S. No. 9 – Regularise the existing daily rated/casual and contract workers, and absorb trained apprentices. No labour reforms should be carried out which are not in the interest of workers.
Joint Secretary (Establishment), DoPT clarified that no proposal from Ministry of Railways had been received relating to grant of temporary status. He informed that the Ministry of Railways have their own scheme for regularisation of casual labourers with temporary status similar to the DoPT scheme. Staff site stated that the issue is about the causal labourers whose services were regularised after 01.01.2004 and why the entire temporary service period prior to regularisation should not be counted for reckoning the qualifying service for pensionary and other benefits. This is similar to item no.29 discussed later on.
Staff-Side stated that Ministry of Railways had sent a proposal that those who had temporary status as on 1st January 2004 before the introduction of new pension scheme in 2004 should be covered under the old pension scheme. DoPT, in its response to Ministry of Railways, had proposed for a methodology of screening. To an observation that DoPT is not giving replies, JS(E), informed that the instructions issued by DoPT on 26.02.2016 on contribution to GPF and Pension under the old pension scheme have already addressed this situation and such employees would be covered under that. Further discussion on this point followed later.
S. No. 10 – Revive JCM functioning at all levels as an effective negotiating forum for settlement of demands of the central government employees.
JS(Admn and JCA) informed that the instructions on holding meetings of the Office Council were reiterated to all departments and information on the meetings held were asked for. Comments and details have been received from a few departments and this is being followed up to ensure that information is received from all departments. She offered to share the details of the information received so far. On the status of the Staff associations under DoPT, it was stated that the existing associations were being granted extension and have been requested a number of times to submit the present position on their representation. As none of the associations have fulfilled the mandatory requirement of 35% representation, fresh recognition cannot be granted. No proposal has been received.
The Staff-Side explained that the grant of recognition to Service Associations is pending for years together in various other Departments, without even communicating reasons therefor. They wanted the DoPT to make inquiries into this matter and seek a report from all ministries as to the status of recognition to Service Associations. They suggested that DoPT conduct verification on their own on basis of the declaration filed by the applicant associations. Only in a situation where no association is able to comply with the 35% stipulation, no recognition should be granted. On this JS(Admn and JCA) assured to look into the matter.
S. No. 11 – Remove the arbitrary ceiling on compassionate appointments.
Chairman recapitulated the discussion held on this issue on 25.10.2016. It was noted that Establishment Division, DoPT had vide their letter dated 31.01.2017 informed that the proposal of the Staff-Side for removal of the upper ceiling for compassionate appointment in cases related to Group ID’ employees, and the proposal for enhancement from 5% to 10% ceiling for compassionate appointment in respect of Group ‘C’ employees had been examined and submitted for consideration of the Cabinet Secretary. The view that emerged was that with the issue of the two O.M. dated 14″ June 2006 and 9′ October 2006 adequate relief for regulating compassionate appointment cases had been provided. In view of this, and the legal compulsion that the limit of compassionate appointment has to be kept reasonable and to ensure that the provision is not declared unconstitutional violating the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution, it has not been found feasible to enhance or remove the existing ceiling of 5% quota. Staff-Side was of the view that there is reason to revisit the instructions. It was stated by them that 5% vacancies to be kept aside for filling up on compassionate grounds is to be counted from the overall vacancy position and not from the number of vacancies arising in a year. Ministry of Defence has both uniformed personnel and civilian employees. The wards of uniformed personnel are being granted compassionate appointment in Civil Posts within the 5% vacancy limit calculated from the Civilian vacancies. The vacancies in the Armed Forces are not taken into account for arriving at the 5% vacancies. This discriminatory and anomalous and hence Civilians are subjected to hardship. Therefore, the 5% quota may be separately calculated. It was also informed that with the approval of Hon’ble Raksha Mantri ji, a proposal had been sent to the DoPT for one-time measure in filling up of the vacancies on compassionate basis as there were a large number of vacancies. It was decided that these points and concerns would be looked into.
The Staff-Side further stated that the reasoning given in the Supreme Court judgement and which had been read out by JS(E) does not apply in Railways which employs almost 50% of Government employees. Even prior to the DoPT instructions, compassionate appointments were being made and it did not create any problem. Staff-Side explained that the essence of the judgement is that the facility should not be misused. However, the fact remains that even eligible persons are not being able to get appointment because of the ceiling imposed by DoPT. Also, due to reclassification, a number of posts of Group C have become Group B. Group D has been abolished. While the Group-A and Group-B employees are also eligible for compassionate appointment, the vacancies in Group-A and Group-B are not taken into account for deriving the 5% vacancies. They pointed out that while compassionate appointments are to be offered to family members of Group A and B officers, who die in harness, the vacancy of Group A&B is not counted for applying the ceiling of 5%. The Staff-Side also pointed out that on instructions from the DoPT, every Department has put in place a mechanism to screen all applications and verify whether the applicant is really in distressing situation and deserves to be offered appointment on compassionate ground. The Screening Committee is composed of senior officers and by virtue of the said scheme, in vogue, the allegation and fear of misuse is unfounded. They added that by prescribing 5% ceiling, deserving candidates are often denied appointment. Further, there is also a stipulation for considering application within 3 years though that has been set aside in some Court judgements. Staff-Side requested Chairman to take a decision on this alarming situation.
Chairman stated that in the last discussion it was seen that the ceiling has been held valid in court orders. He desired to know the genesis of non-application of the 5% limit on compassionate appointment in Railways. The Staff-Side replied by saying that it was in view of the large number of fatalities that often occur when the railway employees are in the field. So the Railways have been kept away from the ceiling on compassionate appointment. It was stated that the Supreme Court never said that this be limited to 5% but it is to be ensured that the compassionate appointment is not misused. The court ruling should not be used to deny compassionate appointment to the deserving candidates.
Representatives of Ministry of Railways were requested to provide any data on the instances of giving compassionate appointment so that the issue could be further examined. It was also decided that the Ministry of Defence and DoPT would examine the issue in light of the points mentioned by the Staff Side.
S. No. 12 — Ensuring five promotions in the service career.
Establishment Division, DoPT, vide their letter dated 09.02.2017, had informed that action on this point was required to be taken by Cadre Review Division and a letter had been written to the concerned Joint Secretary. With regard to other demand i.e. grant of MACP in promotional hierarchy, they informed that if MACP was granted in the promotional hierarchy, it would give rise to uneven benefit to employees falling in the same pay scale since several organizations had adopted different hierarchical patterns. Consequently employees working in organizations having larger number of intermediate grades would suffer because financial upgradation under MACPS would place them in lower pay scale vis-a-vis similarly placed employees in another organization that had fewer intermediary grades. Further, 7th CPC has also recommended that MACP will continue to be administered in the hierarchy of levels in the Pay Matrix.
Staff-Side opined that the previous ACP scheme was far better because it was in promotional hierarchy while MACP scheme provides upgradation in grade pay hierarchy. Staff-Side further stated that the two financial upgradations under the previous ACP scheme after 24 years were more beneficial than what an employee would get after three decades under the MACP Scheme. On this, the Chairman observed that the Standing Committee cannot look into issues which have been settled by the 7th CPC.
It was informed that when this anomaly was earlier pointed out to the Joint Committee it was promised that this would be reconsidered and rectified. They suggested that if the MACP scheme was considered more beneficial, the employee should be given option to choose whether he wants ACP scheme or MACP scheme. The Chairman desired to know if there was any pay commission recommendation on this issue, on which he was informed that there was not.
It was decided that the Establishment Division would examine the issue further.
S.No.13 – Non-implementation of the decision taken in the 46th National Council (JCM) Meeting held on 15th May 2010 with regard to Item No. 20.
Ministry of Defence (MoD) vide their OM dated 28.04.2017 had informed that the issue regarding non-applicability of CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 to the workers employed in Defence Establishments, was earlier discussed in the 46th Ordinary Meeting of the National Council CM) held on 15.05.2010,and 91″ Depaitmental Council Meeting of Defence held on 18.11.2016. CDRA has stated that in a meeting held on 12.05.2003 in Ministry of Defence, it was observed that there had been two different recognition rules for Unions and Associations and it was unanimously accepted that the present system of membership of Workmen in the Associations as well as in the Unions should not be disturbed and the matter was treated as closed. So, he requested that this demand should not be accepted and the ‘status quo’ may be maintained in all the Defence Establishments for functioning of the Recognized Service Associations.
Ministry of Defence further stated that it was important to note that recognized Federations of MoD kept silent from 2003 to 2009 and did not raise this issue in the light of the decision taken on 12/05/2003. It is perhaps due to the declining membership of Unions in the Defence Establishments that these unions desire to raise their membership at the cost of Associations where workmen are also their members. Moreover, it is a policy matter of MoD to allow workmen to. continue both as members of Associations as well as of Unions and the same was also unanimously approved by the then representatives of recognized Federations of MoD in the meeting held on 12/05/2003. In the light of the above facts, MoD has now sought to know the reasons from all the recognized Federations as to why the matter was again raised in the National JCM Council Meeting in 2010 while it was already unanimously resolved on 12/05/2003. After obtaining their views, the matter will be discussed to reach a conclusion.
Responding to the statement made by, the Ministry of Defence, the Staff Side stated that the meeting held on 12/05/2003 with recognised Federations was nothing to do with the present issue. The discussion held on 12/05/2003 was with regard to Secret Ballot Verification of membership of the Federations and Associations to decide about the proportionate representation in the JCM Scheme. Since the MoD at that point of time was permitting workmen to be members of both Unions and Associations, it was decided that they should be allowed to participate in the Secret Ballot. The contention of the Staff-Side was that the MoD should follow the CCS(RSA) Rules, 1993 which prohibits worker to become members of the Associations and the recognition granted in violation of the rules to the associations of workers may be withdrawn, since the workers are governed under Trade Union Act, 1926 and Industrial Disputes Act,1947.
It was decided that Secretary, Ministry of Defence would be requested for a meeting to discuss and settle the issue.
Staff-Side stressed that the recognition has to be in accordance with the rules. It was decided that Secretary, Ministry of Defence would be requested for a meeting to discuss the issue.
S. No. 14 – Reduction of one day Productivity Linked Bonus (PLB) to the employees of OFB & DGQA under Department of Defence Production against Cabinet decision and Government orders.
Department of Expenditure had through their letter dated 24.01.2017 informed that one of the recommendations of the 6th CPC had been to introduce Performance Related Incentive Scheme (PRIS) by replacing the existing PLB Scheme. As this recommendation was being examined separately, a decision was also taken in October, 2008 that the PLB to be paid should not exceed what had been disbursed during the immediately preceding year. Though the recommendation of the 6th CPC was being examined separately, no decision could be reached in the matter and it was referred to 7th CPC. The 7th CPC, while recommending for introduction of PRP for all categories of Central Government employees has also recommended that PRP should subsume the existing bonus scheme Noting that there could be a time lag in implementing the PRP by different Departments, the existing Bonus scheme should be reviewed and linked with the increased profitability/productivity under well-defined financial parameters. As the 7th CPC has recommended for review of the existing scheme of PLB and its being subsumed in PRP, it is not possible to make any change in the existing practice of paying PLB by concerned administrative Department where PLB scheme is applicable.
The Staff-Side stated that there was already a Cabinet decision in this matter. It was stated that for the Defence establishments, the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri ji had decided to cap PLB to 41 days even if the entitlement would have been for more days. A few years ago the output was less and the PLB was limited to 40 days. However, on that basis every year it is being capped at 40 days even if the entitlement is for 41 days. This was said to be illegal and the Cabinet decision is not being implemented.
JS (Personnel) stated that in view of this new point about there being a Cabinet decision about the PLB formula of Defence Establishments, they would re-examine the issue and take an appropriate view in the matter.
S. No. 15 – Grant of one time relaxation to the Central Government employees who have availed LTC-80 and travelled by air by purchasing ticket from authorities other than authorised agents.
Establishment Division had through their letter dated 03.02.2017 informed that DoPT was in receipt of complaints regarding misuse/corruption in LTC especially in cases of LTC-availed travel to Jammu & Kashmir, North East regions and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. In the wake of reported scams, DoPT has been impressing upon the need for booking the LTC tickets from authorised agents and has been circulating such instructions amongst Ministries / Departments to create awareness amongst Government employees. Granting en-manse relaxations without proper examination of the LTC claims may not serve any public interest and in fact may encourage the unscrupulous persons. The Division is of the view that the Ministries/ Departments need to examine the cases on merit. Only exceptional cases where the Ministry/ Department is satisfied that undue hardship is being caused in any particular case, it may be referred to DoPT for consideration. In cases of any fraudulent claims/ attempts to inflate the claims, appropriate disciplinary action should be taken by the respective Department.
Staff-Side stated that Group C and D employees were not aware of the rules. They were also not informed that they would have to procure tickets from the authorised agent or from the website of airlines. Later a clarification was issued that tickets were to be purchased from the authorised agents. At the same time, notices had also been issued that the amount would be recovered from salaries in case of non-compliance. They stated that if somebody had done wrong or had not travelled at all, then action may be taken. However, if the persons had submitted proper bills and boarding passes, they should not be subjected to recovery.
Staff-Side stated that DoPT had advised that each case should be sent after examination on merit and had also sought details of number of cases. JS(E) stated that the total number of employees have not been ascertained and no definite answer on the number of employees who are affected by this has been given. On this, Chairman observed that giving an exact number may be difficult as it could be in thousands. Staff Side suggested that the concerned administration which gave the LTC advance may examine if the employee had actually travelled. If there is any difference in the fare charged by Air India on the day of travel, the excess amount may be recovered from the employee. It was stated that the employees are facing hardship as it was not initially specified to them that they should purchase ticket only from an authorised agent or from the website of the airlines.
It was decided that Establishment Division of DoPT should relook into the issue in view of the difficulty faced by the employees.
S.No. 16 — Grant of House Rent Allowance to the employees who have vacated government quarters.
Department of Expenditure had through their 0. M. No. 10-2/2016-E.III(A) dated 12.04.2017 informed that as per the O.M. dated 27.11.1965 of the D/o Expenditure, HRA would be admissible to government employees eligible for government accommodation only if they had applied for it but did not get it. In places where surplus government accommodation is available, Ministry of Urban Development insists on the employees’ furnishing ‘No Accommodation Certificate’ at the place of posting. DoE further stated that they had not received the orders of the CAT, Chennai/ Madras High Court from the Ministry of Defence and hence DoE does not know whether the CAT order has been implemented or not. However, after the dismissal of the WP /SLP by the Calcutta High Court/Supreme Court, DoE had agreed to a proposal from MoD for implementing the CAT Calcutta’s order in an exactly similar matter. But the benefit was restricted to the applicants of the O.A. DoE further asserted that since the requirement of No Accommodation Certificate was in order, it did not require any review. MoD was advised to defend similar cases pending before courts.
Representative of Ministry of Urban Development informed that the HRA rules are administered by the Ministry of Finance and the Directorate of Estates (DoE) does not deal with every matter related to HRA. DoE is partly concerned with HRA Rule 4(a) (ii) to determine the entitlement of their employees for HRA where the admissibility of HRA to an employee is to be seen in the context of refusing govt. accommodation. DoE only notifies the cities in which the govt. residential accommodation is in surplus for the guidance of DDOs in various Central Government offices so that they could determine the entitlement of HRA of the individual officer under their control. Directorate of Estates (Region Section) vide O.M no. D-11016/36/2011-Regions, dated 26.04.2012 has permitted the utilization of surplus/ vacant houses of GPRA in absence of demand from eligible persons by ineligible Central Government offices to prevent revenue loss to the exchequer. Therefore, there is no scope of revenue loss to the exchequer even if houses have to be declared ‘surplus as certain employees vacate their Government accommodation after building their own after availing HBA.
In view of this, DoE accepted ‘in principle’ the comments of Staff-Side on this item regarding grant of House Rent Allowances to the employees who had vacated Government Quarters. However, since the instructions relating to quantum, entitlement and admissibility of house rent allowance (HRA) are issued by Ministry of Finance, the issues are being taken up with them before taking a final decision on the issue. JS(Personnel) stated that if a reference is sent to them, Department of Expenditure will look into the issue.
S. No. 18 — Grant of entry pay recommended by 6th CPC to the promotees under the provisions of CCS(RP) Rules- 2008.
Department of Expenditure had through their letter dated 24.01.2017 informed that the recommendation of the NAC for grant of entry pay to all the promotees under 6th CPC had been considered by that Department. However, it was not agreed to considering the fact that it was in modification of the recommendations of the 6th CPC. This decision was taken with approval of Finance Minister.
However, in the light of the order of the CAT, Principal Bench, Chennai, they have requested Ministry of Defence and Department of Revenue to intimate the action taken by them since the applicants of the OAs are working in those departments. A reply is yet to be received.
Staff-Side stated that this problem is acute in organisations where there is no direct recruit or recruitment has not taken place for some time. As such there is no junior direct recruit employee. Considering the submission made by the Staff-Side that no person’s salary could be fixed at less than the minimum of the pay scale or pay band, as the case may be, the Official Side had agreed to raise the pay of promotee officials on par with directly recruited personnel, irrespective of the fact whether direct recruitment has really taken place or not. The said agreement ought to have been translated into order. It is not correct for the Finance Minister to dishonour the agreement and no tangible reason has also been advanced by the Official Side for such a decision. Noting this to be an anomalous situation which causes suffering to the employees, it was decided that the Department of Expenditure would re-examine.
