Procurement of Diesel/Electrical busses for traffic section regd.

AU/16/Contr/20/03.                            23/01/2020

To
The Controller,
BARC.

Sub: Procurement of Diesel/Electrical busses for traffic section regd.
Sir,
With reference to the above subject this union would like to invite your kind attention to the following:
The traffic section has 25 busses of CNG which is procured from Ashok Leyland in the year 2016 and another 13 busses of CNG were available with us. Subsequent to this 6 busses (diesel) are scraped and no replacement is arrived so far.
In the meanwhile it is experienced that CNG filling stations had some difficulty for filling gasses. This was continued for around one week time and in that situation it was very difficult to commute employees from North gate and back. In the above stated situation this Union would like to propose that the Department should initiate to procure either latest model of diesel fueled busses or Electrical busses to meet the emergency situation as stated above.
It is therefore request you to issue instructions to concerned authorities to commence the process of procurement in the above stated line.


Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,


A.Sreedharan
         (Gen. Secretary)

preparation of priority list 2020-2021 reg.

AU/16/Contr/20/09                04/02/2020

To
The Director,
DCSEM,
V.S.Bhavan

Sub: preparation of priority list 2020-2021 reg.
Ref: DCSEM/1/20/ALLOT/2020-2021/764

Sir,
With reference to the above subject we would like to bring your kind attention that the above referred circular for preparing the priority list for the forthcoming allotment year, the following points were noticed and need to be rectified.
The training period service of employees such as CAT I and CAT II is considered for the purpose of allotment. But in the online form there is no provision to indicate the training period of individuals they performed. Hence the employees are under ambiguity whether their training period will be counted in the final priority list or not.
It is therefore request you either to modify online application form or ensure their training periods are taken into account while preparing  final priority list.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,


A.Sreedharan
(Gen.Secretary)

BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI  BENCH, MUMBAI

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.362  OF 2018

National Federation of Atomic Energy     )
Employees & Ors.                                     )..APPLICANTS

        Versus
Union of India & Ors.                                 ..RESPONDENTS


 PAGE 1


                           REJOINDER OF THE APPLICANTS

             The Applicants above named wish to say and submit as under:-

 
(1)        The Applicants have   read and understood the reply filed dated 4th July, 2019 filed by A.S. Sukumaran, working as Deputy Establishment Officer, BARC, DAE, on behalf of the Respondents and the Applicants would like to say and submit as under by way of rejoinder thereto:-




(2)         At the outset the Applicants would like to say and submit that any statements or submissions in the reply filed by the Respondents which are not specifically dealt with by the Applicants in this rejoinder, the said statements and submissions are denied and the Respondents are put to strict proof in respect thereof.


(3)         At the further outset the Applicants would like to say and submit that since they may not be dealing with the contents of the reply filed by the Respondents para-wise any omission to deal with the contents of any particular paragraph or part thereof by the Applicants in this rejoinder, the same may not be treated as an admission of the contents of the said paragraph or part thereof and the Respondents are put to strict proof in respect thereof.






PAGE 2

(4)         Without prejudice to the aforementioned preliminary submissions, the   Applicants would like to say and submit as under by way of rejoinder thereto.


(5)         With reference to paras 1 to 5 of the reply of the Respondents, the same are formal paragraphs except in para 5 the Respondents are admitting that the advertisement under which the Applicant Nos.3 to 7 were selected contained the condition that advance increments should be granted based on performance during training.  If this is the condition in the advertisement then the Respondents have to explain how the said advance increment are now sought to be  recovered or reduced which is the subject matter of the grievance in the present Original Application.




(6)         With reference to paras 6 to 10 of the reply of the Respondents, the Applicants would like to say that the contention of the Respondents that reduction of the awarded advance increment is done to mitigate the disparity between the juniors and seniors is not correct in law.  The Applicants say that on the contrary by the impugned action more prejudice has been caused to the employees.  The Applicants further say that the arbitrary decision of the Respondents to reduce the advance increments granted is contrary to the judgments of the CAT, Mumbai and Madras Bench as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.  Further, the said action is contrary to the clarification given by the nodal ministry with the Department of Expenditure in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India.


(7)          With further reference to paras 6 to 10 of the reply of the Respondents, the contention of the Respondents that the said advance increments of new recruits who have been recruited on or after 1st January, 2006 was to mitigate the disparity between the seniors recruited prior to 1st January, 2006 and juniors recruited


PAGE 3

subsequent to 1st January, 2006 is an improper exercise and not tenable in law. The Applicants say that even after such exercise the disparity still persists  as can be seen from the table  given below:-


Name     Grade     Pay scale
C -4000-100-6000
D-4500-125-7000    Pay allowed after 6th CPC    Appointed before  01.01.2006

Shri. Bijay Kumar    T/C    C+0    4000     7440   
Shri.Balsaraf D M    T/D    D+0    4500     8370   


Name     Grade     Pay scale
C -4000-100-6000
D-4500-125-7000    Pay allowed after 6th CPC and retrospective implementation of  ID note dated 1st June, 2009       Appointed after  01.01.2006

Kum. Rani V Singh    T/C    C+0    4000     7510   
Balsaraf D M              T/D    D+0    4500     8560


(8)          With further reference to paras 6 to 10 of the reply of the Respondents, the Applicant would like to say and submit that the more proper method in such cases is to remove the alleged pay disparity between the juniors and seniors should have been by stepping up the pay of the seniors  for which there is ample provision in the FRSR Rules.  The Applicant says that the entire basis for the grievance has arisen because the Respondents have chosen to revise the norms on the issue of grant of advance increment retrospectively and sought to take away the benefit retrospectively instead of making the said change for future increments after the date of issue of the revised norms.  The    

PAGE 4

contention of the Respondents that they have the power under the Allocation of Business Rules is not proper and correct since the power under the said Rules is in regard to conducting the day-to-day affairs of the DAE and does not extend to altering, reducing or modifying the recommendations of the 6th C.P.C. as accepted by the Government of India.

(9)          With further reference to paras 6 to 10 of the reply of the Respondents, the Applicants would like to say that the Respondents are well aware of the powers they can exercise in such matters and which is the reason for the respondents seeking for clarification from the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, a Nodal Ministry as to how to regulate the grant of advance increments which are already granted by the Respondents.  The Applicants say and submit that the contention taken in para 10 of the reply that the DAE has the necessary power to alter or modify  the advance increment granted as per the CPC norms under the Allocation of Business Rules is not correct.  In fact the clarification received from the Nodal Finance Ministry is selectively being implemented to somehow support the improper action on the part of the Respondents. The entire narration of facts in para 6 to 10 would clearly indicate that the Respondents have no case to oppose the reliefs sought for by the Applicants in the Original Application.  The rest of paras 6 to 10 are denied.

(10)          With reference to para 16 of the reply of the Respondents, the Applicants say that the action of the Respondents to re-fix the pay of the Applicants by taking away advance increments granted to the trainees is not correct and contrary to the judgments of the CAT, Mumbai and Madras Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, apart from being contrary to the revised pay Rules and clarifications issued by the Finance Ministry.  The Applicants say that similar action was taken by the DAE of releasing advance increments to trainees at the time of 3rd and 4th Pay Commission pay scale implementation and the said action was quashed by the said judgments which are annexed to the Original Application of the CAT, Mumbai and Madras Bench as well as the Supreme Court of India, which are annexed to the Original Application.  The present action impugned in the Original Application is identical and fully covered by the said judgments and, therefore, the action impugned herein is required to be set aside by this Hon’be Tribunal.


(11)          With reference to para 22 of the reply of the Respondents, the Applicants reiterate the averments in paras 4.12 and 4.13 of the Original Application as also the contents of the document at Annexure A-4 to the Original Application.  The Applicants say that the contention taken by the Respondents that there is no mention in the appointment memorandum given to Dilipkumar Chaudhary that he has been granted 3 advance increments on his initial appointment though the Respondents are admitting that on his initial appointment the said Dilipkumar Chaudhary in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 under the 5th Pay Commission pay scale.  The initial pay of the said Dilipkumar Chaudhary was fixed at Rs.4,300/- from the first date of his appointment.  This itself indicates that the said Dilipkumar Chaudhary had been granted 3 advance increments since any new appointee in Government service fixed at the minimum of the pay scale.  The Applicants say that the averments of the Respondents that the Applicants should produce all the relevant documents of the individuals 3 to 7 for verification by the Respondents is a strange argument because whatever documents are referred to by the Applicants in the Original Application are issued by the Respondents themselves and the originals of the said documents are at all times and even today only in the custody of the Respondents.  The said averment clearly indicates the total lack of merits in the case of the Respondents.

(12)          With reference to para 24 of the reply of the Respondents, the Applicants reiterate the averments in para 4.15 of the Original Application as also the contents of the documents at Annexure A-5 and A-6 to the Original Application.  The Applicants say that the contention of the Respondents that  on the refixation of pay of Dilipkumar Chaudhary under the 6th Pay Commission  pay scales his pay was increased to Rs.7,810/-  in the pay bank  band of Rs.5,200-20,200 with grade pay of Rs.2,400/- is not stating the correct and complete facts.  The Applicants say that the pay of Dilipkumar Chaudhary on refixation under the 6th Pay Commission pay scales was fixed at Rs.7,810/- by reducing two increments.  It was essentially an advance increment granted to the said employee.  The Applicants say that if all the 3 advance increments of the said Dilipkumar Chaudhary  had been taken into account  on refixatin of pay of the said Dilipkumar Chaudhary  under the 6th Pay Commission pay scales would have been fixed at Rs.8,400/- instead of Rs.7,810/- resulting in a loss of Rs.590/- per month. The rest of the averments in the said paragraph are denied.

(13)          With reference to para 25 of the reply of the Respondents, the Applicants reiterate the averments in para 4.16 and 4.17 of the Original Application.  The Applicants say that the contentions in this paragraph of the reply are not correct in respect of Applicant No.4 Sasikumar N.S.  The Applicants say that the said Sasikumar N.S. was granted 3 additional increments which would take his pay beyond Rs.8,000/- per month in the pay bank  band of Rs.5,200-20,200 and which anomaly in the pay has not been explained or clarified by the Respondents in the entire reply.   The rest of the averments in para 25 are denied.





With reference to paras 26 and 27 of the reply of the Respondents, the Applicants reiterate the averments in para 4.18 and 4.19 of the Original Application.  The Applicants say and submit that in these two paras of the reply the Respondents are mainly relying upon the averments set out by them in para 24 of the reply and the averments in rejoinder to the said paragraph which are earlier set out herein are reiterated by way of reply to paras 26 and 27 of the reply.

(15)          With reference to para 31 of the reply of the Respondents, the averments in paras 4.23 and 4.24 of the Original Application.  The Applicants say that the contentions therein are not correct.  The Applicants say that the contention taken by the Respondents that the Applicants in this case were recorded as Category II Trainees and not direct recruits is emphatically denied.  The Applicants say that Category II Trainees are also directly recruited only and they have to undergo a period of training before they are appointed on direct recruitment basis.  Therefore, it is not a case that all Category II trainees are promotes or that they cannot be treated as direct recruits.  It is a clear case of the Respondents trying to create an artificial distinction without there being any basis for the same.  The contention that the O.M. dated 7th October, 2010 at Annexure A-12 to the Original Application being not applicable to the Applicant is emphatically denied.  The Applicants say that in fact the table in the reply of the Respondents itself supports the case of the Applicants that the said O.M. dated 7th October, 2010 applies to them and they have to be granted advance increments on that basis and the same cannot be reduced or recovered from the Applicant.  The rest of the averments in the said para are denied.

(16)          With reference to para 32 of the reply of the Respondents, the Applicants say that the contention that the pay of the Applicants is not reduced is emphatically denied.  The other averments in the para of the reply relate to the earlier proceedings filed by the Applicants and the directions given by the Tribunal in the earlier proceedings which are matter of record.  The speaking order being passed dated 12th July, 2017 which is impugned in the Original Application is also not in dispute. However, the contention that there was no response to the letter of the union and the employees dated 14th February, 2011 and 26th December, 2016 is not correct because the earlier Original Application No.252 of 2017 was filed by the Applicants only because there was no response to the said two letters of the Union.(the respondent has only reacted after the applicant filed the OA 252 of 2017) 


(17)          With reference to para 33 of the reply of the Respondents, the Applicants reiterate the averments in paras 4.27 to 4.29 of the Original Application.  The contention of the Respondents that the judgments of the CAT, Mumbai Bench, Madras Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India were taken into account while deciding the representation by the speaking order dated 12th July, 2017 is not correct.  The further contention that facts in the present case are different is also emphatically denied.  The Applicants say that there is no iota of difference between the cases of the Applicants and the earlier cases decided by this Bench of the Tribunal, Madras Bench of the Tribunal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.  The Respondents have not shown as to what is the difference, on what basis and merely making a bold statement without particulars does not advance the case of the Respondents.  The contention of the Respondents that the said judgments do not apply to the Applicants is also emphatically denied and it is reiterated that the Applicants are fully covered by the said judgments and are entitled to similar benefits on that basis.
(18)          With reference to paras 34 and 35 of the reply of the Respondents, the Applicants reiterate the averments in paras 4.30 to 4.32 of the Original Application.  The Applicant say that the so-called reasoned order dated 12th July, 2017 does not contain any reasons nor does it contain all the relevant facts and judgments applicable to the case of the Applicants and in a perfunctory manner with a pre-decided notion the said representations have been rejected.  In fact there is no reason why the judgments cited in the said representations are not applicable to the case of the Applicants.


(19)          With reference to paras 36 to 40 of the reply of the Respondents, the contention of the Respondents that there was no reduction of pay on re-fixation under the 6th Pay Commission or that the advance increments were not reduced is emphatically denied.  The Applicants say that as pointed out in the Original Application and in the representations the advance increments granted to the employees have been reduced without a show cause notice and the pay has been effectively reduced after the benefit of advance increments have been granted and enjoyed by the employees for a number of years.  The rest of the averments in the said paras are denied.  The Applicants say that the Respondents have adopted a negative attitude in the present case and the averments contrary thereto are denied. The Applicants reiterate the averments in paras 4.33 to 4.39 of the Original Application.

(20)          With reference to para 41 of the reply of the Respondents, the Applicants reiterate the averments in paras.4.40 and 4.41 of the  Original Application and deny all averments contrary thereto.  The Applicants say that when there is no dispute regarding the grant of advance increments the Respondents have to properly explain why the said advance increments granted and enjoyed by the Applicants employees and other similarly situated persons was reduced without notice to them on re-fixation of their pay under the 6th Pay Commission.

(21)          With reference to para 42 of the reply of the Respondents, the Applicants say that the contention of the Respondents that the ID (Inter Departmental) note date 1st June, 2009 which is cited as a basis to reduce the advance increments is applicable to the Stipendiary   Trainees Category I and Category II appointed during the period from 1st January, 2002 (1/1/2006) to 31st December, 2008 is an action which clearly indicates the illegality in the same.  The Applicants say that there cannot be retrospective implementation of ID note and the same can be applied only prospectively.


(22)          With reference to paras 43 and 44 of the reply of the Respondents, the Applicants reiterate the averments in paras 4.43 to 4.46 of the Original Application.  The Applicants say that the contention taken by the Respondents that the Trainees who have been inducted in service after 1st January, 2006 are eliable for advance increments only as per the DAE ID Note dated 1st June, 2009 is emphatically denied.  The Applicants say that it is rather strange that such an argument is advanced by the DAE which is absurd on the face of it.  The Applicants say that a person who is appointed on 1st January, 2006 cannot have his pay fixed by virtue of a DAE Note issued three and half years after his appointment on 1st June, 2009.  The Respondents have not shown as to how a Note issued in 2009 will govern the pay of the employee appointed 3 years prior thereto in 2006.  It is clear that the Respondents have no basis for justifying the said illegal action impugned in the Original Application and, therefore, on that ground alone the Original Application is required to be allowed.  The rest of the contentions in these two paragraphs are denied.

(23)          With reference to paras 45 to 56 of the reply of the Respondents, the same deals with legal submissions set out by the Applicants.  The Applicants reiterate all the legal submissions set out in the Original Application  and deny all legal submissions which are contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith.  The Applicants reserve their right to put forth additional legal submissions at the time of hearing of the Original Application. 


Rests of the averments in the reply are without any merits and are required to be rejected.

(25)          In the premises aforesaid, the Applicants say that the Original Application is required to be allowed with costs.
Mumbai dated this 6th day of February, 2020.






                                                            A.Shridharan,
                                                         General Secretary of
                                                        Applicant No.2 Union

Advocate for the Applicants

                                               VERIFICATION 


       
        I, A.Shridharan, Aged ___ years, the General Secretary of  Applicant No.2 Union  do hereby solemnly verify that whatever is stated in the foregoing rejoinder is true and correct to the best of my own knowledge and belief and I believe the same to be true.

        So verified at Mumbai this ____th day of February, 2020.

                       
                                                           





                                                                          A.Shridharan,
                                                                       General Secretary of 
                                                                       Applicant No.2 Union
   

Advocate for the Applicants














                       BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
                        TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI      
                       ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.632  OF 2018
National Federation of Atomic
Energy Employees & Ors.    ..APPLICANTS
Versus
Union of India & Ors.        ..RESPONDENTS







                                         REJOINDER OF THE APPLICANTS
                                 Mumbai, dated this __th  day of  February, 2020.







                                   Ramesh Ramamurthy,
                                   Saikumar Ramamurthy,
                                   Advocate for the Applicants
                                   Islam Bldg.,1st foor, R.No.11,
                                   Opposite Akbarallys,
                                   46 Veer Nariman Road,
                                   Fort, Mumbai 400 023.

CAT II Rejoinder ( O.A. NO.368/2018)

page wise

1.https://s30.aconvert.com/convert/p3r68-cdx67/aqz23-9o3ij-001.jpg

2.https://s30.aconvert.com/convert/p3r68-cdx67/aqz23-9o3ij-002.jpg

3.https://s30.aconvert.com/convert/p3r68-cdx67/aqz23-9o3ij-003.jpg

4.https://s30.aconvert.com/convert/p3r68-cdx67/aqz23-9o3ij-004.jpg

5.https://s30.aconvert.com/convert/p3r68-cdx67/aqz23-9o3ij-005.jpg

6.https://s30.aconvert.com/convert/p3r68-cdx67/aqz23-9o3ij-006.jpg

7.https://s30.aconvert.com/convert/p3r68-cdx67/aqz23-9o3ij-007.jpg

8.https://s30.aconvert.com/convert/p3r68-cdx67/aqz23-9o3ij-008.jpg

9.https://s30.aconvert.com/convert/p3r68-cdx67/aqz23-9o3ij-009.jpg

10.https://s30.aconvert.com/convert/p3r68-cdx67/aqz23-9o3ij-010.jpg

11.https://s30.aconvert.com/convert/p3r68-cdx67/aqz23-9o3ij-011.jpg

12.https://s30.aconvert.com/convert/p3r68-cdx67/aqz23-9o3ij-012.jpg

Submission of Caste Validity Certificate Reg.

AU/16/DIR/20/04         Date: - 05/02/2020

To,
The Director,
B.A.R.C.


Sub: Submission of Caste Validity Certificate Reg.
Ref: Our earlier letters to Director BARC dated 01/09/2010 and 23/07/2019.

Respected Sir,

Regarding the above subject, we may invite your kind attention to the following points for your kind perusal.

The above subject was represented in our earlier referred letter dated 1.9.2010 (Annex-I) to then-Director BARC and he advised the Administration to follow the DoPT guidelines in the case of verification of caste certificate. Now some of our employees who recruited against the post of the reserved category who belongs only to Maharashtra state and working in BARC are being issued the letters/memorandum by the authorities under the Instruction of DAE.

It is understood the Department of Personnel and Training, Central Government under the notification dated 08.04.2019, (Annex-II) had mentioned that with effect from 28.11.2000, all the benefits and facilities provided to reserved category employees mentioned in the above OM will be abandoned due to the Honorable Supreme Court of India Judgment Civil Appeal No.10387-10388/2018 SLP No.18555-18556/2018 in the case of RBI. We would like to inform you that in the said judgment dated 10.10.2018 & 11.10.2018 (Annex-III) respectively, it is mentioned that the order shall apply only to the petitioner (RBI and Food Corporation of India Staff) and not for other Central Government Employees.  In this contest we would like bring the following relevant points to your consideration.


1. we have received the reply under the RTI Act.2005 vide letter dated 30.08.2019 that the Halba / Halbi communities are listed at entry No.19 in the list of (ST) Scheduled Tribes of Maharashtra State published in the Gazette of India on 20.09.1976. The copy is enclosed as (Annex-IV). i.e. The Caste Halba Is Not De-Notified.

2. The Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by Maharashtra State Government itself has clarified that (Annex-V) “According to Sec-2D of alleged Act 2000 of Maharashtra SC, ST, VJNT, OBC and SBC (issuance and verification of Caste certificate) Act 2000, Government means the Government of Maharashtra. The act applies to the state of Maharashtra.” Thus it is clear that the above act applies to the employees of Maharashtra Government or semi Govt. only.

3. For implementing any O.M in BARC the endorsement of DAE is required and the alleged above Maharashtra State Govt. OM/Act 2000 is not endorsed by the DAE.

4. The DoPT has clarified through its RTI reply by the Under Secretary (Estt.-Reservation-1) has clarified that (Annex-VI) “ No such orders are issued ” against an information under RTI “ Is there any order issued for Caste Validity Certificate from the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, created by the Maharashtra State Government, for the Central Government employees belonging to Scheduled Tribes who are related to the State of Maharashtra by DoPT ? ”

5. Now the BARC Administration has gone beyond the scope of OM dt.08.04.2019 that all the BARC employees who belong to Maharashtra state coming under the ambit of reservation (SC/ST/OBC) are being issued Memorandums to submit Caste Validity Certificate from the scrutiny committee.



6. This Union has firm view that if any deceptive case found in the case of reservation by the authorities should penalize as per the law but putting employees in an agony situation for an unjustified reason is not acceptable to this Union.

All the Orders and RTI replies from DOPT is upholding the position of Atomic Energy Workers & Staff Union in the above subject.  

 In the above-stated position, the action initiated by the BARC Administration is not justified and uncalled for. The senior employees some of them are on the verge of retirement have put their entire service for the Department and they are under trauma. They are not able to perform their duty peacefully in their respective work place.

It is therefore requests your good offices to direct the concerned administration to put on hold such actions of issuing letters & Memorandums for submitting Caste Validity certificate and act according to DoPT orders and Directives. We further request you to arrange a personal hearing on the above subject in an early date.

Thanking you.

                                                             Yours sincerely,



                                                             A. Sreedharan
                                                                     (Gen. Secretary)
Copy To:
The Controller, BARC
The CAO (P), BARC

The presentation from AEWSU In front of the Norms committee on 31st Jan 2020 about revision of Norms of different cadres.

Consequent upon the implementation of the VIth CPC report, a committee was under the Chairmanship of Dr. A.K. Suri to examine the implementation of decision of the Government on the VIth CPC with the regard to the revision of pay scales for certain common categories of employees. The said committee was constituted by an Office Memorandum dated 12th September 2008 issued by the then Principal Adviser, DAE, Shri. V.P. Raja. The salient points of the terms of reference contained in the OM such as.

To examine all aspects and formulate a proposal for implementing the recommendation of the VIth CPC with regard to revision of pay scales for certain common categories of employees as contained in the Part – B of the notification dated 29th August, 2008 of the Dept. Expenditure, Min. of Finance.

To consider anomalies, if any , arising while implementing the above mentioned Govt. notification among the various groups (Scientific, Technical, Administrative and Auxiliary employees) in the DAE and recommend measures to correct the anomalies, without creating any new anomalies.

To consider the representations received from the employees and their recognized unions/Associations in the light of the various notifications issued by the Government based on the recommendations of VIth CPC.
The committee may consult similar Departments like the Department of Space for comparable categories of employees while arriving at its conclusions etc.
Scientific Assistant

Final revision was carried out in the year 2011
But Scientific cadre issues didn’t addressed by the norms committee or department.
There were two channels were available-
Track change without AQ. This was totally discontinued abruptly and the seniors are badly affected and their opportunity for track change to gazette post is shattered.
Track change with AQ . This facility is continued with introduction of STPT and interview.

Promotion avenues in  DOS


Promotion avenues in  DAE




No promotion avenues are available after 18 years of SA carrier. In other words approximately twenty years a Scientific Assistant has to work without any carrier progression.
 “The committee may consult similar Departments like the Department of Space for comparable categories of employees while arriving at its conclusions etc.”. This was the terms of reference of the Suri committee.

In the same direction a joint committee of DOS & DAE was constituted by Director, BARC, for reviewing the Merit Promotion Scheme- vide Ref: DIR/D-1/2012/320 dt October 5, 2012  and asked to submit their report within 6 months. But no further action has been taken  or initiated in this regard.

At present 240 SAs are in grade G
Around 12 are completed 10years service.(last promotion in 2010)
Around 30 are completed 9 years .(last promotion in 2011)
Around 40 are completed 8 years .(last promotion in 2012)


Union is not demanding any new opportunities for Scientific Assistant rather requesting to restore the avenues what they had before the revision of norms.
Above positions has justified by Govt. of India in the year 1977 through an OM clarifying that “Government to consider the diploma holders having 10 years of service as equivalent to BE/B-Tech”
Same has legal vetting by various courtsIt is therefore request this union to implement the same pattern of promotion avenues of Department of Space without further delay.
An early expedited decision will safeguard the senior most Scientific Assistant who are on the verge of superannuation


Nursing Staff

After 6th CPC nurses are recruited in the grade pay of 4600 or level 7.They are covered under merit promotion scheme as technical staff. Their basic qualification for entry in service is HSC + Diploma In Nursing/BSc Nursing . Their promotion as per the following table.

Para 2.1 of the norms says that all cases other than those who are AQ shall be consider to the NHG this condition was not followed to the case of nursing staff. They have been promoted from grade pay 5400 (PB-2) to 5400 (PB-3) without any higher grade pay. These norms were put the nursing staff in a disadvantageous position. However in the 7th CPC both grade pays are given separate level pay viz. level-9 and level-10. Since the above norms are limited to 22 years of span of the entire career of nursing staff .The Union request to introduce Nurse F with level 12.
The Union request the nursing cadre also allow the promotion from level 8 to Level 10 instead of level 9 (this is already implemented in the technical cadre)
We further request the Nurse  D to E the MEP should be brought down to 5 years instead of 7 years and the proposed nurse F MEP may be determine with 6 years.
Nursing cadre entry scale was 5000-8000 and on implementation of 6th CPC the same is upgraded to 7450-11500.  Hence the seniors who joined two level below put more years of service to reach Nurse D. But as in the case of other technical cadres special relaxation was not allowed to the nursing staff. Hence Union request to allow special relaxation to ease disparity between seniors vs juniors. It will  safeguard the interests of the seniors.

Sister In Charge

At present Nurse D and sister in charge A allowed the same grade pay/level pay and sister in charge B and Nurse E allowed the same grade pay/level pay. Sister in charge A is selected from among Nurse D  and sister in charge B eligibility  is nurse D with 2 years residency as sister in charge A. For selection of sister in charge A there is no clear norms specified. Both these post are not filled or operated since many years. Since it is supervisory post and mandatory for quality nursing service Union proposed to fill up the post of sister in charge A and B with fixation benefit under O.M dated 07/01/2013 of Ministry Of finance/ DoPT.

Fire Service Staff


Leading Fireman

Driver Cum Operator

Sub Officer

Review of Endurance test
Annexure 1-A explain the endurance test for fireman and specified for different age group  up to the age of 50 years beyond 50 years is not Specified. But the employees are subjected to endurance test as per the younger age group.
Union request to do away the endurance test beyond the age 50 years. Risk allowance under risk and hardship matrix
As per the recommendation of 7th CPC Ministry of Finance issued order on the above allowance to the fire service personnel and almost all ministries including DOS implemented the same.
Union request to extend the same to the DAE fire service personnel also.


Pharmacist

Pharmacist cadre was converted into technical cadre/merit promotion scheme in the year 12.04.1988.
Prior to this date pharmacists  appointed in the pay scale of 1350-2300 ( 3rd  CPC scale)
Consequent upon the conversion to the technical cadre, their pay scale has been lowered to 1320-2040 equivalent to T/D. Further the Dept has allowed personal pay Rs.30 to the pharmacist who appointed in the higher pay scale and  same  is continued up to 5th CPC. On implementation of CPC  the 1320-2040 pay scale has given corresponding scale of 4500-7000 to technical cadre whereas pharmacist were continued with the pay scale of 4000-6000. The pharmacist B  (1400-2300)  being the promotional post of  pharmacist A  many seniors are promoted to Pharmacist B as per their MEP. In the year 2000, upon revision of norms the pharmacist A is abolished and entry grade has kept as pharmacist B with 1400-2300.  At the time of introduction  pharmacist B as entry grade,  the seniors did not allow the cumulative relaxation in the next promotion. Further the Anand committee was not considered  the pharmacist cadre to the 5000-8000 scale. Hence the senior most pharmacist who have join in the higher pay scale with the qualification Diploma in Pharmacy with registration of pharmacy council of India with 3 months  training has given a lower pay scale. Further this cadre has hampered on implementation of 6th CPC that those senior pharmacist C who got promotion from 5000-8000 to 5500-9000 got merged. The Dept has allowed special relaxation to those pharmacist completed 24 years will be allowed one year relaxation for the promotion to the next grade under TC&TSC/NC/01/2014/113533 dated 25.08.2014. This order issued for the pharmacist in the year 2014 and closed in the year 2015. This note was formally to be applied from 2011 to 2015 but in the case of pharmacist the benefit was not extended from 2011. Further it is emphasized that no past cases will be reopened. The end result of this special relaxation is not a single senior pharmacist could avail the benefit.
This shows the pharmacist from the year 1987 till  today they consistently receive inferior treatment with respect to selection of scale, up gradation of pay scale and special relaxation. In the above position the Union request the Dept to conduct a thorough study of the senior pharmacist who join in the year before 1987 and further we request to allow the senior most pharmacist a special relaxation of norms in the next promotion.
Further we request to introduce one more promotion avenue to the level pay 11.
 The Union request the Pharmacist also allow the promotion from level 8 to Level 10 instead of level 9 (this is already implemented in the technical cadre)


Technical Staff
The following suggestion are put forward for consideration with respect to technical staff.
L-6 to L-7 (4200 to 4600) MEP’s 5 years and it is to be brought down to 4 years.
Promotion were consider based on the 3 preceding APAR/CR this is enhanced to 4 years. Union request to restore 3  years as it was existing earlier.
 In the present norms standing selection committee (SSC) conduct interviews and awarding three types  of decisions/recommendations. One is promotion will allowed in the proposed year then second one, they allow the promotion in the next year and third one is failed. On evaluation the differed cases for next year is also equivalent to fail because PRIS I is reduced and A1 has become A2. without prejudice the Union suggest that differed cases PRIS I should not be reduced in other word PRIS I should be linked only with APAR grading.
Promotion interview should be do away after the age of 50 or after the grade of Tradesman G.
Entry level of technician after completion of 2yrs Cat-II training should be ensured in the level pay-4 (4000-6000 5th CPC/2400GP in 6th CPC).
Differed cases of Diploma/Degree who had acquired requisite percentage of marks should be considered for track change after certain period of experience in their respective field.
The special relaxation was allowed to the technical staff because of reduction of MEP is limited between 2011 and 2015. around 70% of senior employees are benefitted by this scheme but those who are seniors and going with fast track and slow track (A1 & B+), did not get the benefit of this relaxation. Hence the Union request the senior employees who did not get the benefit of special relaxation should be allowed the relaxation in future promotions.( Pg no. 4 of the para 3 of the Norms to be revised)


Differed AQ cases

The norms exist up to 2009  page no.4 of Para 10.4 states “Candidates who after acquiring additional qualification with 60% marks or above and after promotion interview by the relevant Selection committee are not found fit for promotion to the eligible grade shall be considered for further promotion in the normal course only as per applicable guidelines ignoring their additional qualification. However if such candidates are recommended by the concerned Division for change of track in the case of a) MSc/BE b) Scientific Assistant in the case of B.sc/Diploma in the Engineering. Candidates during any of their of future promotions the selection committee find them fit for change of track their further promotion will be as per the guidelines laid down for personnel with higher qualification.”
In the above norms the deferred candidates, there was a provision for second opening   provided the stipulated conditions are fulfilled. It is fact that few employees were benefited at that time. However there are few candidates who could not get this second opportunity as per the above norms. This was in the transition period of 2006 to 2009 i.e. before the revision of norms 2009. It is approximately 18 candidates who may permit a second chance or allow them to appear for STPT examination.
STPT

STPT
The employees those who have acquired additional qualification & sanctioned permission before 13 May 2013, should be consider for STPT examination (both Degree & Diploma. )
The sanction of permission is granted indicating the name of institute and the same is conveyed the approval. In later date not considering such Degree/Diploma is not appropriate. However all these qualifications are subject to an examination such as STPT.
Union request to modify the pattern of Examination to exclusively to multiple choice questions and no descriptive questions should be included. In all the open recruitments similar cadres are following the above pattern.
Differed cases of Diploma/Degree who had acquired requisite percentage of marks should be considered for track change after certain period of experience in their respective field.


Work AssistantThe Union always put on record that for work assistants department had been introduced the system of track change which is one of the best policy decision determine consequent upon the 6th CPC implementation. However we prefer to put forward few suggestion with respect to this cadre.
The track change is subjected to 20% of  the numbers of technical person recruited in a particular year. In the recent time even though the work assistants are eligible for consideration for track change training, number of recruitments are limited they could not be considered for training. Since the promotion linked with the number of intake in the technical cadre it is badly effecting the promotion avenue of work assistant. Hence the Union request instead of linking the 20% CAP with recruitment 20% of total number of technical cadre in position.
Employees those who are recruited through casual labor their 50%  service in the casual labor is counted for pension purpose. These employees are absorbed in a Govt. service in a advanced age. Hence they superannuate without completing 25 years of Govt. regular service which is mandatory for consideration for track change. So we request to consider their casual service period be counted for the purpose of promotion.
The SC/ST employees joining in Govt. service in a advanced age and we propose to reduce the present eligibility criteria 15,20 & 25 to 10,12 & 15.
The work assistant who possesses AQ (Degree/Diploma/ITI) with higher percentage of marks but scored SSC less than 50% are not considered for track change as per the current norms. Hence the Union  request to consider the AQ marks instead of SSC marks.
We further request the track change allowed after training or AQ the promotion to ensured in the Next level pay with the fixation benefit instead of same level pay.
The promotion of Work Assistants A to Work assistant B is a change of Grade pay of 100Rs. Same way WA B to WA C also a change of Grade pay Of Rs. 100. the same is proportionally reflected in level pay also. It is therefore request to bring down the MEP of these two posts of WA to 4 years from 5 yrs.