Creation of own departmental pool of residential accommodation for their employees by various Ministries/ Departments of the Central Government-Regarding

No.12034/1/2013-Pol-III

Government of India

Ministry of Urban Development

Directorate of Estates

Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi.

Dated 28th January, 2014.

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Creation of own departmental pool of residential accommodation for their employees by various Ministries/ Departments of the Central Government-Regarding

As per the Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development, Directorate of Estates OM No.12033(4)7-Pol.II dated 3rd October 1969, Central Government offices who have their own pool of residential accommodation for their staff are not eligible for allotment of General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA). Further, as per the Ministry of Urban Development, Directorate of Estates letter No.12034/1/2004-Pol.III dated 7.3.2006, the Ministries/Departments of the Central Government who want to create their own their departmental pool of residential accommodation by construction or augmentation are required to consult the Directorate of Estates to ascertain the availabilty of GPRA and undertake the construction/augmentaion of their pool only after obtaining the No Objection Certificate from the Directorate of Estates.

2. If an office being eligible for allotment of GPRA creates its own departmental pool of accommodation for its employees, it becomes ineligible for allotment of accommodation from the General Pool in the light of the instructions contained in OM dated 3.10.1969. There is an acute shortage of GPRA in Delhi and the eligible officers have to wait up to 20 years depending upon category of accommodation for allotment from the General Pool. Keeping this in view, several Central Government offices want to create their own departmental pool of accommodation for their employees. However, the instructions issued vide OM dated 3.10.1969 are seen as Constraints for creation of departmental pool for fear of losing the eligibility for allotment from the General Pool.

3. In view of the above, the matter has been reviewed and it has been decided with the approval of the competent authority in the Ministry of Urban Development that the Central Government offices may be allowed to create their own departmental pool of residential accommodation and simultaneously be permitted to retain their ehgibdity for allotment of accommodation from the General Pool. The Ministries/Departments of the Central Government shall have to apply to Directorate of Estates for issue of No Objection Certificate for creation of their own pool of residential accommodation as per the instructions contained in Directorate of Estates letter dated 7.3.2006

Sd/-

(S. K. Jain)

Deputy Director of Estates(Policy)

Source:http://estates.nic.in/WriteReadData/dlcirculars/Circulars20307.pdf

Anomalies in the Pay Scale of Pharmacists.

AIRE/101 (27)

 31/1/2014

The Secretary (Estt.)

Railway Board,

Rail Bhvan

New Delhi.

Sub: Anomalies in the Pay Scale of Pharmacists.

Ref: Railway Board’s L.NO. PC-VI/2013/RU/AIRF/22 dt.19/9/2013.

In reference to above, the pay structure, and promotion aspects of Pharmacists have a reasonable anomaly whih is required to be given a serious thought on the issue in its entirety keeping in view the requisite qualification for entry in the service & various other factors as enumerated below:

1. Pharmacists have all along enjoyed higher pay scales as compared to Dental Hygienists. Prior to Gazette Notification of 20th August, 2008, their qualifications were also lower. The pay scales of dental hygienists suddenly got upgraded from Rs. 4000-6000 to Rs. 5000-8000 in November, 2005 vide order NO.A-28011/1/99-ED dt.11/17-11-2005. At that point of time their Qualification for entry was Matric + 2 years certificate course. This qualification is much lower as compared to the qualification prescribed for the entry grade of Pharmacists, which are as under:-

i. 10 ÷ 2 (Science)

ii. Two years Diploma in pharmacy with 3 months practical training of 500 hours. (Approved by All India Council of Technical

Education)

iii. Registration with any of the State Pharmacy Council of India.

The above comparison clearly indicates that the gross injustice has been done by the Govt. of India to this category prior to November, 2005.

2.. From the report of 6th CPC, Para 3.6.23 it was seen that the Commission had erroneously observed that the qualifications for Dental Hygienists and pharmacists are identical; actually, it is not so. Qualifications for Pharmacists are 10+2 followed by 2 years’ diploma. Diploma in Pharmacy which is recognized by AICTE. As compared to this, qualification for dental hygienists hitherto were below the level of Pharmacists and it was only in the year 2009 that their qualifications was slightly improved to make it 10+2 followed by diploma of two years. Moreover, their diploma is not recognized by AICTE. Ironically, 6th Pay Commission made totally unjustified discrimination while proposing pay scales for pharmacists and dental hygienists. While Dental hygienists were placed in pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 plus GP of Rs. 4200, pharmacists were given entry grade of Rs.5200-20200 with GP of Rs. 2800/- only. Aggrieved with this, pharmacists have been struggling since then to get fair treatment from the Central Government. Ultimately, the Fast Track Committee constituted on the issue has appreciated the short-coming and have categorically, recommended that minimum educational qualification and experience prescribed for Direct Recruitment as pharmacists can not be ignored and accordingly they suggested that a time bound up-gradation of Pharmacists recruited in grade pay of Rs. 2800/- may be placed in the higher grade in PB II with GP Rs.4200/- on completion of two years service. This placement of Pharmacists in PB II with grade pay Rs. 4200/-, is totally delinked from vacancies is non-functional one. In this regard, we are of the view that the justice has not been imparted to the category by not granting parity with Dental Hygienists.

3. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, vide their OM NO. A-28011/01/2008-PMS dt. 11/13 June, 2008, forwarded a representation received from various associations agitating grievances of the Pharmacists for consideration of the Committee of Secretaries, It was brought out in great details that duties performed by pharmacists were more onerous in nature and they observed to be placed in higher pay scales at the entry grade level itself.

It is pertinent to mention that Dental hygienists all along were in lower pay scales as compared to Pharmacists. In terms of Gazette notification NO. 28 dt. 14th July, 1990, dental hygienists were in pay scales of Rs.1200-2040 at a time when pharmacists were in pay scales of Rs.1350-2200. At that time, the required qualifications for dental hygienists was matriculation or equivalent and were required to be registered as dental hygienists. Consequent to implementation of 5th CPC scales, dental hygienists were given pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 whereas pharmacists were placed in pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000. For reasons difficult to comprehend, the pay scales of dental hygienists were revised upwards from Rs.4000-6000 to Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f. 4/10/2005, by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare vide order NO. A-28011/l/99-DE dated : 11/17th November, 2005. It is significant to point out that even at that stage, qualification of dental hygienists were lower than those of pharmacists.

Mot unfortunately, despite repeated representations , the pharmacists did not get a fair deal and their higher qualifications as compared to dental hygienists were ignored. Under these circumstances and on representation from JCM, a fast Track Committee was constituted to go into the grievance of pharmacists. The fast track committee gave its report on 6th November, 2009. This committee also did not provide much relief to the pharmacists on the specious plea that they did not want to disturb the relativities , not only among medical categories , but also between para medical categories and other categories like ASMs, Goods Guards, etc.

We are of the opinion that comparison/relativity of the Pharmacists is in fact, required to be examined with in the Medical Department only i.e. Dental Hygienists. The fast track committee also took into account that 6th CPC had not agreed to Pharmacist’s demand of pay scales at par with Dental Hygienists. Apparentiy, the fast track committee failed to appropriate that this was the very ground on which the pharmacists had based their grievance that they were better qualified than the dental hygienists, and that their duties were more onerous and they deserved to be placed at least the same entry grade as that of dental hygienists, if not higher , but the 6th CPC totally ignored their claim. The fast track committee only gave a token relief in as much as they only suggested that after completion of two years in pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 plus GP of Rs.2800/-, the pharmacists would be placed in the next higher grade of Rs.9300-34800 with GP of Rs.4200 and not par with Dental Hygienists This has created a serious anomaly in as much as the injustice meted out to the pharmacists in placing them in scales lower than dental hygienists, ( who are lesser qualified ), has perpetuated their agony and secondly placement from Gr. Rs. 5200-20200 with GP of Rs. 2800/- to the grade of Rs. 9300-34800 with GP of Rs. 4200/- has been considered as one benefit under ACP. ACP II benefit is given after another 10 years by giving grade pay of Rs. 4600/-. After that, there is full stop and there is no further promotion or financial upgradation. The Government of India has completely omitted to notice that they have created a situation that pharmacists, after completing 12 years of service would stagnate for the next 30 years, thereby defeating the very purpose of Assured Career Progression. The qualification of dental hygienists has been raised to the level of those of pharmacists only w.e.f. 20th August, 2009.

The anomaly , as has been brought out above, can be rectified if the Pharmacists are assigned entry pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with GP of Rs. 4200/- & further promotions/ ACP benefits may be extended accordingly.

Hence in view of the above, facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, request to take up the matter at appropriate level so that the gross injustice as existing is resolved once for all to meet of end of justice.

Yours sincerely

Sd/-

(S.G. Mishra)

General Secretary

Source: AIRF

Recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government servants – Dopt Orders

F.No.18/26/2011-Estt (Pay-I) 

Government of India 

Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pension 

Department of Personnel and Training

North Block, New Delhi, 

Dated the 6th February, 2014

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government servants.

The undersigned is directed to say that the issue of recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government servants has been examined in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and the Department of Legal Affairs in the light of the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal And On vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors, 2012 AIR SCW 4742, (2012) 8 ‘SCC 417, decided on 17th August, 2012. The Hon’ble Court has observed as under:

15. We are not convinced that this Court in various judgments referred to hereinbefore has laid down any proposition of law that only if the State or its officials establish that there was misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the excess pay, then only the amount paid could be recovered. On the other hand, most of the cases referred to hereinbefore turned on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases either because the recipients had retired or on the verge of retirement or were occupying lower posts in the administrative hierarchy. 

16. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "tax payers money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor that of the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. Question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been receiyed by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.

2. Hon’ble Supreme Court also distinguished the cases like Shyam Babu Verma v UOI, 1994 SCR (1) 700, 1994 SCC (2) 52, Syed Abdul Qadir and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors,(2009) 3 SCC 475, Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana,1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 etc., where it had not allowed recovery of excess payment in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases so as to avoid extreme hardship to the concerned employees, for example, where the employees concerned were mostly junior employees, or they had retired or were on verge of retirement, the employees were not at fault, and recovery which was ordered after a gap of many years would have caused extreme hardship.

3. In view of the law declared by Courts and recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited case, Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors, 2012 AIR SCW 4742, (2012) 8 SCC 417, the Ministries/Departments are advised to deal with the issue of wrongful/excess payments as follows:

i. In all cases where the excess payments on account of wrong pay fixation, grant of scale without due approvals, promotions without following the procedure, or in excess of entitlements etc come to notice, immediate corrective action must be taken.

ii. In a case like this where the authorities decide to rectify an incorrect order, a show-cause notice may be issued to the concerned employee informing him of the decision to rectify the order which has resulted in the overpayment, and intention to recover such excess payments. Reasons for the decision should be clearly conveyed to enable the employee to represent against the same. Speaking orders may thereafter be passed after consideration of the representations, if any, made by the employee.

iii. Whenever any excess payment has been made on account of fraud, misrepresentation, collusion, favouritism, negligence or, carelessness, etc., roles of those responsible for over payments in such cases, and the employees who benefitted from such actions should be identified, and departmental/criminal action should be considered in appropriate cases.

iv. Recovery should be made in all cases of overpayment barring few exceptions of extreme hardships. No waiver of recovery may be allowed without the approval of Department of Expenditure.

v. While ordering recovery, all the circumstances of the case should be taken into account. In appropriate cases, the concerned employee may be allowed to refund the money in suitable installments with the approval of Secretary in the Ministry, in consultation with the FA.

vi. Wherever the relevant rules provide for payment of interest on amounts retained by the employee beyond the stipulated period etc as in the case of TA, interest would continue to be recovered from the employee as heretofore.

sd/- 

(Mukesh Chaturvedi) 

Deputy Secretary to the Government of India

Source: http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02est/18_26_2011-Estt.Pay-I-06022014.pdf