Fixation benefit on Promotion – A ray of hope

I am very glad that the above case is taken up with the Directorate for appropriate orders by our service unions. I really congratulate the General Secretary, AIPEU,P III Sri.R.N.Parasar and the General Secretary, BPEU Gr III Sri. M.S.Chandel for taking the case with Directorate vide their letters. In this connection, I wish to reiterate that it is not a privilege but a right of the employee to get the benefit of fixation at the time of promotion on functional basis.

A promotion from one functional level to higher level deserves financial benefits under FR 22 I (a) (i). By citing the orders on MACP, such benefit was denied to a majority of officials. A government servant promoted to a post on functional basis, was denied such fixation benefit, citing that he is already in receipt of the same grade pay. This is totally wrong and a grave injustice to those employees.

The MACP scheme derives its fixation benefit from that is available for a regular promotion which is very clearly spelt in the MACP orders. This benefit is given considering the stagnation of the official at a particular grade for 10 years. The promotion on functional basis stands on a different line.  The MACP can in no way stand in the way of promotion on functional basis. If it is so, no official will come to shoulder the higher responsibilities attached with the supervisory posts.

Also, the orders on MACP assures a maximum of 3 financial upgradations, only if there is stagnation in the same grade for a period of 10 years or more. This is excluding the regular promotions earned by the officials. Hence, whenever an official earns a promotion, the due MACPs are set off against the promotions earned and not on the future promotions. As such, if any official earns a promotion after any MACP, that promotion is entitled for pay fixation and MACP should not stand in the way of that promotion. While the MACP granted is not at all connected with the promotion earned after that MACP, how can this MACP stand in the way of pay fixation benefit?. There is no justification in denying this benefit.

Regular promotion involves higher duties and responsibilities. For fixation benefit on promotion, the present GP or pay is immaterial. Denial of such benefit in the name of MACP and same grade pay is a gross injustice to those officials who got their promotions out of their sweat and blood. The grade pay cannot decide the degree of responsibility. A MTS after MACP III, a postman after MACP II and a Postal assistant are in receipt of GP 2400. Just because the grade pays are identical, they cannot be said to have the same duties and responsibilities. Denial of fixation benefit on the promotion of a postman (MACP I) to the cadre of postal assistant, citing that he is already in receipt of GP 2400 is denial of justice. It is very clear that PA and postman belong to different functional levels and different duties and responsibilities.

The IPs on their promotion to ASPs are granted the fixation benefit considering the involvement of higher duties and responsibilities. This is the order issued considering the spirit of FR 22 I a (i). Similar benefits should be extended to others, considering the higher duties and responsibilities. The classification of promotions on the basis of LDCE and seniority is not justified. There is no support of rules for such a classification.

The request should be for fixation benefit on promotion on functional basis rather than mentioning the particular promotions viz. fast track to LSG etc. If such a common order is issued, then every official promoted on functional basis will automatically get the benefits.

In department of posts, in the operative side, the following cases deserve this benefit.