In my opinion open line engineers who are working as depot in charges of IR should be given an additional pay of Rs.3000 each
your opinions please

IRTSA is continuously fighting for this with the Railway Board for "Introduction of Group Incentive Scheme or Performance related incentive system (PRIS) or Honorarium be paid to Technical Staff - in Sheds & Open line Depots - for additional workload due to new trains & assets etc."

this is right

Demand for extra payment for openline engineers is justified as their counterparts in PU/W.SHOPS enjoy the same in the name of incentives and running allowances eventhough nature of duty is not less risky. In openline depots, in charge and HSK of store is of same GP Rs. 4600/-. But HSKis from clerical cadre and for any shortfalls in store account the auditors and vigilance take serious action against SSE and spare the HSK. Availability of leave and leave management are also very difficult tasks. Open line engineers should have knowledge about other departments also. As a safety post Openline engineers should be placed in separate medical category. For selection in Openline 60% mark is compulsory even for SC/ST candidates.

(07-19-2009 02:20 PM)Administrator Wrote:  

INDIAN RAILWAYS TECHNICAL SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION
(Estd. 1965, Regd. No.1329, Website http://www.irtsa.net )

Secretary,
Government of lndia,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
(Department of Personnel and Training),
North Block, New Delhi

Dear Sir,

Subject: MODIFIED ASSURED CAREER PROGRESSION SCHEME (MACPS) – PITFALLS IN

Ref: OM No. 35034/3/2008-Estt. (D) Dated 19th May, 2009 of DOP&T

We do appreciate that the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) notified vide OM cited above, is an improvement over the existing ACP Scheme as well as over the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations – especially in respect of the number of financial upgradings – which have been increased from 2 in life time (instead of after 12 & 24 years of service – as existing & proposed by Sixth CPC) to 3 in the career i.e after 10, 20 & 30 years of service.

There are, however some pitfalls in the scheme which need to be removed to meet with the ends of justice and in consonance with the basic purpose of the scheme effectively:

1. Date of effect: MACP scheme is operational w.e.f. 01.09.2008 (in terms Para 9 of the orders cited above). This is unjustified. Since MACPS is related with pay and not with allowances. It is, therefore, requested that date of implementation of MACP should be 1.1.2006 (like the Revised Pay Rules, 2008).

2. Stepping up of pay for difference in pay under old & MACP: No past cases would be re-opened (in terms Para 11 of the orders on MACP Scheme cited above) and while implementing the MACP Scheme, the differences in pay scales on account of grant of financial up-gradation under the old ACP Scheme (of August 1999) and under the Modified ACP Scheme within the same cadre shall not be construed as an anomaly.
This is unjustified – especially in cases of a senior getting his upgrading under the old ACPS (say in August, 2008) & the junior getting it later (say in September, 2008) under the Modified ACPS – the pay of the junior will be higher than that of the senior.

It is, therefore, requested that Employees should be given an option to get stepping up of pay on account of old ACP and Modified ACPS.

3. Promotion through LDCE should be considered as entry grade: Staff who get their promotion through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) – especially the Technicians on Railways who are promoted through LDCE as Intermediate JEs are given one and half year training like the direct recruit JEs who are recruited through RRB. No other category goes through such a training equal to that of direct recruited JEs or the Intermediate JEs on Railways.

As such, it is requested that promotion through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) should be considered as entry grade for the purpose of financial up-gradation through MACPS and Intermediate JEs should be given three financial up-gradations after the promotion as JEs.

4. Grade pays of promotion grade & up-gradation under MACP should be the same: MACPS envisages merely placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as given in Revised Pay Rules, 2008. Thus, the grade pay at the time of financial up-gradation in certain cases where regular promotion is not between two successive grades can be different than what is available at the time of regular promotion. In such cases, the higher grade pay attached to the next promotion post in the concerned cadre will be given only at the time of regular promotion. This is anomalous - as apparent from the following example:

Grade pay of Rs. 5400 is now in two pay bands viz., PB-2 and PB-3. The grade pay of Rs. 5400 in PB-2 and Rs. 5400 in PB-3 shall be treated as separate grade pays for the purpose of grant of up-gradations. Graduate Engineers in Railways who are recruited in GP-4600 PB-2 on their regular promotion will be placed in GP-4800 after their first promotion, then GP-5400 after their second promotion and then GP 6600 after their third promotion. But in MACPS on third financial up-gradation they will be placed only in the GP- Rs. 5400 PB-3, which is against the basic recommendations of SCPC.

It is, therefore, requested that Financial up-gradation should be the Grade Pay as available in the cadre. Both on promotion and financial up-gradation the employees should be placed in the next Grade pay in the cadre.

5. Benchmarking: It is requested that in order to avoid any victimization “benchmarking” (referred to in Annexure-1 point 17 of MACPS) should be dispensed with. Those who don’t have any departmental action or punishment or an adverse CR should be eligible for the financial up-gradation.

6. Unilateral transfer: In case of an employee after getting promotion / ACP seeks unilateral transfer on a lower post or lower scale, he will be entitled only for second and third financial up-gradations on completion of 20/30 years of regular service under the MACPS, as the case may be, from the date of his initial appointment to the post in the new organization (as per Annexure-1 point 24 of MACPS). This is totally unjustified & should be rectified. It is, therefore, requested that MACP should be awarded from the lower scale post to which employee got unilateral transfer.

7. Parity between Defence & Civilian Personnel: As per decision of the Government on MACP, Defence personnel will get financial upgrading under the MACP after 8, 16 & 24 years while their civilian counterparts will get the same after 10, 20 & 30 years of service. It is, therefore, requested that Discrimination between the Defence & Civilian employees should be removed - both to meet with the ends of natural justice as well as to provide the requisite motivation to the civilian employees – whose contribution to the nation building is equally vital.

8. Consolidated clarifications: Some parts of the orders on old ACP Scheme issued vide Office memorandum of DOPT No. 35034/1/97-Estt(D) dated August 9, 1999, and many of nearly 65 clarifications issued there of, are still relevant. Instead of clarifying the same points individually after getting fresh queries from the Departments,
It is, therefore, requested that consolidated clarifications be issued whether the old clarifications are applicable, modified or are now redundant – as the case may be in each case.

Yours’ faithfully,

Harchandan Singh,
General Secretary, IRTSA

Copy for information & necessary action to:

Member Staff, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi
- In reference to orders of Railway Board RBE 101 dated 10.6.2009

Extra payment to technical supervisors
The very first thing what required is the scraping out of the `Excluded` category. Once we achieve that, limitation to duty hours can be implemented. I think that will solve many problems of technical supervisors.

(02-23-2010 08:25 PM)hari_kuttan Wrote:  Extra payment to technical supervisors
The very first thing what required is the scraping out of the `Excluded` category. Once we achieve that, limitation to duty hours can be implemented. I think that will solve many problems of technical supervisors.

My opinion,
Only depo in charge and inspecters will come under "Excluded" catogory. Not all supervisors.