This article is regarding the grant of financial benefit on promotion. As the heading suggests, a promotion is a promotion, and the way in which the official earned that promotion is immaterial.
Basically, FR 22(I)(a)(i) governs and assures for financial benefits on promotion. It assures such benefit for promotions on adhoc, regular as well as officiating. The spirit behind this rule is to honor and compensate the official who is promoted to a higher cadre considering the higher duties and responsibilities attached with the promoted post.
Nowhere in the rules, the present pay of the official, grade pay of the official are taken in to consideration for allowing the benefit for fixation on promotion.
Also, no rule classifies promotion based on different things as it is being done as based on LDCE, Promotional hierarchy, involving higher duties and responsibilities.
FR 22 is very simple and assures financial benefit for promotion from one post to another higher post involving higher duties and responsibilities without consideration of the source or promotion, by seniority cum fitness or through LDCE. It does not distinguish the promotions in to sub classes.
MACP and promotion are on different footing. As per the rules on MACP When a regular promotion is given to an official, it is counted against MACP. It is right since MACP is awarded only when there is stagnation in a particular grade and in this case since the official is granted promotion the question of stagnation does not arise. Conversely the MACP has nothing to do with the regular promotions as they are on a different footing. They are earned by the sweat of the official and it deserves suitable compensation by way of financial benefits. The duties and responsibilities attached to a regular promotional post like LSG, HSG II etc cannot be compared with the MACP upgradations.
If the recent classification based on LDCE, promotional hierarchy etc. for allowing 3% fixation benefit is upheld this will lead to absurdum. The following are some examples.
1. In the initial constitution of PM Grade, those posts were carved out from the Selection grade posts viz. from LSG to PM Gr I, HSG II to PM Gr II and HSG I to PM Gr III. Also, willingness was called from those selection grade officials for switching over to the corresponding PM Grade posts. That is to say LSG officials to PM Gr I, HSG II officials to PM Gr II and HSG I officials to PM Gr III. This shows that both the set of posts have identical duties and responsibilities. Some of the officials opted for such switching over. Consider an official after getting MACP I promoted to LSG and working as such. If the official opted for PM Gr I, whether this official is entitled for pay fixation on his promotion to PM Gr I or not? The answer would be negative, since the official is promoted to PM Grade I not through LDCE. Is it right? At the same time another official who got MACP I is promoted to PM Gr I through LDCE, he is eligible for 3% fixation benefit for promotion, as per the recent orders. In what way the denial of such benefit to the first official is justified? Hence, there would be two types of PM Gr I officials, one promoted through LDCE and entitled for fixation, and another who performs the same duties of PM Gr I but denied the benefit just because he is not promoted through LDCE.
2. Two identically placed ASPOs, one promoted to SP through examination will be eligible for fixation, whereas another ASP who is promoted to the same cadre of SP through seniority cum fitness is not eligible for such a benefit. Hence there are two types of SPs in the same cadre. Is it right or justified?
3. If an official with GP 2400 is promoted to PM Gr I, he is eligible for fixation benefit considering the present grade pay. At the same time another official who is in receipt of GP 2800 (even 4600) if promoted to PM Gr I thorough LDCE is also eligible for fixation benefit. To the contrary, an official who is in GP 4200 is promoted to LSG through recruitment rules and discharging the same duties and responsibilities is not entitled for such benefit. This is clearly also against the equality guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Similarly placed officials should be treated alike. The grade pay of the official cannot be taken as criteria for anything, especially the present grade pay of the official on his promotion is not at has any consideration. In a single handed office where the SPM is in grade pay Rs.2400 and the postman who is in the grade pay of Rs.2800. Who is superior in this office? I left the question open.
4. Officials promoted to the same or identical posts should be given the same treatment considering the involvement of higher duties and responsibilities as required under FR 22 and nothing more. Here the case is not so and there are many treatments.
The recent orders on extending the 3% fixation benefit, in whatever context they are issued, it is crystal clear all the orders are based on the involvement of higher duties and responsibilities. The extension of fixation benefit to ASPOs on their promotion from IPs is the ample proof. It is important to note that the cadre of IP and ASP are not merged. Even though ASP is in the promotional hierarchy, they are allowed the benefit. This is the correct order. This consideration of involvement of higher duties and responsibilities should be extended to all similarly placed officials. It may be remembered that during the regime of 5th CPC, no benefit was allowed to ASPs on their posting against HSG I posts, treating it as “placement”, since both the scales of ASP and HSG I are identical. Now, even the grade pays of IP and ASP are identical, the benefit is extended considering the higher duties and responsibilities.
The orders on MACPs which are executive in nature cannot be applied in such a way to override the assured benefits under FR 22 which are statutory in nature. MACP cannot take the benefit which is assured under the statutory provisions of FR 22.
If the benefit of fixation on promotion is denied in the name of MACPs that the official is already extended the same grade pay on MACPs, certainly it is not a promotion but a placement for which he was already paid the benefit. In such a case, those promotions are to be ordered strictly based on the seniority of the officials in the MACP hierarchy and there is no need to keep a separate set of selection grade posts or Postmaster Grade posts.
Whatever may be the source, every promotion should be given the benefit of fixation guaranteed under FR 22, purely based on the involvement of higher duties and responsibilities and nothing else. Rule 13 (1) of CCS (RP) Rules 2008 provided the fixation formula only for promotion from one grade pay to another. Once this provision is ignored and the involvement of higher duties and responsibilities only are considered in the case of the promotion from IP to ASP, it should be extended to all similarly placed officials, ignoring their present grade pay. In this case, this Rule 13 (1) is applied to provide 3% increment and nothing more since there is no difference in grade pay.
As such, in all the cases, such benefit should be extended to all officials on their promotion, ignoring the MACPs already granted. To mention a few, PM Gr I to GR II and GR II to Gr III, LSG to HSG II and HSG II to HSG I etc. In other words, all promotions from one functional level to another level should be given financial benefits ignoring their present pay, grade pay etc.
In the light of the above I appeal to all Trade Union Leaders to consider the issue, take it at appropriate level for issue of necessary orders in this regard, and to render justice to the thousands of officials who burnt their night oil for their promotions.
Hard work never fails and their hard work deserves rewards in the shape of benefits.
I hope this will be taken at the appropriate level.
Article by:
R.Hariharakrishnan,
Manager,
Postal Stores Depot,
Tirunelveli 627002
Source : – SAPOST