Now that Govt. has gone back and betrayed the entire Central Govt. employees and pensioners. NJCA has no other option but to revive the indefinite strike.

While deferring the indefinite strike from 11th July 2016, as per the assurance given by the Group of Ministers, the NJCA in its statement dated 06-07-2016, stated as follows:

“The committee set up to look into the matter of minimum wage and fitment formula is expected to submit their report to the Government in the given time frame of not more than four months”.

Finance Ministry’s press statement issued on 06-07-2016 also stated as follows: “The Ministers assured the Union leaders that the issues raised by them would be considered by a High Level Committee”.

After one month, the NJCA wrote letters on 28-07-2016 to Hon’ble Home Minister, Finance Minister, Railway Minister and Cabinet Secretary in which it conveyed the following:

“It is a matter of concern that, despite elapsing of a pretty long time, nothing has been heard in this regard from the Government of India, which is leading to serious resentment amongst the Central Government employees.”

Again after two months the JCM staff side, Secretary, wrote a letter on 12-08-2016, to Shri. Arun Jaitely, Finance Minister – “We are expecting a quick action on the part of the Government to operationalise the assurance of setting up a High Level Committee to go into the Minimum Wage, Multiplication factor etc. However, we are disappointed that even after a lapse of more than a month, no orders have been issued by the Government in this regard ………. we therefore appeal to you that the concerned authorities may be asked to expedite the issuance of orders setting up the committee and finalisation of the report within the available time of remaining three months.”

A group of Senior Officers invited the JCM staff side on 30-08-2016 to discuss the grievances arising out of the recommendations related to 7th CPC. No High Level Committee was constituted and no terms of reference was notified. The second meeting with Group of seniors was held on24-10-2016.

Even Though the group of senior officers held two round of discussion with JCM staff side, surprisingly they had not come prepared to discuss increase in minimum wage and fitment formula. They made a mockery of the meeting by disclosing in the first meeting that they are not fully aware of the details of the issues to be discussed and in the second meeting they told that they came for discussing allowances (though another committee under the chairmanship of Finance Secretary is constituted for allowances) and not minimum wage and fitment formulas. The JCM staff side leaders felt humiliated.

After that meeting, the JCM staff side wrote the following letter on 26-10-2016, to Hon’ble Finance Minister…..

“We (staff side) interacted with the said committee headed by Shri. P. K. Das, Addl. Secretary (Expenditure) on 24-10-2016. It would be quite appropriate to bring to your kind notice that, we have felt, during the course of meeting, that the proceedings of the committee are extremely disappointing and are left with the impression that committee is dilly-dallying the issue…………….. we are, therefore, left with no option, but to address this communication with the fervent hope that, your goodself will direct the said committee to interact with the staff side in a fruitful manner and arrive at a mutually agreeable proposal on the issue of minimum pay and fitment formula…. We have full trust and believe that, the Government would honour the decision taken in the meeting held on 30-06- 2016 in your benign presence and suitable direction will be given to the committee to complete the assigned task within the stipulated time frame in a satisfactory manner…. It would be the most unfortunate development, we regret to state, if we are constrained to tread the path of struggle once again in the event of the committee not coming up with a satisfactory settlement.”

In Spite of all these, after that (ie after 24-10-2016) no meeting of the group of senior officers was held and no discussion on minimum wage and fitment formula took place. The four months time fixed for the High Level Committee (which is yet to constituted) expired on 30-10-2016. Government has gone back from the most important assurance given to the NJCA leaders on 30-06-2016 by the Group of Cabinet Ministers. NJCA decided to defer the strike mainly because of this assurance of the Govt. that the Minimum pay and fitment formula will be enhanced. Now that Govt. has gone back and betrayed the entire Central Govt. employees and pensioners. NJCA has no other option but to revive the indefinite strike.

No.11/2/2016-JCA

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

Department of Personnel & Training

Establishment JCA Section

North Block, New Delhi

Dated the 20th February, 2017

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Setting up of Anomaly Committee to settle the anomalies arising out of the implementation of the Seventh Pay Commission’s recommendations.

The undersigned is directed to refer to DoPT’s OM of even number dated 16/8/2016 and to incorporate the following modification in the definition of anomaly:

“Where the Official Side and the Staff Side are of the opinion that the vertical and horizontal relativities have been disturbed as a result of the 7th Central Pay Commission to give rise to anomalous situation.”

2. With the incorporation of the above para in the O.M., the definition of anomaly will read as follows:

(1) Definition of Anomaly

Anomaly will include the following cases;

a) Where the Official Side and the Staff Side are of the opinion that any recommendation is in contravention of the principle or the policy enunciated by the Sixth Central Pay Commission itself without the Commission assigning any reason; 

b) Where the maximum of the Level in the Pay Matrix corresponding to the applicable Grade Pay in the Pay Band under the pre-revised structure as notified vide CCS(RP Rules 2016, is less than the amount an employee is entitled to be fixed at, as per the formula for fixation of pay contained in the said Rules; 

c) Where the Official side and the Staff Side are of the opinion that the vertical and horizontal relativities have been disturbed as a result of the 7th Central Pay Commission to give rise to anomalous situation.

3. The rest of the content of the O.M. dated 16.08.2016 shall remain unchanged.

sd/-

(D.K.Sengupta)

Deputy Secretary (JCA

Calculation Of Tax Liability For Next Year

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has made changes in the tax that you pay from the next financial year. The very obvious change that he has made is the massive reduction in tax rate to 5% from 10% for individuals (below 60 yeras) earning between Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 5 lakh annually.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley arrived at the parliament on Wednesday for Budget.

While the taxation liability of people with income upto Rs 5 lakhs is reduced to half, from Rs 5,000 to Rs 2,500.

For taxpayers whose income Rs 3 lakh, there will be zero tax liability.

Rs 2.50 lakh to Rs 3.50 lakh a rebate of Rs 2,500 will be available as against the earlier rebate of Rs 5,000 for the tax payers with an income upto Rs 5 lakh. What this effectively means is that resident individuals with an income of Rs 3 lakh will have a Nil tax burden and if one avails the Rs 1.50 lakh deduction under section 80C then there is no tax for income upto Rs 4.50 lakh.

The new income tax slabs are:-

Income between Rs 2.5 lakh and Rs 5 lakh

The taxpayers earn up to Rs 3 lakh, there will be zero tax liability.

The taxpayers earn between Rs 3 lakh and Rs 3.5 lakh, their tax liability will be Rs 2,500.

The taxpayers earn up to Rs 4.5 lakh and invest the maximum of Rs 1.5 lakh under Section 80C, they will not have to pay tax.

Starting next year, the taxpayers will have to fill a simple one-page Income Tax Return form the taxpayers, who are filing income tax returns for the first time, they will not be subjected to any scrutiny for the first year.

Income above Rs 5 lakh

No change in tax slab, so the taxpayers will continue paying 20 percent tax on their earnings.

They will receive a benefit of Rs 12,875.

Date of Uploading	Brief Description
31-01-2017	Criticism of the government and its policies

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH

OAs 310/01237/2016, 310/01454/2015, 310/01536/2016 & MAs 781/2016, 889/2016, 878/2016, 880/2016, 890/2016,897/2016, 923/2016

Dated 10/01/2017

The Operative Part of the order is as under:-

14.        Heard  both.    Perused the  materials placed on  record.  It is not  in dispute that  the applicantswere recruited as Direct Recruit (DR) Inspectors and joined the department during the  year  1985  throughan  examination  conducted by  the  SSC  for  the  vacancy position pertaining to the  year 1983.   It is alsonot  in dispute that  the  Hon'ble  Supreme Court in the case of N.R. Parmar had  held  that  the  DirectRecruits Seniority  would  commence from  the date   of  initiation  of  recruitment  process when  the vacancies  were  notified   by  the  user department to  the  recruitment agency.   Now  the  grievance of  the applicants is that  the respondent department had  not  revised the  seniority of the  applicants based onthe  N. R. Parmar's case.  For which the official respondents would submit that as per the DOPT OM dt. 04.03.2014  the   principles  of  determination  of  inter  se seniority  of  Direct  Recruit   and Promoteeswould be effective from 27.11.2012, the date  of Supreme Court Judgment in N.R. Parmar case.

15.        On perusal it is seen that  the  para  5(h) of the  DoPT OM dt. 04.03.2014 clarifies the principles of determination of  inter  se seniority of  Direct  Recruit  and  Promotees is only prospective from the date  ofSupreme Court Judgment.  But challenging the provision of the DOPT  OM dt.  04.03.2014,  OA was filed before the  CAT,  Mumbai   Bench   in  OA 741  & 692/2013  wherein  this Tribunal vide order  dt.06.05.2015 had  held that  the DOPT provision of prospective application of   Apex Court Judgment in N RParmar case has to be ignored and   the   judicial   principle   enshrined  under   the   said  judgment ought    to   be   applied retrospectively.    It  is  clear   that   the  order  of  Mumbai   Bench  of  this  Tribunal had  been accepted and  conceded by the  1st and  2nd  respondents before the  High Court, Mumbai  inWP No. 6784/2013 vide its order dt. 22.09.2014 and had also implemented it in Mumbai  and Goa CustomsCommissionerates.    Now the grievance of the applicants is that  if their cases are not considered foradhoc promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner on par with the similarly placed persons as perJudgment of Mumbai  Bench  of this Tribunal they would not  only be deprived  of their right of promotionbut also their juniors will become senior to them.

16.        Under  such circumstances,  we  are  of  the  view  that   the  applicants  are  similarly situatedpersons as that  of the  applicants in OA 741  and  692  of 2013  of Mumbai  Bench  of this Tribunal  which was confirmed by Mumbai  High Court.   The  mere  fact  that  they  were recruited before 1986 could notdeprive them  of the applicability  of the 1986 OM of the DoPT. Had this been  the correct law, theapplicants' senioirty would have been  fixed in terms of the 1959 OM which might have been  even more beneficial to them.   Having applied  the 1986 OM for  fixing their  seniority  at  the  relevant  time,  the respondents cannot now  argue  that  the 1986   OM as interpreted  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  would have  no  applicability   to  the applicants' case. Further, the respondents cannot be oblivious of the factthat such selective application of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court might make  a 1985 direct  recruit junior to a 1986  direct  recruit  which  cannot be  sustained by any logic  or reason.  We are,therefore of the view that  the relief sought by the applicants has to be granted.  Accordingly the  senioritylist published by the  respondent department without  applying  the  N.R. Parmar ratio is quashed and therespondent department is directed to draft  a seniority list following the N.R. Parmar case and  also the order in OA 741 and  692/2013 of Mumbai  Bench  of this Tribunal  which  was confirmed by Mumbai  High Court,by giving seniority to the  applicants from  the  date  of  initiation  of  recruitment process.  Also the respondents are  directed to consider the names of the applicants strictly in accordance with such revisedseniority in the ensuing  DPC.   Accordingly  all the  OAs  are  allowed.  MAs  878/2016,  880/2016,  890/2016, 897/2016, 923/2016 filed for vacating the stay are also closed.  No costs.

(R. RAMANUJAM)                                  (A. ARUMUGHASWAMY) Member (A)               10.01.2017              Member (J)