Payment of DA to the CDA pattern employees of CPSEs, drawing pays in 7th CPC pay scales.

 Payment of DA to the CDA pattern employees of CPSEs, drawing pays in 7th CPC pay scales.

Ref: https://dpe.gov.in/sites/default/files/14%20March%202024%20OM%20iro%20CDA%20pattern%20pay%20scale%207th%20CPC%20revised%20DA%20rate.pdf 

CONFEDERATION DECIDED TO INCLUDE THE DEMANDS FOR PAY REVISION OF EMPLOYEES OF AUTONOMOUS BODIES IN CHARTER OF DEMANDS

CONFEDERATION DECIDED TO INCLUDE THE DEMANDS FOR PAY REVISION OF EMPLOYEES OF AUTONOMOUS BODIES IN CHARTER OF DEMANDS

Employees of Autonomous bodies are requested to Conduct the following programmes of Confederation.

1.       20.10.2016

Demonstration in front of all offices and gate meetings. Resolution to be adopted may be sent to (1) Prime Minster (2) Finance Minister (3) Home Minister and (4) All Heads of Departments.

2.       07.11.2016

Mass Dharna at all Important Centers Jointly with Confederation.

3.       Massive Parliament March on 15-12-2016

Employees of Autonomous bodies are also requested to Participate in large numbers with flags & banners of their associations in the Parliament March on 15^th December 2016.

To,

           1.   All National Secretariat Members

           2.   All Affiliated organisations

          3.    All C-O-Cs

Dear Comrades,

As you aware the orders for Revision of pay of employees of Autonomous bodies has not yet been issued by the Government. Many of the organisations of Autonomous bodies (Some of them are affiliates of Confederation) have requested Confederation CHQ to include their demands also in Confederation Charter of Demands. It is decided to include the following demand of employees of Autonomous bodies also in the Confederation’s Charter of Demand as item No. 20.

Demand No. 20 – “Implementation of the Revised Pay Structure in respect of employees working in Autonomous bodies Consequent on implementation of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2016 in respect of Central Government Employees w.e.f. 01.01.2016”.

M. Krishnan

Secretary General

Confederation

Mob: 09447068125

E-mail: mkrishnan6854@gmail.com

Source : http://confederationhq.blogspot.in/ 

Extension of 7th Pay Commission benefits to employees and pensioners of Autonomous bodies

Extension of 7th Pay Commission benefits to employees and pensioners of Autonomous bodies

CONFEDERATION OF CENTRAL GOVT. EMPLOYEES & WORKERS
1st Floor, North Avenue PO Building, New Delhi- 110001

Ref: Confdn/Genl/7th CPC/2016-17

Dated – 14.10.2016

To,

Shri Arun Jaitley
Hon’ble Finance Minister
Government of India
North Block, Central Secretariat
New Delhi – 110001

Respected Sir,

Sub:- Request for Extension of benefits of 7th Central Pay Commission to employees and pensioners of Autonomous bodies.

This letter is written with the most fervent hope that your good self be condescend to intercede on behalf of the employees and pensioners of Central Government Autonomous bodies.

Every time when the wages of the Central Government employees are revised, the same benefits was extended to the employees and pensioners of Autonomous bodies also. During last wage revision in 2008, the orders extending the benefits was issued within one month from the date of notification of Government implementing 6th CPC recommendations. This time, the orders are yet to be issued. This has caused much anxiety and uncertainty among the employees and pensioners of Autonomous bodies and they are eagerly waiting for the last two months.

I request your kind intervention in this case so that orders will be issued at an early date. Yours faithfully,

(M. Krishnan)
Secretary General

Employees of Autonomous Bodies Worried :-

Debabrata says >>
It is really surprising that the Govt is not issuing orders extending the benefits of 7th CPC to the employees of CG autonomous bodies. This is causing anxiety to the employees of the institutions.

Suruchi says

It’s really painful that government is not paying any heed for implementing 7cpc to cg autonomous bodies.It seems that government is not in a mood to apply 7th CPC. Further govt is also silent over DA increase.By this act of government many people are worried…….Hope finmin look into this matter seriously…

Seventh Pay Commission : सातवें वेतन आयोग में कितनी बेसिक सेलरी फिक्स होगी आपकी How much salary - Basic Pay will become under 7th Pay Commission

Seventh Pay Commission  : सातवें वेतन आयोग में कितनी बेसिक सेलरी फिक्स होगी आपकी

How much salary - Basic Pay will become under 7th Pay Commission 

इसके लिए सातवें वेतन आयोग ने एक चार्ट प्रस्तुत किया है 

नए फ्रेश ज्वाइन करने वालों को अपने ग्रेड पे में पहले सैल में लिखी सेलरी - बेसिक सेलरी होगी , उदाहरणार्थ 4600 ग्रेड पे की बेसिक सेलरी 44900 फिक्स होगी । 

अन्य कर्मियों को स्लेरी निम्न फॉर्मला से कैलकुलेट करनी होगी -

अपनी बेसिक + ग्रेड पे सेलरी को जोड़िये और उसका गुणा फिटमेंट फार्मूला पे  (उदाहरणार्थ 4600 ग्रेड पे का 2.62  है ) से कर दीजिये ,

उसके बाद जो सेलरी आये , टेबल में अपनी ग्रेड पे कॉलम में उसके बराबर या उसकी अगली पे को देखिये , यही आपकी नयी बेसिक सेलरी होगी 

Pay Fixation in the New Pay Structure

5.1.28 The fitment of each employee in the new pay matrix is proposed to be done by

multiplying his/her basic pay on the date of implementation by a factor of 2.57. The figure so

arrived at is to be located in the new pay matrix, in the level that corresponds to the

employee’s grade pay on the date of implementation, except in cases where the

Commission has recommended a change in the existing grade pay. If the identical figure is

not available in the given level, the next higher figure closest to it would be the new pay of the

concerned employee. A couple of examples are detailed below to make the process amply clear.

5.1.29 The pay in the new pay matrix is to be fixed in the following manner:

Step 1: Identify Basic Pay (Pay in the pay band plus Grade Pay) drawn by an employee as on

the date of implementation. This figure is ‘A’.

Step 2: Multiply ‘A’ with 2.57, round-off to the nearest rupee, and obtain result ‘B’.

Step 3: The figure so arrived at, i.e., ‘B’ or the next higher figure closest to it in the Level

assigned to his/her grade pay, will be the new pay in the new pay matrix. In case the value of

‘B’ is less than the starting pay of the Level, then the pay will be equal to the starting pay of

that level.

Example I

i. For example an employee H is presently drawing Basic Pay of ₹55,040 (Pay in the Pay

Band ₹46340 + Grade Pay ₹8700 = ₹55040). After multiplying ₹55,040 with 2.57, a

figure of ₹1,41,452.80 is arrived at. This is rounded off to ₹1,41,453.

ii. The level corresponding to GP 8700 is level 13, as may be seen from Table 4, which

gives the full correspondence between existing Grade Pay and the new Levels being

proposed.

iii. In the column for level 13, the figure closest to ₹1,41,453 is ₹1,41,600.

iv. Hence the pay of employee H will be fixed at ₹1,41,600 in level 13 in the new pay

matrix as shown below:

Example II

i. Take the case of an employee T in GP 4200, drawing pay of ₹20,000 in PB-2. The Basic

Pay is ₹24,200 (20,000+4200). If there was to be no change in T’s level the pay fixation

would have been as explained in Example I above. After multiplying by 2.57, the

amount fetched viz., ₹62,194 would have been located in Level 6 and T’s pay would

have been fixed in Level 6 at ₹62,200.

ii. However, assuming that the Commission has recommended that the post occupied by

T should be placed one level higher in GP 4600. T’s basic pay would then be ₹24,600

(20000 + 4600). Multiplying this by 2.57 would fetch ₹63,222.

iii. This value would have to be located in the matrix in Level 7 (the upgraded level of T).

iv. In the column for Level 7 ₹63,222 lies between 62200 and 64100. Accordingly, the pay

of T will be fixed in Level 7 at ₹64,100.

Seventh Pay Commission Highlights

Seventh Pay Commission Highlights

REVIEW OF CIC DECISION PERMISSIOBLE, INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ITSELF TOLD IN DECISION

REVIEW OF CIC DECISION PERMISSIOBLE, INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ITSELF TOLD IN DECISION

In a very strange order of the CIC, one of the IC's has granted himself the power to review based on certain Supreme Court orders.

On the other hand we have the Chief Information Commissioner withdrawing the right to review.

Is it that PA's/PIO's/FAA's have the right to review but appellants/complainants do not have it ?

The arguments given in the review petition are also strange.

They seem to be an afterthought to the CIC's own order.

What was the PIO doing when he replied to the RTI Application ?

What was the FAA doing when he passed his order ?

What was the IC doing when he passed his order ?

Why weren't the same arguments put forward at the time of the original hearing ? What was the representative of the PA doing at that time ?

This way, PA's will use all opportunities at their disposal to have such "after thoughts".

This particular IC has also been hearing cases of various Coal Companies/Organisations ever since he joined CIC. Members might also be interested in reading

some of his orders related to Coal.

The order is attached to this post.

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AT-16092009-06.pdf

Is there a possibility of review or not ?

How many applications for review by the appellant/complaint have been ever admitted by the CIC ?

How many applications for review by the public authority have been admitted for review ?

Someone should file a RTI application with CIC and find out.

***********************

11. The question whether the Commission has the power to review its own decision was elaborately discussed in Appeal No.CIC/MA/ A/2006/00622 (Rajnish Singh

Chaudhary Vs. Union Public Service Commission). In this case, the Commission has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors.

Vs. Pradyumanshighji Arjunsinghji ⎯ (AIR 1970 SC 1273) and Rajendra Singh Vs. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Ors. (AIR 2006 SC 75) and had observed as

under:-

“The net upshot of these two decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court is that while in substantive matters there may arguably be no review. In cases of procedural

infirmities which may have led to or may be believed to have led to miscarriage of justice or where there is an error apparent on the face of it, the absence

of a provision for review shall not be a bar on a given statutory authority assuming that power. In other words, silence of law in regard to review does not

prohibit a statutory authority from undertaking review in specific given circumstances.”

The above item in your attachment clears any doubt on review. The Supreme Court has insisted that even if there is NO any expressive review option available

in law, that does not prohibit any statuatory authority from undertaking review.

In CIC management rules, review is an option. Hnece, when there is an apparent error in judgement, NO CIC can refuse to review and if he does NOT, he goes

against the spirit of Supreme Court's observation which is ILLEGAL.

But some CICs still review their decisions without any inhibition. (Pl see CIC decisions)

*****************

In the Narshi Thakershi's (http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1992752/)case SC had oberved :

"It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No

provision in the Act was brought to our notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had

no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have"

Following the ratio of Thakershi Narshi, SC in , GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS

(http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1136885/). ,one of the landmark judgments on review, explained as under:

The expression 'review' is used in two distinct senses, namely (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set

aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is

apparent on the face of the record. It is in the latter sense that the Court in Narshi Thakershi's case held that no review lies on merits unless a status

specifically provides for it. Obviously when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected

ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and such power inheres in every court or Tribunal

Therefore, conclusion emerges , as Gujarat HC has observed in Atulbhai Balabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat (http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/640655/) on 12

May, 1999

12. In view of the above discussion, it is held that while the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal exercising the powers of revision under Section 76 of the Bombay

Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 does not have the power of reviewing its own decision on the basis of any statutory provisions contained in the said

Act or in the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957, the Tribunal does have the inherent power of procedural review as explained by a Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Ram Kirpal vs. Union of India & Anr. 39(3) GLR 1892.

In nutshell

(1) RTI Act does not contain any provisions for review (however word "review" is mentioned in Section 7 and 10)

(2) therefore review on merits is not possible
 (3) however, CIC/SIC has inherent power to review on procedural defects

REVIEW IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER CIC JUDGEMENT OR TRIBUNAL JUDGEMENT FOR ERROR ETC.

REVIEW IS  PERMISSIBLE  UNDER CIC JUDGEMENT OR TRIBUNAL JUDGEMENT FOR ERROR ETC.

REFERENCES :->>>

It is a well-established principle of law that power to review its own orders should have been specifically conferred by law, before a Court can exercise it. However, in certain circumstances, a limited power to correct errors apparent on the face of a case may be presumed to vest inherently in judicial and quasi-judicial forums. In M.K. Venkatachalam Vs Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Col Ltd. , 1958 ITR 143 SC , the SC observed that in case of apparent error on the face of record, the power to review can be exercised.. Reference here may also be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Assistant Commissioner Income Tax Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (2008-14-Supreme Court Cases 171). This case pertains to recall of its own erroneous order by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that had failed to take cognizance of the decisions of the superior court. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that this amounted to a mistake apparent from the record that could be rectified.

*********

There is no provision in RTI Act by which FAA can review his own decision. However there are some exceptions for all reviews as stated above. Hence if there is procedural infirmity [say appellant not given opportunity of being heard] or error of facts etc any authority can review its own decision even if there is no express provision in the act.

 

appears stopped review except in cases falling under "error apparent on the face of the record"- a condition stipulated in Rule 47(1)(c) CPC

 ********

****************************

Furthermore, the Full Bench in R. R. Patel’s Case was constituted to reconsider two decisions dated 06/09/2006 of Professor M. M. Ansari, then Information Commissioner. As described above, the issues to be reconsidered by the Full Bench included whether the claim of RBI for exemption under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act in respect of inspection of reports could be held justified. The Full Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Grindlays’ Bank v. Central Government Industrial

Tribunal AIR 1981 SC 606 and noted that when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by a tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its power and such power is inherent in every court or tribunal. On this basis, the Full Bench  proceeded to review the decisions of Professor M. M. Ansari, then Information Commissioner

***********

What now I comprehend is that IC first orally ordered disclosure in open court under RTI Act. Subsequently her attention was drawn to the fact that if any department has its own rules for accessing information, the information seeker should avail of that prescribed route and not RTI. In fact this is what has been pronounced by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in judgment delivered on: 01.06.2012 in W.P.(C) 11271/2009- REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ORS versus DHARMENDRA KUMAR GARG.

If this is true, Ld IC has perhaps corrected her error [due to lack of knowledge of above judgement] between oral and written orders. In that case we should not take disadvantage of bonafide error which was otherwise defying judgement of HC.There is possibility that representative of public authority may not be knowing such judgement at the time of hearing and his attention would have been drawn later on which he would have communicated to Ld IC.

As for returning information, I do not think Ld IC can order it, once it is supplied. In this case it is not wrong that information was supplied, what is at dispute is procedure followed {RTI or departmental procedure} for supply of information.

I understand that this judgement of HC is being challenged in SC.

The implication of this judgement is that:

1. Any information that is in public domain or proactively disclosed cannot be accessed under RTI Act.

2. Any information that is accessible under any other law or mechanism, cannot be accessed under RTI Act. Citizen has to follow that law/mechanism only.

3. Unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, it is not accessible under the RTI Act.

4. IC must take into account earlier decisions of other ICs on the same matter brought to his notice and in case he disagrees, the matter may be referred to larger bench of CIC/SIC.

5. Information Commissions are not Court of Law.

6. ICs should maintain judicial discipline.

7. RTI Act is a general law [not special law].

***********************

There is an option under Section 19(9) of the RTI Act, for review. However, in your review application, you should clearly highlight the procedural error as well as other strong legal basis like violation of the principles of natural justice (if any), so that your review petition will be considered by SIC. I hereby attach a decision of CIC, wherein review was allowed. Use the crucial points for your review application
vsprajan.

****************

http://cic.gov.in/StudyReports/PRIA-AnalysisOf-CIC-Judgements.pdf

Review of a decision delivered by  a public authority

Judgment:

In the Review Application No.1/2006, dated 16/5/2006, before the Central Information Commission, the CIC laid down the following important conditions, which

must be satisfied, for review of a decision delivered by the PIO of a  public authority:

ÿ There is a technical error in the decision

ÿ There was an omission to consider certain

material facts relevant for the decision

ÿ The appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard

ÿ The PIO has not given enclosed relevant supporting do cuments in his comments furnished to the Central Information Commission (CIC

*************

MANY STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION ALSO MENTION THE FACT OF REVIEW FOR ERROR

SEE UP STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION >>

Review of the order of the Commission

A party to any proceeding before the Commission, considering itself aggrieved by any

order  of  the  Commission  based  on  an  error  apparent on  the face  of the  record,  may

submi

t an application for review of such order to the Chief Information Commissioner

or  the  Information  Commissioner  who  passed  that  order.  The  Commission,  before

passing  any  order  on  such  review  application,  shall  issue  notice  to  all  parties  to  the

proceeding to  give  them  an  opportunity  of  being  heard.  If  the  Commission  is  of  the

view that an error apparent on the face of the record is established, it may review the

order to meet the ends of justice

http://upsic.up.nic.in/rule2015.pdf

**********

SEE THIS CASE ALSO ON CIC WEBSITE >>>

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

…..

F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000100

Dated, the 16th September, 2009.

PARTIES TO THE CASE:

Review-Petitioners : Shri Nihar Ranjan Banerjee

Chief Vigilance Officer

&

Shri Bidya Nand Mishra

Deputy General Manager (Vigilance) /

Tech. Secretary to CVO

Coal India Limited

Appellant

: Shri M.N. Ghosh

Public authority

: Coal India Limited

This second-appeal by Shri M.N. Ghosh was decided through

Commission’s order dated 25.05.2009. The third-party-respondents,

viz. the Vigilance Officers of the Coal India Limited approached the

Commission through a review-petition dated 25.06.2009 requesting that

parts of the Commission’s order needed to be reviewed as, according to

the review-petitioners, there was an error manifest in the face of the

order, i.e. it not incorporating some of the points made at the hearing