Thursday, January 6, 2011

News regarding CAT Case OA No.381/2010

Dear friends,
 You may be aware that our CAT case regarding Grade Pay is posted on 14.01.2010. Respondents has given their reply to the Additional Rejoinder and copy of the same is uploaded for perusal.In the reply, Respondents have admitted that Pay scale of Inspector post was upgraded from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500-10500 from 01.01.2006. Now the respondents are defending by falsification of Documents as stated in Para 7 and many more places in the reply. It is stated that " .....due to issue of orders by Nodal Ministry on 13.11.2009, extending the benefit of grade Pay of Rs.4600 to such posts, which were in the Pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 prior to 1-1-2006,  the Inspector in CBDT/CBEC could derive the benefit, and as the upgradation is only from 1-1-2006, the Inspector Posts could not be extended the same. ......"  
   The extract of the OM dated 13.11.2009 issued by the MOF is reproduced below
 ".....Consequent upon the Notification of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, Department of Expenditure has received a large number of references from administrative ministries / departments proposing upgradations of the posts which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006 by been granting them grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2. The matter has been considered and it has now been decided that the posts which were granted the normal replacement pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-2, will be granted pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2 ...."
                  Hence it is clear that Department is trying to defend without having any justification for the same. We have already    submitted all the annexures including OM dated 13.11.2009 of MOF. As the case is posted on 14.01.2011, your comments on the reply by the Dept., is requested.  Hoping all your cooperation.
With regards,


  1. DOP is not helping its own cause by neglecting IP/ASP. DOOMS DAY is not far away. Very much disgusting.

  2. Permanandji,
    How many times DOP will try to mislead the CAT? What about the Assistants of CSS & ARMY HQ who got 4600 GP whose case is also similar to IPO and what about the recomendation of 6PC who had brought the IPOs on par with other Inspectors. Whether IPOs are on par with other Inspectors "NOT" Yet. DOP in collusion with MOF trying to fool the IPOs. I feel DOP/MOF dont unerstand the maning of "on par" or with effect from etc.

    Patil ASP

  3. I welcome that Department of posts has accepted that pay scale of Inspector of Posts was upgrared to 6500-10500/- w.e.f.01-01-2010 as it gives us oportunity to get/claim grade pay 4600/- as per Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure office memorandum F.No.1/1/2008-IC dated 13/11/2009.
    Sh. Premanand jee, the fact that - the starting pay band, i.e., 9300/- for grade pay 4200/- has been given as per previous scale 5000-8000 and therefore it is unjustice to keep 5500-9000/- & 6500-10500/- in grade pay 4200/- with starting pay band 9300/- as it is degradation of pay scales 5500-9000/- & 6500-10500/- should be placed before CAT.
    Best wishes to get court csae result in favour of you.

  4. I agree with Shailendra's views and suport him. There are many points which favour GP of 4600 for IPOs. but only one point is DOP /MOF both are trying to bring caste like system in upgradation of Pay scales.It appears IPO are treated like untouchables and low graded. Other Inspectors are upper caste or higher grade peoples.

  5. afhq assistants were not in the pay scale of 6500--. But assistants in css were in pay scale of 6500. When grade pay of rs4600 were implemented, afhq assistants also got the grade pay of rs4600. how do they got it.

  6. Dear Premji,
    Our DOP joining hands with CLIII union. The reasons are
    1. Creating Postmaster cadre by carving IP line
    2. On any account the Postmaster HSG I should be protected
    3. It will boost the timid officers to prevent the Office Bearers never come and meet them for any help.
    4. If they are real heroes , could they achieve RPLI business with the help of CL III union.
    5. Finally we are lacking in cadre affinity. DOP used this chance well and humiliate ourselves to the drastic end.
    6. One day they will realize their faults. yes that is our JUDGEMENT DAY.
    Dont Worry we are with you.

  7. Dear friends,

    The fifth pay commission proposed IPs pay scale on par with other inspector. At that time also ASP posts exists and remain as IPs promotional post. When the 6th pay commission recommending the same pay scale to IPs with that of other inspectors also there is ASP post exists and remain as IPs promotional post with higher pay. Then I could not understand why the department is misleading by saying that ASP post is there and the same is not available in other departments and pay parity cannot be granted to IPs with other inspectors.

    We should have to point out this in the hearing.

    Rajan, Kerala Circle

  8. Dear friends,
    This is the continuation of my earlier post.
    I think that it is the trick of the department that in their rejoinder it is saying that the department is examining merger of IPs and ASPs post and by this way the department is trying to get a verdict from CAT that merger case may be examined. the department can keep merger case for long and can tell that the merger is not possible due to functional problems etc. at a later time.

    Hence I request Mr. permanand that at the time of fifth pay commission and sixth pay commission both IP and ASP posts exists with later is the promotional post of the former. Both pay commissions recommended pay parity to inspectors with inspectors of other departments. Hence do not fall in the trap of department and argue for GP 4600 to IP and consequent up gradation of GP of its promotional posts also.

    Rajan, ASP, kerala Circle

  9. Dear Permanadji,
    I agree wit Rajan. We must argue for 4600 GP & also from 1.1.2006 .Fixation should be similar to other Inspectors i.e. 1.86*6500. This should be clear to all concerned.


  10. It is clear from the reply of the Dept. that it is deliberately mis-interpreting the OM dt. 13.11.09, despite the clear wordings in the said OM. Hope, CAT will take note of this aspect.

    Existence of ASP cadre is not a valid reason to deny the due GP to IPs. If the Dept. feels it to be a hindrance for granting the eligible GP to IPs, then it is for the Dept. to resolve the issue. But it cannot deny the due benefits, which similarly placed Inspectors are enjoying. First let us be given the due GP. Then, let the Dept. find out ways to settle the issue, if it feels, it exists. Internal constraints cannot be a reason for not implementing a general order.

  11. It is a matter of fun that the DOP claimed that the Inspectors of Posts upgraded notionally on 1.1.2006 in 6500-10500 with gp 4200 so not eligible under OM 13-11-2009. But in MOF OM dated 13-9-2008 it was clarified that in case of upgraded posts the suitability of incumbents need not be assessed for granting them the higher replacement pay scale/grade pay. It automatically indicated that the 6cpc granted the Inspectors of Posts with higher scale of 6500-10500 which hold by ASPO as on 1.1.2006 without necessity of DPC. Denying scale of ASPO to Inspectors is akin to downgrading of Inspectors from gp 4600 to gp4200 in terms of this OM dated 13-9-2008. Whether DOP downgraded all Inspectors with disciplinary proceedings under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965? Better to redesignate nomenclature of Inspector and ASPO as Steno I,II etc. did, in lieu of harassing Inspectors.