7th CPC- Anomaly in the Application of Index Rationalization
Agenda Item No. 07 of the Anomaly in the Application of Index Rationalization- The Secretary General, Confederation addressed to Com.Shiv Gopal Mishra, Secretarystaffside, NJCM on the items to take up in the Anomaly Committee meeting
Item – 7- ANOMALY IN THE APPLICATION OF INDEX RATIONALIZATION
In para 5.1.18 of its report, the 7th CPC has stated that the Level in the Pay Matrix would hence forth be the status determiner. In Para 5.1.19 it is stated that the index of rationalization has been applied from pay Band- 2 onwards on the premise that with the enhancement of levels from Pay Band – 2 onwards the role, responsibility and accountability increase at each step in the hierarchy and that the proposed pay structure reflects the same principle. It has further stated that hence, the existing entry pay at each level corresponding to successive grade pay in each Pay band fromPB-2 onwards, has been enhanced by Index rationalization.
It is clear from the above that each level in the Pay Matrix with successive higher grade pay, is higher in status than the previous one in terms of role, responsibilities and accountability. But the 7th CPC has applied uniformly the same index to all the posts in PB-I (2.57) PB-II (2.62) and PB-III (2.67). By doing this the commission has contradicted its own statement in para 5.1.18 and 5.1.19 quoted above. By applying the same Index of 2.57 to all the posts in PB-I, 2.62 to all posts in PB-2 and 2.67 to all posts in PB-3, the Commission has implied that all the posts in each of the Pay Bands 1, 2 and 3 carry the same duties, responsibilities and accountability, which is wrong, anomalous and unjust as the successively higher posts in each Pay Band with higher Grade Pay are at higher level in the Pay Matrix, carrying higher duties and responsibilities, Logically, higher ratinalisation indices should have been applied to the higher posts in each of the Pay Bands, including PB-I.
Due to this the higher posts in PB-I to 3 has suffered a reduction in pay and pension which is unjust and goes against the basic principle laid down in paras 5.1.18 and 5.1-19 of the report of the Commission. This injustice and anomaly should be removed.