• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 2
    CommentGo Back
 
43
Number
0fl'n.v
43
1
scn1e.r
Pay &-teiid.to multiply
between
Pay Commissions. Thc
First
CPC
had
recommended
about
30
standard scales and abut
150
scales in all
.4t
the
time
of the Second
CPC
he
number of
scales
exceeded
500.
43
2
The Second
CHC
ccommended
a
total
number
of
140 scales
inall
At
rhc
tune
when
the
Third
GPC
was
constituted the number of pay scalcs hadagain crossed
the
500
mark.
Thd
Third
CPC
reduced
the
nurpber
of scales
to
80
Whcn
the
Follrth
CPC
started
functioning.
the
number
of pay scales had again risen
to 153
The
Fourth
CPC
rn
their rcconuncndations reduced
these
scales
to
36
But
3s
of
tda?
there
are
5
1
standard scalcs in csistencc
in
the
Government
of
iiidia
Rali~iii:/i.w:g
ii?
43.3
scit1t.s
An
aaempt
has
been
madc
to
radonalise
the
existing
5
I
standardscalcs
of
pay before formulating
kir
orrcsponding
revised
scalcs
of
pay.
MlNlMUM
AND
MAXlMClM
SALARY
.\lit,
nrlinr
-
4-3.4
ntn.rr:t:t,vnr
rctlir
J
not
10.
h..
nrIlllr,,'ll
In the prcccding chaptcrs
we
have dealt
with
the qucstim
of
dctcrmination
of
the
two
cardinal points viz.,
the
minimum pay
of
tlic lowestliinctioiii-q
in
Govt.
and
thc
highcsi
pay
of
the
Secret&
LO
Govt.
of
India.
Aftcr
considcrable discussion
we
arrived
at the-figure
of
RS.2440
s
the minimum
basic
pay
and
Rs.
26000
as
thc
salary
61
thc Secrctary. Thus we have retained thetninimum-maximum ratio
of
1
:
10.7
which had
been
fixed
by the Fourth
CPC
it
is
our
feeling that
if
this ratio cannot be increased,
it
should not be allowed
to
get reduced either. That is Ihe
reason
why we have advocated
a
100%,
neutralisation
of
cost
of
living at lhe higher levels.
The
figurcs
of
maximum
and
minimum
sduics
gve
an
arithnlctigal
rclationshrp
of
approsirnatcly
3.25
bctwccii
449
 
piierfocror
the new basic pay and the unrevised basic pay. Normally, the application
of
uch
a
broad arithmetical ratio could have yielded all the
scales
that we wanted, but wewere compelled
to
makc a nurnber of other changes which involved either themerger
of
scales
or
rahonalisation of the pre-revised scalcs
or
a
change in the span
ofthc
rcviscd
scalcs, Thcre were other considcrations
too:
which wc havc tried
to
explain
in
the succecding paragraphs.43.5
We have merged
a
number
of
scales, because
the
existingscates were
too
close
to each
other, or because we
decided
to
do
away with
some
scales altogether.
The logic of the mcrgcr
in
caeh casc
is
explained below
1.
Rs.950-
400
Rs.950-
500
RS
150-
I
SO0
These were merged becausc
thc
first two scales \vcrc idcnticalbut for a differcncc
in
span andthe third was an unusual scalcwhich started
at
a highcr
stage
but ended atRs.
1500.
2.
Rs.975-
540
Rs.975-
660
3.
Rs.
1200-1800
Rs.
200-2040
Rs.
320-2040
4.
Rs.
350-2200
Rs.
400-23005.
Rs.
1400-2600
Rs.
600-2660
6.
s.
000-3200
Rs.
000-3500
These
two
scales wcrc alsoidentical, but for a dirfcrcncc
in
span.The latter
two
scelcs arcidentical but
for
a
diffcrcnccin span.
Rs.
1200-
1800
was
a
scale for skilled
I1
catcgon
of
artisans, while
Rs.
1320-2040
was thc scaleforskilled
I
category
artisans.
We decided
to
merge these categories,
so
that the
artisans
could progress directly
fio
m
Rs.
950-1500
to
Rs.
320-2040on
the
analogy of
LDCs
being
promoted
as
UDCs.
This merger hasthus taken- away
one
of the chief grievances
of
artisans
who always felt discriminated
vIs
a vistheir ministerial counterparts.These
two
scalcs wcrc
too
closc
to
each other.These are identical scalcs
but
for difference
in
span.
It
was
felt
$at
then:
wcrc
too
many promotional scales
for
Group 'C' cmployccs and rctention of suchscales.gave
littlc
rclicf to thcsc cmployeeseven on promotionThcsc arc Identical scalcs but
for
dfference
in
span
In
many officcs. pcrsons wrcbeing promotcd froin Rs.2000-3200
450
 
X
RS
2200-4000
Rs.
300-2800
0
Rs 3000-3625
RS
3000-4500
RS
3000-5000
10.R~.
700-4450
Rs. 3700-5000
i
I
Rs.4100-j300
Rs.4500-5700
12
Rs.5
Rs.5
RS.5
1.;
Ks
iooo-0700Ks
iooo-7300
(Group
'C'
scale)
to
Rs
2000-3500
(Group
'B'
scale)
This
\\as
an
illusor?
promotion.
Thc
difference bctwxn the
two
scales
is
very
marginal andthere uould not be anymaterial diffcrcncc duc
to
theirmcrscrThe second scale
was
a
very
short-duration scale
of
5
years'
span and did not
serve
any purpose
The
first scale
was
for a
very
small
cmgon
of
employees
of
Dcpartmcnt
of
Atomic Energy andothcr departments. The lattertwo scales were identical scaleswith a difference in span
only.
The last scale
was
meant
for
scientific senwcs
We
have
tried
to integrate
the
scientific servicesinto the gcneral fraternity
of
Group
'A'
services.
by
converting some
odd
scalesinto the standard Group
'A'
scales.The first scale was unusuallyshort
in
dubtion and applied
to
vcn
fc\\
categories.The first
scale
was
theselection grade for unorganiscd
Group
'A'
SC~ICCS
and Indian Forest Service and the second
\\.as
the
NFSG for organised Group
'A'
senices
l3>
iiicrSinS the
two
scales.
we
ha\
e
si\
en thebenefit
of
the
same
scale
to
the
unorganised sen
ices
Kr
IFS
Thc tirst
\\as
an unusuallyshort-duration scale
for
some
scicwitic
scr\
ices
and isolated postsv
The
scconii
\\;is
for DIGS
of
Police
The
third
\\as
again
for
soiiic
scientific
sen
ices.
We
have combined
thc
thrcc
as
a
nicnsiirc
of
rationalisation
451
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
premal_patwa

please give permission to download this

reply03 / 18 / 2010
shiprababu

please give permission to download to all.

reply01 / 04 / 2010
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...