|
Sample Representation Letter for
Stepping Up of Pay vis-a-vis Jr. Prog. Executive
To
The Director General
(Staff Section ______)
All India Radio / Doordarshan
New Delhi
SUB: Request for stepping up of my pay vis-a-vis the pay of Sh/Smt-----------, PEX, AIR/DD.
REF: DG:AIR Let. No.6(13)99-S1(B)/VolII/8544 dt. 20.8.2004
Sir,
This is with reference to DG:AIR Letter cited above, which was circulated to all Stations
of AIR & DD following the Speaking Order in respect of O.A.s No.728/99 and 1489/99, and subsequent recommendations of
the Pay Anomalies Committee constituted to remove anomalies in the pay of PEXs.
In view of the Order, I request that my pay may kindly be stepped up vis-a-vis the pay of
any of the five representative Jr. Programme Executives listed below, whose basic pay was less than my basic pay as per
the Vth Pay Commission. All of them were also promoted as Programme Executive after my joining the post of PEX on
regular basis. I am a direct recruit PEX of the 1988 batch, and joined in the post of PEX on _________(write
joining date here). All the five PEXs listed below were promoted as PEXs in 1991, i.e., three years after
I joined as PEX. Their pay after promotion was also less than mine even after the Vth Pay Commission, and it exceeded
mine only after the MIB Order of 25.2.1999, which created the pay anomaly.
The comparative pay structure for the undersigned, who became a direct
recruit PEX in 1988, vis-a-vis five representative Jr. Programme Executives taken from the list circulated by DG:AIR
is as under:
#45 - Smt. Jhansi K V Kumari, PEX, CBS Hyderabad
Smt. Kumari's Pay as on 1.1.96, as per Vth Pay Commission - Rs.7100/-
My Pay as on 1.1.96 as per Vth Pay Commission - Rs.7500/-
Smt. Kumari's Pay after the 25.2.1999 Order - Rs.9250/-
My Pay as on 1.1.96, after the 25.2.1999 Order - Rs.8000/-
#46 - Sh. Ramanujacharyulu, PEX, CBS Hyderabad
Sh. Ramanujacharyulu's Pay as on 1.1.96, as per Vth Pay Commission - Rs.6900/-
My Pay as on 1.1.96 as per Vth Pay Commission - Rs.7500/-
Sh. Ramanujacharyulu's Pay after the 25.2.1999 Order - Rs.9250/-
My Pay as on 1.1.96, after the 25.2.1999 Order - Rs.8000/-
#79 - Sh. K C Gupta, PEX, AIR Gorakhpur
Sh. K C Gupta's Pay as on 1.1.96, as per Vth Pay Commission - Rs.7300/-
My Pay as on 1.1.96 as per Vth Pay Commission - Rs.7500/-
Sh. K C Gupta's Pay after the 25.2.1999 Order - Rs.9250/-
My Pay as on 1.1.96, after the 25.2.1999 Order - Rs.8000/-
#126 - Sh. K F J Vidyalankar, PEX, AIR Hyderabad
Sh. Vidyalankar's Pay as on 1.1.96, as per Vth Pay Commission - Rs.7100/-
My Pay as on 1.1.96 as per Vth Pay Commission - Rs.7500/-
Sh. Vidalankar's Pay after the 25.2.1999 Order - Rs.9250/-
My Pay as on 1.1.96, after the 25.2.1999 Order - Rs.8000/-
#193 - Sh. Ram Krishan, PEX, AIR Shimla
Sh. Ram Krishan's Pay as on 1.1.96, as per Vth
Pay Commission - Rs.7100/-
My Pay as on 1.1.96 as per Vth Pay Commission - Rs.7500/-
Sh. Ram Krishan's Pay after the 25.2.1999 Order - Rs.9250/-
My Pay as on 1.1.96, after the 25.2.1999 Order - Rs.8000/-
It may be noted that Sr. Nos: 45, 46, 126 and 193 were all promoted in 1991 and their pay was fixed in 1991 at Rs.2000/-
(and in the case of Sr.No. 93 at Rs.2060/-). However, my pay in 1991 was already Rs.2180/-. Similarly, in the case of Sr.No:
79 quoted above, Sh. K C Gupta became PEX in November 1989, and his pay was fixed at Rs.2000/-, whereas my pay at that point
was Rs.2060/-. Any of the examples given above may be considered for stepping up my pay in accordance with MIB Order dated
13.4.04 and DG:AIR letter cited above.
It is also understood that the pay of two of my 1988 batch-mates, Sh. Pramod Mehta, PEX, AIR Delhi and Sh. Gaurav
Gangopadhyay, PEX, AIR Delhi who were applicants in the Pay Anomalies Case (OA No.728/99 and 1489/99), have already been stepped
up to the pay of one Sh. D P Banerjee, PEX, AIR whose pay as on 1.1.1996 was Rs.9000/-. As per the list and examples cited
above, the correct stepping up in the case of the undersigned is Rs.9250/- as on 1.1.1996. In the circumstances, it is requested
that my pay may kindly be stepped up accordingly to Rs.9250/- as on 1.1.1996.
However, if there is any inadvertent error in the list circulated by DG:AIR and the five examples cited above, I
request that my pay may kindly be stepped up to the level of Sh. D P Banerjee, PEX, AIR, and Sh. Pramod Mehta and Sh. Gaurav
Gangopadhyay, PEX, AIR, Delhi, who are similarly placed to me.
It is further requested that following the stepping up of my pay and payment of arrears, the income tax for the same
may kindly be calculated year-wise.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(
)
Pay Anomaly case
Amlanjyoti
Majumdar, former Asst. Station Director (ESD, AIR), appeared before the Pay Anomalies Committee and presented
our case on 23 Feb 2004. Though the Court had advised the possibility of revision of pay scales
and clearly ruled out 'stepping up' as a solution, the Anomalies Committee did not revise the pay scales and instead suggested
'stepping up' as per existing Financial Rules. DG, AIR has also issued a circular in this regard to all Stations/Kendras.
All PEXs who can avail of this benefit may apply individually for the same (as per the sample Representation given above).
Following
the Contempt Petition filed in our Pay Anomaly case G.R.Syed vs Union of India, AUPOs former coordinating convenor
, Amlanjyoti Maumdar was nominated to appear before the Anomalies Committee set up the Government
to go into the case of the Programme Executives whose pay scale was equated to Transmission Executives and
Production Assistants for the period 1986 to 1996. The Central Administrative Tribunal had directed that the
revision of pay scales of the Programme Executives, specifically for the period 1986 to 1996 and also for the earlier
period 1976 to 1986, be considered by the Anomalies Committee set up by the Government .
----------------------
Sub: A note for consideration of the Members of Anomalies Committee set up or revision
of pay scales of Programme Executives in AIR and Doordarshan vis-à-vis Transmission
Executives in terms of the Order of the
Hon'ble Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 27th Sept.2002.
-------------
Comparative chart of pay scales of PEXs and
TREXs recommended by successive Pay Commissions and accepted by the government .
(Table -A)
|
Pay
Commission |
Scale of PEXs |
Scale of TREXs |
Remarks |
|
1st Pay Commission |
280-500
& 350-650* |
160-390 |
Difference of 2 Steps
There
was an intermediary scale of 200-400 |
|
2nd Pay Commission |
350-800
&620-900* |
210-470 |
Difference
of 2 Steps
There
was an intermediary scale of 300-620 |
|
3rd Pay Commission |
650-1200 |
425-750 |
Difference of 2 Steps
There
was an intermediary scale of 550-900 |
|
4th
Pay Commission |
2000-3500 |
1400-2600 |
Difference of 2 Steps
There
was an intermediary scale of 1640-2900
|
|
5th
Pay Commission |
6500-10500 &
7500-12000* |
5000-8000
& 5500-9000 |
Difference of 2 Steps
There
is an intermediary scale of 5500-9000 |
|
|
* denotes selection grade |
In all the above, the Pay Commissions have religiously placed pay scales of PEXs 2 steps above
the TREXs pay scales for fifty years.
However, the order of 25. 2 .1999 has disturbed
this relativity between the pay scales of PEXs and TREXs by retrospectively revising the pay scales of TREXs and notionally fixing their pay in the revised scales as under between 1.1.1978 and 31.12.1995 : --
(Table-B)
Date |
Scale of PEXs |
Scale of TREXs |
Remarks |
|
1.1.1978 |
650-1200 (No Change ) |
550-900 |
Difference reduced to 1 step |
|
1.1.1986 |
2000-3500 (No Change) |
2000-3200 |
Scales brought at par |
|
1.1.1996 |
7500-12000 |
6500-10500 |
Difference reduced to 1 step |
The
Hon'ble Tribunal has observed that
indeed there has been a difference of 2 steps in the pay scales of these two posts always. While considering the revision
of pay scales of PEXs in accordance with law , rules and the observation of the
Tribunal , the Anomalies Committee has to take into account this relativities in the pay scales of PEXS and TREXs.
Now, restoration
of difference of 2 steps between the pay scales of PEXs and TREXs as maintained by the Pay Commissions would require revision of the pay scale of PEXs as under :
(Table - C)
|
Date |
Scale of TREXs |
Existing Scale of PEXS after the order of 25.2.1999 |
Scales in which PEXs have to be fixed to restore the relativities as maintained
by Pay Commissions ( these are 2 steps above TREXs as per Pay Commission(s) structure
of Pay -Scales) |
|
1.1.1978 to 31.12.1985 |
550-900 |
650-1200 |
840-1200 |
|
1.1.1986 to
31.12.1995 |
2000-3200 |
2000-3500 |
2500-4000 |
It may be relevant to mention that the 5th Pay commission it self had recommended the pre-revised scale of 2500-4000 for 500 senior PEXs .
The scope of para 2(iv) of GOI order no. 310/173/97-B(D) dated 25.2.1999 needs to be expanded to give the benefit of
notional pay fixation to PEXs as given to TREXs between 1.1.1978 and 31.12.1995 .
This notional fixation the pay of PEXs has to be done
in the scales as per col.-IV of Table C above.
Then w.e.f. 1.1.1996 the pay of PEXs has to be fixed in a scale which is 2 steps above the scale of Rs. 6500-10500 as per the 5th pay commission
recommendation accepted by the Government.
-----------------------
AUPO's Dr. G.R.Syed had filed a contempt petition against Secretary
I&B Shri Pawan Chopra and Shri K.S.Sarma, CEO-cum-DG, AIR and Doordarshan for not setting up a high level Anomalies Committee
as ordered by CAT in the Pay Anomaly case. Over a year has gone by without any action on the part of the Respondents. The
Hon'ble CAT took a serious view of this in the hearing on 3 October 2003, and ordered the Respondents to appear in person
on 17 Nov 2003 to explain their inaction.
The Contempt Petition by Dr. GR Syed had been filed on Monday, 22nd
September in the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi.
The Principal bench of CAT had earlier directed the Union of India in O.A. No.1489/1999(Dr.G.R.Syed & Ors. Vs UOI)
to form a high level Anomalies Committee to consider the upward revision of the pay scales of PEXs. The higher pay scales of PEXs in comparison to their subordinates
the TRExs had been disturbed when after a country wide agitation, the
earlier undivided PSA signed an agreement wherein TREXs and PEXs were given effectively the same pay scale i.e. 2000 for the period 1986-1996(I.e. 10 years). This
in effect had meant that a TREX and a PEX joining on the same date i.e. 1.1.1986 would draw the same pay for 10 years. This also resulted in many junior promotee PEXs (from the rank of TREXs) receiving
higher pay scales than the Direct Recruit PEXs. The gist of the judgment delivered
on 27th September, 2003 directing the Government to form an anomalies Committee to upwardly revise the scale of
PEXs is listed below:
"In the present case, we find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants that
an anomaly has been created by upgrading the pay-scales of TREX to that of Engineering Assistant while no similar consideration
has been given to keep the relativities vis-a-vis TREX and PEX. It is not disputed that the TREX is feeder category for promotion
to the post of PEX.
7. In the
above facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of the applicants to quash and set aside the letter dated 25.2.1999 is
uncalled for and is accordingly rejected. In fact, their main claim for upward revision of the pay scale is based on the grounds
that the respondents have revised the pay scale of TREXs but have not kept in view the relativities of their pay scales, or
that the PEXs have better qualifications and shoulder higher duties and responsibilities or that they have all along since
the 3rd Central Pay Commission been placed two pay scales above TREXs. According
to them, this was also the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission accepted by the Government of India.
We find from the aforesaid documents on record and the observations of the Tribunal in the orders dated 4.7.2001 and 2.5.2002
that an anomalous situation has been created by the respondents in issuing the impugned letter altering the pay scale of a
few employees as they had agitated. Besides, it also appears that the applicants representations have not been fully considered
by them.
8. In view of the discussion above, the O.As partly succeed and are disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The respondents shall constitute an Anomalies Committee of senior level officers not below the rank of
Joint Secretaries of the concerned Ministries /Departments, including Ministry of Finance, to consider the claim of the applicants
for revision of their pay scale vis-à-vis revised pay scale of TREXs in accordance with law and rules taking into account
also the above observations;
(ii) The applicants in the two O.As (supra) may nominate one person to represent them before the above Committee;
(iii) The Committee shall grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the nominee of the applicants before taking a decision
in the matter;
(iv) The Committee shall submit its recommendations / report within four months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order and in case the applicants claim for revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.96 is rejected, they shall give
a detailed and speaking order. This shall also be intimated to the applicants. "
The Government had taken no action so far on the forming of the anomalies Committee. The Bangalore
CAT had meanwhile quashed the upward revision of pay scale of TREXs/PEXs.
The Bangalore CATs judgement in this respect was overruled last week. The contempt filed ensures that the Government would now have to initiate action immediately. We have engaged Shri S.Y.Khan to represent us in the contempt petition.
PSA/DPPA impleaded
in JTS Production Case
The PSA & DPPA(Doordarshan Programme Production
Association) have both been impleaded in AUPOs IBPS case that PEXs are eligible for JTS Production. By way of abundant precaution two erstwhile staff artists who have been wrongly promoted since their established
seniors the PEXs were not considered for JTS Production have also been impleaded as parties.
Notices have been issued by the Honble Court to these parties. The case
will now come up for hearing on 21st of October, 2003. AUPO is also
glad that nearly twelve years after the IBPS rules were framed in 1990 the PSA has finally come to understand and agree with
AUPOs stance that PEXs were always eligible for JTS Production
as provided in rule 7(6) of the IBPS.
Much damage has already been caused to the careers of the Programme Executive
due to this faulty stance. However, since the PSA is an organization which includes
erstwhile staff artists also, it remains to be seen what stance they would take in Court in the matter. Due to the impleadment of the PSA and DPPA the case may take a little more time, but this would eventually
protect us from any party going to a higher Court in future claiming that they were not given reasonable opportunity to be
heard.
Transfer of PEXs - Letter to CEO
The Chief Executive Officer,
Prasar Bharati, PTI Building,2nd Floor, New Delhi-110001.
Sub:
Request for strict adherence of Transfer Policy.
Sir,
We have in many letters pointed out that the transfer Policy provides that in case a transfer is required, the Programme
Officer with the longest tenure in a particular Station should be moved first. The
non following of this rule leads to a total lack of confidence in the system. This
also leads to avoidable litigation.
In transfers from the grade of PEX, the service/tenure in the feeder post of TREX has also to be undoubtedly taken
into account while calculating the length of tenure in a Station. We find that
this is being overlooked placing the UPSC recruited PEXs at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the Promotee PEXs who have served in
the same Station as a TREX.
It is once again reiterated that other than in the case of request transfers, the transfer policy has to be strictly
followed. Any transfer being currently considered in the grade of PEX has to
be reviewed in this light.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Sajjad Rizvi, Convener, AUPO
AUPO meets Chairman, Prasar Bharati: Hands over Representation
The Chairman, Prasar Bharati Board
Sir,
As the Prasar Bharati Board is aware, almost all AIR & DD stations are in a state of crisis, and programme
management and production are crippled, as subordinate officers are forced to take up multiple charges and higher responsibilities.
For the last 13 years, while there has been no recruitment either by the Government or Prasar Bharati, the Ministry has consistently
turned down the CEO Prasar Bharatis requests for urgent filling up of posts in AIR & DD.
As the Ministry has totally failed to satisfy the requirements of Prasar Bharati and its staff, we call
upon the Board to exercise its powers and fill up all existing vacancies in Prasar Bharati.
The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting recently promoted on an ad-hoc basis an arbitrary number
of 39 Programme Executives to the post of JTS. It is inexplicable how this arbitrary figure was decided, when there are over
200 vacancies in JTS which urgently need to be filled. The 39 ad-hoc promotions made from PEX to JTS does not in any way satisfy
the requirements of Prasar Bharati units.
While the eligibility for promotion to JTS is merely 3 years service, there are over 1000 Programme Executives
with over 12 to 15 years of service who have been stagnating in the same post. Most of these officers are now fulfilling higher
responsibilities without a single promotion in their careers.
We once again request the Board to fill up all existing programme vacancies in Prasar Bharati by exercising
their rightful powers.
Yours sincerely,
Sajjad Rizvi, Convener, AUPO
|
