JOB HIGHLIGHTS EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Name Of Post : Insurance Medical Officers Grade-II No.of Vacancies : 771 Last Date :10.11.2018 INDO-TIBETAN BORDER POLICE FORCE Name Of Post : Constable (Telecom)No.of Vacancies : 218Last...
Saturday 27 October 2018
Outcome of the Hon’ble CAT, Chandigarh Bench OA No 1434/2017 which was disposed of with directions on 04/12/2017
The Hon’ble Directorate has clarified that all the officials who were promoted to Postmaster Grade-I on the basis of the result of LDCE declared on 30th June, 2011 and got posting order even in February, 2012, had completed 5 years service as on 01.04.2016 and become eligible for promotion by virtue of relaxation provided vide Directorate letter dated 28.04.2016. Unfortunately many circles like Punjab, Karnataka, Hariyana, Uttarakhand etc did not render regular promotion to those officers of Postmaster Grade-I to Postmaster Grade-II by virtue of such relaxation provided by the Directorate.
Hence all the affected members of AIAPC are requested to provide their details viz. Name, Designation, Office of Posting with Division & Circle, Date of Joining in Postmaster Grade-I, Position in Circle Gradation / Seniority List, Number of vacant Postmaster Grade-II posts of their respective circle for the period from 2011-2012 to 2016-17, Number of candidates promoted to Postmaster Grade-II of their respective circle for the period from 2011-2012 to 2016-17 etc to enable this association to make available of specific cases to the Hon’ble Directorate to facilitate it’s early decision.
+
Thursday 25 October 2018
Wednesday 24 October 2018
Monday 22 October 2018
Saturday 20 October 2018
Travel entitlements of Government employees for the purpose of LTC post Seventh Central Pay Commission - clarification regarding
No.3101 1/8/2017-Estt.A-IV
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block New Delhi.
Dated October 18, 2018
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Travel entitlements of Government employees for the purpose of LTC post Seventh Central Pay Commission - clarification reg.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M.of even no. dated 19.09.2017 on the subject noted above, which inter-alia provides that the travel entitlements of Government servants for the purpose of LTC shall be the same as TA entitlements as notified vide Ministry of Finance's O.M. No. 19030/1/2017-E.IV dated 13.07.2017, except the air travel entitlement for Level 6 to Level 8 of the Pay Matrix, which is allowed in respect of TA only and not for LTC.
2. It is observed that many Government employees in Level 6 to Level 8 of the Pay Matrix had inadvertently travelled by air on LTC during the intervening period from 13.07.2017 to 19.09.2017 (i.e. post issue of MoF's O.M. dated 13.07.2017 and before the issue of DoPT's O.M. dated 19.09.2017) under the impression that they were entitled for air travel as per the revised TA rules. This Department is in receipt of references from the Government employees and various Ministries/Departments seeking relaxation in respect of such Government employees in view of the hardships faced by them in settlement of their LTC claims.
3. The matter has been examined in this Department in consultation with Department of Expenditure. In relaxation to this Department's O.M. of even no. dated 19.09.2017, it has been decided to allow the claims of the Government employees in Level 6 to Level 8 of the Pay Matrix, who had travelled by air as per the revised TA rules while availing LTC during 13.07.2017 to 19.09.2017. This shall be subject to the fulfillment of other conditions of air travel on LTC such as booking of air tickets through the authorised modes, fare limit of LTC80, etc.
4. Hindi version will follow.
sd/-
(Surya Narayan Jha)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Wednesday 17 October 2018
BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT DATED 15-10-2018 ON MACPS
Please refer to my earlier Blogs related to the effective date of MACPS and my pending Writ petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Finally, the Court delivered the judgement on 15-10-2018. The 4 respondents are:-
- D.O.P.T.
- Min. Fin., Dep. of Expt.
- Cent.Adm.Tribunal, Mumbai Bench.
- D.G.A.(Central), Mumbai.
Though the Judgement is based on my Personal Writ Petition, hope DOPT will apply it to all covered under its jurisdiction.
3. The challenge in this petition to the judgment and order dated 16th April, 2013 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the CAT'), dismissing the Original Application No. 145 of 2013 instituted by the petitioner seeking benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) with effect from 1st January, 2006 along with all other consequential benefits.
4. Mr. M. P. Joseph-the petitioner in person submits that the issue raised in the present petition is answered in favour of the petitioner by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Balbir Singh Turn and another (2018) 11 SCC 99 and therefore the CAT's impugned judgment and order may be set aside and the relief prayed for by him in his Original Application No. 145 of 2013 be granted.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondents submit that the benefit under the MACP cannot be regarded as any part of the pay structure extended to the civilian employees and therefore the CAT was justified in denying relief to the petitioner. The learned Counsel submit that the recommendations of the pay commissions are not per-se binding upon the Government and the implementation, including the date from which such recommendations are to be implemented are matters in the discretion of the Government. Since, in the present case, implementation in respect of allowances was directed with effect from 1st September, 2008, the petitioner was not at all justified in seeking implementation with effect from 1st January, 2006. For these reasons the learned Counsel for the respondents submit that this petition may be dismissed.
6. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
7. There is no dispute in the present case that the petitioner is eligible for receipt of benefits under the MACP. The only dispute is whether the petitioner is required to be granted the benefits under the MACP with effect from 1st January, 2006 as claimed by him in his Original Application No. 145 of 2013 or whether such benefits are due and payable to the petitioner with effect from 1st September, 2008 as contended by and on behalf of the respondents.
8. The sixth pay commission made recommendations with regard to Armed Forces Personnel. By a resolution dated 30th August, 2008, the Central Government resolved to accept such recommendations with regard to Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) subject to certain modifications. Clause (i) of this resolution as relevant and the same reads as follows:-
“(i) Implementation of the revised pay structure of pay bands and grade pay, as well as pension, with effect from 1-1-2006 and revised rates of allowances (except dearness allowances/relief) with effect from 1-9-2008;”
9. As noted earlier, the only issue which arises in the present petition is whether the benefit under MACP is to be regarded as a part of the pay structure of pay bands and grade pay or whether such benefit is to be regarded as “allowances (except dearness allowance/relief)”. If the benefit under MACP is to be regarded as a part of the pay structure of pay bands and grade pay, then obviously the petitioner is right in contending that such benefit will have to be extended to him with effect from 1st January, 2006 in terms of Clause (i) of the aforesaid resolution dated 30th August, 2008. However, if, as held by the CAT in the present case, the benefit of MACP is to be regarded as “allowances (except dearness allowance/relief)”, then the respondents would be right in their contention that such benefit is payable only with effect from 1st September, 2008.
10. The aforesaid was the precise issue which arose for consideration in case of Balbir Singh Turn (supra). The Apex Court upon consideration of the Central Government Resolution dated 30th August, 2008 along with Part-A of Annexure-I thereto has clearly held that the benefit under MACP is a part of the pay structure and therefore such benefit was payable from 1st January, 2006 and not from 1st September, 2008.
11. The reasoning is contained in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 ofMthe Apex Court ruling, which reads as follows :-
“6. The answer to this question will lie in the interpretation given to the Government Resolution, relevant portion of which has been quotedhereinabove. A bare perusal of Clause (i) of the Resolution clearly indicates that the Central Government decided to implement the revised pay structure of pay bands and grade pay, as well as pension with effect from 1-1-2006. The second part of the clause lays down that all allowances except the dearness allowance/relief will be effective from 1-9-2008. The AFT held, and in our opinion rightly so, that the benefit of MACP is part of the pay structure and will affect the grade pay of the employees and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a part of allowances. The benefit of MACP if given to the respondents would affect their pension also.
7. We may also point out that along with this Resolution there is Annexure I. Part A of Annexure I deals with the pay structure, grade pay, pay bands, etc., and Item 10 reads as follows:
10
|
Assured Career Progression Scheme for PBORs. The Commission recommends that the time bound promotion scheme in case of PBORs shall allow two financial upgradations on completion of 10 and 20 years of service as at present. The financial upgradations under the scheme shall allow benefit of pay fixation equal to one increment along with the higher grade pay. As regards the other suggestions relating to residency period for promotion of PBORs Ministry of Defence may set up an Inter-Services Committee to consider the matter after the revised scheme of running bands is implemented (Para 2.3.34)
|
Three ACP upgradations after 8, 16 and 24 years of service has been approved. The upgradation will take place only in the hierarchy of grade pays, which need not necessarily be the hierarchy in that particular cadre.
|
Part B of Annexure I deals with allowances, concessions and benefits and conditions of service of defence forces personnel. It is apparent that the Government itself by placing MACP in Part A of Annexure I was considering it to be the part of the pay structure.
8. The MACP Scheme was initially notified vide Special Army Instructions dated 11-10-2008. The Scheme was called the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme for Personnel Below Officer Rank in the Indian Army. After the Resolution was passed by the Central Government on 30-8-2008 Special Army Instructions were issued on 11-10-2008 dealing with revision of pay structure. As far as ACP is concerned Para 15 of the said letter reads as follows :
“15. Assured Career Progression. In pursuance with the Government Resolution of Assured Career Progression (ACP), a directly recruited PBOR as a Sepoy, Havildar or JCO will be entitled to minimum three financial upgradations after 8, 16 and 24 years of service. At the time of each financial upgradation under ACP, the PBOR would get an additional increment and next higher grade pay in hierarchy.”
Thereafter, another letter was issued by the Adjutant General Branch on 3-8-2009. Relevant portion of which reads as follows :
“... The new ACP (3 ACP at 8, 16, 24 years of service) should be applicable w.e.f. 1-1-2006, and the old provisions (operative w.e.f. the Vth Pay Commission) would be applicable till 31-12-2005. Regular service for the purpose of ACP shall commence from the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade.”
Finally, on 30-5-2011 another letter was issued by the Ministry of Defence, relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“5. The Scheme would be operational w.e.f. 1-9-2008. In other words, financial upgradations as per the provisions of the earlier ACP scheme (of August 2003) would be granted till 31-8-2008.”
Therefore, even as per the understanding of the Army and other authorities up till the issuance of the letter dated 30-5-2011 the benefit of MACP was available from 1-1-2006.”
[emphasis supplied]
12. The CAT, when it delivered the impugned judgment andorder dated 16th April, 2013 did not have the benefit of the ruling of the Apex Court in Balbir Singh Turn(supra) which was decided only on 8th December, 2017. The view taken by the CAT in the impugned judgment and order is now in direct conflict with the view taken by the Apex Court in Balbir Singh Turn (supra). Obviously, therefore, the impugned judgment and order will have to be set aside and the petitioner will have to be held to be entitled to receive the benefits under MACP with effect from 1st January, 2006 together with all consequential benefits.
13. The contentions raised by and on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted, particularly, in the light of the ruling of the Apex Court in Balbir Singh Turn (supra). The Apex Court, in clear terms and in the precise context of Central Government's resolution dated 30th August, 2008 held that the benefit of MACP is a part of the pay structure and not merely some allowance. The Apex Court has held that the benefit of MACP affects not only the pay but also the pension of an employee and therefore, the same, is not an allowance but part of the pay itself. In terms of Clause (i) of the Central Government's resolution, admittedly, the pay component became payable with effect from 1st January, 2006 unlike the allowance component which became payable from 1st September, 2008.
14. Besides, this is not a case where the petitioner was insisting upon preponement of the date for implementation of the recommendations of the pay commission. The Central Government, vide resolution dated 30th August, 2008 had already accepted the recommendations with regard to POBR, no doubt subject to certain modifications. The relief claimed by the petitioner was entirely consistent with Clause (i) of the resolution dated 30th August, 2008, which in fact required the Government to extend benefits of revised pay structure of pay bands and grade pay, as well as pension with effect from 1st January, 2006.
15. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition with the following order:-
O R D E R
(a) The impugned judgment and order dated 16th April, 2013 made by the CAT is hereby set aside.
(b) The petitioner is held entitled to receive the benefit of MACP with effect from 1st January, 2006 together with all consequential benefits.
(c) The respondents are directed to work out the benefits of MACP with effect from 1st January, 2006 together with consequential benefits and to pay the same to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three months from today.
(d) If, such benefits/consequential benefits are not paid to the petitioner within three months from today, then the respondents will liable to pay interest thereon @ 6% p.a. from the date such payments became due and payable, till the date of actual payment.
(e) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall however be no order as to costs.
( M. S. SONAK, J. ) ( A. S. OKA, J. )
Tuesday 16 October 2018
Mails Day Celebration in RMS office - Tamilnadu Circle
Airmail Sorting Division
Chennai Sorting Division
RMS M Division
RMS MA Division
RMS CB Division
Monday 15 October 2018
Wednesday 10 October 2018
Cabinet approves Productivity Linked Bonus for Railway Employees
Productivity Linked Bonus (PLB) equivalent to 78 days’ wages for the financial year 2017-18 for all eligible non-gazetted Railway employees
About 11.91 lakh non-gazetted Railway employees are likely to benefit from the decision
Payment of 78 days’ PLB to railway employees has been estimated to be Rs. 2044.31 crore
Posted On: 10 OCT 2018 1:34PM by PIB Delhi
The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has approved the payment of Productivity Linked Bonus (PLB) equivalent to 78 days’ wages for the financial year 2017-18 for all eligible non-gazetted Railway employees (excluding RPF/RPSF personnel). The financial implication of payment of 78 days’ PLB to railway employees has been estimated to be Rs.2044.31 crore. The wage calculation ceiling prescribed for payment of PLB to the eligible non-gazetted railway employees is Rs.7000/- p.m. The maximum amount payable per eligible railway employee is Rs.17,951 for 78 days. About 11.91 lakh non-gazetted Railway employees are likely to benefit from the decision.
The Productivity Linked Bonus on Railway covers all non-gazetted railway employees (excluding RPF/RPSF personnel) who are spread over the entire country. Payment of PLB to eligible railway employees is made each year before the Dusshera/ Puja holidays. The decision of the Cabinet shall be implemented before the holidays for this year as well. For the year 2017-18 PLB equivalent to 78 days’ wages will be paid which is expected to motivate the employees for working towards improving the performance of the Railways.
Background:
Railways were the first departmental undertaking of the Government of India wherein the concept of PLB was introduced in the year 1979-80. The main consideration at that time was the important role of the Railways as an infrastructural support in the performance of the economy as a whole. In the overall context of Railway working, it was considered desirable to introduce the concept of PLB as against the concept of Bonus on the lines of ‘The Payment of Bonus Act - 1965’.
*****
NW/AKT/SH
(Release ID: 1549151) Visitor Counter : 79
Tuesday 9 October 2018
Timely Revision of Pension as per 7th Central Pay Commission – CPAO Orders
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE
CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE
TRIKOOT-II, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110066
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE
CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE
TRIKOOT-II, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110066
CPAO/IT&Tech/Bank Performance/2017-18/132
04/05.10.2018
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject:- Timely Revision of Pension as per 7th CPC
References have been received from pensioners and pensioner’s association that the revised pension and arrear of revised pension as per 7th CPC has not been credited into the account of the pensioners/family pensioners.
All the CPPCs of the Banks are, therefore, requested to credit the revised pension and arrears of revised pension immediately in the account of pensioners/family pensioners for which Special Seal Authorities (SSAs) have been issued to the banks and in any case not later than 30 days of receipt of the Special Seal Authority (SSA) from this office so that the grievances of and hardships faced by the pensioners/family pensioners could be minimised.
This issues with the approval of Chief Controller (Pension).
sd/-
(Md. Shahid Kamal Ansari)
(Asstt. Controller of Accounts)
(Md. Shahid Kamal Ansari)
(Asstt. Controller of Accounts)
Source: https://cpao.nic.in/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)