Comparison of 7th Pay Commission and 6th CPC Pay excluding HRA

Comparison of 7th Pay Commission and 6th CPC Pay excluding HRA

Comparison of 7th Pay Commission and 6th CPC Pay excluding HRA – NFIR provides data that shows that increase in pay by way of revision pay proposed by 7th pay commission from the Level 1 to 6 is marginal and from Level 7 there is no increase


During  discussions  with the Hon’ble  MR and the Board (CRB,  FC,  MS) on 23rd December 2015, the NFIR  General Secretary  has expressed that there is all-round  unhappiness on 7th CPC recommendations as in many cases the ‘Take  Home Pay’  is either very marginal  or less than  what  is  received  by the  employee  now.

The  Federation  also  disputed  the estimated financial  implications  (Rs.28,500 crores)  and said that the estimated  expenditure  has been exaggerated.  It was also brought to the notice of the MR the retrograde recommendations  of 7th CPC,  while the case of Railway employees  of various categories  was not dealt adequately and the Railway  Ministry  has unfortunately  not apprised the inadequacies of Grades Pay and Pay Band of 6th CPC to the Chairman,  7th CPC.

Table–II  indicates  6th  CPC minimum pay in GP+  Pay Band without  HRA.

Table-II  (a)  gives 7th CPC  minimum  pay  without   HRA  (staff  in occupation   of Railway quarters are not entitled for HRA).

[A comparison  of Table-II with Table-II (a) shows minus  ‘Take  Home Pay’   for employees of Level- I  to Level-6 of Pay Matrix and equally  marginal  increase to those  in Level-7,  8 & 9 of Pay Matrix. Again  in Level- 10 the ‘Take  Home  Pay’  will be less than the present amount. Overall position  will be either “minus” or “marginal increase”.  The Income Tax deduction would further worsen.]

TABLE- II          VI th CPC pay at the minimum of the Pay bands without HRA as on 01/01/2016
Pay Band		GP	PAY	DA	HRA	TR/ALL	GROSS	PF	PTAX	CGIS	DED	NET
PB-I	5200-20200	1800	7000	8750	0	1350	17100	840	150	30	1020	16080
PB-I	5200-20200	1900	7730	9663	0	1350	20643	928	200	30	1158	19485
PB-1	5200-20200	2000	8460	10575	0	3600	24635	1015	200	30	1245	23390
PB-I	5200-20200	2400	9910	12388	0	3600	28298	1189	200	30	1419	26878
PB-I	5200-20200	2800	11360	14200	0	3600	31960	1363	200	30	1593	30367
PB-11	9300-34800	4200	13500	16875	0	3600	33975	1620	,200	30	1850	32125
PB-Il	9300-34800	.   4600	17140	21425	0	3600	42165	2057	200	30	2287	39878
PB-Il	9300-34800	4800	18150	22688	0	3600	44438	2178	200	60	2438	42000
PB-Il	9300-34800	5400	20280	25350	0	7200	52830	2434	200	60	2694	50136
PB-Ill	15600-39100	5400	21000	26250	0	7200	54450	2520	200	120	2840	51610
PB-I11	15600-39100	6600	25350	31688	0	7200	64238	3042	200	120	3362	60876
PB-111	15600-39100	7600	29500	36875	0	7200	73575	3540	200	120	3860	69715

TABLE-II (a)      VII th CPC pay at the minimum of the level without HRA as on 01/01/2016
LEVEL	PAY	DA	HRA	TR/ALL	GROSS	PF	PTAX	CGIS	DED	NET	GROSS DIFF	NET DIFF
1	18000	0	0	1350	19350	2160	200	1500	3860	15490	2250	-590
2	19900	0	0	1350	21250	2388	200	1500	4088	17162	608	-2323
3	21700	0	0	3600	25300	2604	200	1500	4304	20996	665	-2394
4	25500	0	0	3600	29100	3060	200	1500	4760	24340	803	-2538
5	29200	0	0	3600	32800	3504	200	1500	5204	27596	840	-2771
6	35400	0	0	3600	39000	4248	200	2500	6948	32052	5025	-73
7	44900	0	0	3600	48500	5388	200	2500	8088	40412	6335	534
8	47600	0	0	3600	51200	5712	200	2500	8412	42788	6763	789
9	53100	0	0	7200	60300	6372	200	2500	9072	51228	7470	1092
10	56100	0	0	7200	63300	6732	200	5000	11932	51368	8850	-242
11	67700 –	0	0	7200	74900	8124	200	5000	13324	61576	10663	700
12	78800	0	0	7200	–86000	9456	200	5000	14656	71344	12425	1629

Source: NFIR

NFIR compares 7th pay commission pay matrix and 6th pay commission pay

NFIR compares 7th pay commission pay matrix and 6th pay commission pay

NFIR compares 7th pay commission pay matrix and 6th pay commission pay including HRA – NFIR concludes that net benefit is marginal at Level-1, and minus  at Level–2. When taking income tax deduction in to account pay increase at higher levels will also be minimal


During  discussions  with the Hon’ble  MR and the Board (CRB,  FC,  MS) on 23rd December 2015, the NFIR  General Secretary  has expressed that there is all-round  unhappiness on 7th CPC recommendations as in many cases the ‘Take  Home Pay’  is either very marginal  or less than  what  is  received  by the  employee  now.

The  Federation  also  disputed  the estimated financial  implications  (Rs.28,500 crores)  and said that the estimated  expenditure  has been exaggerated.  It was also brought to the notice of the MR the retrograde recommendations  of 7th CPC,  while the case of Railway employees  of various categories  was not dealt adequately and the Railway  Ministry  has unfortunately  not apprised the inadequacies of Grades Pay and Pay Band of 6th CPC to the Chairman,  7th CPC.

As  desired  vide  note  dated  23/12/2015,  the  Federation   furnishes  the  following  details  as Annexures to this letter.

(a) Table –I   gives   the  position   of  6th   CPC   minimum   pay   in  Pay  Band   &  Grade   Pay (PB-I   to PB-3) as on 01/01/2016.

(b) Table-I  (a) explains  the 7th CPC minimum pay from Level-1 to Level-12  of the Pay Matrix . A comparison  of Table-I  with Table-I (a)  reveals that the net benefit is marginal at Level-1, minus  at Level–2.

However,  there  may be substantial  increase   from Level- 7  and above.  If Income Tax deduction  takes place, the increase will fall.

6th And 7th Cpc Pay Comparison Table

TABLE-1                VI th CPC pay at the minimum of the Pay bands as on 01/01/2016
Pay Band		GP	PAY	DA	HRA	TR/ALL	GROSS	PF	PTAX	CGIS	DED	NET
PB-I	5200-20200	1800	7000	8750	2100	1350	19200	840	150	30	1020	18180
PB-I	5200-20200	1900	7730	9663	2319	1350	21062	928	200	30	1158	19904
PB-I	5200-20200	2000	8460	10575	2538	3600	25173	1015	200	30	1245	23928
PB-1	5200-20200	2400	9910	12388	2973	3600	28871	1189	200	30	1419	27451
PB-I	5200-20200	2800	11360	14200	3408	3600	32568	1363	200	30	1593	30975
PB-II	9300-34800	4200	13500	16875	4050	3600	38025	1620	200	30	1850	36175
PB-II	9300-34800	4600	17140	21425	5142	3600	47307	2057	200	30	2287	45020
PB-II	9300-34800	4800	18150	22688	5445	3600	49883	2178	200	60	2438	47445
PB-II	9300-34800	5400	20280	25350	6084	7200	58914	2434	200	60	2694	56220
PB-III	15600-39100	5400	21000	26250	6300	7200	60750	2520	200	120	2840	57910
PB-III	15600-39100	6600	25350	31688	7605	7200	71843	3042	200	120	3362	68481
PB-III	15600-39100	7600	29500	36875	8850	7200	82425	3540	200	120	3860	78565

TABLE-				(a)VII th CPC pay at the minimum of the Pay Matrix level as on 01/01/2016
LEVEL I	PAY	DA	HRA	TR/ALL	GROSS	PF	PTAX	CGIS	DED	NET	GROSS DIFF	NET DIFF
1	18000	0	4320	1350	23670	2160	200	1500	3860	19810	4470	1630
2	19900	0	4776	1350	26026	2388	200	1500	4088	21938	2715	-216
3	21700	0	5208	3600	30508	2604	200	1500	4304	26204	5335	2276
4	25500	0	6120	3600	35220	3060	200	1500	4760	30460	6350	3009
5	29200	0	7008	3600	39808	3504	200	1500	5204	34604	7240	3629
6	35400	0	8496	3600	47496	4248	200	2500	6948	40548	9471	4373
7	44900	0	10776	3600	59276 …	5388	200	2500	8088	51188	11969	6168
8	47600	0	11424	3600	62624	5712	200	2500	8412	54212	12742	6768
9	53100	0	12744	7200	73044	6372	200	2500	9072	63972	14130	7752
10	56100	0	13464	7200	76764	6732	200	5000	11932	64832	16014	6922
11	67700	0	16248	7200	91148	8124	200	5000	13324	77824	19306	9344
12	78800	0	18912	7200	104912	9456	200	5000	14656	90256	22487	11691

Source: NFIR

Posting of Government employees who have differently abled dependents – Dopt Orders on 5.1.2016

Posting of Government employees who have differently abled dependents – Dopt Orders on 5.1.2016

No.42011/3/2014-Estt.(Res)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training

North Block, New Delhi,
dated the 05th January, 2016

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Posting of Government employees who have differently abled dependents- reg.

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OM of even number dated 06.06.2014 and 17.11.2014 exempting a Government employee, who is also a care giver of disabled child, from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative constraints. The word ‘disabled’ includes (i) blindness or low vision (ii) hearing impairment (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy (iv) leprosy cured (v) mental retardation (vi) mental illness (vii) multiple disabilities and (viii) autism.

2. The matter regarding the scope of ‘disabled’ has been examined in consultation with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities. Considering the fact that the child suffering from “Thalassemia” and “Haemophilia” requires constant caregiver support and it would be imperative for the Government employees to take care of their child suffering from “Thalassemia” and “Haemophilia” on continuous basis, it has been decided to include “Thalassemia” and “Haemophilia” in the term of ‘disabled’ defined in Para 3 of the above mentioned OM dated o6.06.2014-

3. The term ‘disabled’ as defined herein and in OM dated 06.06.2014 and 17.11.2014 is applicable only as grounds for seeking exemption from routine transfer/rotational transfer of a Government employee who have disabled child.

4. All the Ministries/Departments are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all concerned under their control.

Encl: As above.

(G. Srinivasan)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India

Authority: www.persmin.gov.in
Click the order

Raise income tax exemption limit to Rs 5 lakh: Unions

Raise income tax exemption limit to Rs 5 lakh: Unions

New Delhi: Trade unions today asked the government to increase the income tax exemption limit to Rs 5 lakh and the minimum wage to Rs 18,000 besides raising the minimum monthly pension to Rs 3,000 for all.

They also sought a special package for victims of the recent Tamil Nadu floods.

These demands were raised under a 15-point charter submitted by 11 central trade unions to Finance Minister Arun Jaitley during pre-Budget consultations held here. The Union Budget for the next financial year, 2016-17, is slated to be presented in Parliament in February end. It will take effect from April 1.

“We have demanded a minimum wage of Rs 18,000 per month which is higher than our earlier demand of Rs 15,000,” Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh Zonal Organisation Secretary Pawan Kumar said after the meeting.

The Seventh Pay Commission has recommended Rs 18,000 as minimum monthly wage for central government employees and it should be the benchmark, he said.

All Indian Trade Union Congress Secretary D L Sachdev said: “We have also demanded Rs 3,000 minimum monthly pension for all and asked for a special package for flood ravaged Tamil Nadu to provide relief to workers as well as industry in the next Budget.”

Sachdev said that in view of price rise “we have also demanded from the government to increase the income tax exemption limit to Rs 5 lakh per annum”.

The union have also asked that fringe benefits like housing, medical and educational facilities and running allowances in railways should be exempted from Income Tax.

Unions also demanded that PSUs should be strengthened and expanded and the disinvestment of government shares in profit making PSUs should be stopped.

Besides, they said that the budgetary support should be provided for revival of potentially viable sick PSUs.

On the price rise, the charter said: “Take effective measures to arrest the spiralling price rise especially of food and essential items of daily use. Ban speculative forward trading in essential commodities, check on hoarding and universalise and strengthen Public Distribution System.”

Expressing concerns over steel and aluminium sectors, the unions said: “Relentless and increasing flow of import of industrial commodities including capital goods must be contained and regulated to prevent dumping and also to protect and promote domestic industries and prevent loss of employment.”

It also said that “FDI should not be allowed in crucial sectors like defence production, Railways, financial sector, retail trade and other strategic sectors. In other areas, terms and conditions for FDI should be made public.”

PTI

7th Pay Commission – Report falls well short of the Standard expected of it – An Agonized Veteran

7th Pay Commission – Report falls well short of the Standard expected of it – An Agonized Veteran


Grievances of retired veterans can be brushed aside easily as responses of an ungrateful government, but to cause demoralisation among those still in the fight is to cause grave damage to the nation which can have potentially serious impact on its core interests. No country ever became a great power by putting down its own military.

7th Pay Commission – “Report falls well short of the Standard expected of it” – Representations made by various civilian bodies are analysed in the report, those made by the armed forces are ignored entirely.”


Recent media reports suggest that the three service chiefs have together written a letter to the defence minister protesting the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission, and seeking its review insofar as the armed forces are concerned, by a suitable committee with representation from the military.

At the same time, while addressing the annual Commanders Conference of the three services on board the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said everything would be done to ensure that the fighting efficiency of the armed forces remained high.

There is some mismatch in these two seemingly separate but related developments. While many of the issues of concern to the armed forces will, hopefully, be set right, what is disconcerting is the underlying theme which, through pay structures, downgrades the stature of the military institution. This is a potentially damaging scenario which needs discussion, as the morale of fighting men and the equipment they fight with are not different things, but two sides of the same coin.

The real problem is not the recommendations of any Pay Commission or the ongoing agitation by armed forces veterans, but the approach that is increasingly being adopted by the country towards the one institution which stands by the homeland in weather both fair and foul. In terms of recognition of the armed forces as an institution, governments of all hues, past and present, have had an approach which borders on schizophrenia.

There is high rhetoric on the regard in which the military is held by everyone; yet, no effort is spared to denigrate its leadership or to downgrade its stature. In the early 1960s, when the Army Chief protested and then resigned over the promotion of a clearly unsuitable senior officer, Prime Minister Nehru first assured General Thimayya that he would get the issue resolved and, on the very next day, castigated the chief in quite derogatory language in the Lok Sabha. The person in question was elevated and a year later, led his troops to a demoralised retreat from the battlefield which was even more traumatic than the defeat itself.

In 1973, despite the armed forces having provided the nation with a spectacular victory just two years earlier, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s government, following the Third Pay Commission report, had no hesitation in reducing the pensions of retiring military men just as it increased those of their civilian counterparts. In the middle 1980s, when then army chief made a perfectly valid comment that the armed forces were as interested in good governance as others, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi got Defence Minister Sharad Pawar to humiliate the general by remarking in the Lok Sabha that military officers were trained to fight wars but were not well equipped to make such comments, which need not be taken seriously.

In 1998, the government of Prime Minister Vajpayee summarily dismissed then Naval Chief Vishnu Bhagwat without any notice, going so far as to fly in his successor into New Delhi quite stealthily in an aircraft belonging to the Research and Analysis Wing. Two years after the Kargil War, a visibly disinterested Prime Minister Vajpayee was present on July 26 at a ceremony to commemorate the victory gained at considerable sacrifice of young lives even as, on the same day, three prime ministers, past and present, along with several MPs, stood at a crematorium to pay respect to an assassinated MP who had been a dacoit and had cruelly murdered 22 of her own innocent countrymen; both houses of Parliament were adjourned for a day. These are just a few episodes better known publicly; many more can be cited. If this is not reflective of a split persona, nothing is.

In other major democracies, there are instances of military leaders having been asked to resign or even dismissed – the most infamous one being the sacking of US General Douglas Macarthur, a World War II hero, by President Truman during the Korean War. But there the former was clearly acting in defiance of the political directive. There have been cases where senior military men have been asked to resign on moral grounds, but never have efforts been made to downgrade the stature of the armed forces as an institution. In the same country, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sits as a full member of the National Security Council alongside his superior, the Secretary of Defence (the equal of our defence minister).

This is where India stands almost alone. The approach of the Seventh Pay Commission falls in this latter category. For it to argue, as it has, that in the pay matrix, senior officers of the armed forces stand on the same footing as their civilian counterparts, actually better, is more devious than naïve, as its members were well aware that only a miniscule percentage of the former reach those positions and at a later age, when large numbers of the latter do so at a much younger age. Another pointer to the discrimination is that while representations made by various civilian bodies are analysed in the report, those made by the armed forces are ignored entirely. There are many glaring instances of such insensitivity in the recommendations made by this body.

The argument that in any democracy, the civilian leadership must have primacy over the military is valid only so long as the meaning of that relationship is understood. If by this ‘superiority’ is implied that the civil bureaucracy must merit higher status and remuneration than its military counterpart then the thesis deserves to be challenged and refuted.

For those who have served in the armed forces, and this writer is one, the morale of the men in uniform is the first prerequisite to fighting efficiency. Demoralisation, for any reason, is both debilitating and defeating; it was poor morale, not outdated equipment (the Chinese did not have any better), that sent us running back in 1962. Various measures, some tangible – discipline is one of them – and others more indirect, are needed to sustain and foster high morale. This is a 24/7 and 365-day activity; and status in society and government, of which fair remuneration is an important factor, must merit serious attention of those in authority, both civil and military.

Sadly, the Seventh Pay Commission report falls well short of the standard expected of it. Therefore, if the three Service Chiefs have been concerned enough to address their political superior, it is for good reason. Grievances of retired veterans can be brushed aside easily as responses of an ungrateful government, but to cause demoralisation among those still in the fight is to cause grave damage to the nation which can have potentially serious impact on its core interests. No country ever became a great power by putting down its own military.

Source: Business Standard