|Soaring hopes for PSU staff?|
21 percent resulting in an additional annual burden of nearly Rs 18,000 crore for the Union government, besides a pay out of arrears of Rs 30,000 crore. The next set of recommendations is likely to be implemented from January 1, 2016. The announcement also raises hopes for tens of millions of salaried PSU employees. Here it is pertinent to have a look at what the Sixth Pay Commission recommended for the pay hike of the PSU employees.
The Sixth Pay Commission, headed by justice BN Srikrishna, was constituted on 5 October 2006. It submitted its report on 24 March 2008, but its recommendations were implemented retrospectively from 1 January 2006. The report led to a 6 percentage points increase in dearness allowance for central government employees from 16 percent to 22 percent.
Under the Terms of Reference, the Commission had to take into account, among other factors, the prevailing pay structure and retirement benefits available under the CPSEs. The Fourth Pay Commission was similarly required under its terms of reference to take into account the pay structure under the PSUs. Although comparison with the public sector was not part of the terms of reference of the Fifth Pay Commission, they did collect information from various PSUs for the purpose of making a fair comparison and an assessment of the general climate of wage revisions in the country.
Both the Fourth and Fifth Pay Commissions found that the public sector itself was not a homogenous unit or group for comparison of emoluments. They observed that there were several differences in terms of total benefits and emoluments of employees in the Central Government and PSUs and it was, therefore, difficult to compare the emoluments of Central Government employees and those in PSUs. Fourth Pay Commission concluded that the pay structure of Central government employees cannot be based on a simple comparison of the pay scales of posts at the lowest level in the Public Sector Undertakings. The PSUs were created by Government for specified purposes and had adopted their own pay structure. The nature of work and conditions of service were different.
The Fifth commission making similar observations in regard to the heterogeneity in the pay scales across the public sector, did not concede the principle of parity between the Government and the comparison with the public and private sector.
In the changing paradigm of a competitive environment, the Sixth Pay Commission observed that the issue of comparison with the public sector has necessarily to be examined as the PSUs needed to function in a competitive environment and have the commercial objective as the predominant objective. A comparison of salaries between the public sector and the Government may not be appropriate as it would not be a comparison between similarly placed entities.
The Sixth Pay Commission studied the mechanism by which the salaries of employees of public sector undertakings are determined and the conditions that govern them with the aim of examining if any comparison could be drawn.
The department of public enterprises (DPE) functions as the nodal department on the policy related to wage settlement of unionized employees, non-unionized supervisors, executives and board members. The public enterprises are categorized in 4 schedules viz. A, B, C and D based on quantitative factors like investment, capital employed, net sales, profit before tax, number of employees, etc.; qualitative factors such as national importance, level of technology, prospects for expansion and diversification, etc. as well as on the strategic importance of the corporation. The pay scales of chief executives and full time functional directors in Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) are determined as per the schedule of the concerned enterprise.
The Commission observed that in a bid to woo more efficient staff to the Group A posts and to technical posts for which a demand exists in the market, the Commission recommended a higher starting salary for Group A posts. It said the Government should have the flexibility to offer a market driven salary to highly qualified scientific and technical personnel whose skills are in demand in the private sector. The higher package will, however, be accompanied with a fixed term contract which could be altered based on performance, it recommended.
The Commission also suggested regarding the appointment to selected posts at higher levels on contractual and tenurial basis where market driven salaries could be paid in order to attract the best possible expertise to the Government. Further, taking into account the fact that a large portion of the salary in the private sector comes from performance related payments, the Commission has recommended introduction of performance related incentives in the Government. This is also expected to bridge the gap vis-à-vis the private sector.
The Central Government had earlier said that in so far as wages for CPSE workers are concerned no budgetary support for the wage increase is to be provided by the Government and resources for meeting the increased obligations must be internally generated and must come from improved performance in terms of productivity and profitability and not from the Government. The validity period of wage settlement would be 10 years with 100 percent DA neutralization w.e.f. 1.1.2007 and the revision would be subject to the condition that there is no increase in labour cost per physical unit of output except in rare cases.
CPSEs which have incurred a loss during all the three financial years preceding the proposed wage negotiation have also been allowed to enter into negotiations provided they give an estimate to their ministry as to how resources would be generated by them to meet the extra expenditure arising out of implementation. In sick PSUs, no revision is to be allowed until BIFR approves the revival plan for these enterprises.
The Sixth Commission called for detailed information on the package of benefits available in the PSUs in the power and the petroleum sector, most of which are profit making, for making a comparison. The examination of inputs received has revealed that while the pay scales of executives and non-unionized supervisory staff are generally comparable across PSUs owing to the fact that salary revision is carried out based on the recommendations of the Committee set up by DPE and not by individual PSUs, considerable variation in the pay scales of workers across PSUs exists due to the practice of separate wage negotiations by individual PSUs. Therefore, even among PSUs, a comparison cannot be made, observed the commission.
The Sixth Pay Commission made certain recommendations on pay scales and allowances keeping in view the concepts which are in existence in PSUs such as percentage based increments, introduction of performance related incentives, interest subsidy on loans, voluntary retirement schemes, etc.
While framing any scale structure, basic befits like , medical, food/DA shll be more or less equall for all the categories... pleaseReplyDelete
all the genius, forgot the sick psu employees(indian psu slaves),their not responsible for sick,govt foolish policy corrupted politicians highly educated vested interest bureaucrats is the only reason.but they are all enjoying wage revision benefits punishment for sick psu employees.still some sick psu employees getting 1987 pay scale in 2014?mr.chidambaram did you aware about this?.ReplyDelete
In sick PSUs, no revision is to be allowed until BIFR approves the revival plan for these enterprises.BRPSE recomended the revival but chidamparam reject the proposal then ,,how they get wage revision? highly educated most powerful bureaucrats pl answer this,why wage hike for you.pl think how to revive the sick psu.what is the reason,then only you will be allowed for wage revision,otherwise your wage revision is from our sins.you want that kind of revision? what is your part for reviving the sick psu? shameless officers.(forgive me for my English).ReplyDelete
Recently SAIL management agreement done for non-executive of SAIL more than Rs50,000/- Basic Pay in a S-11 Grade Where as an executive of E-1 grade Getting only Rs 20600/- which is very shame full and harassment to SAIL executives. So it is expected a comparative Pay Scale from Seventh Central Pay Commission.ReplyDelete
Non-executive chaprasis of SAIL are getting basic salary which are more than gross salary of E 1 executives!ReplyDelete
Joke or Shame??
What an executive do just orders .muft mein kya 1 lakh chayiyr.non executive deserves and should get more than executives.ReplyDelete
Shameless non exs of sail... They work for 4 hours and sleep for four hours... SAIL should be sold off and the non ex ppl should be fired.Delete
then why to study more, let them recruit all non executives, they have to go for ITI colleges not to IITs for recruitment.ReplyDelete
SAIL-PRP bi E-1 executives ko Rs.1000/1400 aaya hey........shame on u SAILReplyDelete
-ve PRP bhi aaya hai....ReplyDelete
Production and non production group are treated equally. Inspire of there is difference in work environment and responsibility....
Executives at Some of unit of sail got -ve PRP although that unit had beaten the Annual Target while some unit was closed due to some reason and had not any production, the executives of that unit got handsome of PRP........
This is standard of a maha ratana.....
govt should not see retired sick p s u officers dues with two different eye from same human body with other p s u compare .concern ministry enjoy full pay benefit to see control of sick p s u and concern are dying with slow poison injection policy to died natural .why it take 25 years to decides their revival ,some psu get but fail due to poor management ,is retired responsible ,pl act immediately to sell and pay dues . pl don't mind its gr evince ,REGARDSReplyDelete
Do the PSUs (Maharatna, Navratn, Miniratna companies like IOCL, BEL, RailTel etc.) come under Pay commission???ReplyDelete
why banks are not covered under pay commissionsReplyDelete
how much NTPC WILL PAY AFTER 7TH CPCReplyDelete
Government should understand the mistakes done by SAIL management, which does have any knowledge/guidelines/norms while fixing pay scales of employees of their organisation.ReplyDelete
In SAIL, Non-executives have been allocated higher pay scales than junior & mid level executives with benefits like behaving in union style, working as per own norms laid down by unions in spite of accepting rules & regulations during wage negotiations laid down by management and management does not have the guts to tell non-executives to follow the rules. Where as rules not even agreed to during last wage negotiations with Officers Association are forced by management upon officers to follow them strictly. Senior level officers are getting too much higher pay packets, so they are least bothered with rules and restrictions, because they belong to decision maker groups. Maximum job in any areas are carried out by junior level executives, but they don't have much say in decision making. Senior level executives along with non-executives never care for following rules properly. So MTTs thinking of joining SAIL try to join SAIL at higher levels because there is no future for junior level executives in SAIL.ReplyDelete
some sick psu given revival in Feb 2010 and pay revision 1997 implemented with out arr ear .if worker opt vrs ,pay revision advance hold by co and pay revision arr ear of 1992 given .pay revision arrears still not paid by co .sick psu enjoying this dues payment without any interest and worker are suffer and getting sick epf pension as sickness have no time period limit .25 years sickness might be very less time period in concern govt where a sevice period of a worker is maximum 30 to 35 years .paid different flowers to each sick co is very harmful for psu working ,their is no vrs policy in sick psu from any years and no vacancy fill up in sick psu workers on average according to co strength are naturally retired . ant these sick psu also safe vrs amount but till today fail to pay stucharry dues of retired as well workingReplyDelete
sick p s u retired workers dues paymet of 1997 and 2007 when paid by co .why govt fail to frame time frame policy for dues payment and govt is thing for 2017 pay revision ,supreme court should stop thisReplyDelete
what is the state % in P S U company in staff recrutmentReplyDelete
the same thing happened in HAL S-11 PEOPLE ARE GETTING 56000 BASIC PAY where as E1 executive are getting 20000 ,gross pay is less than BP of an ITI WORKERReplyDelete
What kind of stupid mentality is this...???ReplyDelete
A worker/supervisory grade employee works for 20 years to reach s-11 basic pay.
Whereas an E-1 executive gets 16400 basic at the time of joining only..in another 20 years he/she is likely to reach E-6/E-7 scale.
To my dear executives, worker/supervisors ki mehnat ko samjho unka khyal rakho,,,because mano ya na mano officer to aap ho ho na...
GOVT SICK PSU MANAGEMENTS USING DIFFERENT PARCEL BOOKING JOBS BUSINESS FOR CO TO EARN SOME MONEY GOVT SHOULD IMMEDIATELY SELL OF 20 YEARS OLD SICK CO WHICH ARE DOING NON CORE OF BUSINESS WHICH ARE NOT COME UNDER P S U NORMS AND GOVT HAVE BURN THEIR HANDS OF DIFFERENT SICK P S U REVIVAL SCHEME NO GOOD RESULTS BY ANY SICK P S U CO AND SETTLED THE CASES OF DUES OF RETIRED WORKERS WHICH USE BY SICK CO IN THEIR WORKING CAPITAL WITH ANY INTEREST.WHICH IS IN JUSTICE IN LAW .ReplyDelete
Really it is a worst part in sick PSUDelete
all the genius, forgot the sick psu employees(indian psu slaves),their not responsible for sick,govt foolish policy corrupted politicians highly educated vested interest bureaucrats is the only reason.but they are all enjoying wage revision benefits punishment for sick psu employees.still some sick psu employees getting 1987 pay scale in 2014?FM did you aware about this?.ReplyDelete
ONLY DREAMING FOR DIVIDEND PAID CO AND TO DISINVESTMENT OF PS U CO IS MATTER OF CONCERN , AT LEAST INFUSE SOME SUPPORT FUND TO RETIRED SICK P S U AT LEAST 30% BENEFIT AS OTHER P S U WORKERS ENJOYING .Delete
Non executive level of employee should think why Govt has stopped recruitment at this level. Of course there are some hard working employees. But today in PSUs most of employees are just enjoying the job of PSU. Any body can see this in NTPS or in SAIL. Next generation will never forgive U and yr Trade Unions.ReplyDelete
What should be the pay revision in powergrid.what are the critaria for pay revisionReplyDelete
Will 7th Pay Commission affect the salaries of HAI employees?ReplyDelete
sick psu working is like a compact auto engine which involve multi mechanism assembly to to run smooth efficent speed .a auto engine can not be treated by out side mechanism when piston rings are wear . a ta-plan layer on coating on sick p s u fail always .govt should act very fast over this matterReplyDelete
mera Sail me OCT ka exam clear ho gya h.....kya salary hogi starting me....interview me kya puchte h bhaiyo....ReplyDelete
GOVT GIVEN A LEG SUPPORT IN BUDGET 2016 TO BANKING SECTOR IRRESPECTIVE SHALL BE REASON OF EACH RESPECTIVE BANK.AND THE SAME TIME BANKS LOSE PUBLIC MONEY AND ALSO RIGHT OFF BAD DEBITS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ACCOUNT AS THEY WISE AND THE SAME TIME BORROWER SHALL RICH WITH SAME BANK LOSS AND USE THE CREDIT MONEY IN OTHER HIS OBJECTS BUT P S U MANUFACTURE CO WHICH ARE SICK FORM MORE THEN 25 YEARS IRRESPECTIVE THE REASON AS IN CASE OF BANKING SECTOR OF LOSS WHY NOT GOVT GIVING ANY LEG SUPPORT OR UMBRELLA IS A MATTER OF THOUGHTSReplyDelete
SIR , how much years and how much industry minister further need for decision to pay dues for retired workers of sick workers .come state forwarded and tell them yes we pay or not pl don't lingering don't open non concern chapterReplyDelete
if non-ex are getting more than executives ie-s11=50000 &e1=20000 that is b'coz they have spend more than half of their lyf giving in sail .shameful for those people who compare, then why don't u compare the payscale of a DGM than S11???ReplyDelete
PSUS ARE SOME WHAT BETTER...SEE WHAT WORK IS DONE BY ORDINANCE FACTORIES, AND HOW WORKERS ARE ENJOYING OVERTIME WITHOUT WORK..ALSO IES PEOPLE ARE ENJOYING WITH HIGH PAYS WITHOUT WORK..ONLY EXECUTIVES IN PSUS ARE WORKING WITH LESS PAY AND HARFWORKReplyDelete