Friday, February 6, 2015



THE CHAIRMAN,
7th  CPC,
Chatrapathi Sivaji Bhavan,
1st floor, B-14/1, Qutab Institutional Area,
Post box No 4599, Hauz khas,New Delhi.

Honourable Chairman,
           
Sub : Views of AILRSA on the various contentions raised in the letter under reference.
Ref : Railway Board OM No. E(P&A)II-2014/Misc.3/7th CPC dated 20.10.2014


The Railway Board vide its reference circulated under reference dated 20.10.2014 had referred  briefs on three allowances viz., Pay Element and rates of Running Allowance, Additional Allowance and BreakDown Allowance peculiar to Indian Railways to the 7th CPC for their consideration and recommendation.
In this regard we submit our representation here under on those subjects for the consideration and recommendation of the 7th CPC. We also request your Honour to provide us an opportunity to here us on all the subjects referred to the 7th CPC.
On a plain reading of the Railway Board letter under reference and the averment made therein gave an impression to us that the intention behind the pleadings advanced by the Railway Board is to ensure that no higher pay scales than a normal replacement scales should be recommended by the Honourable Commission in view of the fact that there is certain pay termed as pay element in running allowance and the pleadings are so worded and engineered to divert the Hounarable Commission from the fact that additional work load and stress on running staff has been increased multifold after the 5th and 6th CPC, calling for an higher pay pocket to be recommended by the 7th CPC.
We are constrained to say that the averment advanced by the Railway Board is not based on any factual position on the matter but a mere statement which cannot be construed as evidence and factual position.
In addition to this we point out that prior to 1980 there was no transparency in fixing the rate of running allowance. The rate has been fixed by the Railway Board according to their whims and fancies without any basis or formula. In this regard this Association as well as the federations demanded to have a transparency and basic ingredients should be spelt out. The Railway Board responded and constituted the Running Allowances Committee (RAC) 1980. The RAC 1980 after the detailed deliberations with the staff side as well as the management and after extensive study on this subject formulated a formula to arrive at the rate of running allowance. This formula has been asserted by the Ministry of Railways in para 3.3 of its letter No. RB No.5(P&A)II-80/RS/10 dt 17.08.81. This formula has held the field till date for the past 34 years for calculating the rate of running allowance. The staff side also asserted the formula and never raised any dispute on it. What ever dispute raised by the staff side is not against the fabric of the formula but against the changes made in the quantum of various factors such as the pay, number of days of TA and National Average Kilometre for arriving at the rate.
The running allowance per se shows that it is introduced to extract more work from running staff.
Sir, further I am thankful to your Honour that our zonal units at Bengaluru and Mumbai had been given opportunity to represent their views on the matter of pay and related matter but I would like to submit that I had already requested to your kind Honour to give an opportunity centrally to represent our views on this matter. I shall be highly obliged if the opportunity is given to us with information to me on my mobile number and on Email address with sufficient margin of time.
Thanking You Sir,
Yours Sincerely,


 



(M.N.PRASAD)
Secretary General
Encl: Para wise comments





To
 THE CHAIRMAN,
7th  CPC,
Chatrapathi Sivaji Bhavan,
1st floor, B-14/1, Qutab Institutional Area,
Post box No 4599, Hauz khas,New Delhi.

Honourable Chairman,
        
Sub: Parawise views of AILRSA on the letter under reference.
Ref: Railway Board OM No. E(P&A)II-2014/Misc.3/7th CPC dated 20.10.2014

I.  A brief on the pay element and the rates of Running Allowance for the running staff on the Indian Railways:
 Para A 1:
 A misleading projection is made out by the Railway Board to say that the competent authority can decide the manner of calculation of the rate of running allowance on the plea that the formula recommended by the Running Allowance Committee (RAC) 1980, which was accepted and implemented and followed since then by the Ministry of Railways, the successive revision for calculation of rates of running allowance not been mentioned in Running Allowance rule 1981, nor mentioned in the Establishment Code/ Manual which is not correct at all. We invite the attention of the Honourable Commission to para 1, 2 & 3 of Running Allowance Rules 1981, published under Board’s letter No. RB No.5 (P&A) II-80/RS/10 dt 17.08.81, wherein, the  para 3.3 clearly states that on the basis of methodology ie, formula suggested by the RAC 1980 the rates were fixed. The Running allowance committee was constituted by the Ministry of Railways and its recommendations, which include the manner in which the rate of running allowance should be calculated i.e. the formula for calculating the rates of running allowance has been accepted by the Ministry after due consultation and agreement with staffside and acted upon for revision of rate from 1981 onwards by the competent authority in the past. Therefore, the competent authority does not have any unguided power to  decide the manner of calculation at its whims and fancies, disregarding the method of calculation enunciated in RAC 1980 formula which is holding the field since 1980. The recommendation and its acceptance of the formula is a definite guideline that should be followed by the competent authority. Any action bereft of such an accepted recommendation is arbitrary. Therefore the plea advanced by Railway Board that the competent authority can decide the manner of calculation is not tenable and to be rejected summarily.
Para A 2 & 3:
   The contention that erosion of depression of pay scales, widening of gap between earnings of running staff vis-a-vis non- running staff after successive pay commissions itself is totally wrong statement and is an invention of the management intended to deprive the Running staff of their legitimate pay scales and emoluments. In fact the 4th and 5th Pay Commissions opined that the formula of RAC 1980 to calculate the rate of running allowances stands good and recommended to continue. The Railway Board should be asked to give sufficient proof to their contention of erosion in depression of pay scale and widening of gap in the earnings of Running staff vis-à-vis non running staff. In this connection we invite  your kind attention to para 10 and 16 of Report of the Committee to Recommend Pay Element and Kilometerage Allowance for the Running Staff, November 2008 (Joint Committee 2008) which denonunce the concept of depression factor.
   The Joint Committee 2008 recommended double the rate of kilometerage allowance on an assumption and not on fact. They assumed that the Government of India would have doubled the rate of Travelling Allowance / Daily Allowance. This is amply clear from the reading of the report of Joint Committee 2008. We extract the para 14 of the Joint Committee 2008 “……. By application of similar methodology w.e.f 1/09/2008 when the rates of TA/DA are revised, assuming that the rate of TA/DA for employees in the pay band 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200 is fixed at Rs.210 per day, (emphasis added).
   Only on assumption that the TA/DA rate will be doubled, the rate of kilometerage is fixed in 2008. The TA rate prior to VI CPC was Rs. 105 has been revised to Rs. 340, not to Rs. 210 as assumed by the Joint Committee 2008. The committee would have been waited till the Government announced the rate of TA/DA as this component was one of the factors to arrive at the rate of running allowance. Assumption and presumption to decide pay of employees is bad and arbitrary.
   In regard to the averment that though the Recognised Federations were members of the Joint Committee 2008 and a party to the deliberations are clamouring for the revision of rates, it is submitted that when the TA/DA rate increased by three times against the assumption that it will be only doubled, naturally the grievances arose to rectify the mistakes made, that is why the labour organisations aptly raised the issue to revise the rate and there is nothing abnormal in that. Taking behind the umbrella that staff side also were members of the Joint Committee cannot be a ground not to rectify the mistake.
Para B 1:        Facts
Para B 2:
   In this para it is shown that the highest scale of pay admissible to loco running staff under III CPC is Rs.550-750. In this connection the fact is entirely different. From 1985, 20% of the Mail Driver scale of pay has been allotted with Rs.700-900 on cadre restructuring vide Letter No. PC III/84/UPG/19 dated 25/06/1985  w.e.f 1.1.84. The Mail Guard and Mail Driver were allotted with same scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 by the 5th CPC ignoring the historical relativity. After 5th CPC the Mail and Express Driver scale of pay has been increased to Rs.6000-9800 by the fast track committee appointed by the Government of India to restore the historical relativity between the Mail Guard and Mail Driver.
   In the previous para A2 the stand of the Railway Board as appears in their pleading that the running allowance scheme has been introduced on the concept that depressed pay scale has been allowed to running staff. But in this para they took a directly opposite version that the basic objective of Running Allowance Rule is an orientation towards better performance etc.
Para B 3:
   There was no concept of depressed scale of pay. A reading of the report of
I CPC to VI CPC, it will be amply clear that the successive pay commissions never said that they recommended a pay scale to Running Staff lower than what they are eligible but for the scheme of running allowance. The running allowance is not to make good for the loss due to depressed pay scales as pleaded by the Railway. In their own words the Railway Board spelt out in para B2 of the letter under reference, the purpose for the running allowance that read as follows “….. the basic objects of these rules is an orientation towards better performance, simultaneously ensuring that the running staff are not prevented from earning a reasonable amount of running allowance in a month due to factors not attributable to them” and further as said in para (v) of B1 that “running allowance means an allowance for the performance of duty directly connected with charge of moving trains”.
Running Staff Pay And Allowances Committee (RSPAC) 1948 :
para 51 states that it appears that body consider that the mode adopted for calculating running allowance offer the simplest and the soundest basis which provides “the requisite incentive to the running staff to exert themselves to the utmost in speeding up movement and discourage dilatory method of work”.
2nd Central Pay Commission :
 para 28, “ it is pay as an incentive for the safe and punctual movement of trains and a small portion of it is intended to cover travelling allowance”.
Ashraff Committee(1968) :
The only measure of the efficiency of performance is the running allowance, which is co related to the distance worked by the running staff.
3rd  Central Pay Commission :
para 187 “we feel that the status quo in regard to the running allowance be maintained……….. at the same time, the essential character of running allowance as an incentive for improved attendance and performance would also retained”.
Running Allowance Committee 1980 :
The terms of reference states that “ the broad objective of the running allowance rules acting as an incentive for over all improved performance”.
4th  Central Pay Commission :
Para 10.456, “it has been brought to notice that the practice of including the pay element in the running allowance acts as an incentive to the running staff and should be continued. We are inclined to agree”.
5th  Central Pay Commission :
Para 83-159, “ we tend to agree with the opinion expressed by the Ministry and feel that the basic objective of motivating running staff to do maximum running duties is fulfilled by the existing system of payment of running allowance”.
Para B 4, & B 5 :     Facts and nothing to contest.
Para B 6:
            The Railways are put to strict proof of the statement made in para no. B.6 referring to 75% of mileage allowance by furnishing the sanctions said to have been obtained from the then Secretary of State in Council.  

Para B 7:
The statement of Railway Board that the RAC 1980 was the first to assess the quantum of this pay element is not the factual position. From 1919 onwards the quantum of pay element is assessed as 75%, RAC 1980 has reduced it arbitrarily to 30% and the pay element for retirement benefit was fixed at 60% in the year 1980. However 75% of pay element was fixed for retirement benefits till 05.12.1988 (ref: para 10 of Joint Committee 2008). Therefore the averment advanced in this para that the RAC 1980 has first determined the quantum of pay element is totally wrong.
   The further chart incorporated in para no. 7 as if it has been drawn in the report of RAC 1980 is also false. The RAC 1980 never made such an exercise, as clear from their deliberation in para 710 of its report. This chart and the statement are totally not based on RAC 1980 report and a cooked up one to mislead and the same has to be rejected summarily. We demand that the formula derived by the RAC 1980 should be followed in arriving at the rate of running allowance.
Para B 8:
  In this para the Railway Board tried to project that the 3rd CPC could have allowed a pay scale of Rs.840-1040 for Mail Driver instead of Rs.550-750, but for the existence of running allowance.
   This is a claim without any ground to advance. A reading of 3rd CPC never gives such an impression that the commission recommended a pay lesser than what is eligible for a Mail Driver on account of existence of the running allowance. The 4th, 5th and 6th CPCs were also on the same position. A replacement scale to the existing one has been allotted for all including the running staff. The whole argument are bereft of any evidence so the concept of measure of depression etc. advanced by Railway Board is totally unfounded, too vague and ambiguous and a motivated one intended to misguide the Honourable Pay Commission.
   The intention behind such an argument of Railway Board, we feel that the pay commission should not allow a higher replacement pay scale than the present one.
   It is our view that equating the duties of loco running staff with a non running staff in Railways itself is wrong. The duties, responsibility, nature of arduousness, the long hours of work, unscheduled working time, the highest medical fitness, the sustained attention, no relaxation after taking over charge of train, the knowledge and skill to be accrued, the continued absence in the family for a long period of life etc are features attached to the post of running staff. No other Railway Staff in Non running category are called upon to face this extent of working conditions.
Para B 9:
We  are constrained to call the attention of the Honourable Commission to the para 812 to 817 of the RAC 1980. The committee fixed the average kilometre earned by Passenger Driver per month at 3950 km after due deliberation. The averment that the RAC 1980 fixed it at 5100 km is totally wrong and misguiding. The Railway Board arbitrarily changed this to 5100 km at their whims and fancies in 1987. Even the report of RAC 2002 finds it that the average earning of kilometre in a month for a Passenger Driver is 4700Km. Therefore taking a figure of 5100 km arbitrarily instead of the average find out by the RAC 1980 and RAC 2002 is totally wrong. Therefore we demand to fix the average kilometre as component to the formula to arrive at the rate at 4700km.
Para B 10 :
The averments in this para are misconceived and contrary to the facts. The depression concept advanced by the Railway Board has been dealt with in para B 3,  B 7 and B 8 of this representation and opposed. We find no para such as 2.6 in Railway Board letter under reference to Honourable Commission. The further averment that the 4th  and 5th CPC over looked this aspect is not a fact. Blaming a higher expert body like Pay Commission that they over looked facts itself shows the mind set of the Ministry of Railways. Even if the Railway Board find that the recommendation of CPCs could not be accepted they could have modified it and implemented. After accepting the recommendation and implementing it, they are stating that the CPCs are wrong is not correct. The 4th and 5th CPC never recommended to review the Running Allowance Rules due to increase in pay scale of running staff vis-à-vis non running staff. The averment in this regard is wrong being baseless and totally unfounded.
   The erosion of depression is not a factual position. Allotted pay scales by CPC is not based on measure of depression, these whole concept advanced by Railway Board should be rejected and the consequent chart to establish depression also please be rejected.
The concept of erosion of depression of emoluments never a factor for prescribing the pay scales of the running staff. Therefore we reject this concept in its entirety.
Para B 11:
   In this para, Railway Board compared the average annual wage of Group C staff and the Running Staff. In this regard, it is observed that unless the duties, responsibilities, working conditions and promotion avenues are comparable, pay scale cannot be compared with the other staff. Running Staff duties involves tour of duties in the whole year, night duties, over time working, breach of rest working etc which entitle allowances such as KMA, Night Duty Allowance, Overtime Allowance, Breach of Rest Allowance etc. The average wage of running staff includes these elements but other Group C Staff do not have such a working and not entitled such allowances. The average wage of non running staff does not include such allowances. Without spelt out the ingredients of emoluments taken for comparison of Running Staff and Group C Staff is incorrect and intended to mislead the commission. The historical horizontal and vertical relativities were considered by the Pay Commissions. Hence comparing the annual wage of Running Staff and Group C Staff cannot be accepted. Then it would lead to a Labyrinth.
   Further, Railway Board pointed out ratio between Running Staff and Group C staff upto 2004, the following table after the implementation of IV CPC upto 2004 (DA merged as DP) gives the factual position.
Year
Maximum Basic Pay of
Running Staff + DA
Rs.(6000-9800)
Max.  Basic Pay of
Group ‘C’ Staff + DA
    Rs.(7450-11500)
Ratio
1998
(DA 10%)
9800 + 1274= 11074
11500 + 1150= 12650
1:1.1
2000
(DA 20%)
9800 + 2548= 12348
11500 + 2300= 13800
1:1.1
2002
(DA 40%)
9800 + 5096= 14896
11500 + 4600= 16100
1:1.1
2004
(DP 50%)
(DA 11%)
9800 + 6370 + 2012= 18182
11500 + 5750 + 1898= 19148
1:1.1

The averment made in this para that the 6th CPC granted higher than normal replacement scale is totally wrong, the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay of 4200 allowed to the Loco Running Staff is a normal replacement pay structure. The additional allowance allowed by the 6th CPC was on consideration of the onerous nature of duty. The averment that the widening gap between the emoluments of Running and Non – running Staff is not the factual position. Reckoning of DA that was drawn by the workers for fixation of pay for the new pay scale is a natural course authorised by the successive Pay Commissions.
Para B 12 :
  The recommendations by RAC 2002 in 2005 has been rejected in toto by the Ministry of Railways so mentioning this is unwarranted.
Para B 13,14 & 15 :
  The averment in this para is strongly disputed. That the version advanced that the concept of mean pay in the running allowance formula had been rendered impracticable due to amalgamation of several scales of pay is not correct. In this connection we submit as follows.
An individual running staff is entitled to get 30% pay as pay element through the scheme of Running Allowance in  relation  to the basic pay in which his pay is fixed in the pay band plus the TA according to the extant rule. This is the minimum concept. Instead of straight away giving the 30% pay element and TA for the day he was out of head quarters, it was given through a scheme. Railway Board Letter no. E(P&A) II -2005/RS 34 dt 26.12.2008 in para 2 it is clearly evident that the pay element in running allowance as pay. We extract the para 2 of the said letter:
“ The president is pleased to decide that the pay element in running allowance for running staff would be 30% of the basic pay under the Railway services (Revised pay) Rules, 2008 for computation of specified benefits excluding retirement benefits………..”
   Therefore  every individual running staff are eligible to draw the pay element at the rate of 30% of basic pay. That quantum of pay ie. 30% of the basic pay of the individual, cannot be abrogated by introducing a scheme. The Joint Committee 2008 recommendation that the 30% pay element should be calculated in relation with the minimum of pay band plus the grade pay may be viewed in this context. The pay in pay band of individual running staff may be in between Rs.9300 and 34800. Taking the minimum of pay band to decide the pay element of every individual will result abrogation of the eligible pay element to those who are drawing pay more than the minimum. To apply the formula to arrive at the rate, the Loco Pilot (Passenger ) has been taken as the base. The pay band for this category of running staff is Rs. 9300-34,800 + GP of 4200. None of the running staff in Loco Pilot(Passenger) draw a pay of Rs. 9300 in the pay band. It may be noted that the running staff who enters as Loco pilot  (Goods) get a fixation of Rs.9300 in pay band initially (even more than  Rs. 9300/- while on promotion from LP (Shunting) Grade I to LP(Goods)). Thereafter he will be promoted as Loco Pilot (Passenger). At present the average tenure in Loco Pilot (Goods) before promotion to Loco Pilot (Passenger) one who appointed in Railways after 6th CPC  is to 7 to 9 years. When he becomes Loco Pilot (Passenger) his pay in the pay band will be Rs. 12430 (least with 7 increments and one increment on promotion). Those who promoted to the post of Loco pilot (Passenger) just before 6th CPC their pay would have been fixed at Rs.5500 at the minimum in the 5th CPC scale of Rs.5500-9000. On introduction of 6th CPC pay rules his fixation of pay in the pay band of Rs 9300 – 34,800 will be Rs. 15,850. Those who were of Loco Pilot(Goods) in 5th CPC and drawing a pay of Rs.5000 in scale Rs.5000 – 8000 their pay would have been fixed at Rs.14790 in pay band of 9300-34800 on introduction of 6th CPC pay rules. Under 6th CPC pay rules on promotion to Loco Pilot(Passenger) the pay will be Rs.16180 at least. Therefore it can be reasonably held that none of the Loco Pilot(Passenger) hold a pay of Rs. 9300 in the pay band but much above at around Rs.16000 on pay band. Such being the factual position taking 30% pay element in relation to Rs.9300 is totally wrong and intended to abrogate the quantum of pay element which defined as pay by the President.
   We agree that the revised pay  band of Rs 9300 – 34,800 PB2 is not derived from a single scale but amalgamation of several scales starting from Rs.5000 -8000 to Rs.8000 – 13,500. So the Rs. 9300 in pay band will never be the minimum of Rs.5500 – 9000 of Loco Pilot (Passenger) in 5th CPC scale. A fixation of pay for Rs.5500 in 5th CPC comes at Rs 11650 in pay band under 6th CPC. On the grounds as given above, taking the minimum of Rs.9300 in pay band is not correct.
               Therefore we request on behalf of the entire running staff that instead of taking the pay of Rs.9300 it should be taken the mean of Rs.15850 - 39000 to arrive at the rate of running allowance. It may please be noted that dearness allowance is being allowed on par with the basic pay of individual hold, not in relation with minimum of the pay band.
Another discrepancy in the factors that form the basis of calculation of running allowance rate is National Average Kilometer. The average kilometre fixed was 3950 by RAC 1980 and further in 2005 by RAC 2002, in its report under para 6.5 found out that the average kilometerage of Loco Pilot (Passenger)  is at 4700 km. That is the only study conducted after RAC 1980.
   Therefore we request the commission to recommend to change the average kilometrege  of 5100 to an appropriate level considering the finding of RAC 1980 and RAC 2002.
Para B 16:          No comments
Para B 17:
 The averment in this para is disputed. There was no higher pay scales allowed to running staff than a normal replacement scale( Pay band +GP). It may be noted that the replacement pay band Rs.9300 – 34,800 + GP Rs.4200 has been allowed for all Central Govt Employees who were in Rs. 5000 -8000 and Rs.5500 – 9000. The Loco Pilots were in Rs.5000 – 8000, Rs.5500 – 9000 and Rs.6000-9800 also has been the same replacement pay band of Rs. 9300 – 34,800 plus 4200 GP. There is no iota of truth in the averment that higher scales than the normal replacement scales were allowed to running staff. It may also be noted that the 4th CPC and 5th CPC also allowed a normal replacement scale for running staff as of others. In 4th CPC Loco Pilots in Rs.550-700, Rs. 550 – 750 and Rs. 700 -900 were allotted with a scale of Rs.1600 – 2660, & Rs 1640 – 2900 as given to all other employees in identical scale.
   In 5th CPC also only normal replacement scales were allowed to running staff. Loco Pilots or Non Running staff who were in Rs.1640-2900 in 4th CPC were allowed with Rs. 5500-9000 by 5th CPC. The averment in this para is totally wrong and contrdicts the factual position as stated above.
Para B 18 :
The Joint Committee 2008 not reduced the pay element not wholly on the sentiment of the staff, but taking into consideration of the factual position described in our comments on para B 17. The averment in this para is that “the ratio between average wage of non running staff vis – a - vis average wage of running staff has significantly changed from 1980 – 81 at the stage of 1.00 : 1.16 and 1.00 : 1.69 in 2003-04. With the 6th CPC scales pay having been implemented, this, gap between the running staff and the non running staff has further widened”. A mere statement without showing any data is to be rejected on the ground of no evidence. This ratio advanced in this para has been countered in our comment to para B 11. Moreover the 4th,5th and 6th CPC after taking the whole picture never find such changes in the average wage between running staff and non running staff. Further due to cadre restructuring exercise many non running staff gained the advantage in their pay packet. Though the minimum and maximum of scales are maintained, the percentage of posts in minimum and maximum scale was largely changed after 3rd CPC. This aspect was not taken by the Railway Board and conveniently suppressed the fact while presenting average annual wage between running and non running staff. Such being the position the averment in this para be rejected.
Para B 19:
The comments offered for para B 11, B 17 and B 18  gives the real picture. The averment is only a statement supported by nothing may be rejected.
Para B 20:
The averment that the Joint Committee 2008 was not adopted the formula of RAC 1980 for revising the rate of running allowance is totally at fault. A reading of para 11, 13 ,14,16 and 17 of its report shows that they adopted the RAC 1980 formula as
(30% pay element of mean pay of Loco Pilot (passenger) + 20 days of TA) * 100
      __________________________________________________________________       
National Average Kilometre of Loco Pilot(Passenger )

They calculated the rate with the same formula but changed the figure of the component. Instead of taking mean pay they took the minimum of pay band Rs.9300 + GP 4200, and the rate of TA for the GP 4200 has been taken as Rs.210 , instead of the TA Rs.340 for GP 4200 allowed by the Government. Therefore the averment in this regard that the Joint Committee 2008 was not adopted the formula of RAC 1980 is to be rejected. What is done that they changed the figure of components and kept the structure of RAC 1980 formula.
They have changed the figure of the components in such a way that the end result of calculation should arrive at the double the rate of the existing rate. The figures issued is cooked up and selected to suit their intention to double the rate.  And they gainfully took the general suggestions of the 6th CPC that all allowances may be doubled. The fact is entirely different. It is not a recommendation of 6th CPC that all allowances should be doubled. Though it seems as a recommendation in the report of 6th CPC , the 6th CPC further issued an Errata in heading Running Allowance and PLB stated that “observation made in para 7.36.97 relating to Ministry of Railways and in annexture 4.4.1 of the report are in nature of suggestion / illustration. The administrative ministry concern will need to take a final view thereon”
Therefore in the averment that “the 6th CPC had recommended“ is to be rejected.
Further we point out that the TA rate for all Central Government Employees including Railway workers has been increased at the tune of 3.4 times from Rs.105 to Rs. 340. For the sake of arguments we say that the recommendation of 6th CPC to double the rate of allowance, the rate of TA would not have been raised to Rs.340 from Rs.105. So the action of the committee to double the rate of kilometerage is totally unwarranted and intended to rob the pay packet of poor employees. And taking Rs.210 as TA rate instead of the eligible TA rate of Rs.340 for GP 4200 to calculate the rate of running allowance is totally unjustified. Therefore we plead before the Honourable Commission that the eligible TA for Loco Pilot in GP 4200 should be taken to calculate the running allowance rate.
Para B 21:
The averments in this para are being disputed. The Joint Committee 2008 recommended two rates of running allowance, one from 01-01-2006 and other from 01-09-2008 in para 13&14 of its report. On the ground that the running allowance contains a pay element, revision in the rate of this allowance requires to be carried out with effect from 01-01-2006. The new pay with effect from 01-01-2006,  therefore, the pay element will increase from 01-01-2006 neccessiated a revise the rate of running allowance from 01-01-2006 and further on 01-09-2008 when allowance, ie. the TA rate has been revised.
But the Railway Board still not implemented the rate recommended by the committee from 01-01-2006 though the pay was increased from 01-01-2006. It is too harsh therefore the request before the Honourable Commission to take a view in this and an appropriate suggestion/ recommendation be given  in this regard.
Para B 22:
The averment in this para has been countered in this representation in various paras above.
Para B 23:
The averment in this para merits for rejection. It may be noted that Joint Committee 2008 never said that the recommendation is a package. The practice of Ministry of Railways by constituting various committees with the men who is under the control of the Railway Board resembles the “Mayors court” of the yester years. The policy of constituting committee with their own men to look after, especially the grievance in pay and allowances of its own employees is too bad.
To adjudicate the dispute in pay and allowances employer himself sit as arbitrator is against all canon of justice. Atleast they should have been appointed the Members from other Ministry on whom the Ministry of Railways have no administrative control over them. A fair play and confidence building among staff, that their grievences especially pertaining to pay and allowances will be looked into impartially without an influence by the employer. In this connection we request the Honourable Commission to look into this matter and appropriate suggestion/recommendation may be given to the Government of India. It is further be noticed that all the committees constituted by Railways ie. RAC 1980,2002,2008 etc which dealt with the pay and allowances and their recommendations in this regard are culminated in  abrogate the benefit extended by various CPCs.
Para B 24:
The averment in this para is against the actual fact.  Rising of the allowances by 25% when DA arrived at 50 % is a recommendation of 6th CPC, that has accepted and implemented by the Government and it is natural course of action.
Para B 25 & B 26:
When a dispute was referred to National Industrial Tribunal by the Government, simultaneously constituting a committee (Empowered Committee) to see the dispute by the Railway Board that too with their own men shows the scant regard to the rule of law of this country. They think that the constitutional mandates are not binding on them.
   The averment made that the Chairman of Railway Board intended to constitute a committee after receiving the recommendations of 7th CPC. Our apprehension that the committee constituted or to be constituted are intended to abrogate the benefits that were extended by the CPC may be taken into serious consideration by the Honourable Commission  and kindly recommend a safe guard to the workers against such action of the employer.
II. Brief on reckoning of Additional Allowance as pay for all purposes including computation of retirement benefits of running staff on the Indian Railways.
The demand of the staff side is that it should be taken into consideration for the purpose of retirement benefits. It is our view that this allowance is extended on the ground that the performance of running duty is more onerous in nature. Performing the duty for a long period involves more onerousness having an impact on the health conditions of running staff. Various reports and studies show that because of the onerousness nature of the duty performed by the running staff their health condition detoriate more compared with the other staff. The Railway Board themselves agreed in this point vide letter No. RBE 4/2004 it states as follows,
 “Drivers: This category is directly responsible for the running of trains. Running duties demand continued attention and alertness. The element of stress combined with uncertain hours of work entailed in the performance of running duties over long periods of time tend to have a deleterious psychosomatic effect on their health. There is a slowing down of reflexes with the passage of time making them vulnerable to operational lapses.”. Further it states, “The scheme has been framed on the consideration that with advancing age, the physical fitness and reflexes of staff of these categories deteriorate, thereby causing a safety hazard”.

This is also the finding of the High Power Committee Report 2013 vide para 4.3.1.2(6),
 ”A team of Railway Doctors headed by Dr Sumit Prakash, SrDMO (Psychiatrist), Central Hospital, Bilaspur carried out, during Oct-Nov-2010, detailed studies on the working of Railway Loco Pilots to identify their stress levels and stressors responsible for built up of stress, under the guidance of Chief Medical Director (CMD), South East Central Railway, Bilaspur and DG (RHS), New Delhi.
The study indicated that psychological stresses in Loco Pilots are mainly on account of their job demands. As many as 57 per cent of them had moderate build up of stress and only 42 per cent had mild build up of stress. As against this, only 4% of the stationary staff had moderate build up of stress…..”
“The doctors had further analysed the medical effects of
these stressors which are:
(a) Disrupted sexual functions (67%)
(b) Muscle aches and pains (65%)
(c) Sleep disturbances (60%)
(d) Headache (44%)
(e) Stomach problems (39%)
(f) Irritability and anger (30%)
(g) Frustration and anxiety (18%)”
          Therefore the more onerous duty performed by the running staff is having serious repercussion in their life. Therefore it should be reflected in the pensionary benefits on this ground. We demand that Additional Allowance need be taken into consideration for the retirement benefits and this allowances shall be given to all  the Loco Running Staff i.e. Assistant Loco Pilots, Loco Pilots of all grades as all have a strenuous nature of Job.
III.  Brief on revision of BreakDown Allowance (BDA) granted to eligible breakdown staff on the Indian Railways.
    The crew working Breakdown special may be declared as Breakdown Staff for the purpose of catering to the needs of foods and refreshments as they are not available within the vicinity for them but available being prepared or procured for the Breakdown Staff at the site. Therefore the crew may also be supplied of foods and refreshments along with Breakdown Staff.

0 comments:

Welcome To AILRSA....

Visitors

Admin Area

Blog Archive

AILRSA 1970 - . Powered by Blogger.

Follow by Email

Are You Satisfied with 7th Pay commission ?

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Text Widget

Followers

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

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