Thursday, April 20, 2017

Joint Action Committee


M. N. Prasad                                                                                                               A. K. Srivastava

Secretary General / AILRSA                                                                     General Secretary / AIGC 

To Date: 25.04.2017

The Chairman, Railway Board,

Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.

Through: Divisional Railway Manager.


We hereby submit the grievances of running staff before your esteemed office, seeking a speedy redressal of the same. It may please be noted that the grievances enumerated were submitted to Railway Board for the past several years. Non redressal of the grievances caused serious resentment among the staff and they are much agitated. In order to call your attention and for an amicable settlement of the grievances, the AILRSA an AIGC jointly decides to “SIT IN FAST” for 36 hours in front of your office and all the DRM offices, from 8 hours on 25th April 2017 onwards. We hope that yourself will intervene and redress the grievances


SPAD is a worldwide phenomenon and a lot of research is being done to control. But Indian Railways never ventured to address these problems scientifically. The present order that the Disciplinary authority should impose removal from service, even there was contributory factors, that lead to the SPAD, as a minimum punishment created 'fear psychosis' among Loco Running Staff, which invariably leads to undesirable cautious and defensive attitude towards their work, which have serious repercussion in the punctual, safe and smooth running of trains. 

For the past several years this is the outlook of the Railway Board, that imposing removal from service for SPAD cases, will reduce or eliminate the incident of SPAD. For the past 5 years around 300 Loco Running Staff were removed from service on account of SPAD. But still the incidents of SPAD not reduces, it continues and go unabated. This prima fascia shows that the course adopted to reduce SPAD, that impose removal from service, not yielded any result. 

In many countries, taking drastic disciplinary action is not considered as a solution for SPAD. In many advanced Railways, the Loco Pilots were given extra training, counseling etc for the first two incidents of SPAD, only on third SPAD they are being grounded. 

In advanced Railways, like Britain, Switzerland, Germany, Japan etc, extensive study and Research were conducted to know the cause behind SPAD, giving thrust to the reason that made the Loco Pilot to miss the signal at danger. The task force on safety in its report dated 10th jan 2017 also recommended for a study with experts from outside. In India, though one of the biggest Railway, and more number of trains, with too much signals in the section than other Railways, no study, Research, and analysis were done to this menace and never go into the reasons that lead the Loco Pilot to commit the mistake. Only some opinion and suggestion, bereft of in-depth study made from some quarters.

For every SPAD case a FACT finding enquiry Committee is constituted. It is our experience that the FACT finding enquiry Committees are confined to find out ‘who went wrong syndrome’ and not analysis what went wrong. The observation of TASK force on safety in the report dated 10th jan 2017 reinforce this position. In the process they are not weighing the contributory factors that lead the crew to commit SPAD. The Research and study of advanced Railway extensively describe various circumstances, situation etc as contributory factors for SPAD. The Indian Railways lack of such study or research in this score. Thus the disciplinary authority was kept under dark on the issue, invariably force him to impose extreme punishment. 

In the year 2012 the Railway Board vide its letter no: 99/Safety (A and R) /6/1 dated 06.12.2012 asked the Zonal Railways to suggest their opinion on the norms of minimum punishment on accident case. All the Railways made their suggestion and opinion in this regard. Almost all Railways in unison, they suggested that the drastic punishment of Removal from service for simple SPAD, which do not culminate in accident, should go and suggested that quantum of punishment should be minimized. The High Level safety review committee headed by justice H R Khanna, the High Power Committee on duty hours and rest period, the recent report of "Task Force on safety" dated 10th jan 2017 headed by Arun Saxena GM/NR as chairman, all these committees denounced the Railway Board decision to impose Removal from service on SPAD cases which not culminated any accident. The Zonal Railways suggestions on a query dated 06.12.2012 of Railway Board, the Task Force on safety in its report dated 10th Jan 2017, are in one view that "SPAD should be dealt differently upon whether the LP, after committing SPAD, has stopped within the signal overlap or not. This should also decide the quantum of penalty imposed on the erring crew.

With all these report, recommendation etc, still the mind set of Railways not relenting in this regard is astonishing. This union demands to constitute a high Level committee with expert and professionals from outside the Railway to study, analyze and recommend remedial action to control the incidents of ever-growing SPAD. Still such time the order directing the Disciplinary authority to impose Removal from service for SPAD which caused no accident should be withdrawn forth with. Fix a time frame to dispose the appeal of crew. Fix quantum of punishment that should be awarded on appeal revision etc. duly considering the fact that "No LP will intentionally pass a signal at danger"


We are specifically pointing out some of the decisions of the HPC for your kind consideration with the high hope that an objective relook from your esteemed office will result in taking positive decisions on the recommendations of the High Power Committee in the interest of health of running staff and safety of travelling public.

The recommendation of HPC on continuous duty at a stretch prescribing 12 hours duty (9+2+1) from ‘Sign ON’ to ‘Sign OFF’ is ordered to implement by the Railway Board.

In this regard we point out certain facts on the issue.

2.1. Duty hours of Loco Running Staff

Para 9.1 to 9.3 of the Railway Board letter no. E(LL)/2015/HPC/2/P&MS dated 02.02.16 deal with the duty hours of Running Staff.

An agreement was arrived between the striking Loco Running Staff and then Minister of Labour on behalf of the Government of India on 13-08-1973. Point no 7 of the agreement reads as “members of the Loco Running Staff will not be required to work for more than 10 hours at a stretch from ‘Sign ON’ to ‘Sign OFF’”. The Hon’ Railway minister also announced in the Floor of Parliament on 14-08-1973, that the duty at a stretch would be limited to 10 hours. After extensive studies etc. the Railway Administration finally issued an order bearing No.E(LL)HER / 29 dt 13-08-1978 limiting the duty to 10 hours at a stretch from ‘Sign ON’ to ‘Sign OFF’.

Parliamentary Standing Committee for Railways of 14thLokshabha in its fifth report on safety and security on Railways dt. 21-09-2004 recommended that the hours of work at a stretch of Loco Running Staff should not exceed 8 hours. This recommendation also not been implemented by the Ministry of Railways.

In spite of all these developments the plight of inhuman working conditions of Loco Running Staff & Guard continued. Therefore the workers continued with their agitation to reduce the inhuman working hours at least to 10 hours from ‘Sign ON’ to ‘Sign OFF’. As a corollary the Hours of Employment Regulation, 1968 has been amended with the approval of Ministry of Labour.

In terms of section 136 of the Indian Railways act 1989, the Central Government promulgated the Railway Servants (Hours of Work and period of Rest Rules) 2005 in terms of sub rule 9 of rule 8, while preparing the roster, 'Long ON’ or 'Short OFF’ should be avoided ‘Long on’ is defined under rule (c) to mean that “a period of duty over 10 hours in the case of continuous workers”. The Loco Running Staff and also Guard fall under the ‘continuous’ category under the hours of employment regulations.

Thus according to the Railway servant (Hours of Work and period of Rest) Rules, 2005, no continuous worker should be put to duty for more than 10 hours at a stretch. This is the legal position now in force.

A factual job analysis was conducted at the instance of Regional Labour Commissioner (central), Chennai and the said statutory authority was pleased to declare through an order no m.41 / 1/hoer/2011-b2 dt 26-12-2011 that the Loco Running Staff is classified as ‘Intensive’ Category under the rules with a maximum duty hours at a spell be 8 hours. The said order was upheld by the Ministry of Labour, the Appellate authority.

2.2. Review of duty hours in 2020.

Para 9.4 of the Railway Board decision on HPC recommendation says that duty hour from ‘Sign ON’ to ‘Sign OFF’ should be reviewed in 2020 in tandem with vision 2020, by which time the major line capacity works are expected to be completed and most of the dedicated frieght corridor system is likely to become operational. At that time it should be possible to reduce overall duty hours at a stretch to 10 hours from ‘Sign ON’ to ‘Sign OFF’. The target time of 2020 is unjust and unreasonable. The duty hours can be reduced 8 hours now itself. What is required is proper crew management, revision of crew strength and filling up of vacancies. 

It is our genuine demand, from our past experience, that a strategy be started now itself to reduce the duty hours from 11/12 to 8 hours culminating in tandem with vision 2018 as recommended by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways in 2004 as well as by LEO / Chennai upheld by Ministry of Labour. We call your attention to the recommendation of Miabhoy Tribunal (RLT 1969). The RLT 1969 had a task to bring the duty hours from 14 hours to 12 hours. The recommendation of the tribunal was unique, which directed the Ministry of Railways to reduce the duty hours at a stretch in a phased manner year by year till the target of 12 hours being reached. Why this simple process can’t be considered to reduce the duty hours to 8 hours in tandem with vision 2020, and in line with the ILO conventions, national and international Laws on duty hours at a stretch. We see no problem to implement 8 hours duty at a stretch even in present available capacity of line and infrastructure, if crew management is efficient and vacancies are being filled in. A strong resentment is seen amongst the staff. This union therefore urge upon the Ministry of Railways to review the decision of Railway Board as well as the HPC recommendation and implement 8 hours duty from sign on to sign off at least in a phased manner culminating in the year 2018 in tandem with vision 2020. This process of reduction of working hours from 11/12 to 8 hours may be started from now itself by reducing 1 ½ hour by every year till it reaches to 8 hours.

2.3. Framing of Mail/Express Crew links: Limit of duty hours.

Para 9.5 of the HPC recommendation deal with limit of duty hours for framing crew links for Mail and Express Loco pilots. 

We call your attention to the deliberation of the High Power committee in this regard on page no. 85 and 86 of the report, it reads as under

“It is observed that the majority of crew links are planned with 6 hours of running duty, however for some of the trains the running duty extends up to 8 hours or a little beyond 8 hours”. Therefore looking at the higher stress Level that a Mail/Express Loco Pilot under goes during run the HPC recommended that the running duty hours of Mail/Express Loco pilots for the purpose of preparing the links be limited to 8 hours.

It is clear from the above observation that almost all crew links are planned with 6 hours of running duty and seven hours of overall duty and exceeding 7 hours are exception. So fixing 8 hours limit from ‘Sign ON’ to ‘Sign OFF’ for Mail/Express Loco Pilots is very easy now and need not be stretched to 2020. Moreover in the whole Indian Railways the distance between two crew changing points fall within 6 hours run.

We call your attention to the observation of the HPC committee in this regard, at page no 84 and 85 of this report, which reads as under:-

It is seen that their working involves continuous run at high speed over long stretches and with responsibility of over a thousand lives travelling in these trains. A kilometer distance is gone within less than half a minute. In this one kilometer covered in half a minute or so, the trains might encounter a Level crossing gate, a signal, an animal crossing or some other obstruction. The braking distance in emergency when train is moving at 100 kmph is of the order of 750 meters or so. The Loco pilot’s attention has to be always on the signal as well as on the obstacles on the track, condition/continuity of OHE, anything approaching from sides of the track, the loco controls, VCD, TPWS, the trailing and he has to remain prepared to stop at the earliest in any emergency. The sections with Automatic Signaling on long continuous stretches with signal sighting required at intervals of less than a minute due to higher speeds further adds to the burden of continuous sustained attention on the Loco pilot. The committee members individually and collectively travelled on foot plate in the automatic territory (both fitted/equipped with TPWS system and without TPWS system). The interaction with the Loco pilot/Engine Crew on these trains brought out that not only the continuous sustained attention on signals & Locomotive control display units is causing stress and tiredness, the continuous standing/sitting (on an uncomfortable seat) adds to the build up of physical fatigue which gets aggravated due to the reason that the Loco pilot/Engine Crew has to control even his urge to attend nature’s call on account of continuous running without stoppage. 

Coupled with the requirement of such a sharp concentration Level, there are many adverse conditions such as heavy noise, vibrations and extreme heat/cold environment inside the locomotive cab. The driver may also be working against his natural circadian rhythm. The amount of stress developed by all these on the Loco pilot can only be imagined. Moreover, the en route detentions as in case of freight trains which provide some relief to the Running Staff are not there in case of Mail/Express trains. Expecting a person to work under such conditions continuously/regularly for hours together is being unkind to him and this, in a short span of time, might make him prone to making mistakes.

Moreover, a Loco pilot, for reaching the Level of Mail/Express Loco pilot, has to pass through all the stages of Running Staff Cadre starting from Assistant Loco pilot. Thus, he would generally have crossed his middle age the time he reaches this Level. Obviously, his working stamina and concentration Level gets affected on this account and expecting the same Level of concentration and physical output from him as that from a younger freight Loco pilot is perhaps not justified.

We demand to modify the present order prescribing 8 hours Running duty plus preparatory and contributory time for mail/express LocoPilots to 6hrs duty + preparatory and contributory time for M/Exp Loco Pilot. 

2.4. Replacement of Assistant Loco pilot with Co- Pilot

The HPC recommended providing co-pilot in place of assistant Loco pilot in those links of Mail/Express link which are having nonstop runs of more than 4 hours (Para 9.9 of HPC recommendations). This recommendation has been rejected abruptly by the Railway Board. In this regard we extract the deliberation of the HPC which read as under:-

“However the committee does appreciate the concern of the Federation for de-stressing the Loco pilot of Super fast/Rajadhani/Shatabdi/Duronto and other mail/Express trains who are having long continuous run without a halt/break. In such cases, the Railway cannot afford to provide the luxury of snooze time of 40 minutes as provided to airline pilots when the aircraft is auto-pilot cruise, it can facilitate de-stressing of the Loco pilot by introducing the concept of Co-Pilot by (in place of Assistant Loco pilot) in the same grade in those links of Mail/Express trains also which are having nonstop runs of more than four hours. In fact such a system is already being followed for Rajadhani trains as per the Ministry of Railways letter no. E(P&A)II-2000/RS-21 dated 26-09-2002”.

Hence it is our demand that the provision of Co- Pilot in same grade in place of Assistant Loco pilot in the above case is warranted and justified.

2.5. Stay away from Head Quarters.

Para 9.16 of HPC recommendation and its acceptance that the stay in outstation to be reduced from 72 hours to 48 hour in tandem with vision 2020. Why not it be started now itself to limit it to 48 hours by 2020 but not to in line with the process recommended by RLT 1969. In a fine morning the Railway Board could not reduce it from 72 hours to 48 hours abruptly in the year 2020. We plead before the Ministry of the Railways the targeted 48 hours be arrived from the present 72 hours, by 2018 and 36hrs by 2020 as agreed by Railway Board itself. 

We point out that the Railway Board came to a negotiated settlement with AIRF, the recognized body, that the outstation limit be reduced to 36 hours.

We also demand that a serious monitoring is done so that a Running Staff will not work more than two night duty consequently.

2.6. Periodical Rest/Weekly Rest

The recommendation of High Power Committee was to grant 4 periods of 40 hours as periodical/weekly rest in a month. This recommendation was squarely rejected and decided that the existing position with preference to 4 periods of 30 hours or 5 periods of 22 hours rest must be continued. This is too drastic entirely spoiling the life of the Running Staff and their family members. Your good self will be in agreement that the running staff most of the time in a week or month that too their entire service will be away from their family. That itself prevents them from participating in any social functions or in their family functions, and also prevents them from fulfilling their civic obligations, and look after their children, as could be done by other workers who are returning home daily after their duty. Allowing 40 hours weekly rest does not reduce the overall duty hours in a week that still stand at 104 hours in a fortnight. Railway is no way losing on account of allowing 40 hours rest in week as no reduction is affected in overall duty fixed at 104 hours fortnightly. So rejecting the recommendation is nothing but to harass the workers, prevents them from interaction with society and leaving their family members at the mercy of somebody else. The resultant social impact cannot be explained fully in this representation.

It may be specifically noted that Railway workers including the officers attached to administrative and allied offices enjoy two days leisure on Saturday and Sunday every week which runs to 63 hours at a stretch. Unlike the Running staff they are working indoor with breaks for tea, lunch etc. in-between, while sitting in comfortable rooms without facing the vagaries of the weather outside. Even the field workers in Railway enjoy a weekly rest of 48 hours at the least. The application of standard roster invariably gives them 58/54 hours weekly rest. In fact none of the Railway workers has a lesser scale of weekly rest as of the Running Staff. Even the recommendation of 40 hours is lesser than the normal weekly rest prescribed and enjoyed by the entire Rail workers. We are not asking to give the same scale of rest of other workers, but atleast a 40 hours rest in a week much lesser than others that was recommended by High Power Committee.

The Regional Labour Commissioner, Bengaluru upheld that the daily / trip rest should not be clubbed with the weekly rest and that decision was upheld by the Hon’ High Court of Karnataka. In a contempt petition before the Hon’ High Court the Railway had filed an affidavit that the above decision was implemented. According to this the 16 hours trip rest + 30 hours periodical rest together come to 46 hours. This position is well known to Railway Board. The periodic rest and head quarters rest are two different aspect altogether. At present the head quarters rest of 16 hours and the periodic rest of 30 hours run concurrently. Para IX of the ILO convention R.161 of 1979 hours work and rest period (Road Transportation) stipulate the concept that the periodical rest and the daily rest should be independent of each other. The ILO recommendation reads as under..

“The minimum duration of the rest should be 24 consecutive hours, preceded or followed by the daily rest”

In para (3)(b) of para of HPC report, it is clearly state as under.

“In the meeting held with Additional Member (Traffic), Additional Member (Mechanical) and Additional Member (Electrical) along with their concerned officers in Railway Board on 23.07.2012, there was a general consensus among the additional members on the need for increasing the periodical rest because of the social and family needs of the Running Staff. There was also a general consensus on fixing it at ‘Head quarter rest + Calendar day rest of 24 hours’, ie at 40 hours per week”.

The HPC further stated in this report as under:-

“The committee has also noticed that the weekly rest which is being given to all stationary staff at present is either 64 hours fixed (for those who are availing 2 days

weekly off) or 40 hours fixed (for those who are availing one day weekly off) or 40 hours on an average (for those who are working in shift duty and availing one day weekly off). Therefore, a weekly rest of only 30 hours to the running staff is not only inadequate but highly discriminatory also. In fact the ILO recommendation also provides for fixing minimum duration of the periodical rest at 24 consecutive hours preceded or followed by the daily rest, which comes to the same. The committee found general consensus among the staff as well as the management for rationalizing the periodical rest at 40 hours”

On such extensive deliberation, discussion and study the HPC came to a conclusion that the periodical rest must be 40 hours, rejecting such a recommendation by the Railway Board expose the anti-worker attitude of them.

The Running staff is singled out, discriminated and forced to work in such inhuman service conditions. None of the other employees under the state have forced to work for 3 to 4 consecutive night, duty hours of 12 hours at a stretch without a break, a lesser weekly rest than 40 hours. Even private enterprises such inhuman working condition does not exist. The very crucial staff in Railway transportation whose hands safety of thousands of passengers entrusted, has been ill treated for decades squarely on account of the ineptness of a Railway Management, who cannot able to create a congenial working atmosphere to ensure safety of public. Railway Board seems to be not accountable to the parliament, the rule of this country, even an obligation to the constitution of India.

The High Power Committee in its preface to the report says as follows:-

“The recommendations of the committee are based on the following premises arrived after due deliberations:-

a. To address the seeming sense of discrimination amongst the Running Staff that they have to work for longer periods than other Railway Staff without provision of adequate rest. 

b. The Running Staff need to be seen as normal human being having social and personal obligation, just as all other people.

c. Higher monetary compensation alone does not compensate for inadequate rest, disruption in familiar ties and unhealthy work and rest environment.

We demand that the scale of rest hours for periodical/weekly rest be increased to 40 hours.


The Government of India resolution dated 25th July 2016 on implementation of VII CPC recommendations, directed to ensure 14.29% raise in the pay while fixing pay in the VII CPC pay matrix for Running Staff of Indian Railways and Doctors, who were receiving Running allowance and Non-practicing allowance respectively. But application of the methodology advised to fix the pay through Government notification did not yield a raise of 14.29%. Where as all other Government employee’s pay has been raised by 14.29%. This discrimination, on account of a faulty methodology to fix pay, still not addressed, though represented. This union demand to rectify the said discrimination and allow raise in pay by 14.29% as assured by the Government of India in the case of Running Staff of Indian Railways.

Rectify the anomaly in allowing same Level in pay matrix for LP Shunting I to LP(Mail), and also in case of Guards of different grades as these are promotional grades and should be placed in appropriate of level of pay matrix. 

At present the posts Loco Pilot (Shunting II), LP(Goods), LP(Passenger), LP(Mail) are clubbed in Level 6 in Pay Matrix. It may please be noted that the responsibility attached to each post vary considerably. The responsibility attached to the post of Loco Pilot(Mail) is not one and the same as of LP, Shunting. This is also applicable for the post of LP(Goods) and LP(Passenger) also likewise guard (G), (P), (M) Placing all these post in one and the same Level in Pay Matrix is totally wrong and against all canons of justice. Moving from one post

to other in this group from LP, Shunting to LP(Mail) and Guard Goods to Passenger and Guard (M) is treated as promotional post involving selection process and passing a promotional course as a pre-condition. The VII CPC recommendation, that on promotion the pay will not only be enhanced by 3% in the same Level, but also move to next Level in Pay Matrix. Therefore every promotion should be a movement from one Level to other. Placing feeder post and promotional post in one and the same Level in Pay Matrix is totally wrong. Therefore this Union demand to place the different post from LP, Shunting I to LP(Mail) in distinctive Level in Pay Matrix. Guards of different grades stand promotional grades also to be considered accordingly. 

Rectify the anomaly in allowing Level 2 in the Pay Matrix to Assistant Loco Pilot. 

The posts of Assistant Loco Pilots are distributed between Level2 and Level 4 in 20% and 80% respectively. And both were fitted in GP 1900 and GP 2400 in VI th CPC. The entry qualification of Assistant Loco Pilot in Level 2 is matriculation + ITI(NCVT) for both mode of recruits through RRB and lateral entry through GDCE. They have to pass themselves in a psycho test for empanelment. After induction to this post they were given with rigorous training in General and Subsidiary rules (open lines) which exclusively deals with rules pertaining to moving of trains in every circumstances, terrain etc. and thorough knowledge in the technical aspect of around 19 types of locomotives. This is agreed by the High Level Safety Review Committee headed by Sri. Ahil Kakodkar and had recommended to enhance the recruitment qualification from ITI to Diploma in Engineering. This also not been considered appropriately.

In various department including Railways the grade pay Rs 1900 of VI CPC has been allotted Level 2 in pay matrix and has been allotted to whose recruitment qualification stands at matriculation with ITI(NCVT). But in all cases who were fixed in Level 2, where entry qualification is fixed at ITI no additional training as of

for ALP’s in Railways before induction to that post. The ALP has to undergo a period of 17 weeks training. Both, who have no induction training and those who under go induction training cannot be treated alike in starting pay. The additional training over and above entry qualification should be reflected in the emoluments.

The Seventh CPC in para 11.40.63 when the question raising the educational qualification of ALP states as follows, “the commission concurs with the view of Ministry of Railways, since the effectiveness of Loco Pilots can be improved by revamping their training rather than enhancing the minimum educational qualification” (emphasis added) that speaks the imperative to impart training before induction. While dealing with the case of Assistant Station Masters of Indian Railways, the Seventh CPC took a stand that the qualification of the ASM in GP Rs 2800 and the SM in GP Rs 4200 are identical with practically no difference in the functions performed by them and thus upgraded to SM in Level 6. The same is the position in the case of ALP’s and Sr. ALP’s in regard to their educational qualification and functions performed. ALP’s are just 8% of the entire cadre of Loco Running Staff. All the parameters for upgrading ASM to SM and allowing same Level in pay matrix are squarely applicable to ALP. Therefore there is every justification to merge the ALP with Sr. ALP and place in level of pay matrix accordingly. 
Merge the Scale of LP, Shunting I and II and allow Level 6. 

The same position exists in the cadre of Loco Pilot (shunting), 50% in GP Rs. 2400 and 50% in GP Rs. 4200, now in Level 4 and Level 6 respectively. Though, their functional performance, medical standard are one and the same therefore those LP(Shunting) in Level 4 be shifted to Level 6. They are also just 4% of the total strength of the Loco Running cadre. We demand to merge the post of LP(Shunting) I and LP (Shunting) II and fitted in Level 6 of Pay Matrix. 
Demand to fix the running allowance in accordance with Running allowance formula 1981. 

Running staff are paid with a running allowance, based on the kilometer they run the train. It is not only an allowance, but a portion of pay at a tune of 30% basic pay is included. The rate of 100 kilometers run, are calculated under a formula recommended by running allowance committee 1980. The said formula is followed from 1981 onwards. The formula is as under;

30% of the mean pay of the passenger Loco Pilot X 20 days TA X100

5100 km* 

*(the average kilometer earned by Passenger Loco Pilot in a month)

On implementation of VI CPC, the Railway Board took a stand that the concept of “mean pay” became impractical to adhere, on the plea that the pay band are an amalgamation of several scales of pay and took the minimum pay of Rs 9300 in the pay band to arrive the 30% of pay. This affected most of the loco pilots and Guards as they are drawing a pay in pay band mostly between 20000 to 32000. Thereby reducing their pay portion in the running allowance rate. The drastic cut affected still under dispute between management and workers. In our case whatever increase were given by CPC’s in gross wages, the Railway make nullify the increase by play with the rate of kilometerage by changing any of the factors in the methodology. After 5th CPC they increased average kilometer ( a factor in the methodology) from Rs 3950 to Rs 5100 without any reason. The reason was to depress the rate of kilometerage to thwart the increase in wages on account of CPC. After the 6th CPC another factor i.e. the mean pay, has been changed to minimum of pay band. Such unfair Labour practice ensued by Railway Board should not be allowed to take place. 

Though various purposes, like calculating to arrive at the rate of night duty allowance, the “mean pay” of pay band were taken liberally.

The VII CPC also dealt the issue in Para 8.17.76 and 8.17.77 of its report. The gist of the recommendation is instead of taking the “mean pay”, to arrive at the rate of allowance, the actual pay of the employees need be taken. In the pay matrix, the definite stage of pay of an employee is shown in “Level”. Therefore while taking the 30% of basic pay the actual pay of employee in stage can be taken and fix the running allowance rate. Mostly there will be 20 to 25 stage in a pay matrix; so it is to derive running allowance rate in every stage in the pay matrices. Therefore we plead that the running allowance rate be calculated on the basis of RAC 1980 recommendation.

So long as the 30% pay portion in Running allowance has been changed from 01.01.2016, Running allowance rate should be revised from 01.01.2016 corresponding to the increase in 30% pay portion as done after V th CPC recommendation. 
Stop working the train without Guard which is unsafe. 
Bring Guard also in safety cadre as HPC report suggested. 
Scrap NPS and restore statutory pension to those who joined government service on and from 01.04.2004. 

Thanking you 

Yours faithfully                                                                                                  Yours faithfully 

Divisional Secretary / AILRSA                                                   Divisional Secretary / AIGC


Welcome To AILRSA....


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