http://dqagbtoablore.blogspot.com/2014/08/memorandum-submitted-to-vii-pay.html
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED
To
The VII Central Pay
Commission
BY
DEFENCE
QUALITY ASSURANCE GP ‘B’ TECHNICAL
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
C/O
CQAL CAMPUS,
JC Nagar P.O, Bangalore.560006
CONTENTS
|
Sl.No.
|
Details
|
|
1
|
Introduction
|
|
2
|
Scope of
Memorandum
|
|
3
|
Salient
functions of DGQA
|
|
4
|
Cadre structure
of technical cadres in DGQA
|
|
5
|
Some background
facts
|
|
6
|
Salient features
of the C&AG and the JAFA Committee Report:
|
|
7
|
Prevention Of Dilution
Of The Techncal Cadre
|
|
8
|
Direct
recruitment quota
|
|
9
|
Restructuring of
Technical Supervisory cadre and Application of Inter Grade Ratio
|
|
10
|
Synergetic
effect of several factors
|
|
11
|
JCM Scheme
|
|
12
|
Summing up
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
Part II
(Allowances)
|
|
|
|
DEFENCE
QUALITY ASSURANCE GP ‘B’ TECHNICAL
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
C/O
CQAL CAMPUS,
_______JC Nagar Post, Bangalore.560006________
Date :31/07/2014
To,
The Hon’ble Member Secretary,
The VII Central Pay Commission,
Chatrapati Shivaji Bhawan,
1st Floor, B-14/A, Qutab Institutional
Area,
Post Box No. 4599, Hauz Khas P.O
New Delhi 110016
E-mail:- secy-7cpc@nic.in
Sir,
Sub: Representation of
Group ‘B’ (Gazetted) Technical Officers
in Directorate General of
QualityAssurance Organisation, Ministry of Defence – Submitted
Introduction
The DQAGBTO Association represents the Group “B” Gazetted
Technical Officers namely the Assistant Engineers (Quality Assurance) in the
Directorate General of Quality Assurance, Department of Defence Production,
Ministry of Defence and seeks the kind permission of the Hon’ble Chairman for
submission of this memorandum relating to their service matters.
2. Scope of the
memorandum
The scope of this memorandum covers the pay scales, the
cadre structure and the promotional avenues to the Officers of the Technical
cadre in Directorate General of Quality Assurance (Herein after referred to as
DGQA), comprising of Junior Engineer (Quality Assurance) and Assistant Engineer
(Quality Assurance) hereinafter referred to as JE (QA) & AE (QA).
There are nine disciplines
in DGQA classified as different technical directorates under the DGQA viz
(Annexure-I)
1. Armaments 6.
Combat Vehicles
2. Vehicles 7.
Radar and Systems
3. Electronics 8.
General Stores
4. Engineering Equipments 9. Naval Warship Equipments
5. Nuclear & Biological
Warfare Cell
3. Salient functions of DGQA
The following are the salient functions of the DGQA:
o Quality Assurance of
defence equipment and stores
o Conformity with quality
during production
o Assurance of reliable
performance during service by providing quality assurance support and advice to
the Army
The DGQA also
performs the functions of “Authority holding sealed particulars” (AHSP) where
it is vested with the responsibility of documentation and control of
specifications, drawings and test procedures.
It is an
established proposition that quality assurance comprises all planned or
systematic actions necessary to provide confidence that a product or service
will satisfy given needs. In terms of
this proposition the professionally recognized standards including ISO 9001 and
NABL i.e., National Accreditation Board for Testing & Calibration
Laboratories are applicable for many of the test laboratories carrying out
environmental simulations tests and allied laboratories involved in the Quality
Assurance activities of the DGQA organisation. These ISO 9001 certified
establishments and NABL Accredited labs require a high degree of technical
competence in keeping up to the standards. The backbone of the DGQA organisation
is the technical cadre which comprises of JE (QA)’s a group ‘B’ Non Gazetted
post and AE(QA)’s a group ‘B’ Gazetted post. The Technical cadre is adequately
meeting up to the rigours of the high degree of technical competence needed to
address the two equally important concerns namely verification and validation
in the Quality Assurance activity.
Verification is concerned with ensuring that a process is carried out
correctly whereas validation is concerned with ensuring that a process or
product meets its requirements. The attempts made so far by high powered expert
committees to review the working of the DGQA and make suggestions for
streamlining the systems have placed reliance on the above propositions and
widely accepted perspectives. We are
citing this fact in the preface to our representation for the simple reason
that where the cadre management practices in DGQA are such that they fail to
create a functional environment needed to support the recommended systems,
based on propositions accepted in professional circle the effect is felt
invariably not only on our cadres but also on the entire Armed Forces which use
the equipment which the DGQA passes on to them as duly certified. A number of problems and measures of gross
injustice to our cadres with which the members have been living for several
years and in fact for several decades are attributable to losing sight of this
truth.
The fact is
that the Government have been spending around Rs.20655
Crores (Rupees twenty thousand six hundred and Fifty five Crores Only) per
annum for acquiring or / and manufacturing the equipment needed by the Armed
Forces for keeping them battle ready in defence of the country. It is obvious that there are high stakes in
ensuring the quality of the equipment and also much higher stakes in conveying
an assurance to the Armed Forces that there is no risk in using the equipment
and stores which is placed at their disposal.
The significant aspect about these high stakes is that the critical
function of quality assurance is a service oriented function. The corollary is that the normal
management principle operates in service oriented functions, namely motivation
and morale are the exclusive key factors.
The tragic truth is that the morale and motivation of the technical
cadre in DGQA is at an all-time low, and it is only a matter of time that
unhealthy and alarming trends would get accelerated and accentuated if urgent
measures are not taken to introduce remedial practices.
It is against
this background that we are submitting to the Hon’ble Chairman this
representation which is in nature of a virtual SOS.
4. Cadre structure of technical cadres in DGQA
The
hierarchical levels in the technical cadre comprises of Group ‘B’ non gazetted
& Gazetted. Annexure II to this
representation documents the cadre structure of Group ‘B’ non gazetted &
Gazetted, which also incorporates the
necessary data regarding the pay scales, the linkage between promotion post and
feeder post, and direct recruitment quota wherever prescribed. It may be kindly noticed that there are
different streams like Scientific, Technical, Technical Assistant and Drawing
Office Staff who converge at the level of Junior Scientific Officer a group ‘B’
Gazetted post.
The
comparative chart 2, below gives the detailed hierarchy of various streams
along with the technical cadre with entry level of Gp ‘B’ Non Gazetted Grade
Pay of ` 4200
progress to the next higher post which is Gp ‘B’ Gazetted with Grade Pay of `
4600 and all these posts numbering approximately 3500 converge as
a common feeder grade to the next post of Junior Scientific Officer (246posts)
also a Gp ‘B’ Gazetted post carrying a Grade Pay of ` 4800. The ideal ratio as per
the DOP&T between a feeder and Promotion post should be a minimum of 3:1
whereas in reality the ratio between the feeder and Promotion post in the DGQA
organisation for this cadre is a whopping 15:1.
|
Comparative Chart 1
|
||||
|
Name and Designation
|
Starting pay scale in
3rd CPC in
Rs
|
Starting pay scale in
4th CPC in Rs
|
Starting pay scale in
5th CPC in Rs
|
Starting pay scale in
6th CPC in Rs
|
|
Sr Scientific Officer
I
Gp ‘A’ JTS
|
1100- 1600
|
3000-4500
|
10000-15200
|
PB3 15600-39100
GP 6600
50% DR 50% Promotion
|
|
Sr Scientific Officer
II
Gp ‘A’ JTS
|
700-1600
|
2200-4000
|
8000-13500
|
PB3 15600-39100
GP 5400
50% DR 50% Promotion
|
|
Junior Scientific
Officer
Gp ‘B’ GAZETTED
|
650-1200
|
2000-3200
|
7500-11500
|
9300 – 34800/- PB2
Grade pay 4800
100% Prom From AE(QA)
|
|
Foreman [JTO]
Now Asst Engineer (QA) (Gp
‘B’ GAZETTED)
|
840 - 1040/-
|
2375 – 3500/-
|
7450 – 11500/-
60% Prom/ 40% DR
|
9300 – 34800/- PB2
Grade pay 4600
Asst Engineer (QA)
|
|
Assistant Foreman
Now Asst Engineer
(QA)
|
700 - 900/-
|
2000 – 3200/-
|
6500 – 10500/-
75% Prom / 25% LDE
|
|
|
CM I
Now Jr Engineer (QA)
|
550 - 750/-
|
1600 – 2660/-
|
5500 – 9000/-
100% prom
|
9300 – 34800/- PB2
Grade pay 4200
(Merged due to VI
CPC)
|
|
CM II
Now Jr Engineer (QA)
|
425 – 700/-
|
1400 – 2300/-
|
5000 – 8000/-
50% prom / 50% DR
|
|
Comparative Chart 2
Hierarchal Structure, as per the Recruitment Rules. Annexure 2
As shown in the charts above it is clear that the
Foreman now re-designated as AE(QA) Group ‘B’ Gazetted post was initially at a
higher pedestal in terms of the basic pay vis a vis the Group ‘A’ promotional
posts of SSO II and JSO during the III & IV CPC’s . It was the V
CPC that revised the pay scales that led to both the AE(QA) & JSO remain as
group ‘B’ Gazetted and the SSO II & SSO I which were elevated in terms of
pay benefits and remained as the Junior
time scale promotional posts in Group ‘A’. The chart clearly shows the position
of the feeder and promotion posts in the hierarchy of the technical cadre
particularly AE(QA) which this association represents.
Although our representation deals primarily with matters relating to
Group ‘B’ Gazetted, we are extending the scope of documentation to the higher
cadres because the roots of some of the problems of the lower cadres including
stagnation in career lie in the management practices relating to higher cadres.
This is also explained in detail in a subsequent paragraph in this
representation.
Before we pinpoint the precise features of the existing management
practices which call for critical examination by the Pay Commission it may be
relevant to record a few background facts for the purpose of better appreciation
of the ground realities.
5. Some
background facts
Background fact No.1
During the last decade there have been
three reports of high powered expert
committees which examined in depth the working of the
DGQA viz
o
Chapter 54 of the report of the 5th Central Pay
Commission (1996)
o
The VI CPC Para 3.8.29 on the need to delayering the technical
supervisory cadre
o
The
JAFA Committee report (2002)
o
Comptroller
& Auditor General’s Performance Audit Report on DGQA for the period ended
March 2004
These reports contain the recommendations and also the data in support
thereof on various changes that were mandated but the department took only
piecemeal action which has led to the cadre being at the tenterhooks of virtual
stagnation which is amply described in the comparative chart above.
In subsequent paragraphs of this
representation we are incorporating citation of the relevant portions. The JAFA Committee report has so far not been
implemented in toto, however, some of the recommendations which were favourable
to the top hierarchy were implemented through back door in the form of
Government Orders. It also appears that
the report of C&AG did not receive better treatment. The significant fact is that the Ministry of
Defence went on record (this is the version of C&AG) that they had accepted
many of the recommendations. The gap in
the information is that no one knows why the accepted recommendations have not
so far been implemented. In these
circumstances, it would be fair to everyone concerned and also be in the
interest of DGQA to build up further measures on the basis of the accepted
recommendations so that these two segments would merge into a package. The message would go to the Ministry that the
Seventh Pay Commission expects them to honour their commitments.
Background fact No.2
One of the grave injustices to our cadres is the failure on
the part of the Ministry to conduct cadre review to the post of Junior
Scientific Officer for several decades.
The instructions of the Nodal Ministry (Departmental of Personnel and
Training) are that cadre review should be conducted at least once in five years
and also whenever there are material changes in the functional environment or
technology or organizational restructuring etc., wide DOPT OM. No. 2/1/87 – PP
dt 23/11/1987 reiterated vide DOP&T OM No. I-11011/1/2009-CRD dtd 14th Dec 2010.
Sir, as brought out in the preceding paras and the comparative charts it
is clear that the technical cadre in general and the post of JSO is in total
neglect since inception of the post and no corrective action in terms of a
cadre review was ever undertaken to overcome the discrepancy.
The Gp ‘B” technical cadre of DGQA has been
reduced to a two grade structure from the earlier 4 grade structure due to the
VI CPC reducing the number of pay scales
in the Central Govt., services to one half of the prevalent pay scales. In so
far as the technical cadre is concerned the scope for career progression is
almost non-existent due to the following reasons;-
a)
At present there are around 3500 (three thousand five
hundred) AE (QA)’s serving in various directorates of the DGQA
organisation and the next common promotional post is JSO whose
authorised strength is only 246 (Two hundred and forty six only). The
ratio between the feeder and promotion post as per the DOP&T is minimum 3:1
whereas the reality in the technical cadre of DGQA is 3500:246 which is 15:1
(feeder to Promotion post) Please refer to Comparative chart no 2 above,
this skewed ratio is a major stumbling block in the path to further career
progression to AE (QA)’s which needs to be addressed by the Hon’ble VII CPC by
a suitable recommendation to the effect.
b)
This Association feels that in normal circumstances the
Department in this case the DGQA should have ideally addressed the issue
through the DOP&T mandated cadre review of the JSO cadre once in every five
years. The reality is that the cadre review of the JSO cadre has never been
undertaken since its inception many decades ago and the result is that there is
a major anomalous situation which should be tackled in the right earnest to
wriggle out of the situation and create a congenial atmosphere for the smooth
progression in career prospects of the Cadre.
c)
The 5th Central Pay Commission, having noticed the
fact of acute stagnation in the supervisory technical cadres explored the
feasibility of removal of stagnation within the four corners of the accepted
policies of the Government and the practices in sister organizations such as
the Railways, Ordnance factories etc.,
The Commission recommended in paragraph 54.45 that the posts in
non-gazetted supervisory cadres should be allotted their share of the sanctioned
posts in the ratio as shown below. This
ratio has been termed by the Commission as Inter Grade Ratio, popularly known
as IGR.
|
Name
of the Post
|
Percentage
as per Inter Grade ratio
|
|
Chargeman Grade II
Entry level Gp ‘B’ Non Gazetted
|
35%
|
|
Chargeman Grade I
Gp ‘B’ Non Gazetted
|
25%
|
|
Assistant Foreman
Gp ‘B’ Non Gazetted
|
25%
|
|
Junior Technical Officer
Gp ‘B’ Gazetted
|
15%
|
The above four grade structure in the Technical supervisory cadre of DGQA
became non-existent due to the VI CPC recommendation which resulted in the
merger of various posts in the pre revised scale and thus the cadre was left
with only three group ‘B’ posts one entry level Jr Engineer (QA) a Gp ‘B’ Non-Gazetted post with GP of Rs 4200/-
and two Gp ‘B’ Gazetted posts of Asst. Engineer (QA) GP Rs 4600/- and Junior
Scientific Officer GP 4800/-. This is a peculiar situation only prevalent in
the DGQA organisation.
The VI CPC observed that “the Government has never
conceded the principle of parity between Central Secretariat Service with other
ministerial Services. Hence the 6th Central Pay commission has never
considered our view points. On the Contrary it created lot of anomalous
situations in the Group B cadre. Because of the merger of the cadres the
Gazetted Group B is suffocated between Group ‘B’ Non-Gazetted and Group A.
Career Progression for Group B was not at all considered.
We therefore humbly submit the following remedial measures to be explored
by the Learned Chairman and Members of the VII CPC which together has
voluminous experience of the service conditions prevalent in a government
organisation and to remove the anomaly that has carried on for four decades.
I Consider
the introduction of inter grade ratio to the technical cadre comprising of the
JE(QA), AE(QA), JSO, SSO II and SSO I by
i)
Restructuring the five
grades into a four grade structure,
ii)
Grant an Inter Grade
Ratio of 35:25:25:15 which would meet the requirements of career progression of
the officers in the cadre.
iii)
The Restructuring of the cadre may be carried out by removing
the anomaly of two Gp ‘B’ Gazetted posts in a single hierarchy namely AE(QA)
& JSO.
iv)
The restructuring
should ensure that the promotional posts in the Junior time scale i.e. SSO II
& SSO I have sufficient authorised strength to cater to the requirements of
career progression to the feeder cadre.
v)
Remove Direct Recruitment to the post of SSO I as there is
already provision of DR to the entry level Gp ‘A’ post of SSOII.
6.
Salient features of the
C&AG and the JAFA Committee Report:
It is
appropriate that whatever policies which regulate the cadre management
practices in the armed forces should, mutatis
mutandis be applicable to the extended function of the Armed Forces. It is irrational to mechanically apply to the
cadres which perform the extended functions of the armed forces the blanket
economy measures which were conceived in a different context namely
administration of purely civic and developmental functions. This is like a transplantation of a plant in
a soil of different chemical content. It
has caused a great deal of damage to the armed forces as may be seen from
C&AG’s Performance Audit Report for the period ended March 2004. We urge that for the limited purpose of
application of economy measures, the technical cadres of DGQA be placed on par
with the Armed Forces and the recruitment process should be given priority.
The JE (QA), which is the entry level
post to the technical cadre of DGQA has been brought to such a state that, as
on date there are hardly a few hundred JE (QA)’s available on rolls, as against
the higher post of AE(QA), the annexure III clearly gives the deficiency of the
JE (QA), vacancies. Due to this imbalance the inter grade ratio is not maintained
and compounded with the merger of various posts due to the implementation of
the VI CPC recommendations. Therefore it is suggested that the recruitment
process for the post of JE (QA), should be expedited and all the deficient
vacancies of JE (QA), should be filled up to augment the technical cadre strength, which would infuse
young blood and give the impetus needed to propel the organisation to greater
heights.
7.
Prevention Of Dilution Of The Techncal Cadre
The provision of
promoting the staff from the industrial trades to the post of JE(QA) which is a
technical post is making the cadre technically weak as the industrial staff
are not technically qualified. The JAFA committee had also recommended
that the use of non technical staff in the QA activities should be avoided as
addressed in the Para 2.1 and 2.2 which is enclosed. Also Para 5.1 and 5.2 of the report recommends
100% recruitment to the post of JE(QA) with the prescribed qualification
to ensure better quality in QA work.
The CAG’s report vide Para 8.2.1, as mentioned earlier has
also lamented the lack of technical competence in the DGQA due to inclusion of
the non-technical staff into the technical category.
There
should be a mandatory provision incorporated in the Recruitment Rules, whereby
no Federation or Association uses the JCM or any other fora in progressing
their malafide intentions in diluting the technical cadre. The next channel of
promotion to these industrial staff may be separated from technical cadre. A
separate channel of promotion may be created for these staff in line with OFB
(Ordnance Factory Board), to cater to the needs of their career prospects.
We humbly
request the Hon’ble Chairman to examine the above aspects and incorporate a
clear recommendation to the effect that:
o The vacancies at the entry
level of the technical NGO’s cadre should be filled to the extent there is no
statutory ban and give priority for recruiting JE(QA)’s for the reasons stated
in the para 6 (a) above
o the IGR be applied in a
restructured cadre and revise the
authorised strengths of the new four grade structure comprising of the JE(QA),
AE(QA) & JSO put together, SSO II & SSO I.
o Departmental Promotion
Committees be convened for filling up the resultant vacancies and preparing
year wise select panels on the basis of recalculated vacancies.
o Create a separate
promotion channel to the Industrial staff and do not allow the dilution of the
Technical cadre of DGQA.
8. Direct
recruitment quota
The technical
supervisory cadre at present comprises of five posts, of these two posts in
Group ‘B’ and two in Gp ‘A’ JTS carry a direct Recruitment quota. This is
another factor in addition to those pointed out in the preceding paragraphs
which has caused stagnation in the cadre. There is 100% DR at the entry level
of JE(QA), 33.33% in the AE(QA) and 50% each in the Gp ‘A’ Junior Time scale posts of SSO II &
SSO I.
It is relevant
to point out in this connection that there are several streams such as
Scientific, Technical, Technical Assistant and Drawing office staff ( as
brought out in the comparative chart 2) which ultimately converge into one
stream at Group “B” Gazetted level, which is the Junior Scientific Officer
(JSO). Surprisingly the provision for
direct recruitment at Group “B” level (JTO) exists only in regard to one stream
namely Technical Supervisory cadre thereby upsetting balance in equal
opportunities for career progression among different streams. Those who have to move by promotion through
the intermediate level of AE(QA) get stuck on account of being left with only
67.77% of vacancies for promotees whereas persons in other streams move quickly
up the ladder on promotion by virtue of having 100% of the posts available to
the promotees. Although this simple fact
of visible discrimination has been brought to the notice of the cadre
controlling authorities there has been no response by way of remedial
measures.
It may be relevant to mention in this connection that the JAFA
Committee which examined the working of the DGQA made a categorical
recommendation in para 5.3 of the report that the posts of AE(QA) should be
filled 100% through promotion. The same
committee made a similar recommendation to discontinue the existing 50% direct
recruitment quota for the post of SSO I vide para 7.5 of the report. These
recommendations have not been implemented nor have they been rejected.
The fact is that whenever the Ministry wants to introduce quota for
direct recruitment it pleads that the changing technology had made it necessary
for injecting fresh blood and highly qualified persons into the technical
cadres of the DGQA. While there is no
disagreement on the principle under reference it is necessary to take a
judicious view in the matter of selection of the hierarchical level at which
Engineering graduates should be inducted on direct recruitment basis. As the JAFA Committee observed in paragraph
5.1 of its report the best course of action is to induct Diploma/
Engineering Graduates at the entry grade level i.e., In fact the JAFA
Committee had identified the JE(QA)( Erstwhile CM II) as a strategic and
critical post in the context of up-gradation of the standards of Quality
Assurance. In fact large numbers of the members of the cadre of JE(QA) are
Diploma/ Engineering graduates. The
broad conclusion is that there is no need to introduce direct recruitment at
intermediate levels such as the AE(QA)
We also respectfully submit that it is a widely accepted proposition that
on-the-job experience for fairly long periods would go a long way in erasing
the distinction between an Engineering graduate and Diploma holder. It is also a widely accepted proposition that
in the event of creating facilities for effective training through seminars, workshops and other programmes of HRD it is
feasible to bring about substantial up-gradation in professional competence of
Diploma holders and holders of Masters
degree in Science. It is a matter of
regret that instead of allocating the requisite resources for such training the
Ministry has adopted the negative attitude of dismissing Diploma holders as
dead wood who do not deserve the benefit of 100% promotion quota. Kind attention of the Hon’ble Chairman is
invited to paragraph 8.3 of the C&AG’s Performance Audit Report wherein he
recommended that the emphasis should be shifted to training the existing
incumbents. This report had also mentioned that the facility for training
available in the Defence Institute of Quality Assurance (DIQA), Bangalore,
should be made use of after updating the training programmes. This institute is
at present imparting training to Gp ‘A’ Gazetted Officers of DGQA (Service as
well as civilian officers). The scope of
its functions may be enlarged so as to cover non Gazetted technical cadres
also.
Kind attention is invited to
paragraph 8.2.1 of the C&AG’s Performance Audit Report which clearly stated
that “whereas civilian officers had adequate technical qualifications, 60% of
the service officers deployed in resident SQAEs were not technical. Some of the SQAEs / QAEs were headed by
officers who did not have the prescribed qualifications”. The solution
therefore lies not in resorting to indiscrimate direct recruitment to Civilian
cadres but in securing proper balance in the cadre composition at higher levels
as between service officers and civilians.
In view of the above position we humbly request that the Hon’ble Chairman
may examine the above aspects and incorporate in the report a recommendation to
the effect that instead of resorting to direct recruitment to Civilian cadres
at middle hierarchical levels it may be resorted to only at entry grade level
(JE(QA).
9 Restructuring of Technical Supervisory
cadre:
The pay scales of AE(QA) and JSO (PB 2 GP 4600 & 4800
respectively) are so close to each other and the difference in the minimum of
the pay scale is just marginal they do not fit into the normal frame work of
promotion post and feeder post. The Qualification Requirement for recruitment
is also the same. Therefore we suggest the following
1)
The post of JE(QA) the strength of which has declined
drastically may be augmented by filling up all the unfilled vacancies through
Direct Recruitment. It is also suggested that provision be made to set aside at
least 3% of the JE(QA) vacancies as quota for departmental candidates who
acquire the requisite qualification of Diploma in Engineering. This would also
act as a morale booster for those who acquire additional qualification after
joining the service.
2)
Merge the posts of AE (QA) & JSO. Split the merged posts
into two comprising of 51% &
49% of the merged cadre and grant grade
pay of ` 4800/- and `
5400/-
respectively. The existing posts of SSO I & SSO II which carry a grade pay
of ` 5400/- & ` 6600/-may also be
reorganized concurrently so that it becomes conducive for the implementation of
Inter Grade Ratio which would take care of the career progression of the cadre
and also ensure the much needed cadre review is defacto carried out. The
subsequent cadre structure of the technical cadre will be reduced to a four grade
structure as below:
|
Existing
|
Pre-revised Grade Pay
/Pay scalein Rupees
Existing Proposed
|
Inter grade Ratio
In %age
|
|
|
Senior Scientific
Officer Grade I
|
6600
|
7600
|
15
|
|
Senior Scientific Officer
Grade II
|
5400
|
6600
|
25
|
|
Junior Scientific
Officer
|
4800
|
5400
Merged cadre
|
25
|
|
Assistant Engineer
(Quality Assurance)
|
4600
|
||
|
Junior Engineer (Quality
Assurance)
|
4200
|
4800
|
35
|
Note : The %age IGR is
only illustrative the Hon’ble VII CPC in its wisdom may recommend a more viable
ratio which ultimately removes the element of stagnation that prevails in the
technical cadre.
10. JCM Scheme:
The scheme of
compulsory arbitration in the form of a Grievance Redressal Mechanism is
available for all categories drawing a grade pay of Rs 4200/- or below. As
brought out by the various confederations and associations representing the
Group ‘B’ Gazetted cadre we are reiterate that the absence of a Grievance
Redressal mechanism on the lines of JCM is the solitary reason that this
important group in the Government of
India service are feeling isolated as a group and also deprived of their
due benefits as these associations and federations have to resort to legal
adjudication for resolution to their just grievance as there is no alma
mater to take care of issues confronting the group ‘B’ Cadre.
It is our humble request that the Hon’ble VII CPC may
recommend to the Central Government that
the group ‘B’ gazetted officers may be provided an alternative redressal forum
on the lines of the JCM to address the
genuine grievance of the Group ‘B’ Gazetted Officers. This would go a long way
in ameliorating the problems confronting the group.
11. Synergetic effect of several factors
We wish to point out that while each of the several factors detailed
herein above had contributed to grave injustice to the technical cadres in DGQA
there is a synergetic effect because these factors, in the very nature of
things, are networked. One erroneous
management practice leads to a distorted position of the cadre which in turn
leads to another undesirable management practice and the cascading effect
eventually comes back to the starting point and accentuates the strength of the
original prejudicial factor in the fashion of a typical vicious circle.
12. Summing up
To sum up, we humbly pray that the Hon’ble Chairman be pleased to
consider the legitimate demands of the members of the cadres of Group “B”
Technical ( both Gazetted and Non
Gazetted) cadres of DGQA as presented
herein above and make appropriate recommendations to the Government for which
act of kindness tempered with justice we shall be forever grateful.
It is also requested that
the hon’ble chairman of the VII CPC may kindly permit us to make oral
submission on behalf of the Defence Quality Assurance Group ‘B’ Technical
Officers Association, representing the Group ‘B’ Gazetted Officers of Director
General Quality Assurance.
Thanking
you,
Yours
sincerely,
` (M SARAVANAN)
General
Secretary
For
and on behalf of the
Defence Quality
Assurance Group ‘B’ Technical
Officers Association,
C/o
CQAL Campus, JC NAGAR P.O
Bangalore 560006
Mob No:
09880959507/09483161606
No comments:
Post a Comment