Secretaries against revision over and above recommended by 7th CPC
NATIONAL CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE OF PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS.
13/c Feroze shah Road,
New Delhi. 110 001
Email. [email protected]
We send herewith a copy of the NJCA Circular letter dated 27th May, 2016. The same is self-explanatory. You could see there-from that the Government might not positively react to the demands placed by the NJCA over the recommendations of the 7th CPC. Simply raising the minimum wage by a few rupees without any consequential change in the fitment formula or pay matrix will not bring about any tangible benefit. The revision of the minimum wage along would benefit only those who are likely to be recruited to the cadre of MTS in future. As you are aware, the 7th CPC had not accepted any demand of the employees. It is beset with dissenting notes in many chapters. The fight between the personnel in the organized Group A Services and all India Services had triggered such dissenting note on the part of the Member who retired from the IAS. A significant section of the Secretaries to various Departments, we were told, were against any revision over the recommendations of the 7th CPC. In any case, we are to await the outcome of the discussions at the NJCA meeting scheduled to be held on 3rd June, at New Delhi.
Coming to the issues pertaining to the Pensioners, we must recall that the 7th CPC had rejected almost all the demands unanimously placed before them by the Pensioners organizations. While tendering oral evidence the Staff Side had inter alia pressed for the parity for the past pensioners before the Commission, especially in the background of the granting of one rank one pension to the Defence Personnel. It is ironic to note that the Defence Ministry which had piloted the demand of the Ex-service men for one rank one pension i.e.parity between the past and present pensioners has now taken a stand against such parity for civil servants. No personnel either in the organized Group A services or All India Services would stand benefited by the present recommendation of the 7th CPC except a few as most of them were in receipt of almost time bound promotion in their career. The modified parity one must recall has only benefited the upper echelons in the bureaucracy. One can understand that the Govt. refusing to make improvements over the suggestion made by a Commission. But it must be most intolerable when the Govt. refuses to implement a recommendation which was the outcome of a persistent presentation jointly by almost all the beneficiaries. The plea advanced for non acceptance of the recommendation is the alleged impracticability due to the non availability of the relevant records. Should the pensioner suffer for the reason that the concerned department of the Government has not kept the records properly? It is the most callous approach and must be resisted with all the force that we can command. We cannot afford to have this situation to develop. We are certain that most of the individual pensioners would be able to provide the requisite information needed to consider the first option in the pension fixation to the concerned department and most of the Departments would be able to verify the same with the available documents with them. We must however await the decision of the NJCA in the matter.
In the meantime, all affiliates will take such action needed to mobilize the pensioners and undertake a serious educational campaign.