Saturday, December 5, 2015

MACP on Promotional hierarchy and other issues related to Administrative Staff of Subordinate offices - TKR Pillai writes to Confederation

MACP on Promotional hierarchy and other issues related to Administrative Staff of Subordinate offices - TKR Pillai writes to Confederation

Dated 25/11/2015
Com. M Krishnan,
Secretary General,
Confederation of Central Government Employees & Workers,
New Delhi

Dear comrade,
This is in connection with LDC/UDC, MACP on Promotional hierarchy and other issues related to Administrative Staff of Subordinate offices. It is surprising to note that the 7th Pay Commission has turned down the genuine issue of LDC & UDC on the ground that the government has stopped direct recruitment for the clerical cadre and gradually phasing out the existing incumbents. If this is true, it is a matter of great concern that the Government has chosen to take a unilateral decision on an important policy matter without consulting the Staff side. The reason given for rejection of the demand is not convincing.

Besides Confederation/Staff Side JCM, several Departments had recommended upgradation of grade pay of LDC & UDC of Administrative Offices especially the LDC & UDCs of subordinate offices of Government of India.

Extracts of the Pay Commission comments on the matter is given below:

By analyzing the demand of SVP, National Police Academy under Para 11.22.100 the Commission has said “This issue has been dealt in Chapter 7.7. Recommendations made there would apply in this case also”

As against the demand of Directorate of Printing under Para 11.52.32 Commission maintained that “posts like LDC, UDC, Accountant are common to a number of ministries/ departments. Recommendations regarding their pay are contained in Chapter 7.7 and Chapter 11.35.”

But, in Chapter 7.7, deals common category, no recommendation for LDC/UDC is given.
However by recording disagreement to increase promotional quota of MTS to LDC under Para 7.7.37 & 11.35.28 Commission has said that “government has already stopped direct recruitment for the clerical cadre and gradually phasing out the existing incumbents, this demand cannot be accepted.”

But the fact is that Staff Selection Commission is frequently conducting recruitment for the post of LDC. Combined higher secondary examination for the selection of LDC also has been conducted recently. Moreover, no alternative recommendation to replace the LDC post is given in the report. It is to be noted that the normal ratio of LDC and UDC in subordinate offices is 5:2 and thus LDCs have been allocated responsible sections and in many smaller offices LDC alone is handling the work of entire Administration.

On the other hand rejecting Central Secretariat Clerical service demand for parity with DEO, the commission observes “Even though the entry requirements are similar, historically the pay scales of the two posts have been different. Besides, they comprise two distinct cadres with different set of roles and responsibilities. Hence, the demand for parity of pay of LDC with DEOs cannot be acceded to by the Commission.”(Para 11.35.38).

Historically these cadres may be different set of roles but the fact is that functions of LDC are more complex than that of DEO and same was brought before the commission by various Associations/Administrative Authorities. Earlier pay Commissions have fixed Pay Scale to DEO considering their work on computer. But today LDCs are selected on the basis of their expertise in computer operation also.

By concluding the LDC issue, I give hereunder two comments among the dozens of comments/e-mail received us on the subject. This signifies the sufferings of LDCs in subordinate offices.

(1) I am really disappointed with the decision of 7th CPC, I was hoping that I would get atleast GP 2400 as per their calculation, they don’t even think about lower classMyself Ashutosh, LDC and I am appointed on 2012, 3000 KM far from my house and from last 2 years I am doing the work of cashier along with all the work of Income Tax and budget, apart from me 4 more LDC’s are working here instead of UDC’s and they are the backbone of their branch but as per 7th CPC words we are not having as much responsible work they think LDC’s are recruits only for “dispatch” and “typing” which is not true. 
I request to them, sir please come and see how much responsibility we have and what we are getting, 
(2) I am s murugan LDC, handling with pay bills, income tax, TDS and what are related to taxable income such as LTC encashment, final bills, HRA claim and etc…
In 7th Cpc report every where it is stated that this is dealt with chapter 7.7 and 11.35. But, there are no clear instructions for clerical.
The major error is clerical cadre is not included in common categories (chapter 7).

II Grant of MACP on Promotional Hierarchy:
Even though the Confederation has clarified that the Commission has recommended MACP on promotional hierarchy, the report of the Commission is confusing and contradictory. Para 5.1.44 reads in the new Pay matrix, the employees will move to the immediate next level in the hierarchy. This can be interpreted as fixation in the same principle as that for a regular promotion. But Para 11.52.45 is contradictory.

III The Grade Pay of Assistants/Stenographers of Central Secretariat is brought down to Rs. 4200 from the existing Rs. 4600 and NFSG granted to the UDCs of Central Secretariat has been withdrawn thereby the demand for parity with the Grade Pay of Assistant/UDC of Central Secretariat is turned down.

Comrades, Government is bent upon to contractorise all the Administrative posts below the post of Assistants. The demand for merger of Grade Pay of LDC & UDC and upgradation to Rs. 2800, as recommended by the staff side is genuine in accordance with duties assigned. Confederation/JCM (Staff Side) is requested to please help LDC/UDC and other Administrative Staff of subordinate Offices to resolve these genuine issues.

Yours fraternally

TKR Pillai
General Secretary

Source : AIAMSHQ


vijay pandya said...

Will government listen woes?

Anonymous said...

Sir, What about the anomaly developed in granting MACP which was not in promotional hierarchy before the implementation of seventh pay commission. no justice for the sufferers in this pay commission also and the anomaly continues. Requesting the trade unions to raise the voice please.

C.P.REDDY, Cuttack

Anonymous said...

The MACP for non-gazetted administrative posts should be changed into Promotional Basis ATLEAST ONE POINT OF TIME AT THE LEVEL FROM GROUP-B NON-GAZETTED POST TO GROUP-B GAZETTED POST instead of just increase in grade pay. Many seniormost employees who have already put more than 20, 30, 40 years, because of non-availability of vacancy, they are still in the same designation (that means in the non-gazetted post only) by getting only minimum increase in the grade pay and retire without getting promotion to the next higher position in the gazetted post even though they are eligible for promotion to the gazetted level post. In a same group of employees, some will get regular promotion very early when vacancy arises and the remaining will be in non-gazetted post only for so many years for getting the promotion and some will retire from the same post cursing their fate and the government.

Hence, it is required that those who have completed minimum residency period in the present post, or ATLEAST THOSE WHO HAVE COMPLETED 20 YEARS OF REGULAR SERVICE FROM THE DATE OF PRESENT POST (I.E., FROM THE DATE OF BECOMING ASSISTANT/SR.STENOGRAPER IN GROUP-B NON-GAZETTED POST) they should be given promotion under MACP from Group-B Non-Gazetted Level to Group-B Gazetted Level.

If 7th CPC and the government agrees for change of MACP system into promotional basis, its effective date, Commission’s / Government’s FOREMOST DUTY IS TO PROTECT THE SENIORS FIRST. THAT MEANS, THE SENIORS SHOULD BE GIVEN PROMOTION FIRST, THEN ONLY THE JUNIORS SHOULD GET PROMOTION. OTHERWISE, JUNIORS WILL GET PROMOTION TO THE NEXT HIGHER POST FROM THE DATE OF EFFECT OF MACP IN 7TH CPC AND THE SENIORS WILL BE IN THE SAME OLD DESIGNATION. Already the seniors are not benefitted in 6th cpc, atleast they should be benefitted by getting promotion BEFORE THE JUNIORS GET.


krishna tomar said...

at officers level they are looking x group sailors and giving maximum benefits to them amd neglecting y group sailors.
that's why y group sailors leaving service .

Hira said...

Dear members
Before 7th cpc the anomalies of 6th cpc shall be resolved the GP of LDC(old scale 3050) to be 2400 instead of 1900 and the GP of UDC(old scale 4000) to be 3200 instead of 2400 and the GP of AE(old scale pre .revised 6500 to 7450) to be 5400 instead of 4600 and MACP shall be 12-24-30 instead of 10-20-30 with promotional PB&GP equal for all, earlier for the same post & work unequal GP for AE some will get 4600-4800-5400 &other getting 4600-6600-7600 however performing the same duties.
In 7th CPC it is suggested that the multiplying factor shall be 2.75 (PB&GP+Da125%+50%=1+1.25+.5)
Increment 4%
All allowances increased 2.75 times
Hra as propose 24 16 8

A Mohanty said...

There is a major anomaly in the report of the 7th CPC while granting 2nd MACP (Grade Pay Rs. 2,800/- to Rs. 4,200/-) to the officials after successful completion of 20 years of service.

On grant of 2nd MACP, there arises huge anomaly in the pay of two officials of the same cadre, where there is only two days gap in the date of entry in service of both the officials(although both are of the same cadre as on date).

Illustration of such one case is produced below.

Employee-1 (TSPA Cadre) Employee-2 (TSPA Cadre)
Date of Entry= 31.12.1995 Date of Entry= 02.01.1996
1st MACP = 31.12.2005 1st MACP = 02.01.2006
2nd MACP = 31.12.2015 2nd MACP = 02.01.2016
Pay on 30.12.15=16,750/-(GP=2800/-) Pay on 30.12.15= 16,750/-

At this stage both are at same level. As per 6th CPC, 2nd MACP will be granted to the Employee-1 on 31.12.2015 and his pay will be fixed at Rs. 18,660/- (Rs. 16,750/- + one increment Rs. 510/- + differential GP Rs. 1,400/-). On 01.07.2016 after grant of annual increment his pay would have been fixed 19,220/- (18,660 + 560/-).

After two days i.e. on 02.01.2016 2nd MACP would have been granted to the Employee-2 and his pay would have been fixed at Rs. 18,150/- (if opted for fixation of pay on the date of DNI i.e. 16,750/-+ diff. GP 1400/-). On 01.07.2016, his pay would have been fixed at Rs. 19,220/- (Rs. 18,150/- + increments i.e. 510/- +560/-). Thus both would have been placed at same stage.

On implementation of the 7th CPC in respect of Employee-1
6th CPC Pay as on 01.01.2016 =Rs. 18,660/-.
7th CPC Pay fixation on 01.01.2016 =
Rs. 18,660 X 2.57 = 47,956/- = 49,000/-. And on grant of one increment on 01.07.2016 pay will be fixed at Rs. 50,500/-.

On implementation of the 7th CPC in respect of Employee-2
6th CPC Pay as on 01.01.2016 =Rs. 16,750/-.
7th CPC Pay fixation on 01.01.2016 =
Rs. 16,750 X 2.57 = 43,047.50p = 44,100/-. And on grant of 2nd MACP on 02.01.2016 (if opted for pay fixation on the date of DNI) his pay will be fixed at Rs. 44,900/- and on 01.07.2016 after grant of increments his pay will be fixed at two stages below i.e. at Rs. 47,600/-.

As per the above calculation, on 01.07.2016 pay of both the officials were at same stage as per 6th CPC. But, after implementation of 7th CPC, there is huge gap of Rs. 2,900/- and there arises huge anomaly in the pay of two officials of the same cadre. If it happens and continues for lifetime, the 1st official will get more increment than the 2nd official every year and there will be huge financial loss and injustice to the 2nd official, who has entered into service only after two days of joining of the 1st official (although both are in the same cadre as on 01.07.2016).

Steps should be taken for removal of this anomaly, so that the officials of the same status will be able to get their legitimate pay/salary and justice.

Popular Posts


90Paisa - Dedicated to Central Government Employees and Pensioners. 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.