Saturday, 14 May 2016

Look at yourself in the mirror....

Look at yourself in the mirror....

This post is free flowing. Triggered by a variety of events in the last few months, I cannot pinpoint the exact contours of my feelings. Ad nauseam it is heard from the serving and the veteran community as to how key appointments in the Ministry of Defence should be manned by uniformed personnel. Some faujis continually blame the babus for all ills, which emotion I have tried to address, and to an extent, contest, a couple of times earlier on my blog essentially stating that the answers to this quandary are not easy and the situation that we are in emanates from an interplay of complexities which are not easy to comprehend or resolve and that the military community has to share the blame.

Some happenings in the recent past solidify my feelings about our total lack of sensitivity to our heritage, welfare and wellbeing- issues which could be easily resolved at the end of the military establishment or matters that could have been made easier to resolve had the military establishment taken a strong but genuine stand. In certain cases, the military establishment with its rigid stance and holier than thou attitude is also leading to bad press, a complete breakdown of trust and also increase in infructuous litigation and pointless official work. And seniors, when complained to, either do not (rightly) have the time to go into the nitty gritty or are unduly influenced by the make-believe cheeriness perpetrated by the coterie around them thereby insulating them from the ground realities and the pain of the common veteran or kin. Of course, till the time the stakeholders are not consulted and their voice is not heard, the senior authorities are bound to be influenced by their staff which has an easier access to the ear of the seniors with no channel of rebuttal of what may be blatantly incorrect. The first instance that comes to mind is the case of a 99 year old widow of a disabled World War II pensioner of the Burma Army. The British at one time had common military administration for India and Burma which underwent a change later. The Government of India through the Ministry of Defence pays family pension to widows of such Indian citizens of the Burma Army who came back and settled in India. Particular Record Offices have been tasked to look after them. The lady on her husband’s death in 2012 accordingly applied for the family pension as was due to her. To her horror, various Record Offices kept on tossing the file to one another and to the Army HQ intermittently and ultimately one such Record Office also asked her to contact the authorities in Rangoon for the needful, not even for a moment applying mind to the fact that it is under the authority of the Ministry of Defence, reiterated as recently as in 2009, that the family pension was to be released and Myanmar had nothing to do with it. In any case, it was only after tough talk by the Punjab & Haryana High and when the Raksha Mantri personally took note and the Adjutant General also apparently pulled up the concerned officers that things started moving and within a few days her pension was sanctioned. Of course, it would not be out of place to mention the positive role played by the Central Government Counsel in the High Court and also the officers at the Records Office of the Punjab Regiment who ensured the release of pension at lightning speed after the case was highlighted, but that is not what I am trying to address. The lady was aware of her rights, managed to approach the High Court and senior functionaries also took due interest, but what about those who are/were not so lucky? Aren’t we aware that World War II veterans and also their wives are today on a diminishing scale? Is it too much to expect alacrity from Record Offices in cases of such extremely old veterans and their families or would the rights of such individuals only depend upon Courts and VIP references? I don’t think that a proactive Minister or Chief or Adjutant General would be able to reach out in each and every case, this bounden duty is that of the military staff, but is that happening? LACK OF EFFECTIVE RESPONSE BY RECORD OFFICES AND BIZARRE REPLIES TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION REQUESTS OF SOLDIERS:

Speaking of Record Offices, let us open our eyes and ask veterans about the quality of responses received for their problems. There are multiple instances wherein representations are simply not replied, not just by the Record Offices, but also by the Manpower Directorate for officers. It is shameful that almost seven decades since independence we have not been able to ensure that offices mandatorily reply to all letters received by them. Then there are instances when policies have changed but Record Offices reject representations without caring to open the rule book. Another area of concern is the Right to Information Act. Some Record Offices are going to absurd lengths on the subject. The Artillery Records, in response to requests for Medical Board proceedings of veterans is asking them to send a copy of an ‘FIR’ for lost medical board proceedings wherein there is no such requirement under the RTI Act. When a veteran seeks his medical board proceedings, the said Record Office is also sermonizing RTI Applicants about the ‘Official Secrets Act’. I fail to understand as to how the Official Secrets Act can be invoked by the Artillery Records on a request of a veteran for his own medical record! The Records Office of the Sikh Regiment, otherwise quite sensitized and responsive, is illegally placing a white sticker on the percentage and attributability/aggravation part of medical board proceedings citing some godforsaken outdated letter of the Director General Armed Forces Medical Services. Needless to state, any such outdated instruction cannot override the provisions of the RTI Act which is an Act passed by the Parliament. Also this action is contemptuous since the Delhi High Court, way back in the mid 2000s, had directed that medical record needed to be provided to every disabled soldier. Moreover, such mind games are being played with applicants not realizing that this increases heartburn and fuels infructuous litigation and cases till the Central Information Commission which involve movement of manpower and resources, heavy burden on tax payers’ money and also on the pockets of veterans and their families, and that too, out of ego and exuberance which should be nipped right in the bud by senior officers. And for what? For a piece of paper which anyway belongs to the veteran being his own health record?

Another example that comes to mind is letters being issued by the Personnel Services Directorate of the Army HQ to Government lawyers, supposedly on instructions of the Ministry of Defence, asking them to file appeals and reviews in matters where arrears have been paid from 01 Jan 2006 on Court orders to litigants by removing certain anomalies arising out of the 6th Central Pay Commission and even in cases wherein litigants, mostly of lower ranks, were illegally denied their due benefits but were released the same on judicial intervention. The Personnel Services Directorate has directed Government lawyers to contend in Courts that the arrears may not be paid from the date they fell due or from the date the anomaly of the pay commission was removed but should be restricted from a future artificial date. Firstly, such a stand is contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that arrears are to flow from the date of inception of the anomaly and not from a future artificial date. Secondly, the said issue has already been agitated by the Ministry as well as the Personnel Services Directorate and filly decided by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Subhash Chander Soni wherein orders have been passed in favour of affected litigants and even the Attorney General of India has advised the Ministry and all three Military Chiefs not to cause loss to the State and embarrassment to the Government by continuing filing appeals. Thirdly, the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare (DoPPW) has already issued universal orders with financial effect from 01 Jan 2006 (and in certain cases even from 01 Jan 1996) vide various circulars issued in 2015 and 2016 based on Court orders for all affected individuals and it is not understood as to why is the Army insisting upon filing such frivolous appeals and reviews seeking to restrict benefits to its own pensioners. Fourthly, it is well known that anomalies are to be removed from the date of inception of the anomaly which arises on the date of implementation of the Pay Commission report and not from any future artificial date and the officers who are recommending such appeals or reviews against our pensioners of lower ranks or who are signing on or approving such noting sheets would be well advised to first deposit back their rank pay arrears which they themselves may have received from 1986 or 1996, also the arrears on account of upgradation to Pay Band-4 for all Lt Cols which we had achieved with our sweat and hard-work from the Government and which such officers had received at a later date but with financial effect from 2006 must also be deposited back, similar should be the case with Lt Gens who were later upgraded to a higher scale retrospectively from 2006. Not to forget, all these officers who are recommending restriction of arrears for lower ranks should undertake not to receive arrears of the 7th Central Pay Commission from an earlier date as and when its anomalies are resolved and should solemnly affirm on affidavit to be governed by the same morbid logic and yardstick as they are applying to our pensioners of junior ranks, and this includes the JAG officers who may have rendered any such opinion on restriction of arrears. All officers who have recommended restriction of arrears for their jawans must also solemnly resolve to refuse any such similar arrears as granted to their civilian counterparts in the future in view of their own negative stand for the pensionary arrears of their subordinates. Of course, this shall be in line with that motto of Philip Chetwode, remember? Yes, that one!

COMPARING APPLES WITH APPLES- MILITARY APPLES WITH CIVIL APPLES: Having seen the functioning of the Ministry of Home Affairs and some State Governments in the field of litigation, I can say it with responsibility that it is only the three defence services which put undue pressure on their officers to ‘win cases’. But at what cost? The first and foremost duty of a counsel in a Court is to assist the Court and secure justice, not to score a ‘win’. Litigation is not militaristic; you are not fighting a war with the enemy. No other department or organisation gets personally involved with cases or makes litigation a prestige issue, not even the Ministry of Defence. Unnecessary pressure is put on JAG officers and even Government lawyers in the field of litigation. They are encouraged to adopt an adversarial role rather than an approach of resolution. They are questioned and adversely commented upon if they ‘lose’ cases. They would immediately circulate the rare cases which are decided in favour of the system terming them ‘landmark’, but with the same yardstick cases that lay down law in favour of litigants are never circulated or even implemented. While universal policies are issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare as soon as an SLP is simply dismissed by the Supreme Court or a decision is rendered by the High Court, in case of military personnel, the Defence Services at times are themselves filing appeals including in matters settled multiple times by the Supreme Court by way of detailed decisions. Disability pension cases being an apt example .

I therefore feel queasy when veterans and serving military personnel blame external agencies for the pathetic condition that they are in, or leave it all at the door of ‘babus’. I also have zero faith when the military community states that the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare should be manned exclusively by military personnel- it could well take it further below nadir unless there is an adequate mix of sensitized experts on key positions. We are turning out not only to be the masters of self-defeat by crushing the rights of our own but also meek spectators who do not even put our disagreements on record or on file for our own little personal gains. It is also clear that we have so much time on our hands in our Headquarters that we display excessive zeal and waste negative energy by looking for loopholes in noting sheets and files to impress seniors to scuttle beneficial policies with a crab mentality. This is the kind of negative enthusiasm that needs to be curbed. On the civil side too, similar exercise is carried out and keenness is shown, but it is to aid and assist employees and pensioners keeping in view the spirit of the beneficial and benevolent nature of policies. In one of the Raising Day celebrations of my father’s Regiment in the early 1980s, I remember an old Subedar Major saying “Fauj mein koi doosre ko khush nahi dekh sakta”. Is that the root cause? I don’t know, and like I said in the beginning, I cannot pinpoint, but I want him to be proved wrong. Sorry to sound harsh in this post, but veteran welfare is not just distributing sewing machines and shawls to veer naaris at veteran rallies, it goes much beyond. But then the voice has to come from within. Before pointing fingers at others, look at yourself in the mirror.


Calculation arrears on 50% Pension for JCO/OR HOW TO GO ABOUT CALCULATION OF ARREARS OF JCOs & ORs

Calculation arrears on 50% Pension for JCO/OR HOW TO GO ABOUT CALCULATION OF ARREARS OF JCOs & ORs:-

With coming of this rule the arrears will be due to those persons who have been receiving Pension lesser than the 50% of “Minimum of Pay in Pay Band” wef 01 Jan 2006 to 30 June 2014 ie upto the date of implementation of the OROP Scheme.

2. Hence the first and foremost item to know is the “Min of Pay in Pay Band” pertaining to your Group and Rank. The above chart has been derived from various Circulars issued by PCDA(P).

Do intimate in case there be some changes and modification is needed.

3. The amount by which you have been getting lesser than this amount is the Basic difference now payable per month.

4. In case of JCOs & ORs three Circulars ie 547, 430 and 501 are important. There will thus be three differences corresponding to periods as under :-

(a) Difference between MPinPB and figures in 547 from 01 Jan 2006 to 30 June 2009.

(b) Difference between MPinPB and figures of circulat 430 from 01 Jul 2009 to 23 Sep 2012.

(c) Difference between MPinPB and figures of Circular 501 from 24 Sep 2012 to 30 Jun 2014. 5. Note down these figures where ever they are less than the MPinPB. However in case they are higher than the MPinPB these are not to be taken into account and the difference be taken as Zero.

6. Multiply these three differences with Multiplication factors as under to add period and DA:-
(a) 01 Jan 2006 to 30 Jun 2009 = 46.02 (b) 01 Jul 2009 to 23 Sep 2012 = 57.62
(c) 24 Sep 2012 to 30 Jun 2014 = 39.76

The sum of the resultant figure will the total arrears due to you

Source :

7th Pay Commission – 29% Central Govt Employees to Retire in 10 years

7th Pay Commission – 29% Central Govt Employees to Retire in 10 years – The textiles ministry has the highest proportion of employees (75%) in the 50-60 age group, followed by the coal (64%) and urban development (62%) ministries.
One of the chief problems in reforming India’s bureaucracy is that it is a powerful pressure group, which does not like to see a drop in its influence or a drop in its numbers. Now, a rare opportunity presents itself. Of 3.3 million civilian central-government employees at the beginning of April 1, 2014, nearly one million (around 29%) are in the age group of 50-60 years, according to data released by the 7th Pay Commission recently. “This is a ready pointer to the number of retirements that would take place in the next ten years,” said the report, running into nearly 900 pages. “The Commission notes that losing experienced high-level personnel entails unquantifiable costs as new recruits will require training and on-the-job skills. At the same time it presents ministries/departments the opportunity to align their personnel requirement in line with their current and future challenges.”

That observation is in line with a frequently mentioned need for administrative reform, which could include bringing in professionals from outside government, introducing performance-linked salaries and paying higher salaries to fewer employees. “Successive governments have been guilty of turning a blind eye to administrative reform without which economic reform will not have its desired effect,” former cabinet secretary KM Chandrasekhar wrote in a column in The Economic Times. “The greatest obstacle to ease of doing business is administrative incapacity and, to this, governments traditionally pay no heed. It is time we brought administrative reform to the top of the governmental agenda and create systems that ensure efficiency and accountability.” IndiaSpend’s analysis of the staffing of government departments and numbers of those facing retirement reveals the opportunities that exist in each. The Pay Commission decides salaries and incentives for central-government employees. The Commission, which is constituted once in every 10 years, is also considered to be the base to decide salaries for state government employees.

“A central-government employee is defined as all persons in the civil services of the Central Government or holding civil posts under that government and paid salaries out of the Consolidated Fund of India. This, however, does not include such persons appointed to serve Parliament or the Union Judiciary,” the report said. Here are some departments that have a heavy concentration of employees in the 50-60 age group: Ministries With Experienced Personnel MINISTRY PERSONNEL (OVERALL) PERSONNEL (AGES 50-60) PERSONNEL AGED 50-60 AS % OF ALL PERSONNEL Textiles 3,095 2,328 75 Coal 305 196 64 Urban Development 30,665 18,962 62 Petroleum & Natural Gas 230 138 60 Science & Technology 6,680 3,787 57 Heavy Industry 246 138 56 New & Renewable Energy 187 97 52 AYUSH 164 84 51 Power 1,044 523 50 The textiles ministry has the highest proportion of employees (75%) in the 50-60 age group, followed by the coal (64%) and urban development (62%) ministries. Among central-government employees, 22.23% are in the 20-30 age group, 22.28% in the 30-40 age group and 26.1% people in the 40-50 age group. Age Profile of Central Government Employees 50 to 60 years – 947,586 40 to 50 years – 860,708 30 to 40 years – 734,689 20 to 30 years – 732,902 Others – 21,537 While the sanctioned strength of central-government employees is more than four million, no more than 3.3 million positions are filled, indicating a vacancy of 744,000 positions or 18%. Indian Railways – one of the world’s largest employers with more than 1.3 million – has the most vacant posts, 235,000 followed by the defence ministry (civil) at 187,000, finance ministry (over 80,000) and home ministry (over 69,000). The government recruited 857,764 people between 2006 and 2014 – an annual recruitment of only 100,000 people every year. During the years 2012 to 2017, India’s labour force is projected to increase by 44.6 million, which is an average annual increase of more than 8.9 million. “This suggests that the Central Government is at best a marginal source for employment generation,” said the Pay Commission report. The recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission are likely to cost the exchequer more than Rs 1 lakh crore ($15 billion) in financial year 2016-17, an increase of 23% over existing salaries and allowances. The 7th Pay Commission has recommended a minimum pay of Rs 18,000 per month — for peons, clerks and some police head constables — and an annual increment of 3%. It has also recommended doubling the ceiling on gratuity (lump sum paid based on years of service) to Rs 20 lakh from the current Rs 10 lakh, enhanced medical insurance and pension schemes.

Source: Business Standard

Pre-2006 Pensioners’ Qualifying Service delinked for full pension

Pre-2006 Pensioners’ Qualifying Service delinked for full pension – Whether all benefited?

Pension Pre-2006 Pensioners in receipt of Pro-Rata Pension which is more than Minimum Pension may not be benefited by OM dated 06.04.2016 for delinking of Qualifying Service from their Pension, and consequently no upward revision in their Pension
Readers might be aware that after a prolonged litigation, Pre-2006 Pensioners have finally got orders of Govt in their favour in the form of Department of Pension OM dated 06.04.2016, for delinking of 33 years of Qualifying Service from Pension with effect from 01.01.2006. Following extract from OM dated 06.04.2016, is the operating portion for the purpose of delinking of Qualifying service from the Pension. “6. …. It has now been decided that the revised consolidated pension of pre-2006 pensioners shall not be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and the grade pay (wherever applicable) corresponding to the prerevised pay scale as per fitment table without pro-rata reduction of pension even if they had qualifying service of less than 33 years at the time of retirement.
Accordingly, Para 5 of this Department’s OM of even number dated 28.1.2013 would stand deleted. The arrears of revised pension would be payable with effect from 1.1.2006”
It is apparent from the above para that for the purpose of delinking of 33 years of QS from Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners, Para 5 of OM dated 28.01.2013 has been deleted. Para 2 of OM dated 28.01.2013 and Erstwhile Para 5 of OM dated 28.01.2013 reads as follows “2. It has been decided that the pension ofpre-2006 pensioners as revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in terms of para 4.1 or para 4.2 of the aforesaid OM dated 1.9.2008, as amended from time to time, would be further stepped up to 50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired, as arrived at with reference to the fitment tables …” ” 5.
The pension so arrived at in accordance with para 2 above and indicated in Col. 9 of Annexure will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules,…” What we interpret out of the above: While Para 2 of OM dated 28.01.2013 ensures that Pre-2006 Pension is not less than 50% of sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner retired, para 5 of OM dated 28.01.2013 restricts the said Pension (50% of sum of pay and GP) to Pro-rata on the basis of QS of the pensioners. Para 5 of OM dated 28.01.2013, having been deleted by OM dated 06.04.2016, now it is ensured that Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners shall not be lower than 50% of sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and grade pay corresponding to their pre-revised pay scale irrespective their QS.

So, Qualifying Service of Pre-2006 Pensioners who are in receipt of pro-rata Pension not more than 50% of sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and grade pay corresponding to their pre-revised pay scale, gets delinked now and they are entitled to Full Pension (50% of pay and GP corresponding to pre-revised scale) from 1st January 2006 by virtue of modified OM dated 28.01.2013, 30.07.2015 and 06.04.2016. In the case of family pensioners it will be not less than 30% of pay and gp corresponding to pre-revised scale. Out of this interpretation following queries arise: What about the Pre-2006 Pensioners with less than 33 years of qualifying service and fixed with pro-rata pension on the basis of QS at the time of retirement, which is more than 50% of sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and grade pay corresponding to their pre-revised pay scale, after 6CPC revision of pension from 1st Jan 2006?

Are these Pre-2006 Pensioners entitled to delinking of their Qualifying Service from Pension? Whether OM dated 06.04.2016 has enough provisions to revise the pro-rata Pension fixed under Rule 49 of Pension Rules at the time of retirement, to full Pension by delinking QS right from the date of retirement? Many pre-2006 Pensioners who are coming under this category are of the opinion that as per OM dated 06.04.2016, their pro-rata pension has to be revised to full Pension by delinking QS right from the date of their retirement and Pension revision as per 6CPC Orders will have to be made based on the Full Pension. Checkout the opinion of Pre-2006 Pensioners in the form of Comments to GConnect Pre-2006 Pension Arrears Calculator However, we are of the opinion that delinking QS as per OM dated 06.04.2016 is limited to Pre-2006 Pensioners who are in receipt of Pro-rata Pension not more than 50% of sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and grade pay corresponding to their pre-revised pay scale. If at all Qualifying Service of all Pre-2006 Pensioners is to be delinked from their Pension, Para 5.4 of OM F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 02.09.2008 will have to be modified suitably. This OM which is issued for revision of Pension of Post-2006 Pensioners consequent on implementation 6th Pay Commission recommendations still keeps delinking of qualifying service out of the purview of Pre-2006 Pensioners. Further, Rule 49 of Pension Rules based on which pro-rata was fixed has been modified to this extent as per Para 5.6 of OM dated 02.09.2008.

The above conclusion is our interpretation in order to highlight the limitation of OM dated 06.04.2016 issued by Govt for the purpose of delinking qualifying service of pre-2006 from Pension. Readers who concur or differ with this view can provide their valuable opinion as comments to this article. We feel that healthy discussion could decide further course of action by Pre-2006 Pensioners in this issue.

Security Measures For Online Booking of Train Tickets

Security Measures For Online Booking of Train Tickets In order to facilitate hassle free booking by genuine ticket seekers, time check has been implemented for filling of CAPTCHA, Passengers details and carrying out payment. These checks negate the benefit of automated software for form filling. In order to ensure security of the e-ticketing website, audit of the e-ticketing system is got conducted by Standardisation Testing and Quality Certification (STQC) Directorate, which is an attached office of the Department of Information Technology (DIT), Government of India. This Press Release is based on information given by the Minister of State for Railways Shri Manoj Sinha in a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha on 11.05.2016 (Wednesday). Source:

Procedure for online submission of statement of deduction of tax: IT Notification No 6/2016

Procedure for online submission of statement of deduction of tax: IT Notification No 6/2016

Income Tax CBDT Notification on Procedure for online submission of statement of deduction of tax under sub-section (3) of section 200 and statement of collection of tax Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued a notification regarding procedure for online submission of Statement of deduction of tax.
F. No. DGIT(S)/ADG(S)-2/TDS e-filing Notification/110/2016
Government of India Ministry of Finance Central Board of Direct Taxes Directorate of Income Tax (Systems)

Notification No 6/2016
New Delhi, 4th May, 2016

Procedure for online submission of statement of deduction of tax under sub-section (3) of section 200 and statement of collection of tax under proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 31A(5) and rule 31AA(5) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 respectively
The provisions relating to the statement of deduction of tax under sub-section (3) of section 200 and the statement of collection of tax under proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) are prescribed under Rule 31A and Rule 31AA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) respectively. As per sub-rule (5) of rule 31A and sub-rule (5) of rule 31AA of the Rules, the Director General of Income-tax (Systems) shall specify the procedures, formats and standards for the purposes of furnishing and verification of the statements and shall be responsible for the day to day administration in relation to furnishing and verification of the statements in the manner so specified.

2. In exercise of power conferred by sub-rule (5) of rule 31A and sub-rule (5) of rule 31AA of the Rules, the Principal Director General of Income-tax (Systems) hereby lays down the following procedures of registration in the e-filing portal, the manner of the preparation of the statements and submission of the statements as follows:

3. The deductors/collectors will have the option of online filing of e-TDS/T CS returns through e-filing portal or submission at TIN Facilitation Centres. Procedure for filing e-TDS/e-TCS statement online through e-filing portal is as under:

a. Registration: The deductor /collector should hold valid TAN and is required to be registered in the e-filing website ( as “Tax Deductor Collector” to file the “e-TDS/e-TCS Return”.
b. Preparation: The Return Preparation Utility (RPU) to prepare the TDS/TCS Statement and File Validation Utility (FVU) ,to validate the Statements can be downloaded from the tin-nsdl website ( The statement is required to be uploaded as a zip file and submitted using a Digital Signature Certificate. The signature file for the zipped file will be generated using the DSC Management Utility (available under ‘Downloads’ in the e-Filing website
c. Submission: The deductor/collector is required to login to the e-filing website using TAN and go to TDS -> Upload TDS. The deductor/collector is required to upload the “Zip” file along with the signature file (generated as explained in para (b) above). Once uploaded, the status of the statement shall be shown as “Uploaded”. The uploaded file shall be processed and validated at the e-filing portal. Upon validation the status shall be either “Accepted” or “Rejected which will reflect within 24 hours from the time of upload. The status of uploaded file will be visible at TDS -> View Filed TDS. In case the submitted file is “Rejected”, the reason for rejection shall be displayed.

(Gopal Mukherjee) Pr. DGIT (Systems),

7th Pay Commission Implementation To Boost Quality Of Life Of Employees

Nwe Delhi: Quality of life of central government employees is more important than a regular income from a salary, a Union minister has suggested on condition of anonymity.

The 7th Pay Commission headed by Justice A K Mathur submitted its report to Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in November. The minister, indicated 7th Pay Commission implementation should be able them to withdraw higher pay to make them happy. In last last November, the Pay Commission headed by Justice A K Mathur submitted its report to Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, recommending 23.55 per cent hike in salaries and allowances of Central government employees and pensioners. The panel also recommended a 14.27 per cent increase in basic pay, the lowest in 70 years. The previous 6th Pay Commission had recommended a 20 per cent hike, which the government doubled while implementing it in 2008.

The Seventh pay commission recommended fixing the highest basic salary at Rs 250,000 and the lowest at Rs 18,000and its increased the pay gap between the minimum and maximum from existing 1:12 to 1: 13.8. While a secretary-level Empowered Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary P K Sinha was formed in January to review its proposals. The Finance Ministry sources came up with the remark that central government employees are likely to get 30 per cent pay hike while talking to us about hiking of pay scales of all central government employees and officials by the Empowered Committee of Secretaries than the 7th Pay Commission recommendations.

The major changes on 7th Pay Commission recommendations of pay scales are possible, they added. From July it will be much easier for employees to maintain the quality of life for their families to withdraw higher pay from from government exchequer, the minister said. But critics fear that common people to face financially struggle for inflation if the 7th Pay Commission takes effect from July this year. The minister also said that in future salaries will be able to allow them to enjoy their quality of lives with their families.. He added, “The significance here is that in the past we’ve thought about salary is needed for maintaining their families but actually what they need in their service is quality of life and that might be maintained after getting higher salary.” He also said that the 7th Pay Commission implementation will allow low paid employees to pay off debts that have been “getting them down”. The minister explained “One of the great things about 7th Pay Commission implementation is low paid employees will pay off debts that have been hanging over them, that have been getting them down, that they wouldn’t have been able to pay off. They’ll be able to do that and they’ll feel great about it.”

The minister also insisted that Empowered Committee of Secretaries, who are processing the recommendations of 7th Pay Commission, are likely to recommend highest salary for central government RS 2,70,000 and the lowest at Rs 21,000 “I am happy that 7th Pay Commission award is likely to accept over our government in June. 30 percent salary hike with 63 percent hike in accommodation and transport and 24 percent in pension is better than Sixth Pay Commission award” the minister added.


Seventh Pay Commission: Govt employees may get 30 % hike; Cabinet nod likely by June-end

Seventh Pay Commission: Govt employees may get 30 % hike; Cabinet nod likely by June-end

New Delhi, May 12: In what could be termed as yet another good news for Central Government employees, Finance Ministry most likely will seek Cabinet nod for the recommendations of the Seventh pay commission by June-end. Read more: Seventh Pay Commission: Simple pay structure likely to be introduced; no hurdle in cabinet Cabinet approval is the last formality government needs to do, before increased payout will be handed over to the government staff.

Reportedly, Modi Government is aiming to implement pay commission in the month of July, after state elections will get over. Sources say that Centre will most likely give overall 30 per cent hike. Currently, Empowered Committee of Secretaries is overviewing pay commission's recommendations. Most likely, Committee will submit its report to Finance Ministry in the first week of June, just after Assembly elections in the state. Sources say panel has pushed for more increment than earlier proposed by the Commission in its report. Panel propses 30 percent basic pay raise instead of 14.27 per cen increment by Pay panel in its September report. Read more: 7th Pay Commission: All you need to know about recent updates of 'salary increment' As per media reports, secretaries panel have suggested maximum salary to be Rs. 2,70,000, which is twenty thousand more than the prescribed upper limit by the pay commission. Panel wants lowest salary to be fixed at Rs. 21,000, which is three thousand more than the lower prescribed limit. Earlier, Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), the labour wing of BJP met Jitendra Prasad, Union Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension to express their concerns about the Pay Commission. The BMS, the largest central trade union organization in India, sought an increase in the Multiplication Factor and changes in the HRA. Minister also assured Union that it will consider maximum possible payout for them.

OneIndia news

Blog Archive


The contents posted on these Web Site are personal reflections of the Viewers and do not reflect the views of the "Indian Military Veterans- Web" Team. Neither the "Indian Military Veterans -Web" nor the individual authors of any material on these Web accept responsibility for any loss or damage caused (including through negligence), which anyone may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of use of or reliance on information contained in or accessed through these Web.
This is not an official Web site. This forum is run by team of ex- Indian Army, Veterans for social networking of Indian Defence Veterans. It is not affiliated to or officially recognized by the MoD or the AHQ, or Government/ State.
The Indian Military Veterans Forum will endeavor to edit/ delete any material which is considered offensive, undesirable and or impinging on national security. The WebTeam is very conscious of potentially questionable content. However, where a content is posted and between posting and removal from the Web in such cases, the act does not reflect either the condoning or endorsing of said material by the Team.
Web Moderator: Capt KS Ramaswamy (Retd)