Monday, November 24, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Pay parity for armed forces a difficult task: Govt
New Delhi, November 23: With the armed forces insisting on a pay hike, the government has said it is "very difficult" to maintain a balance in salaries of government servants doing varied jobs.
"It is a very difficult exercise. Because it is not just a question of ensuring that people get better salaries. It is also a question of parities.... balances," Cabinet Secretary K M Chandrasekhar said in an interview.
He was responding to a question on what steps the government was contemplating in view of the armed forces' demand for pay parity.
Chandrasekhar said issues become more complicated when people start feeling that they are being discriminated against by the Pay Commission recommendations.
"It is very difficult when people feel that this chap has got more than me...that feeling is there. So, to maintain that kind of balance.... it is very difficult," he said.
The Cabinet Secretary said the ministerial committee headed by External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who had held both Defence and Finance portfolios earlier, was working on to find out a solution to the demands of the defence forces.
The armed forces have recently strongly conveyed to the government that there should be "no dilution" on their demands for pay parity.
This comes in the wake of reports that the government was trying to find a "middle path" to break the deadlock over the armed forces' demands that included placing Army Lieutenant Colonels and their equivalents in the Navy and Air Force in Pay Band-4.
The Cabinet Secretary said when the armed forces raised the issue of pay parity, the Committee of Secretaries took up it immediately and deliberated on how to find a solution to it for the satisfaction of the defence personnel.
"When the armed forces raised the issue, we sat together at the official level with Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister (P M Nair) and decided that the best thing would be to request the higher level.
"So we requested the External Affairs Minister because he was both Defence and Finance Minister earlier and could consult Defence Minister and Finance Minister and give his views," he said.
Chandrasekhar said a "large majority" of government officials, including the Group C and Group D employees, accepted the Pay Commission recommendations and were "more or less satisfied".
"I do not have too many complaints and whatever complaints are there, we have created a mechanism. We got the anomaly committee, we got a fast track committee to look into those issues," he said.
Highlighting the difficult task carried out by the 6th Pay Commission while framing the recommendations, Chandrasekhar said they had to make a huge change in the structure.
"See normally we used to get pay scales. Here we have gone away from pay scales to the Pay Band structure, which is entirely different structure. So, to maintain the parity was pretty difficult. But still I think we did a pretty good job," he said.
Courtesy : Indian Express
Friday, November 21, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Default Option could be on PFRDA's radar: Swarup
Mumbai, Nov 19 (PTI) Pension Fund Regulator PFRDA is considering a fifth option for investment of contribution made by government employees under the new pension scheme.
Called Default Option, it is a life-cycle fund under which the amount of money invested in equity would be more in the initial stages while in the later stages, more money would be invested in debt instruments.
"We are considering the Default Option which is a life-cycle fund. The Deepak Parekh committee which is looking at various investment plans for pension scheme is also considering this option. The committee is expected to submit the report by November 30," Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) Chairman D Swarup told PTI.
"Once recommended PFRDA will take a view on it. It could be one of the options," he said.
The Default Option, which is more balanced, provides a return which is much more than the option where money is invested wholly in debt instruments but certainly gives less returns than high-risk fully equity-based investments.
"Default Option has become a global trend. It is a future pension plan. In a country like India where financial literacy is very low and there is an inability to sense future risks, Default Option will be an appropriate option," LIC Pension Fund Chief Executive Officer, H Sadhak, said. PTI
Called Default Option, it is a life-cycle fund under which the amount of money invested in equity would be more in the initial stages while in the later stages, more money would be invested in debt instruments.
"We are considering the Default Option which is a life-cycle fund. The Deepak Parekh committee which is looking at various investment plans for pension scheme is also considering this option. The committee is expected to submit the report by November 30," Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) Chairman D Swarup told PTI.
"Once recommended PFRDA will take a view on it. It could be one of the options," he said.
The Default Option, which is more balanced, provides a return which is much more than the option where money is invested wholly in debt instruments but certainly gives less returns than high-risk fully equity-based investments.
"Default Option has become a global trend. It is a future pension plan. In a country like India where financial literacy is very low and there is an inability to sense future risks, Default Option will be an appropriate option," LIC Pension Fund Chief Executive Officer, H Sadhak, said. PTI
Mockery of Low paid staff by 6th Pay Commission
I do not know that how many of you are getting real picture of 6th pay commission implementation. But as far as my experience says it is quite socking to Low paid staff. why?
(1) 6th CPC say they maintain the ratio of 1:12 between lowest & Highest. Tell me whether the difference between 5740 (or 10000) (min)& 75000 (max) is same as compared difference between 2550(min) & 26000(max).
(2) Previously the difference of increment between lowest & highest paid staff is only Rs 595 which is fixed, Now it is 2200 & it will increase with time.
(3) On promotion there is no more protection of lowest basic attached with post except when there is change of pay band. So what is happening is that on many time low paid employee will get lower basic on promotion when compared to fixation under 5th pay commission. While on the other hand if a highly paid staff supposedly get promotion after 4/5 Yr of service from 12000-375-18000 (PB3) to 14300-300-18300(PB4) he will get minimum salary of 37400+8700. A minimum jump of over 10000 on promotion. Even if the promotion is from PB1 to PB2 or PB2 to PB3 the promotional jump is negligible when compared to promotion from PB3 to PB4.(Particularly where time frame is fixed for promotion)
(4) The difference of minimum to maximum TA is now becomes 2800+DA compared to earlier 775 .
(5) For each BP + DP in the pre revised scale there is a corresponding pay in the corresponding pay band. Grade pay is added to this figure to arrive at the new basic pay. Revised pay in the pay band is a multiple of the previous BP + DP. This multiplication factor should be the same for all. Then only we can say that there is a common yard stick used in the 6 cpc implementation. But unfortunately it is not done that way. There is a lot of anomaly as I am listing down below.
Previous BP ----- Revised Pay ----- Multiplication Factor used
---------------------in Pay Band
10200 ------------- 18980 ---------------------------- 1.86
12400 ------------- 23070 ---------------------------- 1.86
14325 ------------- 26650 ---------------------------- 1.86
12000 ------------- 22320 ---------------------------- 1.86
14625 ------------- 27210 ---------------------------- 1.86
14300 ------------- 37400 ------------------2.62 - in the grade Rs 14300 - Rs 18300
You can see that all lower ranking people are given a multiplication factor 0f 1.86, while as higher ranking people get 2.62. This is a gross injustice done to all lower ranking employees in Government service. If at all it is different it should be higher for lower ranking people and not the other way.
As an example, a person with a prerevised basic pay of Rs 5000/-, has his pay revised to Rs 9300/- plus grade pay (multiplication factor of 1.86). If he is given the same treatment as higher ranking people his revised pay should become Rs 13,100/- plus grade pay (multiplication factor of 2.62); a difference of Rs 3800/- in basic pay itself. This is the type of injustice done to all lower ranking people by 6 cpc. The effect to others are
It is clear that a lower official s lose an amount between Rs 3000/- and Rs 12000/- per month in Basic pay.
(1) 6th CPC say they maintain the ratio of 1:12 between lowest & Highest. Tell me whether the difference between 5740 (or 10000) (min)& 75000 (max) is same as compared difference between 2550(min) & 26000(max).
(2) Previously the difference of increment between lowest & highest paid staff is only Rs 595 which is fixed, Now it is 2200 & it will increase with time.
(3) On promotion there is no more protection of lowest basic attached with post except when there is change of pay band. So what is happening is that on many time low paid employee will get lower basic on promotion when compared to fixation under 5th pay commission. While on the other hand if a highly paid staff supposedly get promotion after 4/5 Yr of service from 12000-375-18000 (PB3) to 14300-300-18300(PB4) he will get minimum salary of 37400+8700. A minimum jump of over 10000 on promotion. Even if the promotion is from PB1 to PB2 or PB2 to PB3 the promotional jump is negligible when compared to promotion from PB3 to PB4.(Particularly where time frame is fixed for promotion)
(4) The difference of minimum to maximum TA is now becomes 2800+DA compared to earlier 775 .
(5) For each BP + DP in the pre revised scale there is a corresponding pay in the corresponding pay band. Grade pay is added to this figure to arrive at the new basic pay. Revised pay in the pay band is a multiple of the previous BP + DP. This multiplication factor should be the same for all. Then only we can say that there is a common yard stick used in the 6 cpc implementation. But unfortunately it is not done that way. There is a lot of anomaly as I am listing down below.
Previous BP ----- Revised Pay ----- Multiplication Factor used
---------------------in Pay Band
10200 ------------- 18980 ---------------------------- 1.86
12400 ------------- 23070 ---------------------------- 1.86
14325 ------------- 26650 ---------------------------- 1.86
12000 ------------- 22320 ---------------------------- 1.86
14625 ------------- 27210 ---------------------------- 1.86
14300 ------------- 37400 ------------------2.62 - in the grade Rs 14300 - Rs 18300
You can see that all lower ranking people are given a multiplication factor 0f 1.86, while as higher ranking people get 2.62. This is a gross injustice done to all lower ranking employees in Government service. If at all it is different it should be higher for lower ranking people and not the other way.
As an example, a person with a prerevised basic pay of Rs 5000/-, has his pay revised to Rs 9300/- plus grade pay (multiplication factor of 1.86). If he is given the same treatment as higher ranking people his revised pay should become Rs 13,100/- plus grade pay (multiplication factor of 2.62); a difference of Rs 3800/- in basic pay itself. This is the type of injustice done to all lower ranking people by 6 cpc. The effect to others are
Previous BP --- Revised BP ---Deserving pay ----Revised BP is less by
4000 --------------------- 9840 --------------------12880 --------------------- 3040
5000 -------------------- 12100 ------------------- 15900 --------------------- 3800
6050 -------------------- 15460 ------------------- 20060 --------------------- 4600
7100 -------------------- 17410 ------------------- 22810 --------------------- 5400
8125 -------------------- 19720 ------------------- 25890 --------------------- 6170
9100 -------------------- 22330 ------------------- 29250 --------------------- 6920
10200 ------------------- 24380 ------------------- 32130 --------------------- 7750
11950 ------------------- 28830 ------------------- 37910 --------------------- 9080
13125 ------------------- 32020 ------------------- 41990 --------------------- 9970
14250 ------------------- 34110 ------------------- 44940 --------------------- 10830
14300 -------- 46100 --------------- 46100 ---------0 - in the grade Rs 14300 - Rs 18300
4000 --------------------- 9840 --------------------12880 --------------------- 3040
5000 -------------------- 12100 ------------------- 15900 --------------------- 3800
6050 -------------------- 15460 ------------------- 20060 --------------------- 4600
7100 -------------------- 17410 ------------------- 22810 --------------------- 5400
8125 -------------------- 19720 ------------------- 25890 --------------------- 6170
9100 -------------------- 22330 ------------------- 29250 --------------------- 6920
10200 ------------------- 24380 ------------------- 32130 --------------------- 7750
11950 ------------------- 28830 ------------------- 37910 --------------------- 9080
13125 ------------------- 32020 ------------------- 41990 --------------------- 9970
14250 ------------------- 34110 ------------------- 44940 --------------------- 10830
14300 -------- 46100 --------------- 46100 ---------0 - in the grade Rs 14300 - Rs 18300
It is clear that a lower official s lose an amount between Rs 3000/- and Rs 12000/- per month in Basic pay.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Clarification on child care leave
Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions vide OM No No. 130 18/2/2008-Estt. (L) dt 18th Nov 2008 mentioned that the intention of the Pay
Commission in recommending Child Care Leave for women employees was to facilitate women employees to take care of their children at the time of need. However, this does not mean that CCL should disrupt the functioning of Central Government offices. The nature of this leave was envisaged to be the same as that of earned leave. In this regard following clarification are issued
i) CCL cannot be demanded as a matter of right. Under no circumstances can any employee proceed on CCL without prior proper approval of the leave by the leave sanctioning authority.
ii) The leave is to be treated like the Earned Leave and sanctioned as such.
iii) Consequently, Saturdays, Sundays, Gazetted holidays etc. falling during the period of leave would also count for CCL, as in the case of Earned Leave.
iv) CCL can be availed only if the employee concerned has no Earned Leave at her credit.
Link here
Commission in recommending Child Care Leave for women employees was to facilitate women employees to take care of their children at the time of need. However, this does not mean that CCL should disrupt the functioning of Central Government offices. The nature of this leave was envisaged to be the same as that of earned leave. In this regard following clarification are issued
i) CCL cannot be demanded as a matter of right. Under no circumstances can any employee proceed on CCL without prior proper approval of the leave by the leave sanctioning authority.
ii) The leave is to be treated like the Earned Leave and sanctioned as such.
iii) Consequently, Saturdays, Sundays, Gazetted holidays etc. falling during the period of leave would also count for CCL, as in the case of Earned Leave.
iv) CCL can be availed only if the employee concerned has no Earned Leave at her credit.
Link here
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
No raise in retirement age of Central govt employees: Cab Secy
"No, there is no such plan. There is no thinking at all. The status quo will continue," Cabinet Secretary K M Chandrasekhar told PTI when asked whether there is any move in this regard.
Currently, the retirement age of Central government employees is 60 years. Chandrasekhar said there have been rumours that it would be raised but it was nothing but a "wishful thinking".
"I tried to find out. But there is no file in (Department of) Expenditure, no file in DoPT (Department of Personnel and Training). There is nothing. It is more of a wishful thinking," he said in an interview.
The Cabinet Secretary also said the government has no plans to bring an uniformity in the retirement age among the state government employees.
"The states will decide their own retirement age," he said. All states have their own retirement age - starting from 55 years (Kerala) to 60 years (
Asked whether the government would resort to job cuts or stop recruitment like the private sector in the wake of the global financial crisis, the Cabinet Secretary made it clear that no such step will be taken.
"No, not at all. The government will have to necessarily keep activity going. We cannot really stop exercise. We want as much activity as possible. Government is not going to scale down," he said.
On corruption, Chandrasekhar admitted that corruption does take place and it happens due to crisis in certain areas.
"I think corruption does take place. Not only in
The Cabinet Secretary said the country must have a strong information system and there should be awareness among people to eliminate the menace.
"There should be strong public awareness. When public awareness is higher, the level of corruption is low. Literacy rate is by and large going up. It helps checking corruption. Media is also active, particularly the vernacular press is very active against corruption. They are very vigilant," he said.
Source : Economic times
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Video Conferencing Etiquette
CSIR is shortly introducing Video Conferencing facility at all the Labs. We must aware of some Video Conferencing Etiquette
Speaking:
Speaking:
- The most important rule of video conferencing: Keep your system on mute when you are not speaking.
- Project your voice toward the nearest microphone.
- Make eye contact with remote sites by looking at the camera/monitor.
- Be yourself. Act naturally and speak to remote participants as if they were sitting in your location. Assume you can be heard and refrain from asking "Can you hear me?" The intent in video conferencing is to create a contiguous real and virtual space.
- Be aware there is a delay when using video over network connections. Give each person plenty of time to answer your questions or to make a comment. Allow at least two seconds for a speaker to finish. You may even ask, "Are you done?" before continuing.
- When participating in a multi-point conference, identify yourself and your location before speaking.
- If you have a banner or backdrop indicating your location be sure it is clearly visible.
- Direct questions to individuals by name and/or location to avoid confusion
- The microphones are very sensitive and will easily pick up most noises. During times of silence, if gain is active, the sensitivity of the microphone automatically increases until it can pick up the sound of the air conditioning. On some systems, this can be enough for the video conferencing system to switch its attention to your site and your image will replace that of the speaker.
- Try to avoid side conversations, dropping things, coughing, shuffling papers, or making other extraneous sounds - the boundary microphones we use amplifies any vibrations and transmits them.
- Mute your system when you are not speaking. If you are unsure how to do this, ask the operator where the mute function is and how to use it.
- Assume you are always on camera, even when you are not speaking.
- Because the entire room is not usually visible to the other locations, it is good form to announce who is entering or leaving the room.
- Be aware of what is being transmitted to the remote locations. Use the local window as a guide to what is being transmitted to the far end.
- Don't get so wrapped up involving the remote audience that you ignore the local one!
- Avoid wearing white or black, plaids, stripes or prints as they may interfere with contrast levels and transmission compression.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Expenditure managment-Economic measure and Rationalization of Expenditure-Guideline related to LTC
Dept. of Expenditure, Min of Finance vide OM No 7(1)/E.Coord./2008 Dt. 10 Nov 2008 issued guideline related austerity measure to be adopted for LTC Expenditure.
Guideline stipulate that Cheapest Economy fair will be allowed (To those who are entitled by Air travel) for Air travel on LTC irrespective of entitlement .
Source: here
Guideline stipulate that Cheapest Economy fair will be allowed (To those who are entitled by Air travel) for Air travel on LTC irrespective of entitlement .
Source: here
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Sharing of monies realized with staff
Sharing of monies realized with staff:-
(1) Contract R&D, IP and Kb licensing and technical services: - DS is 15 % of total project cost or net surplus (remaining after accounting for all direct & indirect expenditure for the activities.) whichever is less where the money is being distributed on or after 1st June 2005. However, for arriving at distributable amount, the cost of equipment and capital investment are excluded from the total project cost.
(2) Honorarium for consultancy service: - DS is upto 2/3 of the fee portion or of net surplus whichever is less.
(3) Premia/royalty received from licensing of Kb:-
Pattern of distribution:-
(1) Contract R&D, IP and Kb licensing and technical and Kb services
Innovators & principal contributors: - scientist & other S&T staff who have provide innovative, developmental. Design engg. Experimental, data/ information, testing/ analytical, repair/ fabrication, training and business development/ marketing inputs
(2) consultancy services:- permissible amount of Hon. Or 300 % of the manpower charges levied, whichever is less
Team of consultant - 65%
Other S&T staff - 15%
Supporting staff - 15%
CSIR welfare Fund - 5%
Team of consultant: - such staff members who provide intellectual inputs to the specific consultancy work
Other S&T staff:- Gr. III & IV staff, research fellows/Associates who assist the team of consultant with S&T, information, computational, economic and marketing inputs to the specific consultancy work if there is no staff under this category the share of it will merge with team of consultant.
Supporting staff: - remaining staff. The director shall have flexibility to group the ‘supporting staff’ as
(a) those who contributed directly to the consultancy and;
(b) the remaining staff
The director can also apportion between the two groups (a) and (b) above, the honorarium earmarked for the category of ‘supporting staff’. The distribution of Hon. To the group (b) staff is to be uniform for a salary scale and is to be done once a year; however any supporting staff included in group (a) of a consultancy shall be excluded from group (b).
Condition for sharing of monies:-
(1) A formal cost accounting has been put in place and notified by the lab.
(2) A legally valid agreement has been executed for IP licensing/ contract R&D/ licensing of tech. Etc.
(3) The lab. Has fulfilled its obligation in the assignment in accordance with term of agreement.
(4) All the monies/fees due have been received in full.
(5) The client has not contested CSIR’s fulfillment of its obligation as defined in the contract/ agreement.
(6) In the event of any legal action/ dispute necessitating refund/ payment of monies/ fees by the CSIR to the client, the amount paid to the staff is recoverable.
(7) Sharing of monies is not permitted in the projects that are not wholly funded (total project cost) by the client. Partially funded projects are not eligible for sharing of monies.
(8) Sharing of monies from projects that have been foreclosed or where there is short receipt of funds or where dues are not recovered fully is not permitted.
(9) The portion of the monies/ fee earmarked for the remaining “remaining staff” in case of contract R&D and other is to be uniform
(10) A person is entitled for a share for the monies/fees even in the event of his transfer/ retirement/ resignation from CSIR. In the event of death of a person, his legal heir shall be entitled to his/ her share of monies/fee.
(11) From 1st June 2005, there is no ceiling on the amount of hon. Receivable by an individual from licensing of IP and Kb as well as contract R&D and TS. In case of consultancy work the mandays devoted by the individual in a financial year should not exceed 50 mandays.
(12) A member of the consultancy team shall have the option to forego his/her share, which shall than lapse to the CSIR welfare fund.
(13) Any distribution made in disregard to the prescribed procedure and guidelines shall be deemed as unauthorized and liable to recovery with 12% interest.
(1) Contract R&D, IP and Kb licensing and technical services: - DS is 15 % of total project cost or net surplus (remaining after accounting for all direct & indirect expenditure for the activities.) whichever is less where the money is being distributed on or after 1st June 2005. However, for arriving at distributable amount, the cost of equipment and capital investment are excluded from the total project cost.
(2) Honorarium for consultancy service: - DS is upto 2/3 of the fee portion or of net surplus whichever is less.
(3) Premia/royalty received from licensing of Kb:-
| Share | Monies realized through licensing | |
| Through NRDC | Directly by Lab. | |
| NRDC | 30% | - |
| CSIR(Lab) | 30% | 60% |
| Investigator | 40% | 40% |
Pattern of distribution:-
(1) Contract R&D, IP and Kb licensing and technical and Kb services
| Staff | Share |
| Innovators & principal contributors | 40% |
| S&T and other staff who contribute direct inputs to the specific development/ activity | 35% |
| Remaining staff of the laboratory | 20% |
| CSIR welfare Fund (maintained at Hq. | 5% |
Innovators & principal contributors: - scientist & other S&T staff who have provide innovative, developmental. Design engg. Experimental, data/ information, testing/ analytical, repair/ fabrication, training and business development/ marketing inputs
(2) consultancy services:- permissible amount of Hon. Or 300 % of the manpower charges levied, whichever is less
Team of consultant - 65%
Other S&T staff - 15%
Supporting staff - 15%
CSIR welfare Fund - 5%
Team of consultant: - such staff members who provide intellectual inputs to the specific consultancy work
Other S&T staff:- Gr. III & IV staff, research fellows/Associates who assist the team of consultant with S&T, information, computational, economic and marketing inputs to the specific consultancy work if there is no staff under this category the share of it will merge with team of consultant.
Supporting staff: - remaining staff. The director shall have flexibility to group the ‘supporting staff’ as
(a) those who contributed directly to the consultancy and;
(b) the remaining staff
The director can also apportion between the two groups (a) and (b) above, the honorarium earmarked for the category of ‘supporting staff’. The distribution of Hon. To the group (b) staff is to be uniform for a salary scale and is to be done once a year; however any supporting staff included in group (a) of a consultancy shall be excluded from group (b).
Condition for sharing of monies:-
(1) A formal cost accounting has been put in place and notified by the lab.
(2) A legally valid agreement has been executed for IP licensing/ contract R&D/ licensing of tech. Etc.
(3) The lab. Has fulfilled its obligation in the assignment in accordance with term of agreement.
(4) All the monies/fees due have been received in full.
(5) The client has not contested CSIR’s fulfillment of its obligation as defined in the contract/ agreement.
(6) In the event of any legal action/ dispute necessitating refund/ payment of monies/ fees by the CSIR to the client, the amount paid to the staff is recoverable.
(7) Sharing of monies is not permitted in the projects that are not wholly funded (total project cost) by the client. Partially funded projects are not eligible for sharing of monies.
(8) Sharing of monies from projects that have been foreclosed or where there is short receipt of funds or where dues are not recovered fully is not permitted.
(9) The portion of the monies/ fee earmarked for the remaining “remaining staff” in case of contract R&D and other is to be uniform
(10) A person is entitled for a share for the monies/fees even in the event of his transfer/ retirement/ resignation from CSIR. In the event of death of a person, his legal heir shall be entitled to his/ her share of monies/fee.
(11) From 1st June 2005, there is no ceiling on the amount of hon. Receivable by an individual from licensing of IP and Kb as well as contract R&D and TS. In case of consultancy work the mandays devoted by the individual in a financial year should not exceed 50 mandays.
(12) A member of the consultancy team shall have the option to forego his/her share, which shall than lapse to the CSIR welfare fund.
(13) Any distribution made in disregard to the prescribed procedure and guidelines shall be deemed as unauthorized and liable to recovery with 12% interest.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Technical services
Technical services: - services rendered to the client/customer, based on available knowledge, expertise, skills, infrastructure and facilities of the lab. It includes:
1) testing & analysis (including certification & calibration)
2) routine training
3) advisory technical assistance
4) fabrication, production and supply of special products of R&D
5) repair & maintenance
6) providing information
Financial aspects: -
(1) Expenses on the following factors (except for supply of information/ database):
A) Cost of
(a) Deployed CSIR staff mandays as per CSIR prescribes rate and
(b) Temporary staff deployed at actual cost + 40 % OH
B) Cost of consumable raw materials/consumable (chemicals, glassware, stationary, raw materials, component & other store items) with 25% OH (towards expenses for purchase, storage, handling etc.
C) Cost of consumable raw materials/consumable with 25% OH (toward expenses for purchase, storage, handling etc.)
D) Equipment usage cost/ depreciation/ replacement cost
E) Any other out-of-pocket expenditure
(2) IF/OC: at the discretion of director, considering the nature of the client, the benefit accruing and the client paying capacity.
(3) Service tax
Project charge = (1) + (2)
Total project cost = (1) + (2) + (3)
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Hyundai India sells 3,000 vehicles, extends government employee scheme
Hyundai extends the special scheme for the state and central government employees till November 2008.
Model wise discount on ex-showroom price :
Model wise discount on ex-showroom price :
| Santro Non AC | Rs.17,000 |
| Santro GL/GLS | Rs.22,000 |
| i10 | Rs.10,000 |
| Getz 1.1 | Rs.22,000 |
| Getz 1.3 | Rs.27,000 |
| Accent Executive | Rs.12,000 |
| Verna (Petrol & Diesel) | Rs.31,000 |
'Employer cannot dictate the uniform linen': HC
Chennai, Nov 5: Asserting that an employer cannot dictate the type of material to be used for uniform, the Madras High Court today set aside a order by the Chennai Airport directing a woman employee to use only the dress prescribed by the Airports Authority while on duty.
Allowing a writ petition by a senior Office Assistant S Kasthuri in 1999, who used khadi/handloom material instead of silk while maintaining the colour prescribed by the airport, Justice K Chandru said the airport had the power to prescribe a uniform and even indicate the colour and shade of material one should wear but it cannot not dictate on the type of linen.
Silk and synthetic material prescribed were neither suited to our country nor did it reflect the ethos of the independence movement, he said.
"Rather than appreciating the principle stand taken by the petitioner, it is unthinkable that the respondent should come up with an unjustified reference to a so-called service regulation," the Judge said, adding that Article 51 A (b) of the Constitution clearly stipulated that a citizen of the Union had a duty to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired the freedom struggle.
He directed the Chennai Airport to pay Kasthuri Rs 5,000 as costs.
Kasthuri was appointed as a junior clerk in 1973 in the office of Director General of Civil Aviation. In 1989, she was made an employee of AAI and subsequently redesignated as senior office assistant. Since 1994 the employees were made to wear silk or polyster sarees.
The petitioner who used khadi/ handloom cotton dresses and khadi chappals was told in August 1996 to attend office in the prescribed uniform.
Kasthuri, inspired by life and principles of Mahatma Gandhi right from her childhood, contended that she neither collected her uniform sarees nor claimed any allowance in lieu of it. - Agencies
Courtesy_Allowing a writ petition by a senior Office Assistant S Kasthuri in 1999, who used khadi/handloom material instead of silk while maintaining the colour prescribed by the airport, Justice K Chandru said the airport had the power to prescribe a uniform and even indicate the colour and shade of material one should wear but it cannot not dictate on the type of linen.
Silk and synthetic material prescribed were neither suited to our country nor did it reflect the ethos of the independence movement, he said.
"Rather than appreciating the principle stand taken by the petitioner, it is unthinkable that the respondent should come up with an unjustified reference to a so-called service regulation," the Judge said, adding that Article 51 A (b) of the Constitution clearly stipulated that a citizen of the Union had a duty to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired the freedom struggle.
He directed the Chennai Airport to pay Kasthuri Rs 5,000 as costs.
Kasthuri was appointed as a junior clerk in 1973 in the office of Director General of Civil Aviation. In 1989, she was made an employee of AAI and subsequently redesignated as senior office assistant. Since 1994 the employees were made to wear silk or polyster sarees.
The petitioner who used khadi/ handloom cotton dresses and khadi chappals was told in August 1996 to attend office in the prescribed uniform.
Kasthuri, inspired by life and principles of Mahatma Gandhi right from her childhood, contended that she neither collected her uniform sarees nor claimed any allowance in lieu of it. - Agencies
http://news.chennaionline.com
Implementing new pay scale prerogative of employer: SC
The Supreme Court on Friday said that it is the prerogative of the government to implement revised pay scale for employees. There is no legal right vested in employees to claim implementation of revised pay scale, the apex court said.
“The question as to whether the scale of pay would be revised or not is a matter of policy decision for the state. No legal right exists in a person to get a revised pay scale implemented. It may be recommended by a body but ultimately it has to be accepted by the employer or by the state that bears the financial burden,” a bench comprising Justice S B Sinha and Justice Cyriac Joseph said.
The court dismissed the appeal of an employee who had resigned from the service of a PSU but claimed arrears which accrued due to the retrospective implementation of the revised pay scale by the government. The appellant, Mr A K Chandrashekar, was employed as finance director in an PSU of the Kerala government. He had resigned from service on May 23, 1995.
Subsequently, the Government of India issued an office memorandum (OM), on July 19, 1995, revising scales of pay for `executives holding board level posts’ with effect from January 1, 1992. In January, 1996, the appellant made a representation requesting payment of arrears on the ground that he was in service on January 1, 1992, and was entitled to the benefit of the OM of 1995.
It was, however, rejected by the state government. It had said that the OM of 1995 issued by the secretary to the Government of India directing the revision of scales of pay of scheduled posts effective from Jan 1, 1992, specifically contains a clause that all the administrative ministries/ departments are required to issue presidential directives to the concerned public sector enterprises under its administrative control to give effect to the revision.
The industries department of the BPE of Kerala government has not issued any specific directive to the PSU for making the revision effective. “Hence, we are unable to consider your request,” the government said. Another representation of the appellant drew a similar fate. The appellant then approached the Kerala high court. The HC had dismissed the plea of the appellant.
“The question as to whether the scale of pay would be revised or not is a matter of policy decision for the state. No legal right exists in a person to get a revised pay scale implemented. It may be recommended by a body but ultimately it has to be accepted by the employer or by the state that bears the financial burden,” a bench comprising Justice S B Sinha and Justice Cyriac Joseph said.
The court dismissed the appeal of an employee who had resigned from the service of a PSU but claimed arrears which accrued due to the retrospective implementation of the revised pay scale by the government. The appellant, Mr A K Chandrashekar, was employed as finance director in an PSU of the Kerala government. He had resigned from service on May 23, 1995.
Subsequently, the Government of India issued an office memorandum (OM), on July 19, 1995, revising scales of pay for `executives holding board level posts’ with effect from January 1, 1992. In January, 1996, the appellant made a representation requesting payment of arrears on the ground that he was in service on January 1, 1992, and was entitled to the benefit of the OM of 1995.
It was, however, rejected by the state government. It had said that the OM of 1995 issued by the secretary to the Government of India directing the revision of scales of pay of scheduled posts effective from Jan 1, 1992, specifically contains a clause that all the administrative ministries/ departments are required to issue presidential directives to the concerned public sector enterprises under its administrative control to give effect to the revision.
The industries department of the BPE of Kerala government has not issued any specific directive to the PSU for making the revision effective. “Hence, we are unable to consider your request,” the government said. Another representation of the appellant drew a similar fate. The appellant then approached the Kerala high court. The HC had dismissed the plea of the appellant.
Courtesy_
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com
Friday, November 7, 2008
Interim eligibility criteria for Interest bearing Advance
Ministry of Finance vide OM Dated 24/10/2008 notified interim eligibility criteria (Before recommendation in line of 6th CPC are accepted) for interest bearing Advance as follows
(1) Motor Car (including PC):- Pay in pay band of Rs 19530 or more
(2) Motorcycle Advance :- Pay in pay band of Rs 8650 or more
The quantum of advance would be determined with reference to pay in the pay band and existing ceiling would remain unchanged
Advance for purchase of Cycle & warm clothing are to be treated as Non-interest bearing Advance.
Source : Here
(1) Motor Car (including PC):- Pay in pay band of Rs 19530 or more
(2) Motorcycle Advance :- Pay in pay band of Rs 8650 or more
The quantum of advance would be determined with reference to pay in the pay band and existing ceiling would remain unchanged
Advance for purchase of Cycle & warm clothing are to be treated as Non-interest bearing Advance.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
What does 'unfair trade practices' mean?
The expression 'unfair trade practice' is one which is elaborately defined in the Consumer Protection Act and the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. However, much of the litigation in both forums centres around it. When the MRTP Commission fades away, this phrase will remain only in the consumer law. The Competition Act, which is yet to be implemented in full, does not deal with UTP directly. Despite the detailed definition, it divided two judges of the Supreme Court in a recent appeal against a judgment on the MRTP commission. In another decision, the commission itself confused UTP with 'deficiency in service.'
First, the differences in the Supreme Court over the applicability of the definition. In Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland) Inc vs Indian MRI Diagnostic & Research Ltd, the Indian firm ordered a whole body CT scanner from the manufacturer in the US. The US corporation required licences from the respective governments which did not come in time. Therefore the offer lapsed and the deal fell through. Fresh negotiations began between the firms, but it was apparently for a refurbished machine at a higher price. Following differences, the Indian firm called off the talks and imported a similar scanner from Japan.
The Indian firm also moved the commission alleging 'restrictive trade practice' by the US firm pleading losses and seeking compensation. The commission held the US firm guilty of both unfair and restrictive trade practices and awarded compensation. Therefore, the US firm appealed to the Supreme Court where it succeeded in setting aside the commission's order.
Though both the judges in the Supreme Court agreed on quashing the commission's order, they could not agree on the interpretation of the UTP. How can there be a UTP when there was no supply of goods at all, one judge asked.
The original MRTP Act did not contain the phrase UTP. The law was aimed against restrictive and monopolistic practices only. The assumption was that if the manufacturers, producers or dealers could be prevented from distorting competition, the consumer would automatically get a fair deal. This was not to be. Therefore, the concept of UTP was introduced in 1984 through an amendment.
According to this judge, the amendment was meant to protect consumers against false and misleading ads and defective goods, among other things. It was not meant to deal with a situation where goods are not sold at all, as in this case. The definition of UTP was further amended in 1991, but still this sort of situation was not covered by the change.
The other judge felt that the phrase should be liberally interpreted. He said: 'There may be situations where a promise to supply a particular good, which the supplier knew that he was in no position to supply, with a motive of promoting of some other model, could occur. In such a case, a customer may be forced to obtain the same material from some other party and suffer losses in the process. Even without actual sale of goods, such an act on the part of the supplier could also amount to UTP.'
Normally such differences in the Supreme Court are resolved by referring them to a larger bench, but in this case the disagreement was left as it is, perhaps because the commission itself is on its last legs.
However, since the definition of UTP in the Consumer Protection Act is identical to that of the MRTP Act, the problem is bound to be brought back to the Supreme Court soon by consumer activists and lawyers. The Competition Act does not define UTP itself, but only 'trade practice.'
Moreover, the proposed Competition Commission is enjoined to carry on with part of the cases pending before the MRTP commission. The commission set up under it also has the duty to 'eliminate practices having adverse effect on competition, promote and sustain competition, protect the interests of consumers and ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants.' Therefore, there should be more clarity in the interpretation of UTP.
The confusion now prevailing can be gauged from another judgment of the MRTP commission in the judgment, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs Director General, delivered last month. Some consignments of badges and crests sent for a tournament in New Orleans, US, did not reach before the event, raising a claim for damages for 'deficiency in service.'
Courtesy :- Business Standard
First, the differences in the Supreme Court over the applicability of the definition. In Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland) Inc vs Indian MRI Diagnostic & Research Ltd, the Indian firm ordered a whole body CT scanner from the manufacturer in the US. The US corporation required licences from the respective governments which did not come in time. Therefore the offer lapsed and the deal fell through. Fresh negotiations began between the firms, but it was apparently for a refurbished machine at a higher price. Following differences, the Indian firm called off the talks and imported a similar scanner from Japan.
The Indian firm also moved the commission alleging 'restrictive trade practice' by the US firm pleading losses and seeking compensation. The commission held the US firm guilty of both unfair and restrictive trade practices and awarded compensation. Therefore, the US firm appealed to the Supreme Court where it succeeded in setting aside the commission's order.
Though both the judges in the Supreme Court agreed on quashing the commission's order, they could not agree on the interpretation of the UTP. How can there be a UTP when there was no supply of goods at all, one judge asked.
The original MRTP Act did not contain the phrase UTP. The law was aimed against restrictive and monopolistic practices only. The assumption was that if the manufacturers, producers or dealers could be prevented from distorting competition, the consumer would automatically get a fair deal. This was not to be. Therefore, the concept of UTP was introduced in 1984 through an amendment.
According to this judge, the amendment was meant to protect consumers against false and misleading ads and defective goods, among other things. It was not meant to deal with a situation where goods are not sold at all, as in this case. The definition of UTP was further amended in 1991, but still this sort of situation was not covered by the change.
The other judge felt that the phrase should be liberally interpreted. He said: 'There may be situations where a promise to supply a particular good, which the supplier knew that he was in no position to supply, with a motive of promoting of some other model, could occur. In such a case, a customer may be forced to obtain the same material from some other party and suffer losses in the process. Even without actual sale of goods, such an act on the part of the supplier could also amount to UTP.'
Normally such differences in the Supreme Court are resolved by referring them to a larger bench, but in this case the disagreement was left as it is, perhaps because the commission itself is on its last legs.
However, since the definition of UTP in the Consumer Protection Act is identical to that of the MRTP Act, the problem is bound to be brought back to the Supreme Court soon by consumer activists and lawyers. The Competition Act does not define UTP itself, but only 'trade practice.'
Moreover, the proposed Competition Commission is enjoined to carry on with part of the cases pending before the MRTP commission. The commission set up under it also has the duty to 'eliminate practices having adverse effect on competition, promote and sustain competition, protect the interests of consumers and ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants.' Therefore, there should be more clarity in the interpretation of UTP.
The confusion now prevailing can be gauged from another judgment of the MRTP commission in the judgment, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs Director General, delivered last month. Some consignments of badges and crests sent for a tournament in New Orleans, US, did not reach before the event, raising a claim for damages for 'deficiency in service.'
Courtesy :- Business Standard
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Permission to Government servant to work as Arbitrator and accept fee/honorarium therefore.
Dopt vide OM No 17011/8/07-Estt.(Allowance)Dated 27/10/2008 modified the rate of Honorarium to be paid to Government servants appointed to act as Arbitrator in disputes between the Government of India and private parties or between private parties as under
"the honorarium may be paid to him at the rate of Rs.500/- per day or Rs.250/- per half-day subject to a maximum of Rs.10,OOO/-per case. For this purpose a day means more than two hours continuous work on any date and half-day means work for two hours or less. He shall record a certificate in writing indicating whether he has done a day's work or a half-day's work on a particular day."
Link: Here
"the honorarium may be paid to him at the rate of Rs.500/- per day or Rs.250/- per half-day subject to a maximum of Rs.10,OOO/-per case. For this purpose a day means more than two hours continuous work on any date and half-day means work for two hours or less. He shall record a certificate in writing indicating whether he has done a day's work or a half-day's work on a particular day."
Link: Here
Monday, November 3, 2008
continuing wrongs and recurring/ successive wrongs
The principles underlying continuing wrongs and recurring/ successive wrongs have been applied to service law disputes. A `continuing wrong' refers to a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury. `Recurring/successive wrongs' are those which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. Supreme Court in Balakrishna S.P. Waghmare vs. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan -[AIR 1959 SC 798], explained the concept of continuing wrong (in the context of section 23 of Limitation Act, 1908 corresponding to section 22 of Limitation Act, 1963) :
"It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury."
In M. R. Gupta vs. Union of India [1995 (5) SCC 628], the appellant approached the High Court in 1989 with a grievance in regard to his initial pay fixation with effect from 1.8.1978. The claim was rejected as it was raised after 11 years. This Court applied the principles of continuing wrong and recurring wrongs and reversed the decision. This Court held :
"The appellant's grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid a salary which was not computed in accordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true that if the appellant's claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. In other words, the appellant's claim, if any, for recovery of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has become time barred would not be recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his claim is justified. Similarly, any other consequential relief claimed by him, such as, promotion etc., would also be subject to the defence of laches etc. to disentitle him to those reliefs. The pay fixation can be made only on the basis of the situation existing on 1.8.1978 without taking into account any other consequential relief which may be barred by his laches and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited extent of proper pay fixation, the application cannot be treated as time barred........."
To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting
others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
"It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury."
In M. R. Gupta vs. Union of India [1995 (5) SCC 628], the appellant approached the High Court in 1989 with a grievance in regard to his initial pay fixation with effect from 1.8.1978. The claim was rejected as it was raised after 11 years. This Court applied the principles of continuing wrong and recurring wrongs and reversed the decision. This Court held :
"The appellant's grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid a salary which was not computed in accordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true that if the appellant's claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. In other words, the appellant's claim, if any, for recovery of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has become time barred would not be recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his claim is justified. Similarly, any other consequential relief claimed by him, such as, promotion etc., would also be subject to the defence of laches etc. to disentitle him to those reliefs. The pay fixation can be made only on the basis of the situation existing on 1.8.1978 without taking into account any other consequential relief which may be barred by his laches and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited extent of proper pay fixation, the application cannot be treated as time barred........."
To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting
others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Licensing of knowledgebase
Licensing of knowledgebase: -
Kb: - Includes readily available and commercial knowhow, process and/or process improvements, technology, technique and a new product. May or may not embody IP.
- unencumbered or encumbered
Licensing of Kb: - granting licensee the right to use the Kb for making or selling the resulting product(s) either for commercial/ captive purpose or as otherwise agreed to.
Financial aspects: - varies on case to case basis on the following factors:
(a) Cost of Development:-
(1) Direct input:-
(i) cost of
(a) Deployed CSIR staff mandays as per CSIR prescribes rate and
(b) Temporary staff deployed at actual cost + 40 % OH
(ii) Cost of consumable raw materials/consumable/ physical inputs/services/utilities with 25% OH (toward
expenses for purchase, storage, handling etc.
(iii) equipment usage cost/ cost of equipment procured specially for the projects :-
(a) Existing one to be charged on pro-rata based on as annual usage charges upto 20% of cost of equipment and installation. Where cost cannot be ascertained the charges are to be decided by CA.
(b) New equipment is to be charge with an additional procurement and handling charges of 5% of the cost of the equipment.
(iv) Contingencies including external payment for facilities/services
(v) Cost of Securing of IP right for Kb; and
(vi) Cost of publicity
(2) Indirect inputs:-
(a) Notional amortization of investment on the staff, equipment, facilities deployed for the projects; and
(b) Intellectual inputs.
(b) Cost associated with Kb demonstration
© estimate of net benefit to be derived by the licensee:- money to be saved by the licensee by productivity improvement such as saving in raw materials, energy, time, labour, capital etc. or the additional profit to be realized due to better quality of products or reduction in pollution etc. or the net profit from the exploitation of Kb.
(d) Size & number of potential clients: - based on exclusiveness of license and alternative competing sources.
(e) Comparative cost of competing Kb in the market (if applicable)
(f) Potential for unauthorized use of the specific Kb subjected to; (by piracy or otherwise)
(g)
Differential costing:-
- Cottage/tiny industry
On token lumpsum charges even below the cost incurred on development of Kb (as decided by MC)
No royalty
Non-exclusive license
-SSI on direct cost, when non-exclusive to more then one client the cost could be divided by such no of clients to arrive at the cost/client.
-medium/large industry as per normal cost
Price decided for specific Kb should be reviewed periodically, atleast every three years for revision, if any required.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)