All India C.P.W.D. Engineers Association New Delhi Suggestions
Sixth Central Pay Commission:Suggestions
All India C.P.W.D. Engineers Association New Delhi
Comparison with public/private sectors
Should there be any comparison/parity between pay scales and perquisites in Government and the public/private sector?
Yes, the comparisons between pay scales and perquisites including retiral benefits in Govt. and the Public / Private Sector and the demand for parity are fully valid and justified in view of the fact that the public sector is also managed by the Govt. and the money invested in this sector is public money. There is further no justification at all for any discrimination, in the matter of pay scales and perquisites of professionals like engineers between Government and Public sector as they deliver exactly on the same lines and pattern so as to invoke the principle of ‘Equal pay for Equal work’ enshrined in the constitution of India. In the changed economic scenario of the country specially with reference to the entry of multinationals, Globalisation of economy, open market and free trade the Govt. employees can not be kept aloof of the developments taking place all-around them. In order to achieve the effectiveness, efficiency and quality in the administration, the parity with public Private sector is the greater need of the time. Parity in Pay Scales is otherwise necessary if the Govt. wants to retain talent, and attract qualified well equipped & proficient professionals like Engineers, Doctors and Scientists who are expected to perform & produce results at par, if not better, than their counter parts in private sector. This fact also has been endorsed by the 5th C.P.C. in its report vide Para 40.18 to 40.21. Thus the greater responsibility on this issue rests with the 6th C.P.C. in view of the general negative approach of the Finance Department. There is absolutely no reason and justification for inadequate salaries, in adequate financial benefits and poor career prospects for the Government employees on the plea of so called resource constraints, financial burden and paying capacity of the Government. Reasonably well balanced & better pay structure coupled with high social & professional status attracts right type of talent, good quality of workers who give output of desired standards with utmost efficiency.
Is it possible to quantify all other benefits, excluding pay, derived by employees in Government and the public and private sectors from security of tenure, promotional avenues, retirement packages, housing and other invisibles? In view of these benefits, can there be any fair comparison between the salaries available in the government vis-à-vis the salaries in the private sector?
The benefits of security of tenure, “promotional avenues”, “retirement packages”, Housing and other invisibles excluding pay derived by employees in Govt. and the Public & Private Sector can well be quantified as under:- (a) “Security of Tenure” – Indeed, in the present economic scenario as obtained in the country as a result of the privatization & globalization the aspect of security of tenure has become redundant and insignificant. Not only the cases of mass retrenchment are quite seldom since all the companies whether in Private or Public Sectors are growing by leaps and bounds, but more avenues are also available for qualified technical professionals. As regards the termination of jobs in the Private/ Public Sectors vis-à-vis the Govt. employment it would be noted that such terminations are based exclusively on the individual’s defaults in terms of lack of efficiency, honesty and devotion to duty etc. while the termination proceedings are finalized speedily in the Private Sector, due procedure of enquiry & investigation, giving the reasonable opportunity to the charged official is followed in Public and Govt. Sector. The fundamental aspect however is the same in all the sector to terminate the services. It is also pertinent to mention here that in private sector at times the employees, themselves leave the jobs frequently on their own to move toreener pastures. It is therefore, misconception that the security of tenure is better in Govt. than Private Sector. (b) “Promotional Avenues”:- It is the hard fact and quite an eye-opener that the promotional avenues in Govt. are just negligible under the existing arrangement of career advancement where as in private sector faster and exemplary promotional avenues are available irrespective of availability of posts. Promotions in private Sector depends exclusively on the efficiency, output & achievement of targets. The Govt. employees are thus placed at disadvantageous position, as far as promotional avenues are concerned and are thus needed to be compensated in terms of money. (c) “Retirement Packages” :- As far as the retirement packages in Govt./Public/Private Sector is concerned it is stated that these packages are much hefty in case of Public / Private Sector than in Govt. services. The pension in the Govt. is not only inadequate but too meager for the retired personnel to meet the both ends in their old age. Even the Vth Pay Commission in para 37.5(V) had admitted that CEO’s in Private Sector are increasingly being given super anuation benefits which are significantly better than the pension entitlements available to the secretaries in the Govt. Not only the Pension of the Govt. Employee is scaled down to 50% of the last pay drawn but the dearness relief, which is meant to compensate the price rise is also abruptly reduced by 50% on the next day of the retirement. The retirement benefits in Govt. sector are otherwise inconsequential as because those earning lacs of Rupees in Private Sector can easily save enough inserving years to more than meet their retirement requirements For the employees recruited before 1-1-2004. After 1/1/04 even the pensionary benefits are not available to the new entrants on non contributory pattern. The existing system of “defined benefit pension scheme” has been replaced by “Contributory system” for new entrants. What ever the socalled edge the Govt. Servants were said to be having over their counter parts in private sector, has disappeared with the introduction of “Contributory pension system” For the Employee recruited after 1st January 2004. The new contributory pension scheme is highly unjustified & unacceptable particularly in view of the fact that the Pay Commission was in the offing at the time of notification of this scheme by the Govt. This matter could have been referred to the Pay Commission for their study and thorough examination of its pros and cons. The new contribution Pension Scheme as notified & being forcefully enforced by the Govt. suffers from infirmities and in-adequacies. Even the Vth Pay Commission had ensured 50% Pension on non contributory pattern to the new entrants. It had only recommended to create a fund to which the Govt. was to contribute to the tune of 17.73% as against 6.5% by the new entrants and with this fund the new entrants was assured of 20% more pension in addition to existing 50% Pension It would also be noted with concern that the employees were entitled to withdraw the amount or / and to take loan from their G.P.F. accumulation at the time of their needs like marriages, and education of their wards, treatment of the disease, construction of houses and for other social obligations etc. under the new contributory Pension Scheme if an employee wants to have the withdrawl facility, he will have to contribute towards tier II option in addition to his 10% mandatory contribution towards tier I i.e. the contributory pension scheme. The employee will thus suffer the double whammy and will be compelled to take 20% less salary at home . Hence the contribution to the tier-2 of the said Scheme is bound to be beyond the contributing capacity of the employees due to their limited salaries as they can not contribute in both the tiers simultaneously. In view of the above revelations the said scheme is absolutely against the canons of social justice equity and fairplay. (d) Housing :- There is the great disparity in the matter of housing with respect to the Govt. employees in comparison with the Public and Private Sector. In the Govt. services H.R.A. @30% (maximum) is paid to the employee where as in Private & Public Sector the full amount of lease of a house occupied by their employees, is reimbursed or directly paid by the employer to the house owners. Therefore the deficit of 20% on this account is quantified which should be adjusted for the just determination of pay scales of the Govt. employees. (e) Other Invisibles:- In the matter of other invisibles, Govt. employees do not have enough facilities in comparison with the employees of Private / Public Sectors, like medical facilities, children education expenses, Telephone / Mobile, Transport facilities like Car, traveling by Air, computers, Laptop, Uniform, L.T.A., Advances for House and furnishing of the same, car maintenance, driver, insurance road tax, petrol, club membership, books & periodicals, credit cards, etc.etc. This aspect is also needed to be quantified in terms of pay to be fixed for the Govt. employee. As shown above the aspect of paying capacity of the State Govts., Municipal Bodies, Panchayti Raj Institutions & Autonomous bodies should not come in the way of fixation of Pay Scales to the Central Govt. employees. It can further be seen from the existing pay structures and service conditions of the employees of State Govts. Autonomous Bodies & Private Sector etc. that the pay scales of the Central Govt. employees are quite inferior leave alone the best as pointed out by the 5th C.P.C. in Para 40.19 and 40.23 of its report incomparison. Thus any further deterioration in pay scales or the absence of improvement in this regard shall be totally unjustified. There should be a permanent wage Review Body to enforce the wage not only for the central Govt. employees but for all including Public/ Private Sector and State Govt. employees on the basis of national income, principle of fixation of wages, magnitude of work, duties and responsibilities, accountability and output etc. It should be institutionalized. Such permanent Wage Review Body was indeed suggested by IVth Central Pay Commission vide Para 29.15 of Part-I of its report on the line of U.K. and subsequently by Vth Central Pay Commission. This will maintain the equilibrium between the national income and wage structure and help in devising ways & means to ensure optimum efficiency, output and production through talented and devoted employees without any murmur, heart burn and dispute.
In order to ensure a fair comparison based on principles of equity and social justice, would it not also be appropriate to take into account the economic conditions of large sections of the community that are less privileged than Government employees and many of whom live below the poverty line?
The fast changing socio-economic scenario in the country has affected every strata of the society. The consequential positive effects of the economic liberalization in the country can be vouched for, as the same are visible from the economic parameters governing the financial health of the country. There has been phenomenal growth in GDP & net national per-capita income during the past decade. Though the condition of lesser privileged has improved substantially with the growth in GDP & Economic prosperity of the country, yet a lot remains still to be done. While the pre-eminent role of the govt. in initiating the policies & programmes for the upliftment of poors & lesser privileged is not denied, the plight and sufferings of the Govt. employees can also not be overlooked. Even other wise the employees, who constitute the Govt. machinery instrumental in implementing various socio-economic measures and poverty alleviation programmes, can not be left in a state of despair and despondency. The well fed and duly pampered Govt. employees only can have the motivation & spirit to carryout the programmes & policies of the Govt. and can function as a well oiled Govt. machinery to yield optimum efficiency and out put. Govt. employees are the face of the Govt. in public, their approach, presentation and functioning in public can make or mar the image & performance of the Govt. of the day. Moreover the Govt. employees do not live in isolation. They can not be discriminated and segregated from reaping the benefits of development and progress vis a vis their counter parts in Private/ Public Sector. It is also altogether very relevant and cogent to emphasize that public sectors and private sectors who are paying astronomical salaries to their employees, do also have the responsibility towards lesser privileged and they are also expected to be governed by the principle of equity & social justice. The Govt. too has to be blamed equally for raising the ceiling on the remuneration of employees in private sector. After removing the cap on maximum salary in case of Private Sector and allowing the market forces to decided the salary & perquisites the Govt. now can not raise up the bogey of socio-economic conditions of lesser privileged in deciding & determining the pay structure of Govt. employees. Being a welfare state it is, appropriate to take into account the economic conditions of large sections of the community which are lesser privileged than Govt. employees. But simultaneously the same principle would apply for the Govt. employees as well who are also the lesser privileged and under paid with respect to the Public and Private Sectors. Therefore, the economic conditions of this section which is also lesser privileged in comparision to private & public sector employees is to be taken into account. Moreover, the sacrifice for the upliftment of lesser privileged and those who are living below poverty line should be made by all, including Politicians, Businessmen, Industrialists, Public & Private Sectors as well as by the Govt. employees. It is neither fair nor justified to make the Govt. employees only the sacrificial lamb who have already been denied their due share in the past in the name of such social welfare measures and so called poor economic condition of the state. The so-called poor economic condition of the state and issue of social justice and equity to lesser privileged do not come in the way of politicians when they themselves legislate for the increase in their pays & perks at just drop of a hat. It is however suggested that if the parity, eliminating the existing disparities is to be achieved by way of a cut in the payscales / perquisites and other benefits the cut may be exercised to all sections without any discrimination based on the caste, creed and class whatsoever.
Some countries have raised civil service pay scales almost to levels prevalent in the private sector on the hypothesis that a well-paid bureaucracy is likely to be honest and diligent. To what extent would such a hypothesis be valid and how far would such a course of action be desirable?
The hypothesis adopted by some foreign countries is quite valid and equally applicable in India also. The wages / Salary structure of the Govt. employees should be raised in such a way that they could maintain their status in the society, with reasonably appropriate standard of life and meet increased family expenses such as fairly good education to their wards, good health of the family, proper housing, clothing etc. It is an universal truth that well paid hierarchy of employees is expected to be honest and diligent. The experiment is quite successful in the foreign countries and is paying dividends there. In India also such a hypothesis would be valid cent percent as the employees apply and use dishonest means only under very compelling and acute circumstances arising out of disparities and discriminations. Otherwise basically no body is dishonest, and no one wants to indulge into any malpractice, unwarranted and uncalled for (activities). Since the stage of India’s economic development is in its sensitive phase, it is all the more essential to adopt this theory of well paid bureaucracy. There are more than 90% of employees who do not intend or wish to act in a dishonest manner, if their needs are satisfied honestly and honourably. As such, this hypothesis would be valid upto atleast 90% cases which is quite good and encouraging.
Impact on other organizations
Salary structure in the Central and State Governments is broadly similar. The recommendations of the Pay Commission are likely to lead to similar demands from employees of State Governments, municipal bodies, panchayati raj institutions & autonomous institutions Their paying capacity is considerably limited. To what extent should this factor be considered in devising a reasonable remuneration package for Central Government employees?
This question, is in fact insignificant under prevailing circumstances in the States. Rather, in most of the states, like Tamil Nadu, Maharastra, Meghlaya, Nagaland, Arunanchal Pradesh, Mizoram, J&K, U.P., U.A., Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Triputa etc.The pay scales are higher than the Central Govt. It shows that the better Pay Scales always do not relate to the paying capacity. Even otherwise the cardinal principle of Equal Pay for equal work enshrined in the constitution of India must be applicable throughout the country in all the Sectors Public vis-à-vis Private Sector without having any consideration of Central / States Govt., or autonomous bodies, what so ever. As such this factor should not be given credence to act as deterrent in devising a reasonable remuneration package for Central Govt. employees. The pay scales of the Central Govt. employees are not even appropriate leave alone the best as pointed out by the 5th C.P.C. in Para 40.19 and 40.23 of its report. Any further deterioration in pay scales or the absence of improvement therein shall be totally unjustified. The question of paying capacity is therefore ruled out under the existing circumstances. The concept of ‘capacity to pay’ is again not tenable as the Govts. have always moblised resources when they wished to do so and the Govt. (Central as well as states) usually resort to profligacy when political exigency & expediency so demands. The Govt. therefore cannot exploit the employees on the basis of this theory of capacity to pay. In the welfare and democratic State like India, the Govt. is supposed to be the model employer. It is expected to set an example before other sectors in regard to the pay structure and service conditions of it’s employees. The question of capacity to pay becomes redundant when the need of quality and value based services is desired. It is well known fact that lesser paying capacity, always leads to compromise with the quality and quantity of the commodity/ service. The (State Govt. Municipal bodies etc) should try to manage their finances by plugging corruption and political interference in their working. however Poorly paid employees shall aggravate the problem of corruption & inefficiency further if their needs are not taken care of in a proper and just manner under the guise of “Paying Capacity of State”. It, would also be interesting to add here that the issue of ‘Paying Capacity’ comes into picture only at the time of determination of pay structures of the employees where as the Govt. in the present democratic set up of the country based on the principles of the social justice and (up liftment) of the weaker Section of the society, totally forgets and ignores it at the time of revision & enhancement of emoluments of the political leaders like Ministers / Chairmen / M.Ps / M.LAs / Councillors etc. The emoluments of M.Ps in this country have been enhanced 36 times during a period of 46 years after independence. One M.P costs to the ex-chequer to the tune of Rs. 2.00 lacs per month. This should serve as an Eye-opener.
How should we determine the salary to be paid to a Secretary in the Central Government? Please suggest an appropriate basic pay for a Secretary? Can appointment to this post be made on a contractual basis where salaries and tenure are linked to the performance in terms of achieving defined targets?
We need not to be obsessed with the post of secretary and treat it iasa a bench mark. The time has come to apply different parameters in determining the pay structure of the bureaucratic and professionals. In open market economy with the ingress of MNCs the whole scenario has changed. The technocrats like Engineers, Doctors, and scientists are being valued for their worth. The astronomical salaries of IT Professionals and Doctors in the private hospitals should be an eye opener. Therefore it is our considered view that the professionals salary should be at least 30% more than the (generalist) bureaucrats at all level. The pay of Secretary in the Central Govt., however should be determined by keeping in view, the minimum and maximum ratio. The pay should however be fixed in such a ways that there is no flight of talent from the Govt. The appropriate basic pay for a secretary in the Central Govt. should be fixed on the same principle of fixation of pay as applicable to all other categories of employees without any discrimination. To appoint the Secretary to the Govt. of India on a contractual basis is a good idea, though it is not feasible in the existing administrative set up. However some sort of mobility can be encouraged in all the three sectors i.e. Govt. / Public/ Private sectors. This will enable all the three sector benefit from the vast pool of professionals & eminent administrations so generated. The services of technocrats like Sri Dharan and Sampitroda can always be had on contractual basis to benefit from their experience and expertise”. Further to facilitate horizontal & vertical mobility of employees in all the three sectors i.e. Govt./Public/ Private emphasis will have to be made on comparable pay perks & salaries.
What should be the reasonable ratio between the minimum and the maximum of a pay scale?
The reasonable ratio between the minimum and maximum of a pay scale depends upon the rate of increment and the span of scale. The existing average ratio in pay scales suggested by 4th C.P.C. was 1:1.39 and it was 1:1.35 incase of 5th C.P.C. The increase in ratio of the minimum and maximum of a pay scale provides better opportunity to mitigate the hardships of the stagnation in a pay scale. Therefore in the wider interest of the services and in order to keep the employee contented it is the need of the day to enhance the existing ratio to the tune of at least 1:2
Is it necessary to persist with a pre-determined minimum-maximum ratio on ideological considerations? Or is it more important to ensure efficient administration by preventing flight of outstanding talent from Government?
It is essential to check the prevention of the flight of out standing talent from the Govt. Which is more applicable to engineers, doctors, scientists, I.T. professionals, specialists and computer personnels. The past statistics in this regard would amply establish that the brain drain is more on account of frustration, discontentment and inadequate pay package. This major factor should also be considered, while determining the minimum and maximum pay scales to such cadres.
Employees in the Secretariat and analogous establishments are entitled to higher pay scales than the corresponding field functionaries. This was supposed to compensate them for the loss of certain facilities available to them in field assignments and the extra effort required for decision-making at the policy level. Are these factors valid even today particularly in the context of decentralization and devolution of administrative powers? Is this discrimination between field and secretariat functionaries even justified today?
This should in fact be, other way round. The higher pay scales ought to have been granted to the field staff than corresponding employees posted in the offices (secretariat and analogous establishments). The field duties are more hazardous, risky, arduous and expensive than the office duties. The field staff is exposed to the vagaries of nature. They are subjected to public resistances, accidents, life risks and indefinite working hours. They have to take spot decisions. The secretariat staff does not contribute much in decision making at the policy level. Further it is wrong to say that decision making at policy level requires extra effort. It is the field staff who provide the feed back & necessary in put. Not only this, it is they, the field staff who suggest various proposals and provide necessary information about their utility & likely pros & cons. of their selection. The General trend in the Govt. is that ministries ask the subordinate and attached offices to prepare cabinet notes, SFC Notes etc. The proposals of the concerned departments are thus made by the field staff. Not only this, the field staff again makes extra effort to convince the policy makers in the ministry about the viability of his proposal. In the existing set up no creativity and innovative ideas are generated at the level of so called policy makers. It is the field staff who gives ideas & proposals duly backed by necessary details & practical experience at field. It is therefore suggested that Higher Compensation be granted to the employees posted on field. This principle was admitted by the 5th C.P.C. Vide Para 40.16 of it’s report. The system which provides the ministerial cadres the edge over the technical cadres is fundamentally wrong and unjustified. The technical cadres are specialized in their jobs, whereas the bureaucrats are merely generalists. It is therefore suggested that henceforth the existing edge enjoyed hitherto before by ministerial staff be provided to the technical staff as they are producing the national assets and wealth. Moreover the duties of technical cadres are arduous, hazardous and require skill to perform them.
Is there a case for a Unified Civil Service, merging therein all Central (both technical and non-technical) and All India Services, allowing vertical and horizontal movement ? Or should there be two distinct streams, one embracing all the technical services and the other for non-technical services?
It is suggested to have two district unified streams for technical and non-technical cadres. The technical cadre should have horizontal & vertical movement in both the services. The technical personnel may prove to be better in the administration of technical departments or services. The non-technical personnel limitations in running such departments.
Do you feel that the pattern of pay scales for all Group A Services should be redesignated so as to attract candidates of the requisite caliber? Keeping in view some of the compensation packages being offered to fresh professionals by the private sector, what emoluments would you suggest for an entrant to a Group-A Service in Government?
Pay and perquisites should be attractive. The entrant to a Group A service should get the pay scale of at least thirty five thousands. The pattern of Pay Scale for all Group – A services in Govt. needs to be re-designated in a way so as to attract the candidates of high technical caliber and control the brain drain to Private Sector. It can only be possible if better Pay packages are offered in Govt. than the in Private / Public Sector.
Should there be a higher compensation package for scientists in certain specialized streams/departments like Department of Space, Department of Atomic Energy? If so, what should be the reasonable package in their case?
There is the fundamental difference in the sophistication of education and knowledge of the technical experts and scientists in the field of Space, Atomic Energy, Ocean Development etc. The reasonable package in such cases should be granted at par with their counter parts in the developed countries or at-least equivalent to the private sector in India. As already said the technocrats i.e. Engineers, Doctors, and Scientists should be given at least 30% higher pay packages than their counter parts in non technical services. However the technocrats like Scientist, Doctors and Engineers engaged in R&D work like in Department of Space, Department of Atomic Energy should at least be paid 50% higher compensation package than non technical persons of corresponding batches / seniority.
Classification of posts
Presently, civilian posts in the Central Government are classified into four Groups (A, B, C and D) with reference to their scales of pay. The Fifth Central Pay Commission had recommended their reclassification into Executive, Supervisory, Supporting and Auxiliary Staff. Would you suggest any changes in the existing classification or should the classification recommended by Fifth Central Pay Commission be adopted with/without modifications?
The classification recommended by the 5th C.P.C. can be adopted, ‘of course’, with suitable & appropriate modifications. Number of posts and classifications at supporting and auxiliary level however needs to be merged to create multifunctional posts at these level.
Restructuring of Group C & D posts
Should all lower Group C functionaries in the Secretariat be replaced by multi-functional Executive Assistants, who would be graduates and well versed in office work, secretarial skills and use of modern office equipment including computers? Should Similar arrangements can be evolved for Group C posts in other organisations of Government?
Yes, All the Group ‘C’ functionaries in the Secretariat and in all other subordinate administrative offices must be replaced by multi functional executive assistants on the pattern of the Public / Private companies, who would be able to produce desired results and achieve targets efficiently and economically in the fast paced economic progress and development by virtue of their special qualification, expertise and experience. They should not be simply graduates but be well versed in office work, secretarial skill and use of modern office equipments like computers etc.
Should a similar regrouping of Group D staff into fewer categories capable of performing diverse functions also be carried out?
The re-grouping of certain cadres Group ‘D’ staff into one category is necessary just to obtain the efficient result and desired discipline.
How should a pay scale be structured? What is a reasonable ratio between the minimum and maximum of a pay scale?
The pay scales should be structured in a way so as to have complete parity with private sector. The pay scales should further be restructured in a manner of time bound telescopic pay scales so that atleast 3 financial Jumps/UP-gradations be made available to each employee if three career promotions are not available to him during the service career. The minimum pay of the lowest functionary should be the living wage and ratio between minimum and maximum of a scale should be enhanced to 1:2 as described in reply to question no – 4.2. However the disparity ratio between the minimum & maximum pay scales should be maintained to the existing level of 10.7 as fixed by Vth Pay Commission
The successive Pay Commissions have progressively reduced the number of distinct pay scales. The number of scales has therefore come down from more than 500 scales at the time of the Second Central Pay Commission to 51 scales before Fifth Central Pay Commission, which was brought down to 33 scales by the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The reduction in the number of pay scales brings in attendant problems like the promotion and the feeder grades coming to lie in the same pay scale, etc. Do you feel whether the existing number of pay scales should be retained or increased or decreased or whether the same should be replaced by a running pay scale?
The no. of Pay scales may further be decreased and be brought to preferably 20 to 25 avoiding the over lapping of the scales. This is specifically suggested in view of the suggestions made in reply of Q. No. 9.1 & 9.2. to merge and create multifunctional post at “C” and “D” level. The reduction of scales shall further reduce the anomalies and discriminations between the different categories of employees besides being positive step to stream line the pay structure.
What should be the criteria for determining the rates and frequency of increments in respect of different scales of pay? Should these bear a uniform or varying relationship with the minima and/or maxima of the scales?
The criteria of increment rates in the past has generally been one day pay of a scale to be given at a frequency of one year. However the frequency as well as rate needs much improvement in competitive environ with the ingress of multinationals and private sectors who pay quite adequately to their employees coupled with decent perks and extra ordinary facilities. They extend excellent opportunities of vertical mobility to their employees both financially as well as career wise. As such it is suggested that to obtain the recruits of right stamp and to retain them in the Govt. service, the rate of increment needs to be fixed at the uniform rate of 10% of the pay at an interval of 6 months i.e. on 1st Jan. and 1st July of every year. It will simplify fixation and reduce the paper work as well.
Revision of pay scales
Is there any need to revise the pay scales periodically especially when 100% neutralization for inflation is available in form of dearness allowance?
The revision of pay scales is necessary after every 5 years in view of the fast changing situations, financial environment and rapid national development. This view was laid down in para 171.9 and 171.12 of the Vth C.P.C. Report, which inter alia had also recommended the establishment of the permanent pay Commission.
How should pay be fixed in the revised pay scales? Should there be a point-to-point fixation? If not, please suggest a method by which it can be ensured that senior personnel are not placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their juniors and due weightage is given for the longer service rendered by the former
The fixation of pay in revised scales in fact should be strictly on point-to-point basis to extend justice and to give regard to the services of the senior personnel. No other method would be rational and scientific in this respect. It has also been suggested in our memorandum with very cogent reasons. The date of effect of the revised pay scales should be 1.1.2006 and the pay scales should be based on the cost index as on 31.12.2005.
Is City Compensatory Allowance a sufficient compensation for the problems of a large city? If DA and HRA provide full neutralization, do you think CCA should continue? Is there a need for changing the basis of classification of cities and the rates of CCA? If so, please suggest the revised basis and rates.
The City Compensatory Allowance is although a measure to compensate the peculiar problems faced by the employee in large cities yet its quantum is not adequate. The H.R.A. & D.A. are not fully neutralized. More over these allowances are meant only for the particular purposes and can not be said to be compensating the peculiar problems of mega-cities like high living cost, changed life style, long distances of utility services like markets, schools, hospitals, offices, and banks, recreational centers etc. from residence. The C.C.A. should not only be based on the population of the cities but on the other factors categorizing and identifying the peculiarities of a city. The rates of the C.C.A. should be revised. The minimum rates of the C.C.A. should be .10% of basic pay in the smallest city at lower level of categorization and categories and should be enhanced proportionately for cities of higher. All these allowances should be based on percentage basis and not on lump sum basis. These should be well defined and be paid automatically.
Abolition of feudalism
Should all vestiges of feudalism in the country like huge residential bungalows sprawling over several acres, large number of servant quarters, retinues of personal staff, bungalow peons, use of uniformed personnel as batmen or on unnecessary security or ceremonial duties etc. be abolished? Please make concrete suggestions.
It is a must to abolish all such feudalism as this country can not afford such luxurious, Unproductive and fanciful expenditure. On oneside the goal of socialistic pattern of the society is insisted to be achieved in this country by eliminating the vast differences and wide disparities amongst the rich and poor while on the other hand, the higher officers and politicians are enjoying these undue and lavish facilities at the cost of poors/ lesser privileged. The residences of all the classes should be restricted to plinth areas only and should be multistoreyed. The facilities like retinues of personal staff bungalow peons, use of uniformed personel as batman or on unnecessary security or ceremonial duties be withdrawn, as these are not only the vestiges of feudalism but are misused also by the corrupt Govt. servants & politicians alike. In place of these facilities the Government servant must be financially Compensated as and in accordance with his status.
In what manner can Central Government organizations functioning be improved to make them more professional, citizen-friendly and delivery oriented?
All the out dated laws, Rules-Regulations, Instructions un-called for, in appropriate, unwarranted & un productive formalities emphasizing more on procedure than on productivity and efficiency are required to be suitably modified or abolished. Present system is based on mistrust, which has caused one to safeguard one self by following procedure instead of thinking of improving the delivery system and achieving the goals. The attitude therefore has to change, reliance has to be placed on the individual’s creativity, ingenuity and wisdom. The old colonial outdated provisions of C.C.S. and conduct Rules etc are to be simplified straight-away in accordance with the ground realities and needs of the day. More freehand is to be given to the field officers to implement the new concepts and methods instead of sticking to the conventional methods and procedures.
Please outline specific proposals, which could result in: (i) Reduction and redeployment of staff, (ii) Reduction of paper work, (iii) Better work environment, (iv) Economy in expenditure, (v) Professionalisation of services, (vi) Reduction in litigation on service matters, (vii) Better delivery of service by government agencies to their users.
Q (i) Reduction and redeployment of staff. Ans. Highly paid staff with accountability, responsibility of out put will reduce quantum of the existing staff. The privatization of jobs in the Govt. will also reduce the staff. Multi tasking and adequately trained personnels equipped to handle and adopt latest technology will certainly reduce the staff. Q.(ii) Reduction of Paper work (i) The delegation of powers at every level to take decisions, reduction in levels of hierarchy and result oriented working would reduce the paper work. Rationalisation and simplification of rules, radical changes in the office procedure, improvement in the conduct rules and fixing of the direct responsibility are some of the measures to be adopted to reduce the paper work. The exemption from income tax, return, closure of periodical returns, Statements, Frequent meetings and other such unproductive schemes will save a lot of paper work. Q.(iii) Better work environment. (iii) Good Salary structure with fair facilities, progressive perquisites, and Inspiring rewards for commendable works, Quick career advancement, Punishment for inadequate out put, delays , indiscipline, non-punctuality, Reduction of levels and Delegation of powers to various functionaries to take decisions, will create working environment. Besides the Employees should be provided with infrastructural facilities & physical environment on the lines of corporate offices. Q.(iv) Economy in Expenditure. (iv) Economy in expenditure is indeed an issue of paramount importance. As suggested earlier the following wasteful and fanciful expenditures should be avoided in the Govt. (a) All the Govt, Vehicles allotted to the officers/ministers/chair persons etc. should be with drawn immediately. They may be given interest free loans to purchase the their own vehicle. Adequate conveyance allowance should be given to these officers. Alternative taxi charges used for office works may be reimbursed. (b) Rotational transfers including change of station must be banned strictly. The transfer and postings involving change of station and consequential T.A. & D.A. etc. should be effected very rarely and in exceptional circumstances with the prior approval of the head of the department only, where new units are opened or on requests of employees, on complaint or in the national interest where the services of a particular official is considered important. (C) Official tours should be reduced to the barest minimum. Tours to foreign countries must be drastically decreased. It is seen that the higher officers, ministers, and politicians visit the foreign countries without justification only for their recreation or personal purposes costing dearly to exchequer. (d) The fanciful expenditure on free furnished huge bungalows with sprawling lawns and fleet of maintenance/personnel staff provided to the higher officers/ ministers/ politicians need to be dispensed with as austerity measures. Infact the financial burden on the economy of the country is not on account of the payment of wages and other general facilities of the employees but is mainly due to such wasteful fanciful and luxurious expenses of white elephants at the cost of the welfare of poor citizens (e) Seminars/ conferences / conventions / workshops etc. should not be allowed liberally as is the trend at present. There is the mushroom growth of these seminars / conferences / work shops etc. For these functions also the prior approval of the ministry of finance should be obtained, to control the Govt. expenditure not only on the auditorium, but on the booking, lodging and T.A., D.A. of the delegates, besides on gifts, souvenir and other publicity materials. (f) Last but not the least, economy in expenditure can be achieved by increasing the productivity, expenditure incurred in that direction will be sound investment if the desired results are obtained. Q.(v). Professionalisation of Service. (v) Professionalism in Govt. service is possible by introducing some cash incentives on percentage basis to the employees for their productive out put which is ultimately beneficial to the nation as in case of employees of Roadways and DTC where Some fixed percentage of the sales of tickets is being given to the Drivers & Conductors. They are now putting hard labour and endeavour enough to get more & more passengers. Similarly, in the Deptt. Of customs, central excise. Such incentives are invogue. This will reduce the illegal gratification & corruption also. This system can be initiated in all the Govt. deptts. The engineers may be offered a fixed percentage on the value of the assets created for the nation to introduce and inculcate sense of professionalism in them. The professionalism can also be introduced by making the organizational structure flat. Existing various layers of hierarchy should be reorganized to introduce the element of direct responsibility and direct accountability. As scheme of steady & swift career progression can be formulated by de-linking it from availability of psots. (vi) Reduction in litigation on service matters : Reduction in litigation on service matter is another important factor to achieve the efficiency, effectiveness, economy and out put of the Govt. The simplification of procedures and rules is the primary and burning need in this regard. The openness, transparency and attitude of the decision makers in Govt. is another aspect to reduce the litigation. The accountability and responsibility should be fixed in those cases in which Govt. looses, due to narrow mindedness and prejudiced attitude of decision makers. This will help in reduction of the litigation, as the officers themselves will take the correct and timely decision regarding the service conditions of the employees The adequate court fee system for litigation will also discourage the litigation. If an employee gets the justice in the deptt, there is no point to go to the court/ tribunal etc. Q.(vIi) Better delivery of Services by Govt. agencies to their users. (vii) The organizational structure of the Govt. should be made flatter to reduce the cumbersome and multi layered decision making. The system of direct accountability can be enforced if the official responsible for delivery of service is equipped with adequate decision making powers.
Do you think the concepts of contractual appointment, part-time work, flexible job description, flexi time etc. need to be introduced in Government to change the environment, provide more jobs and impart flexibility to the working conditions of employees?
The part time work may be introduced in the Govt. for the petty work. Labour laws should be amended and mobility of woke force in all the sectors must be ensured. Flexi time may be introduced.
For improving punctuality/introducing new concepts like flexi time, should biometric entry/exit be introduced?
What steps should be taken to ensure that scientists, doctors, engineers and other professionals with sophisticated education and skills are retained in their specialized fields in Government? Should they be appointed on contract with a higher status and initial pay, advance increments, better service conditions, etc.?
It is all the more essential and beneficial to attract the professionals with sophisticated education and skills like Engineers, Doctors, Scientists, I.T., Computer Personnels in the Govt. by appointing them with a higher status, handsome pay scales, advance increments & better service and sufficient modern working facilities, conditions free from administrative hassles, redtapism, bossism, humiliation and political pressure etc., besides adequate powers for independent decisions making and for effective planning and proper implementation of the policies. As already stated the Professionals like Doctors, Engineers & Scientists should be provided at least 30% higher salary and better promotional opportunities as compared to their counterparts in non technical services.
Should there be lateral movement from Government to non-Government jobs and vice versa? If so, in which sphere(s) and to what extent ?
Yes, there may be lateral movement from Govt. to non-Govt. jobs and vice versa. There will be exposure of Govt. employees by this system and the new concepts about working culture, techniques of management & efficiency etc. would be availed of and exchanged. This system may be introduced in the engineering, medical, scientific, I.T., agriculture, industrial and commerce sectors initially to the extent of 25% for selected employees.
It has been suggested that existing Government employees should be encouraged to shift to employment on contract for specified periods in return for a substantially higher remuneration package. Would you agree?
The Govt. employees should be encouraged to shift to employment on contract for specified period relaxing the existing rules. This will help in reducing the flab in Govt. and reduce the financial burden on the exchequer.
In what way should be present system of performance appraisal be changed? Should be ACR be an open document?
The present system of performance appraisal needs improvements. As a matter of fact the performance appraisals are now more subjective than objective and are used an instrument to settle the scores, repayment of obligation, undue benefits, encouraging flattery and illegal gratifications etc. The actual working, intelligence, competency, punctuality, sincerity is more often not reflected in the performance appraisal. Thus, the very purpose of the system is defeated. The ACR should be an open document instead of confidential one as it as an assessment of the work done and performance of the official. There is no idea to keep it confidential. Numerical point based ranking for the performance assessment should be evolved so as to over come the possibility of personal prejudices to play an active role in assessing the performance of an indivudual.
How far has the introduction of self-assessment helped in the process of appraisal?
The introduction of self assessment in the process of appraisal has not helped much. It is of no use at all.
Should appraisal be done for an entire team instead of for individuals?
This suggestion is worth consideration. However in such cases, the frequent transfers of the members of the team will creat complications. In such cases no responsibility or accountability can be fixed on any one as two men’s responsibility is no one’s responsibility. However the targets fixed for a team may be assessed whether completed, or if not to what extent the targets have been achieved. There will be no assessment of intelligency, punctuality, discipline and other individual aspects. Indeed it would be a diluted process.
In what manner can Government employees be made personally accountable for their acts of omission or commission, without any special safeguards? Would you recommend any amendments to Article 311 of the Constitution, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 17 and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and various rules relating to conduct of Government servants and disciplinary proceedings?
The Govt. employees can be made accountable for their acts of omission and commission by fixing their responsibility and by recovering the losses caused by them to the Govt. in monetary terms. For those losses which can not be compensated in terms of money, strict disciplinary action including dismissal from the service can be initiated. However to avoid the subjectivity and prejudicial proceedings, the effective safe guards for the employees are necessary to be introduced in the form of providing adequate opportunity of defence to them and appeal etc. In fact the positive approach should be to treat the person innocent, unless he is proved otherwise but unfortunately in the existing system the person is primarily considered dishonest unless it is proved otherwise which is basically wrong. The efficient, honest and dynamic officials can be and should be rewarded in the form of rapid promotions by relaxing the rules, financial jumps in the pay scales having recurring benefits by cash awards and public honours etc. Their ability competency, capability, honesty, sincerity, dedication, devotion and hard work must be recognized openly to encourage the others also. There is a great need to bring about the redical changes in the rules related to conduct of Govt. employees to suit the present conditions. These rules were framed during colonial regime according to their requirements. Now the country is free and so are the Govt. employees. As such they deserve to be treated like free person capable of independent thinking than slaves and bonded labour. The political rights and freedom of expression besides other democratic rights should be extended to them also.
Kindly comment on the appropriateness of adopting a five-day week in Government offices when other sectors follow a six day week. Please also state whether the number of Gazetted holidays in Government offices should be reduced? Please also comment on the appropriateness of declaring Gazetted holidays for all major religious festivals.
In fact this is a luxury to have five days a week in Govt. offices in this poor and developing country where almost all the citizens are struggling hard daily to earn their bread. When the farmers, labourers, artisans, small shopkeepers, self employed persons, work for 7 days a week, it is not understood what is the justification for Govt. employees only to work for five days a week. This has adversely affected the efficiency, and out put of the Govt. offices. It is also discriminatory not only with respect to the employees in other sectors but with a large section of Govt. employees too, as many offices of the Govt. are still observing the six days a week causing heart burning among them. As regards the reduction of Gazetted holidays in the Govt. offices we will express our views in detail in the memorandum being submitted. However, we submit in brief in this regard as under:- India is a secular state. There is no distinction and preference to any religion. At present there are 16 Gazetted holidays, two restricted holidays (optional) and 8 casual leaves in a year to be availed off by the Govt. employees. Out of 16 Gazetted Holidays only 3 Holidays are National Holidays and others are based on one or the other religion with the result that there is a constant competing demand, resistance and heart burning amongst the various sections of the society. In order to eliminate this feeling, to solve the problem of strong demand in this respect and for the sake of integrity of the nation and efficiency of the offices, it is strongly suggested that only 3 National Gazetted Holidays viz. 26th Jan. (Republic Day), 15th August (Independence Day), and 2nd October (Gandhiji’s Birthday) should be allowed for all. The rest 13 holidays and two restricted holidays may be made optional by amalgamating them with the casual leave i.e. in all 23 casual leave instead of 8 in a year can be availed by the employees. The unutilized leaves should be credited to the earned leave if not availed by the employee in that year. The employee according to his religious faith and need may observe the festival. In this way the office need not to be closed. On each holiday there will be no compulsory off for most of the employees.
What do you think is the state of work ethics and punctuality in Government offices? Kindly suggest ways of improving these.
The state of work ethics and punctuality in the Govt. offices is not satisfactory rather is in a dilapidated condition. To improve it there are few suggestions as given below:- (i) create working culture and environment in Govt. offices. (ii) recruit the employees of right stamp. (iii) grant better pay structure and perks. (iv) introduce strict discipline in the offices (v) modernize the offices with latest equipments and techniques (vi) fix the accountability and responsibility on employees. (vii) bring the effective and improved management concept in the offices. (viii) provide better working conditions and career prospects (ix) give incentives by way of rewards to the dynamic, efficient and punctual workers.