Central Government Employees News,SEVENTH PAY COMMISSION,DEARNESS ALLOWANCE,7TH PAY COMMISSION,HBA, HRA,LTC, CCL, DoPT Orders

OLD NEWS

SOURCE: Thesentimes
New Delhi: This give a great pleasure to central government employees, with the government is likely to modify the pay package of its employees, they can expect a higher package from next year. The coming revised pay will be higher than what the Seventh Pay Commission recommended.
The Seventh Pay Commission increased 16 per cent pay hike, which is significantly lower than what the Sixth pay commission had recommended which was close to a 40 percent increase in salaries. The extent of increase is actually on the lower side of expectations.
The Seventh Pay Commission report for pay package hiking submitted to the Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on November 19. However, the central government employees are in for disappointment as the report has been proposed a 16 percent hike in pay package starting January 1, 2016.
We understand from sources of Finance Ministry that the average increase in basic pay for all government employees will be in the region of 20-24%. This is a very rough average because for low paid employees, the payback could increase by more than 26%.
We understand that minimum basic salary is likely to hike at least Rs 20,000 from Rs 18,000 recommended by the Seventh pay commission.

We also understand from sources, in good news for about 50 lakh central government employees, the the government is likely to approve doubling of existing rates of allowances and advances, which has been recommended for abolition by Seventh Pay Commission like risk allowance, small family allowance, festival advance, motor cycle advance.
It is also added that the central government employees at various levels have been complaining of the abolition of the above allowances and advances.
They also demanded to make up pay gap between employees and higher officers because in its report, the Seventh Pay Commission has recommended to increase the pay gap between the minimum and maximum from existing 1:12 to 1: 13.8, while all pay panels from second to sixth made up pay gap from 1:41 to 1:12.

New Delhi: The central government has formulated a fresh approach to deal with the issue of complexity over implementation of the Seventh Pay Commission report.
According to officials close to the implementation process, the government has decided to make up pay gap between employees and higher officers and to continue allowances and advances, which was scrapped by the pay commission.
The Pay Commission recommendations implementation cell under Finance Ministry is now working on an effective mechanism for implementation of the Seventh Pay Commission report by resolving the issues that arose over pay gap between low paid employees and top level officers.
A proposal for raising salaries of the central government employees by 20-24% per instead of 16 per cent, was recommended by the Seventh Pay Commission is also under study, officials close to the implementation process said Thursday.
But the final decision on the row over better pay hike from 16 per cent is expected to come from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement in next year.
People, familiar with the development, told the Sen Times that for that reason the implementation cell under Finance Ministry is going slow on the file of implementation of the Seventh Pay Commission report.
“The final proposal on the proposed pay matrix for central government employees will be sent to the Finance Minister through Expenditure Secretary before the next budget from us,” officials close to the implementation process told the Sen Times.
On receipt of the proposal from the implementation cell it would be placed before the cabinet for its nod through the group of secretaries of revision pay panel report headed by cabinet secretary, they added.
Under the prevailing circumstances, the central government employees are unlikely to draw salaries under the new pay matrix before next financial year, as promised earlier by the finance minister.
Officials, however, said whenever the new pay matrix would come into effect, the central government employees would get their enhanced salaries with effect from next year January 1 but they will get the benefit of Allowances like House Rent Allowance, Transport Allowance from the date of implementation of the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations.
The complexity over implementation of the new pay commission cropped up soon after the recommendation made by the Seventh Pay Commission headed by Justice A K Mathur.
The central government employees are in for disappointment as the Seventh Pay Commission report has been proposed a 16 percent hike in pay, which is significantly lower than what the Sixth pay commission had recommended which was close to a 40 percent increase in pay.
The central government employees also prefer continuation of some allowances and advances like risk allowance, small family allowance, festival advance, motor cycle advance but the Mathur led Seventh Pat Commission recommended scrapping of those.
The officials close to the implementation process said, the central government wants to increase in basic pay for all government employees will be in the region of 20-24%. This is a very rough average because for low paid employees may get more than 26% pay hike.
Accordingly, minimum basic salary is likely to hike at least Rs 20,000 from Rs 18,000 recommended by the Seventh pay commission.
They also confirmed that the implementation cell is likely to propose doubling of existing rates of allowances and advances, which has been recommended for abolition by Seventh Pay Commission like risk allowance, small family allowance, festival advance, motor cycle advance.
However, a number of sources of the Finance Ministry said the cabinet would take the decision on whether the basic pay would be hiked from 16 percent or not and some allowances and advances would be scrapped or not after recommendation of the group of secretaries of revision pay panel report.
The Seventh Pay Commission proposed the highest basic salary at Rs 250,000 and the lowest at Rs 18,000 for the central government employees.
The Seventh Pay Commission has recommended abolition of pay band and pay scales, and replacing them with what is known as a pay matrix. The status of the employee, hitherto determined by grade pay, will now be determined by the level in the pay matrix.

The report of the Seventh Pay Commission has yet again lost a massive reform opportunity
Pay commissions are appointed to reform government as a delivery system, not just to hike salary scales of government employees.
Pay commissions have over time become trivialized into vehicles for raising the salary scales of serving and retired government employees, justified by citing the need to raise the calibre of aspirants to government service. Pay commission reports also do some minor tweaking of service conditions such as leave and medical entitlements, but neither these nor the salary hikes will by themselves transform the civil services into a functioning delivery system. It will happen only if the structure of government is reformed so that it is shaped to deliver.
The report of the Seventh Pay Commission has yet again lost a massive opportunity for effecting such reform. Surprisingly, for a salary hike that is justified on the grounds that it will raise the calibre of future entrants, no surveys of aspirants are ever performed to get what they are looking for. Are they just looking at salaries?
The terms of reference given to the Seventh Pay Commission were well drawn and explicitly directed them to “...foster excellence in the public governance system to respond to the complex challenges of modern administration and the rapid political, social, economic and technological changes, with due regard to expectations of stakeholders...” Although so empowered, the commission refrains at several points in the report from encroaching on administrative issues. They would have been applauded for doing so by a nation fed up with the bureaucratic gridlock.
The first deep reform needed was to mark a date—say 15 years into the future— beyond which posts at central ministries, including at the highest level, would be filled exclusively from services executing the function required in each. There is a Central Engineering Service (Roads), yet you would never find them occupying top posts in the ministry of road transport at secretary or additional secretary level, or in the National Highways Authority of India. Is it any wonder that an IIT graduate prefers to sit for the civil services exam for entrance into the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) rather than the Indian Engineering Services (IES) exam? The prospect of rising to secretary rank has to be advertised at the time of IES entrance for it to have an impact on the aspirant pool. Structural reforms need to be made today with that kind of forward delivery date.
The service parity issue has indeed been addressed in the report, but in terms of promotion intervals and pay disparities. The more serious consequence of the hierarchy between services has to do with disruption to functioning when a ministry with a particular deliverable is manned at the top by officials with no specialist knowledge or experience in delivering that service at the ground level.
What is technical? The report falls into the common trap of classifying the Indian Audit and Accounts Service (IA&AS) and all other accounts services as non-technical (para 7.4.5). But accounting and auditing are as technical as engineering, in the sense of requiring a specialized course of study. And how does the Indian Railway Store Service get into the technical list? These are all inherited categorizations which need to be done away with. The fundamental distinction is specialist versus general. Specialist services alone should fill posts delivering that specialized service. Simple.
The second failing of the system which the commission accepts as given is that there will be elite Group A services (including the IES inductees), accounting for as little as 2.8% of the total number of central employees (which itself, at 3.3 million, is small by international standards relative to the size of the population). The major task of delivering governance rests with Groups B and C, who are rewarded by being shut out from decision-making posts. This segmentation even within each deliverable has shattered internal cohesion within government.
The thin sliver entitled to key posts together with seniority issues makes for the continued shuffling of senior bureaucrats between ministries. Add to this the absurdity of certain ministries carrying more prestige than others, and you have the elite services themselves more disgruntled than pleased by the rigidities in the present structure. With constant movement at the top, the stable and stagnant base which actually executes the function within each ministry develops resentments and disrespect translating into dysfunction, enough to thwart even the most well-meaning and able IAS officers appointed to head them.
Therefore, the second deep reform that the pay commission needed to do was to define verticals for each of the major functions listed in part 7, and look at induction and progression through the vertical as a whole. IES service cadres constitute 15% of all engineers in government service. The vast majority of engineers are appointed not to a service, but to a subordinate post, with quotas governing the proportions of vacancies that can be filled through mobility from lower to higher posts. The pay commission tweaks these proportions, but quotas with floors for compulsory filling from lower levels are as damaging as ceilings to mobility. What is needed is a deeper reform of engineering into a single common service, with functional specializations, cadres within each graded A to E, and entrance to every grade and every level within every grade open to in-service applicants. A diploma holder who enters the service in Grade E should in principle be able to rise through talent and hard work all the way to Grade A.
The third reform needed is non-uniform retirement ages within each functional service. This nettle has been grasped in the armed forces, for example, where it is understood that combat troops have to retire earlier than those in desk jobs. Equivalently, there are jobs like that of linesman in electricity companies, where the rules prescribe an age ceiling for the work of line repair at 45, but where the individuals remain on the payroll up to the uniform retirement age of 60. In an upwardly mobile vertical, these employees can graduate up to higher levels, but for those who do not, the retirement age has to be equated to the performance limit for the function.
IES inductees at least take a separate engineering entrance examination. But a whole host of other services share a common entrance examination with the IAS. We then have the self-reinforcing system whereby, in a structure where higher posts are routinely filled by the IAS, the top ranking candidates in the common examination naturally choose the IAS, which then perpetuates the assignment of top posts to the IAS on the grounds that they got a higher rank in the common exam. The system constantly loops back into itself.
An example is the IA&AS, a Group A service. The post of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) as a constitutional position cannot be assigned to any service, so the highest post the IA&AS can aspire to is that of deputy CAG. In practice, the post of CAG is filled by retired IAS officers. Given that, clearly even applicants with excellent prior education in commerce and accounting would prefer the IAS, because among other advantages they get included in the pool from which the national auditor will eventually be drawn. Senior posts in ministries of financial adviser are also typically not filled from any of the accounts services.
The entire accounting and auditing vertical needs to merged, both horizontally across the several services into which it is splintered at the elite level (defence accounts, railway accounts and other such), and also merged vertically with posts into which accountants are inducted on the strength of prior degrees without an entrance test. With full merger, and unobstructed access to senior posts requiring accounting skills, we would begin to see the strength and confidence needed for ensuring that government expenditure is effective, without the obstructionism born of resentment.
The final paradox is that as salaries are regularly winched up for employees on the permanent payroll of government, the salary bill is sought to be held down in practice by either not filling vacancies, or filling them with temporary staff. The data on vacancies show one in five positions vacant as on 1 January 2014 on average across all departments, ranging up to nearly one in two positions in some ministries (the finance ministry among them). This is the single most important indicator of dysfunctionality of government in India, since elsewhere in the world, vacancies either address a functional need (in which case they are immediately filled), or not (in which case the post is axed). The report says nothing about either that or related issues such as the protection (not) accorded to contractual workers in outsourced services for the running of office canteens, security services, and maintenance of buildings and grounds, other than a feeble injunction (para 3.80) against exploitation of such employees.
Every commission is a reform opportunity. That is why the failure of the Seventh Pay Commission to look more deeply at the structure of government is something of such profound consequence. A pulpit like that happens only once in 10 years.

The Seventh Pay Commission headed by Justice A K Mathur has recommended a 14.27 percent increase in basic pay, the lowest in 70 years.

However, the entry level pay has been recommended to be raised to Rs 18,000 per month from current Rs 7,000 while the maximum pay, drawn by the Cabinet Secretary, has been fixed at Rs 2.5 lakh per month from current Rs 90,000. For the Secretaries it has been fixed at Rs 2.25 lakh as against Rs 80,000 currently.
The minimum entry level pay for central government employees has risen 225 times since 1959, when the Second Pay Commission submitted its report.

The chart below shows the quantum of increase in minimum entry level pay of central government employees over the years (From 1947 to 2016):

The much-awaited 7th Pay Commission report was submitted to the government last Thursday. The 900-page long report was perused swiftly within a day or two and criticisms have already started coming.
The very next day of submitting the report, M. Krishnan, the Confederation Secretary, gave a scathing criticism. “No other Pay Commission had submitted such a terrible report,” he said. At the very beginning of the press release, he had mentioned that the backward mindset of the recommendations of the Pay Commission have been a huge disappointment for the Central Government employees.

Contrary to all the wild speculations, a raise of only 14.29 percent was finally given to the Central Government employees. This increment is akin to two installments of the Dearness Allowance. He has strongly stated that more than 50 lakh Central Government employees and Defence Personnel have been cheated.
The 6th Pay Commission recommended 10 percent, 20 percent, and 30 percent House Rent Allowance for ten years starting from 01.01.2006. The intention behind reducing it to 24 percent, 16 percent and eight percent was not explained. Despite being very well aware of the fact that the recommendations will be in effect until 2026, the fact that the Pay Commission had tried to reduce the allocation has left the Central Government employees greatly disappointed.
MACP Promotions: Among the biggest disappointments of the 7th Pay Commission report is the fact that promotions, which are given once every ten years, so not earn any substantial benefits for the employees. They stand to gain only 3 percent hike. Another painful observation is the fact that the gap between Grade Pay 2800 and 4200 has been completely reduced.
The next big disappointment is the method of calculating the dearness allowance. This was one of the much-anticipated parts of the report. There is no clear explanation as to the reason why changes had to be made in the CPI IW BY 2001=100 method, or the 115.76 Factor.
On top of it all, the commission has introduced a new “Pay Matrix.” Our expectations of a detailed explanation about it were never fulfilled. 3 percent of the amount has been rounded off and given for each CELL.
In short, the 7th Pay Commission report is on the receiving end of lot of criticism. Central Government employees are now hoping that the Centre would intervene and do something positive for them.

Follow by Email