Google+ Followers

Latest News inf. By Ashok Hindocha





Monday, December 7, 2015

Proposal for solving the problem of stagnation which has become very severe especially in the case of RM and other group D employees—Reg. Ref: - Ashok Hindocha M-94262 54999

( Recognised Union in BSNL (Registered Under Indian Trade Union Act 1926. Regn.No.4896)
CHQ:Dada Ghosh Bhawan, Opp. Shadipur Bus Depot., New Delhi – 110008 Email:, website: P. Abhimanyu Phone: (O) 011-25705385
 General Secretary Fax : 011- 25894862 BSNLEU/ 506 (NEPP) 07.12.2015
To Ms. Sujata Ray, Director (HR), BSNL, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001 Madam,

 Sub: - Proposal for solving the problem of stagnation which has become very severe especially in the case of RM and other group D employees—Reg. Ref: -
(1) DPE Order No.2(70)/08-DPE(WC)-GL-VII/09 dated 2.4.2009, (2) Clause 6.2 and 6.4 of the Wage Revision Agreement signed by the management with BSNLEU and circulated vide BSNL No.BSNL/38-1/SR/2009 dated 7.5.2010 (3) Order No. 9637-F dated 26.9.2002 issued by the Finance Department, West Bengal Government. 1. This is to submit that the problem of stagnation is creating a lot of dissatisfaction and unrest in the BSNL employees now. Almost all RMs and other group D employees have reached maximum of the scale/drawing stagnation increment etc and even those senior RM who were promoted to TM are facing stagnation. Even many of the Sr ToAs will reach their scale maximum in 2016. 2. Prevailing of such a huge level of stagnation is an aberration. Also, in several cases, when the official becomes due for stagnation increment and also due for NEPP promotion in the same year, he was deprived of the benefit of both stagnation increment as well as promotion increment, as detailed afterwards in this letter. This is also a serious aberration. The following case illustrates this: “Sri Mohammad Sarwar RM (HRMS No. 199303274) Hyderabad Telecom District (AP Circle); Date of appointment: 1.4.1993 as RM: Retirement on 31.1.2020. On 1.10.2000 his basic pay in NE-1 pay scale (4000-120-5800) was fixed at Rs 4840. His date of increment was 1st January and on 1.1.2004 he was fixed at Rs 5320. He was given NEPP-1 to NE-2 pay scale 4060- 125-5935 and his pay in the NE-2 pay scale was fixed on the date of his next increment 1.1.2005, at Rs 5560. On 1.1.2006, after drawal of annual increment, his basic pay was fixed at Rs 5685/-. Due to wage revision, his basic pay was fixed at Rs 13570/- in the revised NE-2 pay scale 7840-14700 on 1.1.2007(including increment on 1.1.2007). He reached maximum of the NE-2 pay scale Rs 14700/- on 1.1.2010. He was due for one stagnation increment on 1.1.2012. With this stagnation increment his pay on 1.1.2012 should be Rs 15150/-in the pay scale 7840-14700. But he was due for second NEPP in the next higher pay scale NE-3 (7900-14880) w.e.f 1.10.2011. Accordingly he was given the said NEPP-2 promotion. He opted for pay fixation in the promoted NE-3 pay scale from the date of his next increment 1.1.2012. But on 1.1.2012 he was due for stagnation increment in the NE-2 pay scale and should be fixed at Rs 15150/- and one notional increment on it should have been added on it on account of his promotion to NE-3 pay scale. By adding this notional increment on Rs 15150, his basic pay in NE-3 should have been fixed at Rs 15610/-. Since the maximum of the NE-3 pay scale was Rs 14880/- only, he was fixed at Rs 14880/- on 1.1.2012 instead of Rs 15610/-. Thus he lost the benefit of stagnation increment (with which his basic pay should be Rs 15150/-) and the benefit of notional increment of 3% on promotion. This is a serious aberration.” 3. These aberrations are due to the adamant attitude of the management in not agreeing for the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.2007 based on 78.2% IDA merger initially and constructing the pay scales based on 68.8% IDA merger only. Even though the Union went on two days strike demanding pay revision based on 78.2% IDA merger as per the DPE Order No.2(70)/08-DPE(WC)-GL-VII/09 dated 2.4.2009, the management did not agree. Thus the management itself created a special situation by violating the DPE order. 4. After thus refusing to agree for wage revision based on 78.2% IDA merger and imposing pay scales based on 68.8% IDA merger only, the management came forward finally to agree for the following points in the wage revision: i) To consider wage revision based on 78.2% DA merger, along with the executives(clause 6.4 of wage revision agreement) ii) To address the anomalies/aberrations arising out of the wage revision( clause 6.2 of the wage revision agreement) 5. Subsequently the management agreed and implemented pay fixation based on 78.2% IDA merger. But the problem of stagnation became more severe with it. Since the aberrations arose due to the refusal of the management to revise pay scales based on 78.2% IDA merger and since the management has agreed to settle such aberrations, it is the responsibility of the management to find out a solution for solving this problem. 6. However, we submit the proposal that stagnation increment be granted every year instead of once in two years. We also submit that in the case of promotion to the next higher scale where the maximum is less than the pay already drawn by the official including stagnation increment in the lower scale, the excess over and above the maximum of the promoted pay scale be treated as stagnation increment in the promoted pay scale and there after stagnation increments be granted in the promoted pay scale every year. 7. We submit the following grounds for supporting the above proposal: a) The continuation of the problem of stagnation in the case of BSNL employees who are eligible for Government pension is untenable since the stagnation problem was already removed by the orders issued by the Government based on 6th CPC recommendation that the official who reaches maximum of the pay scale will be granted increment in the next higher pay band. The 7th CPC recommended levels of pay instead of pay scales and each level has a span of 40 years from minimum to maximum and even then it said these minimums and maximums should not be treated as minimum and maximum of a pay scale. b) In spite of this, pay scales with minimums and maximums were imposed by BSNL management on the plea that for calculating the pension contribution to be paid by BSNL to DoT for the absorbed employees, the pay scale should have maximum since pension contribution has to be calculated based on scale maximum. On this ground, the management refused the proposal of the Union in the wage revision for open ended pay scales without any maximum. It only agreed after a lot of struggle, to increase the span of the pay scale from 15 to 21/22 years although Union demanded at least 25 years span. Therefore the management caused an injustice on the low paid employees by imposing this stagnation on a large scale, although as employees eligible for central government pension, they also should not have the problem of stagnation on par with the central government employees. c) As detailed above, the management violated the DPE order dated 2.4.2009 by refusing to grant pay scales based on 78.2% IDA merger and by imposing pay scales based on 68.8% IDA merger, although it subsequently corrected this partly and revised the pay (but not the pay scale)based on 78.2% IDA merger, and it further increased the problem of stagnation. d) The management has to fulfill its assurance in the wage revision agreement to address all aberrations as detailed above. e) To settle the problem of stagnation, the then Left Front Government of West Bengal issued orders allowing six stagnation increments annually after reaching the maximum of the pay scale. It further ordered that the excess of the pay fixed on such promotion over and above the maximum of the promoted pay scale has to be treated as the first stagnation increment in that promoted pay scale and he will draw further stagnation increments in that scale annually, subject to the maximum ceiling of 6 stagnation increments. [Reference: Order No. 9637-F dated 26.9.2002 issued by the Finance Department, West Bengal Government] f) From 1.4.1996, maximum five stagnation increments were given annually by the Karnataka State Government. g) Thus the procedure of granting stagnation increment annually is already there in some State Governments where as the problem of stagnation is not at all there in the Central Government.BSNL employees alone should not be targeted and punished with stagnation and since they are eligible for government pension, the same principle of no stagnation as available in central government must be available to them. h) BSNL management already violated DPE order by not granting 78.2% IDA merger in wage revision initially and based on such refusal, further refused to construct the pay scales based on 78.2% IDA merger. After thus violating the DPE orders thus, it cannot now say that the DPE order for granting stagnation increment once in two years is preventing it from accepting the proposal. Since it created the problem, and also since it agreed to settle the aberration, it is its responsibility to provide annual stagnation increments and thus solve the problem. 8. DoT allowed BSNL to issue orders increasing pay and pension, without any necessity for permission from it. Even if it feels such permission is required for it, it has to seek it and settle the issue, as per its commitment for settling aberrations. Since large number of employees is suffering due to stagnation thus creating unrest, it is requested to kindly take necessary action for approving this proposal and thus settle the problem. We shall be thankful for considering these submissions favorably, on urgent basis keeping in view the serious unrest in the staff on this issue. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, [P.Abhimanyu] General Secretary Encl: As above.

No comments:

Post a Comment