of increment for Central Government Employees appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

DEFENCE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT (DAD) HEADQUARTERS
Ulan Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt.- 110010

File No. AT/Pay Civ/2702/Clar-V/E-3533

Dated: 25th, Jun 2022

To,

The CDA, Chennai

Subject: Admissibility of Annual increment to re-employed pensioners appointed in Armed Forces Tribunal on contract basis.

Reference: Your office’s letter No. Pay/Tech/ 6050/Gen/AI/2022 dated 21 Apr 2022.

The matter referred to this HQrs office vide your office’s above cited letter on the above subject has been examined in the light of extant orders on the subject. It is observed that the MoF OM No 3-25/2020/ E.IIIA dated 09-12-2020 is self-explanatory in the matter. MoF OM ibid clearly states that the existing instructions of DOPT, as mentioned in para 2 of it, provide for the regulation of pay in case of re-employment barring persons employed on a contract basis except where the contract provides otherwise.

2. MoF vide the ibid OM dated 09-12-2020 has laid down the rules for the regulation of remuneration for contract appointment 1] formulation of guidelines by DOPT. Since, the MoF OM dated 09-12-2020 and rules made thereunder are the latest in chronology and amply clear in respect of the regulation of remuneration of the retired Central Government employees who have been appointed on a contract basis, including consultants, these rules have the over-riding effect on the instructions issued prior to these. Therefore, the OM dated 09-12-2020 should be adhered to in letter and spirit. Any relaxation of/deviation from the rules will require to be referred to the Department of Expenditure in terms of para 10 of the OM ibid.

3. In view, for all contractual employment for retired employees, MoF (DoE) OM No F No 3-95/2020/E.IIIA Dated 9th December 2020 is applicable, which does not provide for annual increment (Para 6) as well as HRA. As such, regarding the issue of doubt on annual increment, as raised vide your office’s letter dated 21-04-2022, it is clarified that no ‘annual increment’ is to be given to any contractual worker. Further, all other allowances are to be also regulated according, to other provisions of MoF (DoE) OM Dated 09-12-2020.

4. Moreover, it is not understood as to though on one hand your office has raised doubt and referred the case to HQrs office for clarification, on the other hand the annual increment to contractual employees has been admitted by your office. As such, the authority on which the increment has been allowed to the contractual employees may be intimated to this HOrs office.

This issues with the approval of Addl. CGDA (Pay & Allow.)

Accounts Officer
(Pay & Allowances)

The post CDA – Admissibility of Annual increment to re-employed pensioners appointed in Armed Forces Tribunal on a contract basis appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

BSNL

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
[A Government of India Enterprise]
Corporate Office, Taxation Section

First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan
Janpath, NewDelhi-110 002
Dated: 18.02.2020

No.48-2 / 2021-Pen (B)

To

All Heads of Circles/ Telecom Districts/ Regions/ Projects/
Telecom Stores /Telecom Factories & Other Administrative Offices
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Sub: Grant of annual increment falling due on the next day of superannuation/ retirement, for the purpose of pensionary benefits – Guidelines regarding.

Sir,

Of late, this Office has been receiving many Court Cases as well as letters from various Telecom Circles seeking guidelines for disposal of representations received from retired employees, regarding grant of national increment falling due on the next day of superannuation/ retirement etc. for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

2. . In this regard , I am directed to forward herewith DOP&T O.M . No. 19/2 /2018-Estt (Pay-I) dated 03/02/2021 , along with its enclosures, with regard to grant of notional increment for pensionary benefits in pursuance of the judgement dated 15/09/2017 of Hon ‘ble High Court of Madras in W. P. No. 15732 of 2017 in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

3. DOP&T vide its aforesaid O.M has mentioned that the judgment dated 15/09/2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 in the case of P.Ayyamperumal Vs Union of India & Ors is in personal in nature. In this regard, a brief note reflecting the Government’s stand on the instant issue has been attached as Annexure-1.

4 . Further, it has been mentioned that in a similar case, the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court, vide judgement dated 29/03/2019, while dismissing the SLP (C) Dy. No. 6468/2019 filed by DOT against the judgement dated 03/05/2017 of Hon ‘ble High Court, Lucknow Bench in W .P. No. 484 /2010 in the matter of UOI & Ors. Vs. Sakha Ram Tripathy & Ors., has inter alia, observed the following :

” There is delay of 566 day s in filing the special leave petition. We don’t see any reason to condone the delay. The Special leave petition is dismissed on delay, keeping all the questions of law open.”

5. Since the question of law on the instant issue is open and not yet decided, the decision for implementation of the judgment dated 15/09/2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W .P. No. 15732 of 2017 in Shri P. Ayyamperumal case, in rem has not been taken.

Court cases for granting notional increment for pensionary benefits in pursuance of the judgement dated 15.09.2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs Union of India

5. Accordingly, all the Telecom Circles/ Other Administrative Units/Cadre Controlling Units of BSNL Corporate Office are requested to dispose of the grievances/ representations received from various retired employees of BSNL in the light of the aforesaid guidelines issued by DOP&T. Further, where Court Cases have been filed by the retired employees in various Courts of Law, for grant of notional increment after retirement for pensionary benefits, it is, requested to defend these Courts cases in the above light and also to suitably incorporate the guidelines issued by DOP&T vide it’s O.M. dated 03/02/2021 while preparing the Counter Reply in such cases. Further, since the issue involves grant of pension and pensionary benefits, all the Telecom Circles/Administrative Units are requested to consult the concerned CCA Unit, while defending the Court Cases pertaining to their respective Circle/ Unit.

This issue with the approval of the Competent Authority .

Enclosures: As above .

Yours faithfully,

(Sudhanshu Shekhar Ray)
Asstt. General Manager (Estt)

The post Grant of annual increment falling due on the next day of superannuation/ retirement, for the purpose of pensionary benefits appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

F.No.19/2/2018-Estt (Pay-I)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)

North Block, New Delhi
Dated: 3rd February, 2021

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: References/ Representations/ Court cases for granting notional increment for pensionary benefits in pursuance of the judgement dated 15.09.2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs Union of India & Ors-regarding.

The undersigned is directed to refer to references/ representations/ court cases/ VIP references, received in this Department in large numbers on the issue of granting notional increment for pensionary benefits to those Central government servants who have retired on 30th June/ 31st December of a year, in pursuance of the judgement dated 15.09.2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs Union of India & Ors.

2. The issue has been examined in this Department in consultation with Department of Legal Affairs and it has been observed that the judgement dated 15.09.2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No.15732 of 2017 in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs Union of India & Ors. is ‘inpersonam’ in nature. A brief note reflecting the Government’s stand on this issue is attached as Annexure-1.

Madras High Court Order – Notional increment of pensionary benefits

3. Further, it is also mentioned that in a similar case, the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 29.03.2019 (copy enclosed as Annexure-11) , while dismissing the SLP (C) Dy. No.6468/ 2019 filed by D/ o Telecommunications against the judgment dated 03.05.2017 of Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench in WP No.484 / 2010 in the matter of UOI & Ors. Vs. Sakha Ram Tripathy & Ors., has, inter alia, observed the following:

“There is delay of 566 days in filing the special leave petition. We do not see any reason to condone the delay. The Special leave petition is dismissed on delay, keeping all the questions of law open.”

4. Since the question of law is open and not yet decided, decision for implementation of the judgement dated 15.09.2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 in Shri P. Ayyamperumal case, in rem has not been taken.

5. Accordingly, all Ministries/ Departments are, therefore, advised to dispose of all pending grievances seeking notional increment for pensionary benefits and also to defend the various pending Court Cases in this matter.

6. In their application to the persons belonging to Indian Audit and Accounts Department, these orders are issued under Article 148(5) of the Constitution and after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

7. Hindi Version will follow.

(Murali Bhavaraju)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India

Annexure-1

Note on the issue of granting a notional increment for pensionary benefits in pursuance of the judgment dated 15.09.2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Hon’ble High Court of Madras, vide Order dated 15.09.2017, allowed the W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 filed by Shri P. Ayyamperumal relying upon its earlier judgment dated 20.09.2012 in W.P. No. 8440 of 2011 M. Balasubramaniam Vs State of Tamil Nadu. The said case referred by Hon’ble High Court in the said judgement is related to the Fundamental Rules of Tamil Nadu Government whereas the case of petitioner Shri P. Ayyamperumal relates to Central Government Rules. As per the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rule 26(a), the annual increments of the Govt. Servants are regulated in four quarters viz. 1st January, 1st April, 1st July and 1st October. For the Central Government, the increment accrues annually on 1st July only (6th CPC scenario) [now 1st July and 1st January in 7th CPC scenario]. Hence, argument of petitioner is devoid of merits.

2. In light of the relevant provisions of the Fundamental Rules like 9 (21), 9(6), 17(1), 22, 26(a) and 56(a), as also the provisions of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, a person appointed as a Government servant is entitled to pay, and is also entitled to draw the annual increment as long as such Government servant discharges duties of the post. However, such Government servant may not be entitled to draw the pay and allowances attached to the post as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. In other words, as per F.R. 17 read with F.Rs. 24 and 26, annual increment is given to a Government servant to enable him to discharge duty and draw pay and allowances attached to the post. If such Government servant ceases to discharge duties by any reason say, by reason of attainment of age of superannuation, he will not be entitled to draw pay and allowances. Such an employee would not be entitled to any increment if it falls due after the date of retirement, be it on the next day of retirement or sometime thereafter. An employee must satisfy not only the condition of becoming entitled for increment, but also should continue to be on duty as a Government servant on the due date {1st July/ 1st January) to avail the increment.

3. Further, in a similar matter, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the year 2005, in the C. Subbarao case, has, inter alia, observed as under:

“In support of the above observations, the Division Bench also placed reliance on Banerjee case (supra). We are afraid, the Division Bench was not correct in coming to the conclusion that being a reward for unblemished past service, Government servant retiring on the last day of the month would also be entitled for increment even after such increment is due after retirement. We have already made reference to all Rules governing the situation. There is no warrant to come to such conclusion. Increment is given (See Article 43 of CS Regulations) as a periodical rise to a Government employee for the good behavior in the service. Such increment is possible only when the appointment is “Progressive Appointment” and it is not a universal rule. Further, as per Rule 14 of the Pension Rules, a person is entitled for pa y, increment and other allowances only when he is entitled to receive pay from out of Consolid ated Fund of India and continues to be in Government service. A person who retires on the last working day would not be entitled for any increment falling due on the next day and payable next day thereafter (See Article 151 of CS Regulations}, because he would not answer the tests in these Rules. Reliance placed on Banerjee case (supra) is also in our considered opinion not correct because as observed by us, Banerjee case (supra) does not deal with increment, but deals with enhancement of DA by the Central Government to pensioners. Therefore, we are not able to accept the view taken by the Division Bench. We accordingly, overrule the jud gment in Malakondalah case (supra).”

4. In addition, subsequent to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the P. Ayyamperumal case, Hon’ble CAT Madras Bench vide its Orders dated 19.03.2019 in O.A.No.310/ 00309/ 2019 and O.A. No.310/ 00312/ 2019 and Order dated 27.03.2019 in 0.A. No.310/ 00026/ 2019 has also dismissed similar requests related with notional increment for pensionary benefits.

Source: DoPT

The post Court cases for granting notional increment for pensionary benefits in pursuance of the judgement dated 15.09.2017 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017 in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs Union of India appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

BHARAT PENSIONERS’ SAMAJ
All India Federation of Pensioners’ Associations
2/13-A- LGF Backside, Jangpura – A,
New Delhi – 110014

NoBPS/SG/ Notional increment/2020/ 10

Date: 01.12.2020

The Secretary,
GOI ; Ministry of finance – Department of Revenue

The Secretary,
GOI, M/O Personnel, PG & Pensions -DOPT

Subject: Court Cases on the issue of grant of notional increment/ re-fixation of pensionary benefits as per Hon’ble Madras High Court Order in WP No .15732/2017 in the case of Sh. P. Ayyamperumal – regarding.

Reference : F. No. A-23011/36/2013-Ad.IIA Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs North Block, New Delhi, Dated the 20th November 2020.

Sir,

With reference to Prara one of F. No. A-23011/36/2013-Ad.IIA GOL, M/O finance -Department of Revenue CB of Indirect Taxes & Customs dtd 20.11.2020 ‘I am directed to refer to CBIC’s letter of even number dated 18.10.2019 (copy enclosed) on the subject mentioned above whereby you have been informed that the competent authority in consultation with Department of personnel and training and Department of Legal Affairs has decided to implement the Order dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the matter of WP No. 15732/2017, P. Ayyamperumal Vs. Union of India, in personam and not in  rem and, therefore, it is not required to be quoted as precedent in future.

Bharat Pensioners Samaj, is of the opinion that while drafting the said Para concerned officers/ official inadvertently overlooked the following facts:

1. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment in W.P.(C) 10509/2019 GOPAL SINGH ….. Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS OR DE R 23.01.2020 Paras 8. “” More recently, this Court in its decision dated 13th January, 2020 in W.P(C) 5539/2019 (Arun Chhibber v. Union of India) has discussed the judgment in P. Ayyamperumal at some length in the context of the prayer of an officer of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) who had retired on 30th June, 2007 for notional increment. The Court rejected the contention of the Respondents therein that the judgment in P. Ayyamperuam had to be treated as one that was in persona and not in rem.” and the fact that the SLP filed in the Supreme Court against this Delhi High Court judgment regarding notional increment vide SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 13959/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-01-2020 in WP(C) No. 10509/2019 passed by the High Court Of Delhi ) UOI&ORS VS GOPAL SINGH is dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court.

Grant of notional increment/ re-fixation of pensionary benefits as per Hon’ble Madras High Court Order

2,In C.L.Pasupathy v. Engineer in Chief (WRO)reported in 2009 (2) MLJ 491, Hon’ble High court of Madras has considered the expressions, “judgment ‘in rem’ & a judgment ‘in personam’ In Para 29 of the said judgment honorable court observed as follows :

“29. Courts have held that, “Judgment in rem”, operates on a thing or status rather than against the person and binds all persons to the extent of their interest in the thing, whether or not they were parties to the proceedings. The judgment “in rem”, as distinguished from judgment “in Personam” is an adjudication of some particular thing or subject matter, which is the subject of controversy, by a competent Tribunal, and having the binding effect of all persons having interests, whether or not joined as parties to the proceedings, in so far as their interests in the “res” are concerned.

In determining whether a judgment is “in rem”, the effect of the judgment is to be considered and it is tested by matters of substance, rather than by measure of any particular draft or form”

In short judgment in rem & in Personam can be defined as follows:

Judgment in rem: Judgment in rem is adjudication pronounced upon the status ofa subject matter, person or a thing by a competent court to the world generally.

Judgment in Personam: Judgments in Personam are all the ordinary judgments not affecting the status of any subject matter, any person or anything.

It is humbly submitted that the judgment dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the matter of WP No. 15732/2017, P. Ayyamperumal Vs. Union of India squarely Fits in this definition which has been confirmed by the Honourable High Court Of Delhi through its decision dated 13th January, 2020 in W.P.(C) 5539/2019 (Arun Chhibber v. Union of India where in the Honourable court rejected the respondent’s (UOJ) contention that the judgment in P. Ayyamperuam had to be treated as one that was in persona and not in rem.”

Sir, The Democracy of our Country gives highest regards to the judicial pronouncements on their attaining legal finality and no one including DLA /DOPT has any authority to go contrary to it or misinerpret.

Madras High Court Order – Notional increment of pensionary benefits

In the end BPS beg to remind the bureaucracy of oath to Preamble to constitution of India on and request them to ensure Justice and equality in the matter of pensioners/ Sr Citizens. Not that only those who win through courts get the advantage and the other similarly placed who cannot afford to approach the court are deprived of the same benefit inspite of honorable Supreme court pronouncement not to do so.

Thanking you
Yours truly,

S C Maheswari
Secy Genl. Bharat Pensioners Samaj

The post Grant of notional increment/ re-fixation of pensionary benefits as per Hon’ble Madras High Court Order – BHARAT PENSIONERS SAMAJ appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-18030-2019

RAJENDRA PRASAD TIWARI
Vs
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Jabalpur, Dated : 03-12-2019

Shri Prashant Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents-State.

Heard.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents to pay the annual increment fell due on 01.07.2015 to the petitioner.

(ii) To direct the respondents to pay the annual increment i.e. pay scale of 20440-5400 and arrears due from 01/07/2015 with interest of 6% per annum.

(iii) To grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner.

On 30.09.2019, learned counsel for the respondents was granted time to seek instructions as to how the petitioner can be refused the benefit of grant of annual increment which is to be added on 1st of July of every year, but, no response has been filed.

Also check: Notional Increment on retirement 30th June DoPT – Madras High Court Order

The petitioner was retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2015. The increment, which was to be granted on 1st of July, 2015 was denied to him on the ground that he retired on 30.06.2016 and was not in service on 1st of July, 2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and others-WP No.15732/2017 decided on 15.09.2017, which was later on affirmed by the Supreme Court. Considering the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court it is clear that the petitioner cannot be denied the increment which was due on 01.07.2015 merely because he got retired on 30.06.2015, since he has completed full years of service and was eligible to get the said increment. Since the case on which the petitioner is placing reliance is squarely covered with the case of the petitioner, nothing is required to be adjudicated in this petition.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed directing respondents to extend the benefit of annual increment to the petitioner which was due on 01.07.2015 and accordingly the retiral dues of the petitioner be revised and he be also paid arrears within a period of three months from submitting certified copy of this order.

Also read: High Court Order transferring NPS Subscription into GPF account

Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA

The post Retired on 30th June is eligible for Increment Benefit with an annual interest rate of 6 per cent – Madhya Pradesh High Court appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

In Rajya Sabha on 10.12.2019, a question was raised regarding the determination of date of next increment for Central Government employees. The Minister of State for Finance Shri Anurag Singh Thakur has replied in written form as follows…

“In case an employee, promoted between 2nd January and 30th June (both inclusive), opts for pay fixation from the date of next increment i.e., 1st July, the first increment on the level to which he/she has been promoted will be on following 1st January”.

Also he said, as per Department of Expenditure’s O.M. No. 4-21/2017-IC/E.III(A) dated 28.11.2019, the employee promoted on any other date than the date of annual increment and exercises the option under FR 22(1)(a)(1) for fixation of pay from the date of accrual of next increment in the scale of pay in lower grade, would be allowed the 1st increment in promotional grade on 1st January 1st July as the case may be after completion of 6 months’ qualifying service after such fixation on 1st July / 1st January (i.e., the date of increment in lower grade).

Source: DoPT & MoF Orders

The post Calculation Date of Next Increment (DNI) in Promotion – Questions and Answers of Rajya Sabha 2019 appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

F.No.A-23011/36/2013-Ad.IIA
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

North Block, New Delhi,
Dated the 18 October, 2019

To,
All Pr. Chief Commissioners / Chief Commissioners / Director General under CBIC,

Subject: Grant of notional increment / re-fixation of pensionary benefits as per Hon’ble Madras High Court Order in WP No. 15732/2017 in the case of Sh.P.Ayyamperumal – regarding.

Sir/Madam,

1. I am directed to inform that the Order dated 15.09.2017 of the Hon’ble High passed in the matter of P.Ayyamperumal’s case (WP No.15732/ 2017) is in personam and not in in rem. Therefore, the CBIC has implemented the High Court’s order in personam after dismissal of review petition filed in the Supreme Court, for petitioner only which would not be quoted as precedent in future.

2. A number of cases on the similar grounds are pending at various fora, and similar demands from other similarly placed officers could also arise after Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dated 08.08.2019 in R.P.(C) No.1731/2019. Keeping this in mind, a request was made to DoPT seeking their opinion about the future course of action to be taken in case pertaining to similarly placed applicants and non ­applicants.

Also check: Grant of one notional increment/pension benefits to retirees those who retired on 30th June as per Madras High Court Order

3. DoPT has now informed that Deptt. of Legal Affairs have observed that:

“It is very clear that the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras passed in the matter of Sh. P.Ayyamperumal is in personam and not in rem.”

4. Based on the above, DoPT has informed that in so far as other similar cases are concerned, the same may be defended on following grounds:-

4.1 In so far as P. Ayyamperumal case is concerned, it is stated that the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras is in personam.

4.2 Further, the case of Sh. M Balasubramaniam referred by Hon’ble High Court in it’s judgment in P. Ayyamperumal case is related to Fundamental Rules of Tamil Nadu Government whereas P. Ayyamperumal case relates to Central Government Rules.

4.3. It is relevant to mention here that in a similar matter, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in year 2005, in C.Subbarao case, has inter-alia observed as under:

In support of the above observations, the Division Bench also placed reliance on Banerjee case (supra). We are afraid, the Division Bench was not correct in coming to the conclusion that being a reward for unblemished past service, Government servant retiring on the last day of the month would also be entitled for increment even after such increment is due after retirement. We have already made reference to all Rules governing the situation. There is no warrant to come to such conclusion. Increment is given (See Article 43 of CS Regulations) as a periodical rise to a Government employee for the good behavior in the service. Such increment is possible only when the appointment is “Progressive Appointment” and it is not a universal rule.

Also read: Grant of Notional Increment on completion of 12 Months of Service

Further, as per Rule 14 of the Pension Rules, a person is entitled for pay, increment and other allowances only when he is entitled to receive pay from out of Consolidated Fund of India and continues to be in Government service. A person who retires on the last working day would not be entitled for any increment falling due on the next day and payable next day thereafter (See Article 151 of CS Regulations), because he would not answer the tests in these Rules.

Reliance placed on Banerjee case (supra) is also in our considered opinion not correct because, as observed by us, Banerjee case (supra) does not deal with increment, but deals with enhancement of DA by the Central Government to pensioners. Therefore, we are not able to accept the view taken by the Division Bench. We accordingly overrule the judgment in Malakondaiah case (supra).

4.4 In addition, subsequent to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in P. Ayyamperumal’s case, Hon’ble CAT Madras Bench vide its orders dated 19.03.2019 in 0.A. No. 310/00309/ 2019 and O.A. No. 310/00312/ 2019 and Order dated 27.03.2019 in O.A. No. 310/00026/ 2019 has also dismissed the similar requests related with notional increment for pensionary benefits.

5. Accordingly, it is requested that all the pending / future court cases on the similar issue should be defended/ dealt with adequately on the above lines.

Yours faithfully,
sd/-
(A.K. Mishra)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

The post Madras High Court Order – Notional increment of pensionary benefits appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Date of next increment- Rule 10 of Army Officers and Air Force Officers Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Officers Pay Regulations, 2017; Rule 10 of Army, Air Force and Military Nursing Service Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Pay Regulations, 2017 and Rule 9 of the Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Air Force Rules, 2017

No.PC-1(20)/2017-D(Pay/Services) Part-II
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
Sena Bhawarn, New Delhi

dated the 11th March, 2019

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Date of next increment- Rule 10 of Army Officers and Air Force Officers Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Officers Pay Regulations, 2017; Rule 10 of Army, Air Force and Military Nursing Service Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Pay Regulations, 2017 and Rule 9 of the Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Air Force Rules, 2017– regarding.

The undersigned is directed to invite attention to Rule 10 of Army Officers and Air Force Officers Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Officers Pay Regulations, 2017; Rule 10 of Army, Air Force and Military Nursing Service Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Pay Regulations, 2017 and Rule 9 of the Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Air Force Rules, 2017 which provides, inter alia, that there shall be two dates for increment namely 1st January and 1st July of every year, instead of the provision of one date of increment on the 1st July during the 6th Pay Commission pay structure. The Rule/Regulation further provides that an employee shall be entitled to only one annual increment either on 1st January or 1st July depending on the date of appointment, promotion or grant of financial upgradation. The Sub-Rule/Regulation (2) thereof provides that increment in respect of an employee appointed or promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under MACP during the period between the 2nd day of January and 1st day of July (both inclusive) shall be granted on 1st day of 4 January and the increment in respect Hof an employee appointed or promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under MACP during the period between 2nd day of July and 1st day of January (both inclusive) shall be granted ork1st day of July.

2. The proviso to Sub-Rule/Regulation (2) of Rule 10 of Army Officers and Air Force Officers Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Officers Pay Regulations, 2017; Rule 10 of Army, Air Force and Military Nursing Service Pay Rules, 2017; Regulation 10 of Navy Pay Regulations, 2017 and Rule 9 of the Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Air Force Rules, 2017, provides that the next increment after drawal of increment on 1st day of July 2016 shall accrue as on 1st day of July 2017.

3. During the regime of pay structure immediately prior to 01/01/2016, when the annual increment was admissible uniformly on 1st July every year; the increment was admissible on July, provided the condition of 6 months service was fulfilled. Thereafter, the next increment used to be given after a period of 12 months.

Accordingly, keeping in view the principle followed during the period before 1.1.2016 immediately prior to coming into force of the Army Officers and Air Force Officers Pay Rules, 2017; Navy Officers pay Regulations, 2017; Army, Air Force and Military Nursing Service pay Rules, 2017; Navy pay Regulations, 2017 and Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Air Force Rules, 2017, which has been modified in the revised pay structure in ‘terms of Rule/Regulation 10 of the Army Officers and Air Force Officers Pay Rules, 2017; Navy Officers Pay Regulations, 2017; Army, Air Force and Military Nursing Service Pay Rules, 2017; Navy Pay Regulations, 2017 and Rule 9 of the Non- Combatants (Enrolled) of Air Force Rules, 2017 by way of 2 dates of

increment on 1st January and 1st July, it is clarified that in case an employee is promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under the MACP scheme on January or 1st July, where the pay is fixed in the Level applicable to the post on which promotion is made in accordance with the Rule/Regulation 12 of the Army Officers and Air Force Officers pay Rules, 2017; Navy Officers pay Regulations, 2017; Army, Air Force and Military Nursing Service pay Rules, 2017; Navy pay Regulations, 2017 and Rule 11 of the Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Air Force Rules, 2017 the first increment in the Level applicable to the post on which promotion is made shall accrue on the following 1st July Or January, as the case may be, provided a period of 6th months qualifying service is strictly fulfilled. The next increment thereafter shall, however, accrue only after completion of one year.

5. This issues with the concurrence of Defence (Finance) vide its ID No.1(3)/2018/P-III/AG-291/PA dated 28.02.2019.

sd/-
(Arun Kumar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

To,
1. The Chief of Army Staff
2. The Chief of Naval Staff
3.The Chief of Air Staff

The post Rule 10 of Army Officers and Air Force Officers Pay Rules – MoD Orders appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

New Delhi, dated the 29th May, 2017

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Sub: Recommendations of 3rd Pay Revision Committee for revision of pay for executives and non-unionized supervisors in CPSEs – reg.

The undersigned is directed to enclose a copy of the minutes of the meeting of Committee of Secretaries (Doc. No. 23/2017-CA.III) held on 12th May, 2017 at 3:15 PM in the Committee Room of the Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan on the subject mentioned above.

2. It is requested that the status of action taken on the relevant decisions may kindly be uploaded in the ‘Committee of Secretaries’ module of e-Samiksha portal.

(Alok Tiwari)
Deputy Secretary

CABINET SECRETARIAT

Doc. No. 23/2017-CA.III

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COMMITTEE OF SECRETARIES

Venue : Committee Room, Cabinet Secretariat Rashtrapati Bhavan
Date of meeting : 12.05.2017
Time of meeting : 3:15 PM

Sub: Consideration of the recommendations of the 3rd Pay Revision Committee (PRC) for Revision of Pay for Executives and Non-Unionized Supervisors in CPSEs – reg.

SECRET

Subject: Recommendations of 3rd PRC for revision of pay for Executives and non-unionized Supervisors in CPSEs.

A meeting of Committee of Secretaries on the above mentioned subject was chaired by Cabinet Secretary at 3.15 PM on 12.05.2017 in the Committee Room, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. Secretary, DPE made a presentation on the subject. The deliberations of COS on different recommendations of the 3rd PRC are discussed below.

3. Affordability

(i) Secretary, DPE apprised the COS about the recommendations of the 3rd PRC regarding ‘affordability clause’. She stated that broadly speaking, 3rd PRC had recommended that additional financial impact should be within 20% of average PBT of last 3 years preceding the year of implementation. Secretary, M/o Coal expressed the view that CIL and its subsidiaries may be considered as a single unit for the purpose of the “affordability clause” because the executives in CIL are recruited centrally and are transferrable from holding company to subsidiaries and vice versa.

He stated that this matter has already been considered and approved by Cabinet earlier at the time of implementation of 2007 pay revision. CoS was of the view that past precedent in respect of CIL may be taken into account for ‘affordability’.

(ii) Recommendation The recommendation of 3rd PRC regarding ‘affordability clause’ may be accepted. However, in case of ClL, the holding company and its subsidiaries would be considered as a single unit for the affordability clause as per past precedent.

4. Fitment benefit

(i) Secretary, DPE stated that 3rd PRC had recommended uniform fitment benefit of 15% of Basic Pay plus DA in case the financial impact of the pay revision is within 20% of the average PBT of last 3 years and part fitment slabs of 10% and 5°/o in case the financial impact is more than 20%. After detailed discussion, CoS was of the View that these recommendations were acceptable.

(ii) Recommendation The fitment benefit as recommended by 3rd PRC may be accepted.

5. Dearness Allowance, annual increment, promotion increment, stagnation increment and bunching of pay:

(i) Secretary, DPE apprised that 3″ PRC had recommended continuation of 100% DA neutralization. The annual increment and promotion increment were recommended at 30/0 of basic pay. The provisions regarding stagnation increment and bunching of pay in the situation where a lower fitment benefit (i.e. 10°/o or 5%) is granted due to affordability issues were brought out. There was consensus in the CoS that recommendations of 3rd PRC on these issues may be accepted.

(ii) Recommendation 3rd PRC’s recommendations regarding dearness allowance, annual, promotion and stagnation increments and bunching of pay may be accepted.

100% IDA Neutralization, Annual increment

The CoS has approved the 3% of basic pay for the purpose of annual increment and promotional increment. It also has given the nod for the 100% IDA neutralization for calculating the fitment benefit for existing employees. It means the IDA rate at the time of 31.12.2016 will be merged with the basic pay. Here is the formula for calculating the revised basic pay:

6. Pay Protection

(i) Secretary, DPE apprised that 3rd PRC had recommended that a Special Pay should be granted to accord pay protection to executives whose pay after promotion or selection to a Board level position exceeds the maximum of pay-scale of that post. Additional Secretary, D/o Expenditure stated that such a provision is not available in Central Government whereby pay could be fixed beyond the maximum of the scale of a post. Hence, the recommendation was not supported by D/o Expenditure. Secretary, DoPT mentioned that government servants are allowed pay only up to maximum of the scale/level of the post to which they are appointed. CoS observed that the 3rd PRC has recommended fairly wide pay bands along with up to three stagnation increments and therefore there is hardly any likelihood of stagnation in the event of promotion / selection of an executive to a higher post. Besides, taking into account the above views of DoPT and DoE the recommendation of 3rd PRC regarding pay protection may not be accepted.

(ii) Recommendation 3rd PRC’s recommendation regarding pay protection may not be accepted.

7. Pay scales

(i) Secretary, DPE explained that the 3rd PRC had recommended continuing with existing levels and number of pay scales linked to Scheduled classification of CPSEs. Thus, 3rd PRC had recommended revised pay scales corresponding to existing pay scales for each of the existing Grades.

(ii) Recommendation 3rd PRC’s recommendations regarding pay scales may be accepted.

8. Perks and allowances

(i) Secretary, DPE informed that the 3rd PRC had recommended that Board of CPSEs may be empowered to provide up to a ceiling of 35% of Basic Pay towards perks and allowances under the concept of ‘Cafeteria Approach’. Further, 3rd PRC had recommended that the ceiling shall be partially linked to Industrial DA (IDA) in future whereby it would be enhanced by 25°/o whenever IDA rises by 50°/o. In addition, it was recommended that cost of infrastructure facilities should not be covered within the ceiling. As regards company-owned accommodation provided to executives, CPSEs would be able to bear Income Tax liability on the ‘non-monetary perquisite’ of which 50% shall be loaded within the ceiling of 35% on perks and allowances. It was pointed out by Secretary, DPE that at present, the ceiling for allowances under ‘Cafeteria Approach’ is not linked to IDA.

(ii) Secretary, DPE stated that 3rd PRC had also made recommendations in respect of certain allowances such as location based compensatory allowance, work based hardship duty allowance and project allowance which are outside the abovementioned ‘Cafeteria Approach’. In addition, it had also recommended that work related administrative expenditure and reimbursement of telephone/internet facility etc. may be allowed outside the ceiling on perks on allowances.

(iii) Secretary, MoCA stated that certain allowances in CPSEs under MoCA such as flying/engineering related allowances applicable to Air Traffic Controllers, Flying Crew etc. may be kept outside the ceiling of 35°/o in order to attract and retain talent. Additional Secretary, D/o Expenditure stated that 7th CPC has recommended hardship and location based allowances on slab basis and not as a percentage of pay. A decision on recommendations of 7th CPC pertaining to allowances of Central Government employees, many of which are closely related to the allowances of CPSE employees which are outside the ‘Cafeteria Approach’, is yet to be taken by Government. The matter was discussed in detail. It was suggested that a view on allowances which are analogous to those of Central Government employees may be taken after the latter are finalized.

(iv) Recommendation The recommendations of 3rd PRC regarding allowances under ‘Cafeteria Approach’ up to a ceiling of 35% excluding the cost on infrastructure facilities and 50% of Income Tax liability on ‘non-monetary perquisite’ related to company owned accommodation may be accepted. Further, the recommendation of 3rd PRC regarding work related administrative expenditure and linkage of allowances under ‘Cafeteria Approach’ with IDA may not be accepted. However, decision regarding other allowances may be taken by DPE in consultation with M/o Finance separately after a decision is taken by Government on the allowances for Central Government employees. Till a decision is taken regarding the other allowances, the existing allowances in CPSEs at existing rates may continue to be paid on pre-revised pay.

9. Performance related pay (PRP)

(i) Secretary, DPE informed CoS that 3rd PRC had recommended that as in the past, PRP should be paid from 5% of profit accruing from core business activities. However, the ratio of relevant year’s profit to incremental profit for calculating PRP has been modified from 60:40 to 65:35. In addition to the existing provision for CPSE and individual Performance, provision has also been made for Team Performance. Thus CPSE Performance, Individual Performance and Team Performance have been given weightages of 50°/o, 20% and 30°/o respectively. Further, 3rd PRC has recommended certain changes in Grade Ceilings of PRP for Executives and discontinuation of forced rating of 10% executives as below par/poor performers.

(ii) Recommendation The recommendations of 3rd PRC regarding PRP may be accepted.

10. Superannuation Benefits

(i) Secretary, DPE stated that 3rd PRC had recommended no change regarding superannuation benefits (i.e. PF, gratuity, post-retirement medical benefits and pension) for which the present ceiling of 30% of Basic Pay + DA had been retained. However, ceiling for gratuity has been raised to Rs. 20 lakh from the present Rs. 10 lakh with partial linkage to DA in line with that for Central Government employees. Further, it has been recommended that funding of gratuity beyond Rs. 10 lakh should be kept outside the ceiling of 30% of Basic Pay + DA. Additional Secretary, D/o Expenditure stated that the recommendation regarding funding of gratuity may be reexamined because gratuity per se is part of existing ceiling being a retirement benefit and hence it may not be appropriate to create two segments for gratuity. Moreover, there is no specific reason given for this recommendation by the 3rd PRC.

(ii) Recommendation The recommendations of 3rd PRC regarding superannuation benefits may be accepted with the modification that funding for the entire amount of gratuity may be met from within the ceiling of 30% of Basic Pay DA.

11. Corpus for Medical and other emergency needs

(i) Secretary, DPE informed that 3″ PRC had recommended that the ceiling for contribution to the corpus for post-retirement medical benefits and other emergency needs for retirees may be enhanced from 1.5°/o of PBT to 3% of PBT. Further, coverage from the corpus may be extended to all retirees instead of the present provision for only pre 1.1.2007 retirees. CoS was of the view that the present ceiling of 1.5% of PBT is sufficient for covering the pre 1.1.2007 retirees. As regards remaining employees, provision for post-retirement medical benefit already exists as part of the stipulated contribution of 30% of Basic Pay + DA for superannuation benefits.

(ii) Recommendation The corpus for post-retirement medical benefits and other emergency needs may be provided for within the existing ceiling of 1.5% of PBT and it may apply only in respect of pre 1.1.2007 retirees. Formulation of suitable schemes in this regard by CPSEs may be ensured by the Administrative Ministries/Departments.

12. House Rent Allowance (HRA) and Leased Accommodation including House Rent Recovery (HRR)

(i) The recommendations of 3rd PRC regarding rates of HRA, HRR and leased accommodation etc. were discussed. Additional Secretary, D/o Expenditure apprised that the recommendations of 7th CPC on HRA for Central Government employees was under consideration and a final view was yet to be taken. CoS was of the view that decision of the Government on the recommendations of the 7th CPC on allowances may be awaited.

(ii) Recommendation: A decision on 3rd PRC’s recommendations regarding HRA, HRR, leased accommodation etc. may be taken by DPE in consultation with Mo Finance along the lines of provisions for Central Government employees after a decision is taken by Government on HRA for Central Government employees. Till then, the existing allowances at the existing rates may continue to be paid at pre-revised pay scales.

13. Deputation, Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) VRSNSS and healthcare of employees.

(i) Secretary, DPE stated that 3rd PRC has recommended that deputation of employees from one CPSE to another may be allowed in which case the employee would be entitled to pay and allowances as applicable in the parent CPSE. In addition, deputation allowance would also be payable. Further, the same provision would also apply to government officials on deputation to CPSEs, i.e. they would be entitled to pay and allowances as applicable in their parent cadre together with deputation allowance. She further informed that as per extant guidelines, government officers could join posts in CPSEs only on immediate absorption basis except in certain posts. This policy also applies to employees of one CPSE joining other CPSEs regardless of the level of post involved. The executives, who are brought into holding companies from subsidiaries or vice versa on deputation/transfer, will continue to draw their basic pay as drawn in the original company. They will, however, be entitled to draw the allowances and variable pay/performance related pay as applicable to the borrowing CPSE. Secretary, DoPT was of the view that deputationists should have the option to choose between pay of parent cadre plus deputation allowance or pay of the ex-cadre post. Further, the deputationists should get the allowances and other non-pay benefits according to the rules of the borrowing organization.

(ii) Secretary, DPE apprised that the 3rd PRC had also made certain recommendations to improve the performance of CPSEs, inter alia, covering Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), VRSNSS, and healthcare of employees, etc. She stated that as regards ESOP, 3rd PRC had recommended that DPE may elaborate the mechanism in consultation with Government agencies concerned. This recommendation may be delinked from the processing of the other recommendations of 3rd PRC and may be examined separately. As regards VRSNSS, there are existing guidelines of DPE and recommendations of 3rd PRC on this issue would also need separate examination. Regarding modifications in respect of healthcare facilities for employees recommended by 3rd PRC, CoS observed that most of the CPSEs are already implementing various health schemes and therefore changes in this regard may not be necessary.

(iii) Recommendation 3rd PRC’s recommendations on deputation of officers between CPSEs and of Government officers to CPSEs may not be accepted and the existing guidelines of DPE and DoPT in this regard may continue to apply. As regards recommendations on ESOP and VRSNSS, these may also be examined separately by DPE. Further, modifications recommended by 3rd PRC in respect of healthcare facilities for employees may not be accepted and present provisions may continue in this regard.

14. After detailed deliberations, it was recommended that:

i. 3rd PRC’s recommendations may be accepted except to the extent of modifications recommended in Paras 3 (ii), 6 (ii), 8 (iv), 10 (ii), 11 (ii), 12 (ii) and 13 (iii) above.

ii. The recommendations of 3rd PRC may be implemented from 01.01.2017 (except for allowances as discussed in Paras 8 and 12 above, decision on which will be taken after the Government decision on allowances under 7th CPC)

Click here to view/Download Report of 3rd PRC of CPSE

Source: IRTSA

The post Recommendations of 3rd Pay Revision Committee for revision of pay for executives and non-unionized supervisors in CPSEs appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.