Saturday, January 30, 2010

Andhra Cabinet gives nod for UGC revised scales. Manipur Pay Commission Update.

The Andhra Pradesh Cabinet today gave in principle approval for the implementation of University Grants Commission (UGC) revised pay scales 2006, with effect from January 1, 2006.

The Cabinet, which met under the chairmanship of Chief Minister K Rosaiah, took the decision to benefit teachers in university colleges and eligible teachers in government and aided degree colleges in the state, Information Minister J Geeta Reddy told reporters in a post-cabinet meeting briefing.

The total financial implication towards payment of arrears up to March 31, 2010 would be Rs 1,080 crore, of which Rs 864 crore would be borne by the Centre and the remaining by the state government. The annual recurring expenditure of about Rs 330 crore would be borne entirely by the state government, she said.

Source :

Manipur Pay Update

Rejecting the blanket order issued by the government over the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission recommendation in state, the JAC of AMTUC and AMGEO has questioned the intention of the government for its reluctance in paying the arrear of the employees while the amount for the same has been demanded from the 13th Finance Commission.

A statement issued today by the publicity and information secretary of the JAC, L Priyobratta pointed out that the state government has demanded allocation of more fund to the 13th Finance Commission citing that the implementation of 6th Pay recommendation to employees and pensioners of the state government would be effected from 1-1-2006 .

The government has proposed to the 13th Finance Commission that Rs 1,447 crore arrear for employees and pensioners of the state for the period from 2006 to 2010 would be paid in two installments.

80% of the arrear will be paid in 2010-11 while the remaining 60% will be paid in 2011-12, according to the statement.

The JAC statement questioned why the government is now issuing an order not to pay the arrears to employees and pensioners.

It added that the government had constituted a Committee of Officers with the then Chief Secretary as the chairman on October 1, 2008 to oversee the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission recommendation.

As per the terms of reference, the committee was to submit its reports within four months.

After prolonged cover up of the committee's report, the government has on January 16 issued an order saying that the 6th Pay Commission recommendation would be implemented as per the report of the Committee of Officers.

It stated that the government has failed to make a copy of the recommendations of the Committee of Officers available to the JAC representatives during the meeting held between the two parties.

The JAC representatives were only told that the period of the committee has been extended.

The JAC expressed doubts over the move of the government.

The JAC statement further appealed to all employees and pensioners to participate in the mass silent rally to be held on February 4 .

Source: Hueiyen News Service and E PAO.


Dr.Bh.Subrahmanyam said...

Great injustice has been made to seniors and those with doctorates too in the form of an anomaly in the outgoing 1996 UGC scales. This rather unpopular anomaly has been in vogue in the form of award of Rs.14940 Basic Pay (in 1996 scales) to only those who were already in “Selection Grade” scale in the 1986 UGC scales as on 01-01-1996. Because of this obnoxious provision, thousands of seniors and many of them with doctorates were denied of the fruits of their labour whereas their juniors with lesser qualifications too like M.Phil. have been drawing higher emoluments in the 1996 UGC scales. Now on the basis of these very scales the “Fixation Table” has been prepared by the UGC and new scales are going to be implemented without the said anomaly being rectified. In other words, the glaring and disastrous effect of the said thoughtless fixation made during 1996 scales continues to have its negative sway even on the incoming new 2006 UGC scales also. This very bad practice leads to many teachers becoming twice accursed. Quite a number of High Courts have disapproved this practice and even the UGC accepted this anomaly but nothing was done to rectify it legally and officially. Moreover it has been unfortunately allowed to creep into the new 2006 scales also. Just an example… in my college, a junior to me by fours years with M.Phil. qualification only has been not only drawing higher emoluments than me (a doctorate) in the outgoing 1996 scales but will continue to do so even in the incoming new 2006 scales. In fact the difference/rift in scales widens further between us. Because of this, after retirement also, my junior will draw more pension than me.
Officials in the A.P.State Higher Education Department and the host of State-level Unions must bestow their best attention on this glaring anomaly and its immediate rectification even at this late hour when the G.O. on new scales is going to be issued at any time by now. Otherwise new scales become meaningless for teachers like me. Why punish a teacher twice for no fault of his or her? Even the first time punishment during 1996 scales was not justified. But let bygones be bygones…. Let at least now the rectification be made. An unjustified and thoughtless act that had taken place at the UGC and the MHRD levels for the first time at the time fixation of 1996 scales should not serve as basis for continuation of the same folly for the second time during the fixation of 2006 scales. The A.P. State Higher Education Department has a right and duty also to rectify the said anomaly, thereby becoming the protector and not the usurper of interests of the accursed teachers in the said category. They should become a role model for other State Governments’ Higher Education officials in rectifying mistakes of this type of dubious distinction. The Lecturers’ Unions have an equal responsibility in bringing to the attention of the Higher Education officials this anomaly, in a forceful and convincing manner. Let them act before it is too late.

Sky said...

Great post, excellent blog I love your writing style.

how to ollie

Dr.Bh.Subrahmanyam said...

Dear Sky! Thanks for not only going through my blog but also appreciating the same.Since I could not know you or your direct e-mail I am once gain thanking you in the form of this blog.With regards-Bh.Subrahmanyam on 5 th February 2010 at 6.00 p.m.

Dr.Bh.Subrahmanyam said...

Hope at least some of those who have been following my comments,for instance those dated February 1,2010 on this blog must have remembered the anomaly pointed out by me.Alas! the pointed out anomaly could not be rectified in the just released G.O.Ms.No.14,dated 20-02-2010 by the Higher Education Department,Government of Andhra Pradesh.In the said comprehensive G.O.that runs into 74 pages,nowhere it was mentioned about rectification of this anomaly.Great disappointed indeed.

Dr.Bh.Subrahmanyam said...


The recent diktat of the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) to State Governments to implement 2006 UGC scales as a ‘package’ including enhancement of retirement age to 65 years to University and college teachers is a retrograde, dictatorial and illogical measure in many a way. By this the State Governments have no other alternative but to implement the new scales with enhancement retirement age to its college teachers. Otherwise they will not be eligible for even one pie from Centre.

The factual position is the Centre meets only 80% of additional expenditure with States to meet the balance of 20 per cent and that too not for all the five years (as in the past) but for only for a period of four years and three months. Now it dictates the State Governments to bear the entire expenditure after this period till the lecturers attain the age of not the prevailing superannuation age but 65 years. The Chadha Committee basing on which the new scales were granted, in fact suggested 100 per cent bearing of additional expenditure by the Centre for five years and subject to fulfillment of “packaged implementation” by the States (including hiking retirement age to 65 years) the assistance can go on for a further period of five years. These suggestions are also part and parcel of the ‘package’ which the Centre very conveniently flouted. But it wants the States to stick honestly to enhancement of retirement age as if it were the only sacred point of the ‘package.’ One cannot pack as he likes. The convenience of the other party vested with implementation of the ‘package’ too should be taken into account.

Moreover the subject ‘Education’ is in “Concurrent List.” It is the prerogative of the State Governments to fix retirement age of their employees including University and college teachers drawing UGC scales of pay. The Supreme Court upheld several times this right. Now why this compulsion?

Already many States especially Andhra Pradesh are financially in the red. This measure would be the last straw on the camel back. There is another angle too. In most of the colleges many young and fully and qualified lecturers are working on part-time basis and as contract lecturers with very meager salaries. Why not the MHRD come to their rescue? Even if it directs the States to look into their problems, it would have been better instead of blatantly favouring those well-settled and financially viable serving teachers with more than 58 years by gifting them with seven more years of unsolicited service which will not be useful in any manner to the students. After all time and again it has been proved that a teacher with more than 60 years of age cannot teach will and cope-up with the modern day academic demands of the students,especially in under-graduate colleges.

Instead of engaging itself in this type of ill-conceived gimmicks, the MHRD should better set its own house in order. For instance through its foolishness MHRD created a very serious anomaly in respect of the outgoing 1996 scales in the form of award of a higher scale of Rs.14940 under CAS in 1996 scales to only those who were in Selection Grade on 01-01-1996. As this anomaly, that had taken place during 1996 Scales was not set right, it had crept to 2006 scales also. A junior with lesser qualifications get higher pay even in 2006 and life long higher pension also, than his senior with more qualifications too. Though several High Courts ruled against the anomaly and even after UGC too accepted its folly, the MHRD did nothing so far to set right this anomaly.

Dr. Singh said...

Anomaly in Revised Pay Scale of Principals of Engineering Colleges

In 2006 AICTE notification, pay scale of Principals/Directors in Engineering Colleges has been fixed in the Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. 10,000/-, plus a special allowance of Rs. 3000/- p.m.

In 1996 AICTE notification, pay scale of Principals/Heads of Engineering Colleges / TTTIs / NIFFT / SPA / SLIET / NIREST / Degree Level Technical Institutions was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 18,400 - 500 - 22,400 with minimum start at Rs. 19,400/-

Without any discrimination, in 2006 MHRD/UGC/AICTE notification, pay scale of Directors of TTTIs / NIFFT / SPA / SLIET / NIREST has been fixed in the revised pay of Rs.75,000/- plus special allowance of Rs.5000/- p.m.

But with discrimination, in 2006 AICTE notification, pay scale of Principals/Heads of Engineering Colleges/Degree Level Technical Institutions has been has been fixed in the pay band of Professor i.e Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. 10,000/-, (Unrevised 16400-450-20900-500-22400) with only plus special allowance of Rs. 3000/- p. m,

Where as keeping in view the principle of natural justice w.r.t 1996 AICTE notification revised pay of Principals/Directors of state Engineering Colleges should have been fixed at Rs.75,000/- plus special allowance of Rs.5000/- p.m as in case of Directors of TTTIs / NIFFT / SPA / SLIET / NIREST, because all were having same pay scale in 1996 AICTE notification.

Such arbitrary and illogical fixation leads to complete breakdown of the morale of Principals/Directors of all Engineering Colleges. Lowering of existing pay scale since 1996 is humiliating and also perhaps loss of face of state Engineering Colleges. Prior to 2006, since the formation of AICTE, in all pay related orders, Principal pay scale was much higher than that of Professor in a college.

Contact Us

Viewers may share any information with the administrator in this email
Any news, if approved, may be published in this blog under his /her name.
Related Posts with Thumbnails

Blog Archive

Bookmark This Page

Bookmark and Share
All the information published in this webpage is submitted by users or free to download on the internet. I make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this page and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. All the other pages you visit through the hyper links may have different privacy policies. If anybody feels that his/her data has been illegally put in this webpage, or if you are the rightful owner of any material and want it removed please email me at "" and I will remove it immediately on demand. All the other standard disclaimers also apply.