Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Summary record of discussions held during the third meeting of the Joint Committee on MACPS

MOST IMMEDIATE

NO. 11/1/2010-JCA
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
(JCA Section)

North Block, New Delhi
Dated the 20th April, 2011

OFFICE MEMORANDUM


Subject: Summary record of discussions held during the third meeting of the Joint Committee on MACPS held on 15th March, 2011 under the Chairpersonship of the Joint Secretary (Estt.) DOPT.




The undersigned is directed to enclose herewith summary record of discussions held during the Third Meeting of the Joint Committee on MACPS held under the Chairpersonship of the Joint Secretary (Establishment), DOPT on 15th March, 2011 for information and further
necessary action.

(Dinesh Kapila)
Director (JCA)

 

SUMMARY RECORD OF DISCUSSIONS HELD DURING THE THIRD MEETING OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON MACP’S HELD UNDER THE CHAIRPERSONSHIP OF THE JOINT SECRETARY (ESTABLISHMENT), DOP&T ON 15th MARCH 2011

1. The third meeting of the Joint Committee constituted to examine the anomalies pertaining to the MACP scheme was held under the Chairmanship of Joint Secretary (Estt.) Department of Personnel & Training on 15th March, 2011. All the members of the Committee were present in the meeting.

2. The Chairperson welcomed the representatives of the Official Side and the Staff Side and stated that with respected item numbers 13, 21, 27, 28, 32, 38, 44, 50 & 58, suitable instructions had been issued vide this Department’s O.M. dated the 1st November, 2010. She also informed that as per the decision taken in the second meeting of the Joint Committee, vide this Department’s O.M. dated 10th February, 2011, all concerned have been advised to review the cadre structure in a time bound manner with a view to mitigate the problem of stagnation

3. Thereafter, the agenda items which were still pending were taken up for discussion.

Item numbers 1,3,8, 9 & 29-Grant of financial upgradation in the promotional hierarchy instead of Grade Pay hierarchy under the MACPS.

The Staff Side reiterated their demand that the financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme should be granted in the promotional hierarchy of posts instead of the Grade Pay hierarchy. The Staff Side stated that the erstwhile ACP Scheme was implemented on the recommendations of the 5th CPC and, as such, has become a part of the service conditions of the employees. The Staff Side, therefore, contended that the Government cannot impose the MACP Scheme thereby altering the service conditions to the detriment of the employees.

The Official Side stated that the 6th CPC recommended two financial upgradations in the Grade Pay hierarchy after 12 and 24 years. However, the Government improved upon the recommendations of the 6th CPC and has implemented MACPS with three financial up gradations in the Grade pay hierarchy after 10, 20 & 30 years. Referring to earlier discussions held in the matter, the Official Side stated that the Government was willing to consider revision in para 13 of the MACP Scheme to the effect that organizations I cadres shall have the option to choose either the ACP scheme or MACP Scheme. However, the Staff Side pointed that such a dispensation will not be practical and hence there is a need to explore other alternatives to solve the issue. After discussion, it was agreed that there is no need to change the basic structure of MACP Scheme. However, there is a need to separately examine those cases where MACP Scheme is less advantageous than the ACP Scheme. Accordingly, it was decided that the Official Side will write to the Ministry of Railways, Defence, Urban Development, Home and the Department of Posts to forward information in respect of the specific categories of employees where the MACPS is less advantageous than the erstwhile ACP Scheme The Official Side also requested the Staff Side to collect and forward such information to the Department of Personnel 8 Training for further necessary action. I’n this connection, the Staff Side specifically pointed out the case of Technician category wherein under ACP (w.e.f 1.10.199) the staff got upgradation to Rs.4500- 7000 (V CPC) on completion of 24 years whereas under MACPS they get the same benefit, i.e. Grade Pay of Rs.2800 afler 30 years.

Item Nos. 2,7,20 8 48-Date of Effect of MACP Scheme

The Staff Side stated that many employees who retired between 1.1,2006 and 31st August, 2008, have been deprived of the benefits of MACP Scheme and therefore, demanded that the MACP Scheme may be made effective from 1.1.2006. The Official Side stated that the matter was discussed and finalized in the second meeting of the Joint Committee and therefore, there was no reason to reopen the matter. After discussions, it was decided that the matter may be treated as finalised so far as the Joint Committee on MACP IS concerned and if required, the Staff Side may raise this issue in the next meeting of the National Anomaly Committee.

Item Nos. 57 – Grant of ACP benefit to Artisan Staff of the Ministry of Defence

The Staff Side stated that consequent upon the recommendations of the Fast Track Committee, the highly skilled Artisan Staff of the Ministry of Defence was bifurcated in two categories, i.e., Highly Skilled -II (with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/-)and Highly Skilled-I (With Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-). The Staff Side contended that this bifurcation, in the first instance, may be treated as placement and not as promotion for the purpose of MACP. The Official Side stated that as per the extant instructions of the Department of Personnel 8 Training, where the whole of a cadre is placed in a higher scale, such placement is not treated as promotion. However, when only a part of a cadre is placed in a higher scale, then such placement is treated as promotion for all purposes including MACPS. The Official Side further stated that even under the erstwhile ACP Scheme similar practice was followed and there is no reason to deviate from that.

The Staff Side cited a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India Vs V.K. Sirotia reported in 1999 Supreme Court cases (L&S) 938 that where certain percentage of post are granted higher pay scales to seniors in the cadre will be treated as placement and not promotion. The Staff Side also cited the Manual of instructions for restructuring of cadres in 1.A & A.D (para 3.2.8) wherein it has been stated that the Screening Committee in combined Audit & Accounts Offices besides selecting persons for transfer to audit offices will also decide on their placement (& not promotion) against the higher scale posts.

After prolonged discussions, it was decided that the matter would be re-examined by the Department of Personnel & Training in consultation with the Department of Expenditure.

Item Nos. 12,30 & 49 – Treatment of employees selected under LDCE Scheme / GDCE Scheme.

The Staff Side demanded that employees selected under the LDCE Scheme / GDCE Scheme should be treated as a direct recruit and their earlier promotions and services rendered should be ignored for the purpose of MACPS as was being done in the ACP Scheme. The Official Side informed that treatment of such cases would generaly be same in MACP as was in the ACP Scheme. Ministry of Railways would be advised to examine the matter accordingly.

Item Nos.11.15.22.39.47 & 51- Promotion in the identical Grade Pay

The Staff Side raised the issue of promotions in the identical grade pay and demanded that in such cases the benefit of one increment should be granted at the time of promotion. ‘The Official Side stated that if regular promotion is to the same grade pay, then MACP would also be granted to the same grade pay. On the issue of whether one increment is to be allowed in such cases, a reference has been received in the Department of Expenditure from Ministry of Railways. Further action in the matter would be taken consequent upon receipt of certain information from Ministry of Railways as called for by the Department of Expenditure.

4. After discussion on the agenda items, the Staff Side stated that in many instances the provisions of the MACP Scheme were being misinterpreted by various Ministries/ Departments thereby causing financial loss to the employees. The Official Side stated that many Ministries/ Departments had sought various clarifications regarding the provisions of the MACP Scheme which has been given. In addition, many clarificatory Office Memoranda have also been issued by the Department of Personnel & Training to allay the misgivings misunderstandings regarding the Scheme. However, if certain misgiving misunderstandings were still continuing, the respective Ministries/ Departments may be advised to refer the matter to the Department of Personnel & Training for resolution of the same.

5. In the end, it was decided that the recommendations of the Joint Committee on MACP Scheme along with the action taken report may be discussed in the next -meeting of the National Anomaly Committee.

6. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.




Source: www.persmin.nic.in

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

In Ministry of I&B, Films Division, under ACP scheme, financial upgaradation has been given (in the 5th CPC) from 3050 to 4000 after 12 years of service and from 4000 to 5000 after 24 year of service. The corresponding grade pay of RS.4200 (in the revised pay scale of 6CPC) can be achieved in 24 years of service.

But under MACP scheme the grade pay of Rs.4200 can only be achieved after 30 years of service as 3rd MACP upgradation. Hence, MACP scheme is totally disadvantageous. The old ACP scheme is advantageous.

This may forwarded to the DOPT as they requested these like information from staff side.

Anonymous said...

Sir, Please look into the matter. As our office is subordinate office of MHA, there is no scope of promotion even those steno who are completed 20 years of service are still waiting for promotion. I am a steno of 1996 SSC batch. the batch of 1995 was given old ACP and this batch is enjoying high salary and the batch of 1996 i.e. my are taking less than 15000 rupees p.m. just because of MACP. It is requested that we may kindly be allowed to avail old ACP which would place us in a much higher pay band and grade pay. Hoping for justice.

Anonymous said...

We are working as Stenographers in an Autonomous Institution and are being offered Gd. Pay of Rs. 2800 after completition of 10 yr. service under MACP scheme as recommended by 6th CPC whereas under ACP scheme after completition of 12 years of service our seniors have been given Gd. Pay of Rs. 4200 (from Rs. 4000 to Rs. 5000). We may mention here that we will reach upto Gd.Pay of Rs. 4200 only after completion of 20 yrs. whereas our seniors have got Rs. 4200 after completion of 12 yrs. service under ACP Scheme. This is great injustice with Stenographers all over India, who are aspiring for benefit of MACP Scheme. Needless to say again, MACP scheme is totally disadvantageous in our case. Further, it is strange that this anomaly/disparity has not been looked into by the Official side in DOPT.

Anonymous said...

Sir, As our office is subordinate office of MHA (Sashastra Seema Bal-CAPF), there is no scope of promotion even those Asstt.Publicity Officers who have completed 16 to 18 years of service and are still waiting for promotion. Since there is no cadre except Five posts of Publicity Officers in the grade of 6600/-I am an Asstt. Publicity Officer of 1997 batch. the batch of 1996 was given old ACP and this batch is enjoying grade pay of Rs 6600/-and the batch of 1997 i.e. my are taking less than 18000 rupees p.m.(i.e.grade pay of Rs 4800/ in PB-2) just because of MACP. It is requested that we may kindly be allowed to avail old ACP which would place us in a much higher pay band and grade pay at par with our collegues. Hence, MACP scheme is totally disadvantageous for us and we should be allowed to opt ACP scheme.
Actually individual may be authorise to opt ACP or MACP schemes as in the case of DA on Tour.
This may be forwarded to the DOPT and Staff Side as they have asked these kind of information from staff side during the meeting held on March 15,2011.
Hoping for justice.

Anonymous said...

Sir, I, Man Mohan Bhardwaj appointed at LDC in LHMC & Smt. S. K. Hospital, New Delhi on 07.12.1988. i got my 1st ACP on 07.12.2000, now my Institution has been granted me 2nd MACP from 07.12.2010. is this Justified.however this may be granted from 07.12.2008 on completion of my 20 years regular service. kindly give me comments on this and made your suggestions.

Anonymous said...

As discussed, it would be better to grant ACP on completion of 10/20 yrs on the grade pay in hierchy and third MACP can be given on the immediate next higher grade pay. I feel it will solve the problems. Otherwise, introduction of MACP is not at all beneficial for some cadres.

Anonymous said...

Those who have secured their promotion within 30 years are granted Rs.4,200/- as grade pay and those who are not are granted Rs.4,600/- through third financial upgradation of the MACP. A junior staff member gains a better pay than his senior.As promotion is the sole criteria this disparity is to be removed.

Anonymous said...

DEAR chairperson
It is humble requested to look into anomalies in CPC&MACP peronnaly. I am junior engineer since my joining date 20-10-1984 in S&JJ deptt. Now Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) Govt. of NCT, Delhi. IN 6TH CPC THEIR ARE SO MANY ANOMALIES WHICH SHOLD BE REMOVED.In all the CPC`s Engineers are ill treated &STEPLY HANDLED
1 GP SHOULD BE PROPOTIONATELY increased eg in the pay scale of 5000-8000 all (whose BP 5000&those Bp7850)get the same GP.
2 INCREMENT SHOULD BE 5%.
3 IN MACP IT IS worse than OF PREVIOUS ACP. IN MACP JE WILL GET GP FROM 4200 TO 4600 TO 4800 TO 5400 WHILE OTHER (JOIN BEFORE 31-8-1984) WILL GET 4200TO 4600 TO 6600 TO 7600.HOWEVER THEY PERFORM THE SAME DUTIES WHICH IS AGAINST THE GOVT OWN POLICY.SAME WORK&POST BUT SALARY DIFFERENCE ABOUT Rs 6000/-WHICH WILL BE UP TO 15000/-AND TOTAL LOSS OF ABOUT Rs 30 LAKHS. In 2 nd ACP the scale jumps from 8700 in 6500-10500 to 10000 in 10000-15200 gain of Rs1300+DP+allowances for all, while in 2 nd MACP GP jumps Rs200(4600 to 4800) only+allowances. Instead of increases by 1.86+GP it losses. Is it justified?
4 ENGINEER SHOULD GET 25%AS TECHNICAL ALLOWANCE.
5 THE PREREVISED PAY SCALE OF 7450 SHOULD GET POINT TO POINT INCREMENTS. THE GP OF 7450 SHOULD BE IN THE SAME RATIO OF 5000 SCALE IT SHOULD BE APPROXIMATLY 6000.
AND ALSO I HAD NOT GOT THE PROMOTION SINCE JOINING (20-10-84) THOUGH I AM ELIGIBLE AND FIT FOR PROMOTION SINCE 13-09-88

I am giving the comparison of ACP &MACP with regard of JE. In 2nd ACP the difference of pay was 00 &jump of pay Rs3851 for all while in 2nd MACP(after 10 years) of pay varies from Rs 5404 to 7067 & jumps of pay Rs 1255 to6659 while DA payable in 6 month pay increases 1566 which is more than in MACP. Hence those JE join after 01-09-84 will get less salary Rs 7067 than those join before 01-09-84 however they performs the same duties, which is blunder anomaly.HENCE MACP IS DISADVANTAGEUS THAN ACP FOR JE`S JOINED AFTER 1-9-84.IT IS BEST TO GIVE ACP ON OPTIONAL BASIS.ACP>MACP

Item Pay as on 2nd MACP after 1-09-08 DA-16%
Pay as on 2nd MACP on 1-01-11 DA 51%

Pay as on pre 2nd macp JE Those join post 01-09-84 JE Those join pre 01-09-84 JE Those join post 01-09-84) JE Those join pre 01-09-84
Pay Band 17310 17970
18600 19370
20140
Grade Pay 4600 4800
6600 4800
6600
Basic Pay 21910 22770
25200 24170
26740
H R A(30%) 6573 6831
7560 7251
8022
DA 3506 3643
4032 12327
13637
TA 1856 1856
3712 2416
4832
Total 33845 35100
40504 46164
53231
Difference 1255
6659 12319
19386
Difference
5404
7067
Difference of pay in DA hike of 8&10% 1566
2272
2097 2994






Item Pay as on 2nd ACP


Pay as on pre 2nd ACP JE Those join post 01-09-84 JE Those join pre 01-09-84
BP 8700 10000
10000

DP 4350 5000
5000

CCA 300 300
300

H R A(30%) 3915 4500
4500

DA 6134 7050
7050

TA 400 800 800

LIST OF CGHS HOSPITALS
1. ALLAHABAD 2. AHEMDABAD 3. Bangalore 4. Bhubhaneshwar 5. Bhopal
6. Chandigarh 7. CHENNAI 8. Delhi 9. Dehradun 10. Guwahati
11. Hyderabad 12. Jaipur 13. Jabalpur 14. Kanpur 15. Kolkata
16. Lucknow 17. Meerut 18. Mumbai 19. Nagpur 20. Patna
21. Pune 22. Ranchi 23. Shillong 24. Trivandrum 25. Jammu.
7th CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION NEWS
TITLEDATEARTICLESORDERS
7TH CPC REPORT AND THE NEED FOR TIMELINESS16.04.20147thCPC Blog
DID YOU KNOW HOW THE 6TH CPC MULTIPLICATION FACTOR OF 1.86 WAS DERIVED..?15.04.201490Paisa
EXPECTED PAY STRUCTURE OF 7TH CPC10.04.201490Paisa
Date of submission of 7th CPC Report05.04.2014-Rajya Sabha
Comments and Suggestions on 7th CPC04.04.201490Paisa
A webpage has been created by the Ministry of Finance for 7th Central Pay Commission24.03.2014-Finmin
Federations veiws on the ToR of 7th CPC05.03.2014AIRF/BPMS/IRTSA
Cabinet approved 7th Central Pay Commission Terms of Reference28.02.201490Paisa
Prime Minister has approved the composition of the 7th Central Pay Commission04.02.201490Paisa
NO COMPROMISE ON TERMS OF REFERENCE07.12.2013NFPE
Possible ToR meeting with Staff Side JCM-Dopt19.11.2013Dopt
7th CPC Date for implementation11.10.20137thcpcnews
Press Statement of Confederation of 7th CPC25.09.2013Confederation
Consent given by PM for 7th CPC25.09.201390Paisa
RETIREMENT AGE 62
HEADLINESDATEOUR BLOGOTHER BLOGSOTHER MEDIAS
Retirement age of 65: The Politicization of Employees’ Demands11.04.201490Paisa--
Retirement age to 62-What is the background behind this news?01.03.201490Paisa--
50% DA Merger and Retirement age almost disappeared from CG Employees Diary...!07.03.2014-GServants-
High hopes fading due to announcement of election dates...05.03.2014-Karnmk-
Proposals of Retirement age 62 and 50% DA Merger..?01.03.2014-GServants-
Retirement Age 62 - Cabinet expected to clear on Friday (28.202014)26.02.201490Paisa--
Retirement Age 62 – Cabinet is likely to clear some of these demands..!25.02.2014-PCUpdate
Proposal for raising Retirement Age to 62 waits for Cabinet Nod17.02.2014-GServants-
Parliamentary panel urged to raise the retirement age to 65 years08.02.2014--TOI
Retirement Age 62 : Govt not considering to raise retirement age to 6218.08.2013-PTI
Retirement age 62 – No hike in Retirement age of Central Government employees…15.08.2013-CGEN.in-
Retirement Age 62 - Prime Minister likely to declare on his Independence Day speech14.08.2013-CGEN.in-
Retirement Age of High Court Judges23.08.201390Paisa--
Retirement Age 62 – Cabinet decision to increase retirement age deferred03.08.2013--B.Standard
No plan to increase retirement age of employees16.06.2013--PTI
Pros and cons of raising the retirement age of Central Government Employees09.06.2013-EOrders-
No decision on central staff retirement age on cabinet meeting05.06.2013-PCUpdate-
Retirement age to be extended by 2 years to 6204.06.2013--FExpress
Increase retirement age of government employees to 6230.05.2013--ET
Union government wants retirement age 6229.05.2013--Rediff
No proposal to enhance the retirement age from 60 to 62 years08.03.201390Paisa--
Call to increase retirement age of bank employees to 6504.02.2013--Hindu
Retirement age of Central Government Employees20.01.201390Paisa--
Retirement age of faculty doctors from 65 to 70 years…03.12.201290Paisa-
Enhancement of superannuation retirement age of KV teachers31.08.201290Paisa-
Retirement age of Teachers and Lecturers26.08.201290Paisa--
Cabinet today approved the proposal to enhancement of age of superannuation of teachers to 6521.07.2012--PIB
Retirement age across the world - ILC Report10.07.2011--Global
Govt employees near retirement should not be disturbed05.09.2010--PTI
PIL on retirement age of civil servants 25.09.2010--PTI

Disclaimer

90 Paisa News : As and when orders amending the rules are published by the Government, the amendment orders will be published in our blog immediately. Readers are requested to refer to the source link is given at the end of the post.

All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy of the content on this blog, the same should not be construed as a statement of law or used for any legal purposes. 90paisa accepts no responsibility in relation to the accuracy, completeness, usefulness or otherwise, of the contents. Users are advised to verify/check any information with the relevant department(s) and/or other source(s), and to obtain any appropriate professional advice before acting on the information provided in the blog.


Links to other websites that have been included on this blog are provided for public convenience only.

90paisa is not responsible for the contents or reliability of linked websites and does not necessarily endorse the view expressed within them. We cannot guarantee the availability of such linked pages at all times.

Any suggestions write to us
90paisa2008@gmail.com


Related Posts with Thumbnails