1. Grant of MACP in the promotional hierarchy:-
The Staff Side stated that under ACP Scheme, financial upgradation was
granted in promotional hierarchy and therefore it had become part of
service condition of the employees. Under the MACPS, financial
upgradations is permitted in Grade Pay hierarchy only, thereby adversely
affecting the service conditions. Therefore, under MACPS also the
financial upgradations should be granted in promotional hierarchy.
The Official Side stated that there was no such recommendation of the
6th CPC and in fact the Commission in its report, while discussing this
issue, had mentioned that although the ACPS had, by and large,
alleviated the problem of stagnation and also allowed higher rate of
increments in the higher scale extended under it, it had, however,
given rise to other problems. The financial upgradations in that scheme
followed the then existing promotional hierarchy which gave rise to
uneven benefit to employees falling in the same pay scale since several
Organisations adopted different hierarchical pattern. Consequently,
employees working in organizations having greater number of intermediate
grades suffered because financial upgradation under ACPS placed them in
a lower pay scale vis-a-vis similar]) placed employees in another
organization that had lesser intermediary grades.
The 6th CPC
therefore, recommended a systemic change in the existing scheme of ACPS
whereby all employees, irrespective of the hierarchical structure as
prevalent in their organization/cadre, would get the same benefit under
it.
This was accepted by the Govt with further modification to
grant three financial upgradations under the MACPS at intervals of 10,
20 and 30 years of continuous regular service in the immediate next
higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands
and grade pay as given in Section 1, Part-A of the first schedule of the
CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. In fact while accepting the
recommendations of the 6th CPC on this issue there was no such demand
by the Staff Side.
The Staff Side stated that the employees who
were in service prior to 1.1.2006 had the right to retain first two
financial upgradations in the promotional hierarchy and the Government
cannot alter the existing service conditions adversely. The Official
Side however stated that since MACPS is in supersession of earlier ACP
scheme, this cannot be agreed to.
The Staff Side insisted that
at least option be given to individual employees in this regard to
facilitate him/her to opt for either ACP or MACP for availing benefit of
financial upgradation. The Staff Side was insistent that either MACPS
should be in promotional hierarchy or individual options should be given
to the employees.
The Official Side stated that it was not
possible to agree to individual options and if they have any alternate
suggestions, the Staff Side could come back with them.
1. Grant of MACP in the promotional hierarchy:-
The Staff Side stated that under ACP Scheme, financial upgradation was granted in promotional hierarchy and therefore it had become part of service condition of the employees. Under the MACPS, financial upgradations is permitted in Grade Pay hierarchy only, thereby adversely affecting the service conditions. Therefore, under MACPS also the financial upgradations should be granted in promotional hierarchy.
The Official Side stated that there was no such recommendation of the 6th CPC and in fact the Commission in its report, while discussing this issue, had mentioned that although the ACPS had, by and large, alleviated the problem of stagnation and also allowed higher rate of increments in the higher scale extended under it, it had, however, given rise to other problems. The financial upgradations in that scheme followed the then existing promotional hierarchy which gave rise to uneven benefit to employees falling in the same pay scale since several Organisations adopted different hierarchical pattern. Consequently, employees working in organizations having greater number of intermediate grades suffered because financial upgradation under ACPS placed them in a lower pay scale vis-a-vis similar]) placed employees in another organization that had lesser intermediary grades.
The 6th CPC therefore, recommended a systemic change in the existing scheme of ACPS whereby all employees, irrespective of the hierarchical structure as prevalent in their organization/cadre, would get the same benefit under it.
This was accepted by the Govt with further modification to grant three financial upgradations under the MACPS at intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as given in Section 1, Part-A of the first schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. In fact while accepting the recommendations of the 6th CPC on this issue there was no such demand by the Staff Side.
The Staff Side stated that the employees who were in service prior to 1.1.2006 had the right to retain first two financial upgradations in the promotional hierarchy and the Government cannot alter the existing service conditions adversely. The Official Side however stated that since MACPS is in supersession of earlier ACP scheme, this cannot be agreed to.
The Staff Side insisted that at least option be given to individual employees in this regard to facilitate him/her to opt for either ACP or MACP for availing benefit of financial upgradation. The Staff Side was insistent that either MACPS should be in promotional hierarchy or individual options should be given to the employees.
The Official Side stated that it was not possible to agree to individual options and if they have any alternate suggestions, the Staff Side could come back with them.
The Staff Side stated that under ACP Scheme, financial upgradation was granted in promotional hierarchy and therefore it had become part of service condition of the employees. Under the MACPS, financial upgradations is permitted in Grade Pay hierarchy only, thereby adversely affecting the service conditions. Therefore, under MACPS also the financial upgradations should be granted in promotional hierarchy.
The Official Side stated that there was no such recommendation of the 6th CPC and in fact the Commission in its report, while discussing this issue, had mentioned that although the ACPS had, by and large, alleviated the problem of stagnation and also allowed higher rate of increments in the higher scale extended under it, it had, however, given rise to other problems. The financial upgradations in that scheme followed the then existing promotional hierarchy which gave rise to uneven benefit to employees falling in the same pay scale since several Organisations adopted different hierarchical pattern. Consequently, employees working in organizations having greater number of intermediate grades suffered because financial upgradation under ACPS placed them in a lower pay scale vis-a-vis similar]) placed employees in another organization that had lesser intermediary grades.
The 6th CPC therefore, recommended a systemic change in the existing scheme of ACPS whereby all employees, irrespective of the hierarchical structure as prevalent in their organization/cadre, would get the same benefit under it.
This was accepted by the Govt with further modification to grant three financial upgradations under the MACPS at intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as given in Section 1, Part-A of the first schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. In fact while accepting the recommendations of the 6th CPC on this issue there was no such demand by the Staff Side.
The Staff Side stated that the employees who were in service prior to 1.1.2006 had the right to retain first two financial upgradations in the promotional hierarchy and the Government cannot alter the existing service conditions adversely. The Official Side however stated that since MACPS is in supersession of earlier ACP scheme, this cannot be agreed to.
The Staff Side insisted that at least option be given to individual employees in this regard to facilitate him/her to opt for either ACP or MACP for availing benefit of financial upgradation. The Staff Side was insistent that either MACPS should be in promotional hierarchy or individual options should be given to the employees.
The Official Side stated that it was not possible to agree to individual options and if they have any alternate suggestions, the Staff Side could come back with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment