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
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:-
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.
Technical services: - services rendered to the client/customer, based on available knowledge, expertise, skills, infrastructure and facilities of the lab. It includes:
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.)
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
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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/utilitieswith 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
(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) Opportunity value: - estimated amount that can be realized by cashing upon the circumstantial/ contingent aspect prompting the utilization of Kb by the licensee. (Expressed in terms of absolute money value or as a % of profits anticipated or of value addition envisaged.)
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
-SSIon 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.
(a)In- house development. Ownership & licensing vest in CSIR
(b)Through contract R&D and subsequently rendered unencumbered as per agreement. Ownership & licensing as per agreement
(2)Encumbered: - Through contract R&D with total/ partial finance support & with/without technical support from client. Ownership & licensing as per agreement
Licensing of IP : - granting licensee the right to further develop the IP or to utilize the IP to make 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:-
(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/utilitieswith 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
(b)Cost of securing the IP: - with minimum floor price of 5 Lakh per IP. Concession in exceptional circumstance with approval of DG
(d)IF: - charges for CSIR investment over a period of time, in building up and sustaining the extent level of expertise, knowledgebase and facilities. Charges should be commensurate with quantum and quality of CSIR’s resource input and also the likely benefits to be derived by the clients on implementation of the project results
Consultancy: - institutional, in area of expertise preferably its trust area. Comprises scientific, technical, engg., or other proff. Advice/ assistance based on the available knowledge base / expertise of the Lab., and envisaging only minimum use of lab. facilities for essential experimentation and computation to meet the objectives of the consultancy assignments. It covers
(1)Scientific, technical, engg. or other proff. Advice.
(2)Literature survey and preparation of feasibility studies, technology forecasting/ evaluation reports etc.
(3)Interpretation of test result and data provided
(4)Risk and hazard/ environmental impact analysis, pollution abatement/ control measures etc.
(5)Assistance in erection, commissioning, operation, troubleshooting, productivity improvements, energy conservation, waste utilization etc.
(6)Customized HRD program
(7)Technical advice (one time) such as troubleshooting, problem resolving, quality control etc.
Financial aspects:-
(1)Direct expenses:-
(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 (towards 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)TA/DA:-
(a)at CSIR rates with exception to reimburse total expenditure with prior approval of Director
(b)Air travel to non-entitle G.S on functional basis & if it is expedient to do so in public interest.
(v)Contingencies including external payment for facilities/services
(vi)Others (if any)
(2)Intellectual fees: - charges for CSIR investment over a period of time, in building up and sustaining the extent level of expertise, knowledgebase and facilities. Charges should be commensurate with quantum and quality of CSIR’s resource input and also the likely benefits to be derived by the clients on implementation of the project results. There is no upper ceiling but it should in no case be less than the estimated manpower charges, except in case of consultancy offered against open tender, where the IF could be decide by the CA keeping in view the potential competition. For cottage and small scale units (as per govt. definition) the minimum IF could be 30-50% of manpower charges. Not to be charge in case of sister lab. Project.
(3)service tax on (1) & (2)
Project charge = (1) + (2)
Total project cost = (1) + (2) + (3)
Term of payment: - the laboratory shall obtain an advance of not less than 50% of the project cost on or before signing the agreement and the balance in installments linked to suitable milestones/deliverables as defines in the project/ agreement. However, in case of projects from govt. dept. /agencies, PSE, investigational job by Govt., court, statuary authorities etc. and project secured against open tenders, the term of payment may be as per the mutual agreement.
General condition:-
(1)Contractual obligation shall be that of CSIR.
(2)Staff involvement shall be approved by director/MC
(3)As far as possible ‘the team of consultant’ selected for consultancy work should have confidence of the client.
(4)Fair distribution of consultancy work among eligible staff
(5)Consultancy assignment costing less than 50000.00 should not be encouraged except in deserving case with discretion of director.
(6)The total number of days devoted by staff member to consultancy work should not exceed 50 mandays in a financial year.
Contract R&D:- All R&D activities undertaken and executed under specific contractual arrangements agreed upon for the purpose. The projects should fall within the purview of approved research areas of the laboratory. It includes:-
(1)Sponsored R&D:-
(a) Fully externally funded having specified R&D objective. (Exception to full funding of SSP could be made with the approval of CA for specific nationally relevant projects related to defence, health, social welfare and the like)
(d) Can also include process design and engg. , process modeling & simulation, application of computational methods , developments of software etc.
(e) Can be multi-clients also
(2) Collaborative/ cooperative R&D:-
(a) Partially funded by the client
(b) Supplemented by provision of inputs such as expert manpower, engg. , Production/ fabrication of product in bulk for testing/ trials, creation of infrastructural inputs etc.
(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 (chemicals, glasswares, stationary, raw materials, component & other store items) with 25% OH (towards expenses for purchase, storage, handling etc.
(iii)Cost of physical inputs/services/utilities (water, steam, gas, electricity, workshop, drawing office etc.) with 25% OH (towards installation, maintenance etc.)
(iv)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.
(v)TA/DA:-
(a)at CSIR rates with exception to reimburse total expenditure with prior approval of Director
(b)Air travel to non-entitle G.S on functional basis & if it is expedient to do so in public interest.
(vi)Contingencies including external payment for facilities/services
(vii)Others (if any)
(2)Intellectual fees: - charges for CSIR investment over a period of time, in building up and sustaining the extent level of expertise, knowledgebase and facilities. Charges should be commensurate with quantum and quality of CSIR’s resource input and also the likely benefits to be derived by the clients on implementation of the project results. Should in no case be less than 40% of total expenses excluding the cost of equipments and other capital investments at the cost of client. For cottage and small scale units (as per govt. definition) the minimum IF could be waived with the approval of CA. Not to be charge in case of Govt. funded & sister lab. project.
(3)service tax on (1) & (2)
Project charge = (1) + (2)
Total project cost = (1) + (2) + (3) (exception to full funding of SSP could be made with the approval of CA for specific nationally relevant projects related to defence, health, social welfare and the like)
Term of payment: - the laboratory shall obtain an advance of not less than 25% of the project cost on or before signing the agreement and the balance in installments linked to suitable milestones/deliverables as defines in the project/ agreement. However, in case of projects from govt. dept. /agencies, PSE, and project secured against open tenders, the term of payment may be as per the mutual agreement.
