S. No. 22 – Dental Treatment in private hospitals recognized under CGHS / CS(MA) Rules, 1944 for CS(MA) beneficiaries.
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare hadvide their O.M. No. B-12014 / 01 / 2016-JCM dated 05.04.2017 informed that the requirement of No Objection Certificate had been dispensed with vide O.M. No. S.14025/ 41 / 2015-MS dated 07.12.2016.
It was decided that the item may be closed.
S. No. 23 – Review of the income criteria for the dependent parents of government employees in the wake of the recent legislation of “Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007”.
Department of Expenditure had through their letter dated 10.01.2017 informed that a proposal for revision of income limit to Rs. 9000/- for dependency for the purpose of providing CGHS coverage to family members, received from MoH&FW, had been examined and the comments /approval of that Department was conveyed to the MoH&FW vide D/o Expenditure ID No.204/EV/ 2016 dated 19.10.2016. With regard to the demand for further review of the limit of Rs. 9000/-, it has been stated that no such proposal has been received in D/o Expenditure from MoH&FW.
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare had vide their O.M. No. B-12014 / 01 / 2016-JCM dated 05th April, 2017 informed that the income limit from all sources for dependency for the purpose of availing CGHS had been revised to Rs. 9,000/- plus the Dearness Relief on Pension. It has further added that revision of income limit has been done recently and there is no proposal with reference to review of income limit of Rs. 9,000/-.
Staff-Side requested that the revisions have to be in accordance with the “Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007”. It was stated that in one such case the court had directed full reimbursement. They requested that the issue may be re-examined.
{Action: M/o H&FW}
S. No. 24 – Amendment to the definition of anomaly as notified by Government in the orders of constitution of anomaly committees at various levels
JS (Admn and JCA) informed that the definition has been modified and will be further looked into on receipt of the recommendations on allowances. It was decided that the item may be closed.
S. No. 25 – Withdraw the stringent conditions unilaterally imposed by Government on grant of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) in promotion and grant of MACP on promotional hierarchy.
Staff-Side stated that new condition would make it difficult for employees to avail MACP which, as such, is disadvantageous as it is not in the promotional hierarchy. It was stated that the new benchmark was more stringent then the benchmark prescribed for promotion in some cases and the employees will suffer more as they may find it difficult to meet this requirement. The Staff Side further pleaded that the change of benchmark from ‘Good’ to ‘Very Good’ can only have prospective effect and the grant of MACP on the basis of the reports of earlier years when the said stipulation of ‘Very Good’ was not in existence must be calibrated on the basis of the earlier stipulation of the benchmark being `Good’. They stated that DoPT should come out with some guidelines so that the employees could be assessed in an objective manner as many employees may find it impossible to meet the benchmark since the Reporting Officers are themselves not adequately trained in writing APARs. They stated that this provision needs to
be reviewed.
JS(Admn. and JCA) informed that ever since the introduction of disclosure of APARs, the number of employees getting higher level of gradings may rise. Proposal needed to be evidence based. It was decided that the Ministry of Railways may provide data on the trend of recorded gradings of APARs.
{Action: M/o Railways}
S. No. 26 – Removal of ambiguity in fixation of pay of re-employed exservicemen and grant of the same benefit extended to commissioned officers to personnel below officers rank also.
Establishment Division in their comments dated 28.03.2017 had stated that:
(i) The first issue relates to pay fixation on re-employment in Civil Services and Public Sector Banks, etc. D/o Financial Services (DoFS) is stated to have clarified that pay fixation of ex-servicemen would be through protection of pay plus D.A. drawn by them at the time of release from the Armed forces. DoFS orders provide that in addition to the pay fixed on re-employment, pension and other retirement benefits would also be allowed.
(ii) Establishment Division has clarified to D/o Posts that initial pay on re-employment in case of ex-servicemen who had held posts below Commissioned Officers and civilians, below Group-A, shall be fixed as per the entry pay in the revised pay structure of the re-employed posts applicable in the case of direct recruits appointed on or after 01.01.2006.
(iii) Staff-Side says there is a contradiction in the two clarifications and, as a result of the ambiguity, one section has benefited (Personnel who are covered under the instructions of DoFS) while others are not (Personnel who are covered under the instructions of DoPT).
JS(E) stated that they had received a number of grievances and the Department of Welfare of Ex-Serviceman had lso raised this issue. Presently there are two formulations for pay fixation of ex-servicemen — one for Group A posts and another for others — which is not an ideal situation. It was stated that the issue is under active consideration and a decision is likely shortly.
{Action: Establishment Division (DoPT)}
S. No. 27 – Permission to opt for pay fixation in the revised pay structure on a date after the date of issue of CCS(RP) rules 2016 notification (25.7.2016) in case of employees whose promotion becomes due after 25.7.2006.
Departartment of Expenditure (DoE) had through their letter dated 09.01.2017 informed that references have been received from various Ministries/ Departments for switching over to revised pay scale after 25.07.2016 and the matter is being examined. Decision in the matter will be communicated in due course.
{Action: D/o Expenditure}
S. No. 28 – Extension of the benefit of bonus calculation ceiling enhancement of Rs. 7000/- to Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) of the postal department also.
Department of Expenditure had through their letter dated 24.01.2017 informed that it had conveyed its approval for enhancement of calculation ceiling to Rs.7000/- for the purpose of payment of PLB in respect of GDS w.e.f. the accounting year 2014-15 vide ID no. 7/31/12006-E.III(A) dated 27/10/2016.
The Staff-Side expressed their satisfaction over the decision. It was decided that the item may be closed.
S. No. 29 – Regularise the services of casual labourers by absorbing them against vacant posts of MTS as one time measure.
Establishment Division had through their letter dated 10.01.2016 clarified that no such proposal from Ministry of Defence was pending with DoPT and no scheme on the lines of the scheme of 1993 was under consideration. It has been further stated that the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the Uma Devi case bars any regularisation of individuals not selected through a prescribed selection procedure. Therefore, only those casual labours may be regularised who are covered under the 1993 scheme.
Staff-Side stated that while the Uma Devi judgment is clear and the instructions have-been-issued by DoPT, there are cases where the casual labourers have not completed 10 years on the date of judgement. The Staff-Side said that the recruitment procedure adopted while engaging the daily rated workers was one and the same for regular employment especially those kept for erstwhile Group-D functions. Therefore, they cannot be said to be backdoor entrants. This apart, they added that such recruitment on purely temporary basis was necessitated and initiated due to the all pervading ban imposed by DoPT in 2001 and continued for almost nine years. Therefore, they said that it is necessary that the DoPT should prepare a scheme by which the quality of employment is maintained as also regularization of persons who have served the government for such long period of time does take place.
They also added that these appointments were against regular and permanent vacancies and the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Uma Devi does not debar the government from considering regularization of such cases. As
they were working in Government establishments, their condition needs to be appreciated.
JS(E) stated that Establishment Division would look into this matter in view of the position explained by the Staff-Side.
{Action: Establishment Division (DoPT)}
Standing Commitee Meeting Agenda Item 30
S. No. 30 – Fill up all vacant posts including promotional posts in a time bound manner.
Establishment Division of DoPT had through their note dated 19.02.2017 informed that vide OM No. 22011/1 /2011/Estt. D dated 27.10.2016 instructions had been issued to Ministries/Departments to ensure strict compliance of guidelines by following model calendar for DPC so as to grant timely promotions. It has been further informed that DoPT (Establishment Division) is in the process of further fine-tuning the model calendar.
Staff-Side stated that the situation has arisen because of DoPT OM dated 30.09.2016 following a hearing in the Supreme Court. As such no promotions in any level are taking place and UPSC has also not accepted any DPC proposals for want of further clarification from DoPT. JS(Admn. and JCA) informed that the department is seized of the concerns of the Staff Side and the matter is under active consideration and a decision is awaited.
Standing Commitee Meeting Agenda Item 31
S. No. 31 – Abolish and upgrade all posts of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) to Upper Division Clerks(UDCs)
Staff-Side stated that as the LDC cadre is losing its relevance, the posts may be upgraded to UDC.
JS(E) stated that this may not be possible without fully understanding the implications in each department. It was stated that it would be appropriate that the posts may be allowed to continue till such time their requirement is felt. Reacting to the comment made by the Official-Side, the Staff-Side pointed out that prima facie, on introduction of computerized functioning in almost all departments, the functions assigned to LDCs have become redundant. What is required is to get the report from each department and take a conscious decision, as LDC is a common category.
JS(Admn. and JCA) stated that as the meeting had already gone on for more than three hours, the new agenda items may be taken up for discussion in the next meetings. It was stated that the comments received on the agenda items would be circulated to the Staff Side. Comments on the remaining items which were not included in the agenda would also be called for from the administrative departments and will be circulated to the Staff Side on receipt.
