All India Railway Protection Force (RPF) Association Railway Board Rail Bhawan New Delhi Suggestions
Comparison with public/private sectors
Should there be any comparison/parity between pay scales and perquisites in Government and the public/private sector?
• To stop drainage of talents at all levels from Govt./Public Sectors towards private sectors, the VI CPC should take appropriate steps.
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?
• In private sectors due to lack of uniform rules providing security of tenure and retirement benefits to their employees, they secure their tenure and get lucrative scales of pay and perquisites by virtue of their hard work and devotion whereas in Govt./Public sectors their employees have security of tenure under the rules but poor scales of pay and no pensionary benefits after 2004. As regards facilities of promotional avenues, housing and other invisibles, the private sector employees are better placed than the Govt. employees hence, the latter ones deserve to be appropriately compensated.
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?
• It is the duty of the Govt. to afford employment and living wage to its citizens when it is affording about Rs. 100/- for feeding each accused person. However, in our country large sections of the community are less privileged, living below poverty line in want of employment for which the govt. employees are not responsible. The pay scales and perquisites of the Govt. employees are quite insufficient to provide even semi-balanced diet, requisite medical treatment and proper education to their family members including parents. Therefore, the Sixth CPC is urged upon to recommend at least five times increase in the scales of pay of the Govt. employees so as to enable them to lead respectable, healthy life and provide better education to their children who are under the present circumstances not able to compete with those educated in public schools and reputed national/ international institutions.
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?
• Corruption & honesty percolate from above. For bureaucracy to be honest and diligent, first, the persons placed above them are required to be honest and diligent, second, hesitation to impose deterrent punishment of removal/ dismissal from service upon the dishonest bureaucrats should be given good bye and third, pay scales of theirs as well as their subordinates should be raised almost to the levels prevalent in the private sectors.
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?
• As five consecutive/successive CPCs have had recommended in the past, hike in the pay scales of Central Govt. Employees so also the VI CPC can do. Employees of State Governments, Municipal bodies, Panchayati Raj institutions & Autonomous institutions too should be given sufficient pay scales to meet their wants by their employers as they have been given earlier.
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?
• The salary of Secretary in the Central Government should be fixed on par with the executive of private sector taking into consideration perks and facilities connected therewith. We feel it is not proper to appoint any person to this post on a contractual basis.
What should be the reasonable ratio between the minimum and the maximum of a pay scale?
• The ratio between the minimum and maximum of a pay scale should be 1:8 to minimize financial disparity in society which would automatically be minimizing so many social ills.
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 more important to ensure efficient administration by preventing flight of outstanding talents at all levels from Government.
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?
• We feel that discriminatory treatment with the field functionaries compared to the functionaries of the Secretariat is not justified.
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?
• There should be separate identity of technical and non¬ technical categories especially at the field level with similar opportunity of growth.
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?
• In lack of details of compensation packages being given to fresh professionals by the private sector, we are not able to point out exactly what emoluments should be suggested for a new entrant to Group ‘A’ Service in the Central Government. Hence, we reiterate that the VI CPC should do the needful to attract talents in all groups of Govt; Service.
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?
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 into four Groups of the central government employees may continue with the modification that the gazetted Group ‘B’ officers performing the same duties performed by Group ‘A’ officers should be merged into Group ‘A’ and the Senior Supervisors should be classified as Group ‘B’ gazetted officers. In Railway Protection Force (RPF) there is no provision of Group ‘B’ gazetted officer. Group ‘C Inspectors of RPF are straightway promoted as Group ‘A’ officers. They (Inspectors) as in-Charges of RPF-Posts/Thanas are required to work independently for controlling crime against railway property including booked consignments, passengers and their belongings in their jurisdiction since these responsibilities have been entrusted to the RPF under the RPF Act, 1957 as amended in 2003 as well as the Railways Act 1989 as amended in 2003. They have to liaise in matters of law and order, crime and criminal with their counterparts (Inspectors) of District Police of States who have been classified as Group ‘B’ gazetted in several States viz Bihar, Bengal, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and others to enable them to have better liaison with BDO, SDO, SDM etc. By virtue of becoming Group ‘B’ Gazetted, the Inspectors of RPF would be able to independently deal with unruly mob/unlawful assembly in railway area with the assistance of their under staff under Section 131 of Cr.PC, 1973. Therefore, the Sixth CPC is urged upon to recommend to classify the Inspectors of RPF as Group ‘B’ Gazetted in the larger interest of administration.
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?
• Graduates well versed in office works, secretarial skills and use of modern office equipment including computers may be recruited in the secretariat and offices of other organizations of the Government gradually against vacancies.
Should a similar regrouping of Group D staff into fewer categories capable of performing diverse functions also be carried out?
• No comments.
How should a pay scale be structured? What is a reasonable ratio between the minimum and maximum of a pay scale?
• We have already stated above that the reasonable ratio between the minimum and maximum of a pay scale should not be more than 1:8. Considering the principles determining a scale of pay, the present scale of pay of a Central Govt; employee is required to be increased by five times ensuring continuous incremental growth so as to avoid stagnation and frustration at any stage.
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?
Reduction of pay scales from 500 to 33 does not seem to have created any serious problem in respect of promotion. Problem in matters of promotion is more due to application of ambiguous promotion rules to the non-gazetted employees and non-application to them the rules governing promotion of Group ‘A’ officers. Hence, Sixth CPC is requested to make a strong recommendation to apply the same clear-cut rules providing for time-bound promotion/up-gradation to the Group ‘A’ officers to the different categories of non-gazetted employees. In Railway Protection Force (RPF) there are only three Groups, namely, Group ‘A’, ‘C & ‘D’. While answering to your Question No.8.1, we have reasonably requested for classifying the Inspectors of RPF as Group ‘B’ Gazetted which would naturally be bridging the gap between Groups CC and ‘A’. It is pertinent to say here that the Railway Protection Force (RPF) is the part and parcel of Indian Railways. Vide section 10 of the RPF Act and section 2(34) of the Railways Act, the members of this Force are railway servants. In lack of clear-cut promotion rules, Group ‘D’ cadres of RPF have been deprived of their legitimate promotion and compel to stagnate in one rank for years together despite completion of qualifying service. As per rule 78.1 of the RPF Rules, 1987 the ancillary staff of this Force such as Cook etc. are entitled to the same scale of pay as that of the executive staff i.e. Constable, Head Constable etc. RPF is an integral part of Indian Railways. Elsewhere in Indian Railways, the Cooks have been classified as Group ‘C like that of the Constables of RPF. However, the Cooks of RPF are not being given the scale of pay admissible to Constables of RPF. Hence, the Sixth CPC is requested to classify the cooks of RPF as Group ‘C similar to that of other Cooks of Indian Railways. Due to non-application of promotion rules of Group ‘A’ officers to the Group ‘C members of RPF, these poor people have also been deprived of their due promotion. For the past several years, rules 7.5, 16.3 & 18.1 of the RPF Rules 1987 have deliberately been violated by the Security Directorate/ RPF Administration and instead of maintaining branch-wise and zone-wise seniority of Inspectors which stood the test of time right from 1959, a combined seniority list of theirs is maintained on all-India basis with obvious ulterior motive. The Inspectors Group ‘C of RPF have been promoted to the rank of Assistant Security Commissioner (ASC) Group ‘A’ on ad-hoc basis even against regular vacancies. DPC has not been convened every year and their period of continuous service as ASC has not been regularized from the date of occurrence of regular vacancies. Thus, they have been denied level-playing field vis-a-vis directly recruited ASCs. For the past 20 years only two DPCs have been convened for promoting the Inspectors Group ‘C to the rank of ASC Group ‘A’ and regularizing the ad-hoc ASCs Group ‘A’. The afore-mentioned two belated DPCs have had considered the dead and retired ad-hoc ASCs in a lot for regularization without giving any benefit to them or their nominees and thereby caused severe damage to the avenues of promotion of the rest of serving Inspectors in particular and other non-gazetted members of the Force in general. By not promoting the Inspector Group ‘C to the rank of ASC Group ‘A’ on regular basis and by not regularizing the ad-hoc ASCs from the date of occurrence of regular vacancies, they have been restrained from being eligible for promotion to the next higher rank of Divisional Security Commissioner (DSC) & above and their legitimate right of promotion has been marred and in their place directly recruited ASCs Group ‘A’ even without completing the qualifying service of 5 years, have unduly been promoted to the rank of DSC and above. This has resulted in serious stagnation and frustration down the line in the non-gazetted ranks of RPF which needs to be appropriately addressed. Therefore, the VI CPC is requested to reserve for the promottees 50% of posts in each Gazetted rank of RPF. The promotional prospects of Group ‘A’ officers of RPF in particular and its other members in general have also been narrowed due to deputation of IPS officers to RPF in utter violation of clause 19(2) of the RPF (Amendment) Act, 1985 now sub-section (5) of Section 21 of the modified RPF Act which clearly provides for the deputationists in RPF to exercise their option either to revert to their parent cadres or to retire from service. But they did not do so by deliberately not publishing the said clause besides others in the Official Gazette Notification dated 18th September, 1985 and illegally providing for huge percentage of deputation of outsiders to the gazetted and non-gazetted ranks of this Force under rules 54, 76 and 277 of the RPF Rules, 1987. It is astonishing that the Group ‘A’ Railway Officers of the batch of permanent DIGs and Sr. Divisional Security Commissioners (DSCs) of RPF have been elevated to the grade of IG and DIG respectively. As the Railway Protection Force (RPF) is one of the integral departments of Indian Railways, the Sixth CPC is requested to recommend for integrating the Group ‘A’ officers of RPF with Group ‘A’ officers of other departments of Railways and promoting the former alike the latter without any reference to the MHA. Due promotion to the Group ‘A’ officers of this Force would not only keep their attitude balanced towards their subordinates but would also pave ways for their promotion.
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?
An amount of five percent of the basic pay should be the open ended (OE) Annual increment of an employee which will prevent frustration despite stagnation. It should have uniform relationship with minima or maxima of the scales.
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?
• Yes, there is a need to revise the pay scales periodically. The present system of deciding pay structure of the employees is at a frequency of ten years but this Pay Commission has been constituted after great persuasions and agitations by the employees. Neutralization for inflation in the form of dearness allowance is not the only criteria on which the wage structure is decided. The pay scales of the employees is decided on certain basic principles of living conditions, social and religious obligations, economic growth and change in the life styles due to modernization, scientific growth and various other cost escalating factors. The Constitution of India provides for the ‘living wage’ hence the principles and criteria of ‘living wage’ need be laid down by reforming the need based wages. The cost of education, cost of travel, housing and the introduction of new taxes and laws by both State & Central Governments and the purchasing power of Rupee are the main factors bringing constraint in the adequacy of the wages for a normal living of an employee. Hence, the Commission may decide to compensate such mandatory burden by upward revising pay scales, perquisites and allowances periodically.
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
• Fixation of pay in the revised pay scales by previous CPCs has been more advantageous to the juniors than the seniors. The bunching increment formula of the IVth CPC did not adequately protect the longer years of service rendered by seniors. Therefore, the VI CPC is requested to fix pay in such a way that the seniors get the same number of annual increments in revised scales they had earned in the previous scale of pay which would be giving due weight-age to their longer service and would be adequately safeguarding them from being placed at a disadvantageous situation vis-a-vis their juniors.
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.
CCA is being granted keeping in view the cost of living varying form city to city and place to place. For the past few years there is fast growth in the development of urban areas, metropolitan cities and other industrially developed areas. Hence, it is necessary to re-classify the grades of the cities all over the country and lay down a permanent guideline/ criteria for automatic inclusion of a city/place into that classification. The overall cost of living in metropolitan and other cities is increasing rapidly. The real estate/price/rent of the house is also skyrocketing. Under this situation the employees are not able to meet the ever-escalating costs of living in a city with a meager increase in DA and HRA since these two allowances do not provide full neutralization. The formula of price index is not covering all aspects of the costs of living. Therefore, periodical increase in the rate of CCA should be made proportionate to the increase in the cost of living in a city.
Pay and perquisites for Armed Forces
What should be the basis for determination of pay scales for Armed Forces Personnel? What percentage weightage should be assigned to (i) parity with civil services, (ii) comparison with private sector, (iii) special and hazardous nature of duties, (iv) short career span and (v) restricted rights?
Whatever grounds/basis for determination of pay scales of the Armed Forces personnel i.e. personnel of army, navy and air force have been followed by the previous CPCs may be followed by the Sixth CPC too. Besides, giving due percentage of weightage to the special and hazardous nature of duties, short career span and restricted rights of the personnel of Armed Forces, the Sixth CPC is requested to fix such pay scales for them so that they are not attracted towards private sector.
How should the pay of a soldier, sailor and airman be determined? How should it relate to the minimum wage in Government and the pay of a constable in paramilitary or internal security forces?
The principles followed by the previous CPCs for determining the pay of a soldier, sailor and airman may be relied upon by the Sixth CPC also. As the soldier, sailor and airman of Army, Navy and Air Force have been classified as Group ‘C like that of the Constable in para military or internal security forces, their pay scales are not relatable/comparable to the minimum wage fixed for the Group ‘D’ Government employees. The scales of pay fixed by the Fifth CPC for the soldiers of army and constables and members of other non-gazetted ranks of para-military forces viz. BSF, CRPF, ITBP, Assam Rifles, RPF, Delhi Police etc. are similar. Compared to the members of other Central Paramilitary Forces and Police of Union Territories, the members of RPF generally perform duties in more hazardous situations. The RPF-men provide protection to railway property including booked consignments, railway land, passengers and their belongings in crowded running trains and platforms, track by way of patrolling during day and night in disturbed and isolated areas, men and material for construction of new railway tracks in very much disturbed areas like North-east and J&K and checking seals/rivet, locks and other conditions of loaded wagons/SLR Vans for more than 12 hours a day besides investigating into offences against railway property, trains, passengers and prosecuting the criminals arrested by them in court of law under Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966, Railways Act 1989 as amended in 2003 and RPF Act 1957 as amended in 2003. The RPF personnel use to chase and apprehend criminals from running trains and yards amidst continuous movement of trains. While discharging their duty in such hazardous situations on an average about 30 members have been run over/killed and many others handicapped/incapacitated every year by running trains. Apart from that more than a dozen of members sacrifice their lives on duty every year at the unscrupulous hands of naxalities and extremists. While fixing the scales of pay for Constables and other non-gazetted members of RPF, their prompt and arduous nature of duties should be taken into consideration. Besides that it is also to be considered that the Government has sanctioned Rs. 90/- per prisoner merely to feed him per day. We understand that the Government will provide more than Rs. 90 per day to feed each of the five or six members of the family of a Constable. Besides feeding, the family members, a Constable is also liable to educate his children, have a house and attend to several social and religious obligations. Considering the aforesaid factors, we strongly feel that a Constable deserves to be given the scale of pay of Rs.16,000/- per month excluding 5% open ended (OE) annual increment. A Head Constable of RPF should be given the scale of pay of Rs. 18,000/- per month plus 5% OE annual increment. An Assistant Sub-Inspector of RPF should be given the scale of pay of Rs.24,000/- per month plus 5% OE annual increment. A Sub-Inspector of RPF should be given the scale of pay of Rs.30,000/- per month plus 5% OE annual increment. An Inspector of RPF should be given the scale of pay of Rs.35,000/- per month plus 5% OE annual increment. 15. Abolition of feudalism 15.1 Should all vestiges of feudalism in the country like huge residential bungalows sprawling over several acres, large number of servants’ 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. • Yes, all vestiges of feudalism cause imbalance and lead to corruption in the society hence they must be abolished.
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.
• Yes, all vestiges of feudalism cause imbalance and lead to corruption in the society hence they must be abolished.
In what manner can Central Government organizations functioning be improved to make them more professional, citizen-friendly and delivery oriented?
• The functioning of Central Government organizations can be improved and made more professional, citizen friendly and delivery oriented by bringing the Gazetted Officers from office to the field and making the concerned staff and supervising Gazetted Officers fully accountable for the lapses. In Central Government organizations, directly recruited Group ‘A’ officers openly say that it is difficult to get appointed to Group ‘A’ services but dismissal from this service is impossible. Hence, appropriate steps are required to be taken to ensure deterrent action against such officers who are generally found lethargic, selfish and corrupt.
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.
• The Government servants can be motivated by way of repeated counseling and close supervision by their officers to deliver better service to the consumers/citizens. It would create better work environment and professionalism. Reduction in litigation on service matters can be made by ensuring severe action including monetary fine against the disciplinary/appellate/revisional authorities who fail to do justice to their subordinate staff and compel them to move the Court.
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?
• We may suggest later.
For improving punctuality/introducing new concepts like flexi time, should biometric entry/exit be introduced?
• We may suggest later.
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.?
• By giving better scales of pay and service conditions, the doctors, scientists, engineers and other professionals can be retained.
Should there be lateral movement from Government to non-Government jobs and vice versa? If so, in which sphere(s) and to what extent ?
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?
In what way should be present system of performance appraisal be changed? Should be ACR be an open document?
• The ACR should be an open document. The system of performance appraisal for all the employees and officers should be uniform.
How far has the introduction of self-assessment helped in the process of appraisal?
• We may suggest later.
Should appraisal be done for an entire team instead of for individuals?
• We may suggest later
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?
Under the present discipline and appeal rules, non-gazetted government employees are personally made accountable for their acts of omissions and commissions without any safeguards. But there is no custom of making the superior officers accountable for their acts of omissions and commissions. They are safeguarded in violation of D&A Rules. We don’t think any amendment is required to be made in Article 311 of the Constitution, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
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. • We feel no change is required.
What do you think is the state of work ethics and punctuality in Government offices? Kindly suggest ways of improving these.
• It is true that the Government offices to some extent lack work ethics and punctuality. By counseling them and making direct participation of the superior officers in the work process, a lot of improvement can be made. We may submit shortly supplementary memorandum on points left over.