VIEWS ON THE REPLY TO IP CASE

Dear friends,

You may be aware that our CAT case regarding Grade Pay is posted on 14.01.2010. Respondents has given their reply to the Additional Rejoinder and copy of the same is uploaded for perusal.In the reply, Respondents have admitted that Pay scale of Inspector post was upgraded from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500-10500 from 01.01.2006. Now the respondents are defending by falsification of Documents as stated in Para 7 and many more places in the reply. It is stated that " .....due to issue of orders by Nodal Ministry on 13.11.2009, extending the benefit of grade Pay of Rs.4600 to such posts, which were in the Pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 prior to 1-1-2006,  the Inspector in CBDT/CBEC could derive the benefit, and as the upgradation is only from 1-1-2006, the Inspector Posts could not be extended the same. ......"  

   The extract of the OM dated 13.11.2009 issued by the MOF is reproduced below

 ".....Consequent upon the Notification of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, Department of Expenditure has received a large number of references from administrative ministries / departments proposing upgradations of the posts which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006 by been granting them grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2. The matter has been considered and it has now been decided that the posts which were granted the normal replacement pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-2, will be granted pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2 ...."

                  Hence it is clear that Department is trying to defend without having any justification for the same. We have already    submitted all the annexures including OM dated 13.11.2009 of MOF. As the case is posted on 14.01.2011, your comments on the reply by the Dept., is requested.  Hoping all your cooperation.

With regards,

Permanand

Views of CS Punjab to the reply filed by department are as under. Others are requested to provide their valuable comments on blog for grade pay hike.

The reply to para 5 of additional rejoinder apparently has either been drafted by Ministry of Finance or while vetting the reply MOF has defended the pay scale they gave to the analogous post under their control rather than reflecting their wrong doings and injustice they have done to IPs by ignoring this latent cadre. It will be juvenile to say that the nodal Ministry OM dated 13.11.2009 provided for granting the GP of Rs 4600 to such cadres which were in the pay scale of 6500-10500 “prior” to 1.1.2006 and the inspectors CBDT/CBEC by virtue of orders dated 21-04-2004, got the benefit. This is totally misleading as 6^th pay commission has not used PRIOR word in its report rather the Sixth Central Pay Commission has recommended merger of pre-revised pay scales of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500 with a view to bring Inspector Post at par with Inspectors in CBEC & CBDT as well as Assistants in CSS and this has also been accepted and implemented by the Govt. and all inspectors were placed in the GP of Rs.4200/-. As three scales have been merged and given GP of Rs.4200/-. IPs virtually have been placed in lower scale of 5000-8000 in which many cadres of DOP are functioning to whom IPs are given responsibility to supervise. Nobody is telling and following the fact that Vth CPC had also laid down a principle that the pay of Supervisor must be higher than the employees being supervised. 

It is the established fact that Inspectors in CBEC & CBDT took the disparity and anomaly in their pay scales that arises after 5^th and now 6^th pay commission with their respective Ministry/departments. After negotiation, litigation and struggle the inspector in CBEC & CBDT get upgraded pay scale from the Government at belated stage both the times & even without referring to any apex body. Unfortunately the above grant of replacement in scale was not done in the cadre of Inspector Post and left the issue to be decided by other Ministries.

Para 8 of the reply is absurd as ASP and IPs have similar nature duties. Till today no higher responsibility or duty has been bestowed to ASPs and no separate duty has been defined for them. Even after conferring Gazetted status no higher responsibility has been given to ASPs apart from change of the disciplinary authority. In this para again on the one side respondent has contended that the association of the applicant has given consent for merger of two cadres which is stated not practically feasible and on the other side it is given that merger proposal is under detailed examination of the department. It needs to be seen if it is after thought to side track the real issue as was done in Banglore OA when department was able to get our case referred to the 6^TH pay commission.