Saturday, January 27, 2018

To

Mr.AswaniLohani,

Chairman, Railway Board, 

Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 

(Copy to Member Staff)

Our comments on the brief note on the discussion and deliberation of official and staff side held on 4th and 5th Jan 2018, on the issue of kilometerage rate of Running staff reg:

Respected Sir, 

Sub: Our representation.

Ref: Summary note of discussion held on 4th and 5th Jan 2018, file no: E(P and A)/11/2013/RS 14.

The decision of the Government of India that the KMA and related allowances of Running staff should be decided by the Ministry of Railway through a bilateral discussion with the staff side. Accordingly several meeting were held between the Railway Board and staff side, and finally on 4th and 5th Jan 2018. A summary record note of the discussion was drawn and released as file no: E (P and A) 11/2013/RS14.

As there was no agreement reached between the official and staff side, it was decided to put up the views of both side to the Railway Board for a decision on the issue. 

This Association’s comments and objections to the views taken by the official side in this issue is follows….

A. The gist of the view in para 2.1 and 2.2 of official side is as follows. 

That the demand to calculate the KMA rate by applying RAC 1980 formula cannot be conceded on the ground that pay element of 30 % recommended by the RAC 1980, based on the calculation of measure of depression, does not exist at present as the depression of pay of Running staff with the Apex scale of class ‘C’ of Non- Running Staff has been eroded after successive pay commissions. And at present it stood -10 to -13%. Therefore if RAC 80 formula is invoked to arrive at KMA rate, the percentage of pay element can be taken as Zero.

Our comment and objections on the above view of the official side is as follows:

There were four central Pay commissions from 1981 to 2016. All these Pay Commissions never considered it, as warranted to revise the pay element of running staff.

For the past 37 years from 1981 to till date there were no attempts or discussion by Railway Board to revise the quantum of pay element fixed by RAC 1980.

At the outset we submit that there is no concept as depression factor in pay concept put forth by the Railway, because the RAC 1980 analyzed various method to find out the pay element (refer para715 of RAC 1980). It may also be noted that, the pay element in fact was there from 1919 onwards, when the Company Railway was in existence.

Anyhow, let us see whether at present what is the measure of depression of pay of a Loco pilot (Mail) with the post in the Apex scale of class C, non-running staff exist.

The Loco Pilot is in L6 of the pay matrix with a pay of Rs 35400-112400, and the mean pay is taken as (35400+112400)/2=73900. The Apex scale of class C of non-running staff, is L9 in pay matrix is as follows:-

L9-Rs 53100-167800.

The mean pay is 110450.

The percentage of depression :-

L9 mean pay =110450.

L6 mean pay =73900.

The difference is 36550.

Difference in percentage basis,

(36550/73900)*100=49.45%, this is the exact position of the depression factor in VII CPC pay matrix. The submission by the federations in para 2.2 of the recorded note, that the depression factor is at 50% is correct.

Even if it is considered, without conceding, the apex pay scale is L8 in pay matrix that also shows the measure of depression is at a tune of 35%. 

L8-Rs 47600-151100.

The mean pay is (47600+151100)/2=99350.

The percentage of depression;-

L8 mean pay = 99350.

L6 mean pay = 73900.

The difference = 25450.

Difference in percentage basis

(25450/73900)*100= 35%.

At present the measure of depression stands at 50%, not ‘minus 13%' as claimed by the official side. 

Therefore the view expressed by official side that, applying the RAC 80 formula with Zero pay element is totally wrong. So long as the depression of pay stands more than 30% in VII CPC pay matrix, it should be apt to apply the RAC 1980 formulae to arrive at the rate of KMA. It may please be noted that many categories in Railway were allowed with GP 4800 and GP 5400 at various point of time, and now these categories can reach to L9 and in some cases to L10 by way of promotion or simply through MACP. Whereas the entire post from Shunter to LP(mail) is dumped in L6 pay matrix.


B. The gist of view of official side in para 2.3 is as follows; 

That the VII CPC had recommended rationalization of percentage based allowance and the VII CPC rationalized the rate of NPA by a factor of 0.8. In consonance with this quantum of pay element may also be rationalized from 30% to 24% for in service benefit and from 55% to 44% for retirement. 

Our comment on the views of the official side in para 2.3 is as follows:-

We draw your attention to the recommendation of the VII CPC in para 8.2.5.4 which reads as follows:-

"For most of the allowances that have been retained, we have sought to provide a raise that is commensurate with the rise in DA. Accordingly allowances that are in the nature of a fixed amount but not DA indexed have generally been raised by a factor of 2.25. Allowances that are in the nature of a fixed amount but are partially indexed to DA have generally been raised by a factor of 1.5. Allowances that are in the nature of a fixed amount but fully indexed to DA have not been given any raise. Regarding percentage based allowances, having regard to the increase in the pay structure (and consequently the Basic pay) as a result of the recommendations of this commission, and keeping in mind the raise granted to slab based allowances, the quantum of percentage based allowances has been rationalized by a factor of 0.8"

A clear reading of this recommendation, which was accepted by Government, reveal that the rationalization by the said factor apply only for allowance. Whereas the pay element to Running Staff is 'pay' as defined by the Rule 1303-FR-921(a) and the same is specially classified as ‘Pay’ by the President. 

So applying the rationalization factor of 0.8 on pay element is totally wrong. 


C. The gist of view of official side expressed in para 3.1 is as follows. 

That the KMA rate to be increased by a factor of 1.5 as recommended to allowances which are partially linked to DA by the CPC.

Our comment on this view is as follows :-

The KMA rate consists of two components, one is a pay portion, ie; the pay element and other is TA portion. 

As already we pointed out that, the recommendation to rationalize only the allowances with the recommended factor and not for ‘Pay’. So long as one of the component in KMA is pay, any rationalization by a factor is totally wrong. 

Added to that the other component in KMA is the DA/TA allowance.

A plain reading of para 8.15.12 to 8.15.16 of the VII CPC report show that the enhancement of DA/TA rate recommended by the VII CPC no done with a factor. All other allowances, the VII CPC specifically says the factor to be used to increase the rates, but not for TA/DA. Such being the position of the two components consist in the KMA , revising it with a factor is totally wrong. Had the CPC used the 1.5 factor to raise the TA rate of 510, then it will not come to Rs 800, but much lesser amount.


D. The gist of view of official side in para 3.2 is as follows:-

The TA/DA rate of LP ( P) was Rs 510 as on 30.06.2017 and that has been raised to Rs 800 w.e.f 01.07.17, an increase of 56.8 %. Therefore the KMA rate as on 30.06.17 of Rs 253.50 can be raised by 56.86% and fixed at 397.64 w.e.f 01.07.17.

In this connection we submit as follows:-

It is pointed out that the TA/DA rate as on 30.06.2017 not at Rs 510.It should be noted that the rate of TA/DA taken for calculation of KMA on VI CPC was Rs 210 and not Rs 340. The VI CPC recommended rate of Rs 340 would reach to Rs 510 on 30.06.17, not the Rs 210 given to the Running staff while fixing KMA rate on VI CPC.

On VI CPC the TA was taken as Rs 210 to arrive at the KMA rate. By 30.06.17 the TA of Rs 210 reached only to Rs 315 and never reach to Rs 510 as claimed by the official side. Had they taken the TA/DA rate as Rs 340 on VI CPC then it would have been reached to Rs 510 on 30.06.17.

The percentage increase is not to be 56.86% . But percentage of increase to be calculated from Rs 310 to Rs800, that will come to Rs 160% approximately. The view expressed by the official side is against the factual position. Therefore the KMA rate as on 30.06.17 of Rs 253.50 will be raised by 160% and fixed at Rs 650 w.e.f 01.07.17. This rate is as close to the rate suggested by the Federations. 


E. The gist of view of official side in para 3.4, our comment is as follows:-

In order to muffle the federations the official side pointed out that they were the signatory of the Joint Committee, 2008. This type of coercive is not expected from a mighty organization towards workers federations.

What took place in Joint Committee 2008 is known to all. The management deliberately misguided, misrepresented, concealed the fact and made them believe that the TA/DA rate would be doubled and in good faith they signed.


The federations are duty bound and in absolute right to demand to review the decision of Joint Committee, 2008, when in later stage the federations come to realize that the TA/DA rate has been raised by 3.8 times and not simply doubled.

Immediately realizing this position both the federations and this Union raised issue before the Railway Board and demanded to review the decision of Joint Committee, 2008. The Railway Board have to be blamed for not settling the issue even after 10 years. Federations constant demand went to deaf ear. Had the issue settled before the VII CPC, the present impasse could have been avoided.


The reasons advanced by the official side that it is not feasible to apply Joint Committee, 2008 formulae to arrive at the KMA rate, is factually wrong, against all cannons of justice and fair play.

This Union therefore reiterates its demand that the KMA rate be arrived by strictly applying the RAC 1980 formulae. At the same time this Association fully endorses the view of both Federations expressed in the discussion. 

We hope that Railway Board will reject the views of the official side and concede the demand of staff side as expeditiously as possible. The expectation of Running Staff in this regard is reasonable, and they expect a fair pay, any disillusion will have serious repercussion in the prevailing industrial relations in Railway.

Thanking you

New Delhi                                                                                                         Yours faithfully

24.01.2018

                                                                                                                         (M N PRASAD)

                                                                                                      SECRETARY GENERAL, AILRSA 



0 comments:

Welcome To AILRSA....

Visitors

Admin Area

Blog Archive

AILRSA 1970 - . Powered by Blogger.

Follow by Email

Google+ Followers

Are You Satisfied with 7th Pay commission ?

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Text Widget

Followers

-------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------