Monday, 31 August 2015
Saturday, 29 August 2015
STRIKE ON 2ND SEPTEMBER MAKE IT A GRAND SUCCESS
FLASH NEWS
COUNTRYWIDE GENERAL STRIKE ON 2ND SEPTEMBER STANDS
CENTRAL TRADE UNIONS REASSERT THE CALL FOR UNITED ACTION
MARCH AHEAD UNITEDLY, MAKE THE COUNTRYWIDE GENERAL STRIKE ON 2ND SEPTEMBER A MASSIVE SUCCESS
After two rounds of discussion between the Group of Ministers and the central trade unions on the 12-point charter of demands of the trade unions held on 26th and 27th August 2015, the GoM headed by Finance Minister, Shri Arun Jaitley sent an appeal through the press release dated 27-08-2015 (Press Information Bureau) after 10 pm urging upon the trade unions to reconsider the call for countrywide general strike on 2nd September 2015 claiming that the Govt has given concrete assurance to consider most of the demands of the trade unions and that the trade unions agreed to consider the Govt’s proposals. Similar appeal was also made in the meeting of 27th August. Both the claims of the Govt are totally incorrect.
To put the facts straight, the joint platform of central trade unions have been pursuing with successive governments at the centre with their basic demands since 2009 and observed three rounds of countrywide general strike since 2010, the last being for two days in February 2013. In the two rounds of meeting between the CTUOs and the Group of Minister, nothing transpired in concrete terms except vague statements by the ministers on steps to be taken or being taken on some of the issues, that too not in the right direction.
The Govt’s press release mentioned, inter alia, certain issues in support of their unfounded claim.
1. The Govt stated about “appropriate legislation for making formula based minimum wages mandatory and applicable” for all. But despite concrete pointers made by the trade unions that such formula should be what has already been unanimously recommended by the 44thIndian Labour Conference in 2012 and again reiterated by 46th Indian Labour Conference in July 2015 in which the Govt of India is also a party, the Ministers did not give any concrete commitment on the same. In fact said formulae recommended by 44th ILC in 2012 and reiterated by 46th ILC in July 2015, makes minimum wage around Rs 20000/- at 2014 price level and the Trade Unions demanded only Rs 15,000/. The Ministers’ vague formulation does not ensure even half of that. Is such a position worth consideration?
2. On contract workers, the Govt assured that they will be guaranteed minimum wages. What is there to assure except spreading deliberate confusion? Existing laws of the land lawfully ensures payment of minimum wages to contract workers. The Govt’s statement regarding “sector specific minimum wages for the contract workers” also does not make any sense. The trade unions demanded “same wages and other benefits as regular workers in the concerned industry/establishment to be paid to contract workers.” The 43rd Indian Labour Conference held in 2011 recommended the same and 46th ILC unanimously reiterated the same in 2015, in which, again, the present Govt is a party. How could they deny the unanimous recommendation of the highest tripartite forum in the country like Indian Labour Conference?
3. The steps taken by the Govt on Labour Law amendments, are meticulously designed to throw out more than 70% of the workers on industries and other establishments from the purview and coverage of almost all basic labour laws and also to eliminate almost all components/provisions of rights and protections of the workers. This was supplemented by more aggressive steps already taken by a good number of state governments to already amend the labour laws in the similar lines. On this issue, the Govt stated only that they will hold tripartite consultation before taking such steps. The trade unions demanded scrapping of such proposals by the central govt and also not to give assents (through President) to the unilateral amendments made by the state governments. Even in all the tripartite consultations held on some of the proposals of the Govt, the trade unions’ unanimous suggestions has been ignored by the Govt in favour of loud supportive applauds of the employers. Once these retrograde changes in labour laws totally dismantling the rights and protection measures for the workers and also throwing more that 70% of the workers out of the purview of labour laws are enacted, thereby rendering the almost entire working people a right-less entity in their workplace, what would ensure even payment of minimum wage and other social security benefits for them, even if those provisions are improved ? Can any trade union, worth its name accept such a machination designed to impose conditions of virtual slavery on the working people ?
4. Despite repeated insistence by all the trade unions, the Govt refused to concede to the demand for recognizing the Scheme workers, viz., Anganwadi, Mid-day meal, ASHA, Para-teachers and others as “worker” with attendant rights of statutory minimum wages and other benefits in gross violation of the unanimous recommendation of the 45th Indian Labour Conference in 2013, reiterated again by the 46th ILC in 2015. These workers and all the schemes have been put to further crisis threatening their existance owing to drastic cut in budgetary allocations for those schemes. In such a situation, does the assurance of the Govt to “extend social security measures” and “working out ways” for the same carry any meaning?
5. On bonus issue, the Govt has assured to revise the eligibility and calculation ceiling to Rs 21000/- and Rs 7000/- respectively from existing Rs 10000/- and Rs 3500/-. Trade Unions’ demand has been that since there is no ceiling on profit, all ceilings in the Payment of Bonus Act should be removed altogether. Trade unions also demanded substantial upward revision of the formula for gratuity calculation and remove the ceiling on gratuity payment. The Govt has negated the demands.
6. On price rise situation, claim of the Govt that it has gone down does not match with ground reality in respect of commodities for daily necessities of the common people. The demands of the trade unions for putting a ban on speculation/forward trading in essential commodities and services along with universalisation of public distribution system throughout the country have been totally ignored.
7. Trade Unions demanded stoppage of disinvestment in public sector undertakings playing crucial and supportive role in advancement of the national economy. Govt totally ignored the same, rather has been going on aggressively in disinvestment route in all the major PSUs much to the detriment of the interest of the country’s economy. On the demands for stoppage of further FDI in defence, railways and financial sector, the stance of the Govt is continuing to be a total denial. Rather, the Govt has been aggressively pursuing deregulation and privatization in strategic sectors like electricity, Port & Docks, Airports etc in a big way.
There are other issues as well, statement of Govt continued to be totally vague and their claim is unfounded. How can anybody, rather any trade union worth its name can consider above stands taken by the Govt on vital demands of the workers as a positive development and move out from the programme of united strike action ?
Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for reconsidering the decisions of the Central Trade Unions for countrywide general strike on 2nd September 2015. Rather, the situation demands that there should be no vascillation in carrying forward the call for general strike on 2nd September 2015 throughout the country in all sectors of the economy with firm determination.
The Central Trade Unions appeal to all working people irrespective of affiliations to make the call for countrywide general strike against the anti-worker, anti-people policies of Govt a massive success.
Friday, 28 August 2015
Central Trade Unions negotiations with Inter Ministerial Committee
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Labour & Employment
27-August-2015 21:05 IST
Inter Ministerial Committee Holds Wider Consultations with Trade Unions on Charter of Demands Appeals to Reconsider Proposed Call for Strike in View of Discussions
The Second meeting of Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) continued discussion on 12 Demands Charter of Trade Unions for the second day here today in continuation of discussions held yesterday. The Committee comprises Shri Arun Jaitley, Finance Minister, Shri Bandaru Dattatreya, MoS(IC) Labour and Employment, Shri Dharmendra Pradhan, MOS(IC) Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shri Jitendra Singh, MoS DOPT, and Shri Piyush Goel, MoS (IC),Power. During the discussions Trade Unions expressed concern and asked for clarifications on their demands. Addressing their concerns and expectations, the Finance Minister explained policies on which the Government is working and assured that the Government is committed to welfare of labour. Underlining the importance of role of Trade Unions, Shri Jaitely assured the Central Trade Unions that all labour laws reforms will be done with due discussions and tripartite consultations.
In view of the discussions held in conducive and cordial atmosphere, the IMC appealed to Trade Unions to reconsider the proposed call for strike on 2nd September, 2015.The Trade Unions have agreed to consider the appeal.
In view of the suggestions given by Central Trade Unions in the meetings held on 19th July, 26th August and 27thAugust, 2015, the Government assured the following :
1.Appropriate legislation for making formula based minimum wages mandatory and applicable to all employees across the country.
2.For the purposes of bonus the wage eligibility limit and calculation ceiling would be appropriately revised. Earlier in 2006-07 the calculation ceiling was decided at Rs.3500/- and eligibility limit was wage of Rs.10,000/- per month which is proposed to be revised to Rs.7,000 and Rs.21,000 respectively.
3.The Government is expanding the coverage of social security and working out ways to include construction workers, Aanganwari workers ,ASHA workers and Mid Day Meal workers..
4.Regarding contract workers the Government assured that they will be guaranteed minimum wages. Moreover, the Government is working out ways so that workers of industries will get sector specific minimum wages.
5.Government has already enhanced minimum pension for EPFO members and every pensioner gets minimum pension of Rs.1000/- per month perpetually.
6.Labour laws reforms will be based on tripartite consultations as already stated by the Prime Minister. The States are also being advised to follow the tripartite process.
7.For strict adherence to labour law enforcement, advisory has been issued to the State/UT Governments and strict monitoring has been initiated by Central Government.
8.For employment generation Mudra Yojana, Make in India, Skill India and National Career Service Portal initiatives have been taken.
9.Abolition of interviews for all primary jobs which do not require any special knowledge/expertise, is being done for transparency and expediting the process of recruitment.
10.Inflation is lowest in the last many years excepting two items onion and pulses. Government is taking necessary steps to contain the higher prices of these two commodities also.
It was further clarified that there is no ban on filling up of vacancies in Government jobs and all concerned Departments are taking necessary action to fill-up these vacancies. It was further assured that the Government is committed to job security, wages security and social security to the workers. The issue of equal wages for equal work for contract workers is an issue requiring wider consultations and a committee will be constituted, if required.
Seventh Pay Commission gets additional time margin to Submit its report
7 वें केन्द्रीय वेतन आयोग की अवधि में विस्तार
प्रधानमंत्री श्री नरेन्द्र मोदी की अध्यक्षता में हुई केंद्रीय मंत्रिमंडल की बैठक में आज 7 वें केन्द्रीय वेतन आयोग की अवधि में चार महीनों के विस्तार यानि 31.12.2015. तक, की मंजूरी दी गयी है।
पृष्ठभूमि:
केंद्र सरकार ने 7 वें केन्द्रीय वेतन आयोग गठन 28.2.2014 को किया गया था। आयोग का गठन दिनांक 28.2.2014 के जिस प्रस्ताव द्वारा किया गया है उसके अनुसार इसके गठन की तारीख से 18 महीने के भीतर इसे अपनी सिफारिश देनी थी और यह समय सीमा 27 अगस्त 2015 को समाप्त हो रही है।
काम की मात्रा और हितधारकों से विचार-विमर्श गहनता के मद्देनजर, 7 वें केन्द्रीय वेतन आयोग ने सरकार से यह अवधि 31.12.2015. तक यानि चार महीनें बढाने के लिए अनुरोध किया था।
Thursday, 27 August 2015
Newly elected body of L Division Bhusaval
COM. A B KEDARI FOR BEING THE NEWLY ELECTED DIVISIONAL SECRETARY AND OTHER YOUNG COMRADES OF NEWLY ELECTED DIVISIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF L- DIVISIONAL BHUSAVAL
Saturday, 22 August 2015
DoP got payments bank license. Let's see Dos and Don'ts of payments banks
Dos of payments banks
* Has to use the word ‘Payments Bank’ in its name to differentiate from other banks * Accept demand deposits, i.e., current deposits, and savings bank deposits from individuals, small businesses and other entities
* To hold a maximum balance of Rs one lakh per individual customer.
* Will be allowed to set up branches, ATMs, BCs
* Allowed to issue debit cards also offer internet banking
* Can accept a large pool of money to be remitted but at the end of the day the balance should not exceed Rs one lakh
* Can accept remittances to be sent to or receive remittances from multiple banks
* Permitted to handle cross border remittance transactions in the nature of personal payments / remittances on the current account
* Allowed to distribute mutual fund products, insurance products and pension products
* Bank can also undertake utility bill payments
Don’ts of payments banks
* No NRI deposits should be accepted
* Cannot issue credit card
* Not allowed to set up subsidiaries to undertake non-banking financial services activities
* Other financial and non-financial services activities of the promoters should not be mingled with the working of payment banks
Seventh Pay Commission latest news
Seventh Pay Commission May Recommend Permanent Pay Panel
New Delhi: The Seventh Pay Commission is likely to recommend the government to form a permanent pay panel to give recommendations to the government from time to time on issues pertaining to pay structure of central government employees.
The four-member Seventh Central Pay Commission team headed by its Chairman Justice A K Mathur (second from right siting).
The permanent pay panel would recommend regular salary hikes in keeping with the rate of inflation.
The formation of the permanent pay panel would help raise the salaries and allowances of central government officials and employees, an official of the pay panel said.
He added the permanent pay panel would recommend salary and allowance hikes in keeping with the rising inflation rate, which will be implemented by the government. “Then it will not be necessary to form a new commission during the next several years for central government employees.”
However, the Seventh Pay Commission got one month extension to submit its recommendations.
Accordingly it is expected to submit its report by the end of September. The time allotted for the commission ends this month.
The government appointed the Seventh Pay Commission on 28 February 2014 under chairman, Justice Ashok Kumar Mathur, with a time frame of 18 months to make its recommendations
“There are some data points that are missing, which we hope to get by this month end. We are trying to submit the report by 20 September,” the official of the pay panel also said.
The government’s salary bill will rise by 9.56% to Rs 1,00,619 crore with the implementation of the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission, according to a statement tabled in Parliament by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on August 12.
The recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission, is likely to be implemented in April, next year.
Tuesday, 18 August 2015
What is OROP and where is it stuck?
The One Rank One Pension scheme remained forgotten until the Sixth Pay Commission presented its recommendations in 2008. For almost two months now, Jantar Mantar, in the heart of central Delhi, is the theatre of a very different battle. Black armband wearing ex-servicemen in regimental accouterments, moustaches quivering with rage and voices screaming betrayal, are on a relay hunger strike demanding One Rank, One Pension (OROP) or, equal pensions for similar ranks and same length of service, regardless of the last drawn pay. Posters on the stage list three places like they would do for military campaigns - Rewari in Haryana, Siachen and the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya-locations where Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised to grant OROP over the past year.
The government says it is already committed to implement OROP. It was first announced by President Pranab Mukherjee in his speech on June 9 last year and then by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in his February 28 budget speech where he set aside Rs 1,000 crore. The delay in implementation is beguiling. The government says it is still "working out the modalities". Ex-servicemen smell perfidy. The government, they suspect, wants to dilute the very definition of OROP. Hence, the street protests at Jantar Mantar.
"We are fighting for the most needy sections of society, over 6.45 lakh widows of soldiers," says Major General Satbir Singh, chairman of the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM) which has led the demand for OROP since 2008. "Today, a soldier's widow gets a pension of just Rs 3,500. How can she raise her children with this paltry sum?"
The OROP issue has triggered a different war between North and South Blocks just a kilometre away from Jantar Mantar. Late last year, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said it would cost the government Rs 8,293 crore to implement its promise of OROP. The move will benefit an estimated 2 million ex-servicemen and 6.45 lakh surviving spouses of military personnel. This spike in the government's annual pension bill has led to differences with the finance ministry which has reportedly turned down the Ministry of Defence's OROP formula.
One story has it that a heated meeting between the defence and finance ministers ended with Parrikar threatening to quit if OROP was not speedily cleared. The finance ministry is believed to have tossed the OROP ball into the court of the Seventh Central Pay Commission which will present its report to the government this October.
The NDA swept to power partly on three promises made to ex-servicemen: the setting up of a war memorial in the heart of Lutyens' Delhi, appointing a veteran's commission and granting One Rank, One Pension. The government is yet to move on the first two and yet to implement the third. Nowhere does it risk a serious loss to its credibility as it does with the delay over OROP.
Narendra Modi is not the first Indian prime minister to worry about the problems of ex-servicemen and pensions. In 1982, PM Indira Gandhi set up a high-level committee to inquire into the problems of ex-servicemen, the government's first-ever such body. It had been prompted by her return as PM in 1980 when she had also held the defence portfolio for two years and when complaints poured in from retired soldiers. In March 1984, she appointed Minister of State for Defence KP Singh Deo to head a committee which included several central ministers - Vayalar Ravi, Janardhana Poojary and PA Sangma. The committee met ex-servicemen across the country and discovered that one of the root causes of their unhappiness lay in defence pensions. Prior to the Third Pay Commission of 1973, the armed forces paid all its retired personnel 75 per cent of their last basic pay. Soldiers, who made up 85 per cent of the Army, were not paid a pension as they served only for five years.
Why is OROP needed?
This changed with the implementation of the Third Pay Commission in 1973. The Pay Commission, which decided pay and salaries for all central government employees, brought the armed forces into its ambit and equated them with civilian personnel. In one fell swoop, officers and men now began to receive only 50 per cent of their last pay. Civilian pension was enhanced from 33 per cent to 50 per cent. The government also increased the tenure of its soldiers from five to 15 years. This meant that a soldier would now be over 35 when he retired.
A second anomaly crept in 1979 when Finance Minister H.N. Bahuguna hiked the pay of serving soldiers by merging a portion of the basic pay to the dearness allowance. This effectively increased their pensions, calculated at 50 per cent of the last pay drawn for 10 months. Thus, the first disparity between pensioners who had retired before and after 1979 crept in. On October 27, 1984, Singh Deo's committee presented its 160-page report with a list of 69 recommendations to Indira Gandhi. India Today accessed this report that first used the word OROP and recommended that the government grant it. Defence pensions were not part of the terms of reference of the committee. The committee decided to include it because pension-related problems were given top priority in representations from ex-servicemen's organisations as also individuals of all the three services.
The committee cited the precedent adopted by the government for handing out pensions for judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court. The government implemented 66 of the 69 recommendations of the committee. It put three crucial suggestions on the backburner-a separate commission for ex-servicemen, an ex-servicemen finance corporation, and, OROP. It was the first time that the government had signaled its reluctance on OROP; it would not be the last. The issue of OROP periodically resurfaced in the Fourth and Fifth Pay Commissions but was never implemented. The Ministry of Defence preferred to narrow the gap between past and present pensioners by making one-time payments to 'modify parity', like the committee headed by then defence minister Sharad Pawar did in 1991.
OROP remained forgotten until the Sixth Pay Commission presented its recommendations in 2008. The Pay Commission widened the disparity between military personnel who had retired before and after January 1, 2006-the date from which it would take effect. The implications of the Sixth Pay Commission were that a soldier with 17 years of service retiring before 2006 would get Rs 7,605 less than a soldier retiring in 2014. A Major General with 33 years of service who retired in 2006 would get Rs 30,000 less than his counterpart who retired in 2014.
This huge disparity instantly sparked demands by ex-servicemen's movements for equal pension. The OROP fire was lit. The UPA turned down OROP for administrative, legal and financial reasons. To pass on the benefits to previous pensioners would be a gigantic administrative task because records of pensioners prior to the 1980s were held in handwritten registers. The law ministry had warned against implementing OROP and held out a Supreme Court judgement which upheld the government's right to announce a cut-off date for any emolument. Besides, said the bureaucrats, other government services like the paramilitary forces too would ask for OROP. A 2011 report of a committee headed by BJP MP Bhagat Singh Koshyari recommended OROP. The committee also precisely defined what it meant by OROP-equal pay for the same rank in the same length of service irrespective of date of retirement. This committee report too went into cold storage.
The UPA relented only when the 2014 general elections were upon it. In February 2014, it released Rs 500 crore for OROP in its interim budget. In April 2014, a draft government letter signed by Defence Minister A.K. Antony listed out the revised pay scales for pensioners (see chart). OROP provided huge benefits to the lower ranks. A pension parity would double pensions given to soldiers, frÂÂom Rs 4,000 to more than Rs 8,000. It would also benefit pensioners who had retired at the lower ranks, partiÂÂcularly Majors who would see their Rs 14,000 monthly pensions double. (These are yet to be implemented). The UPA's sudden U-turn on OROP was forced by the NDA's PM candidate Narendra Modi who announced OROP at an ex-servicemen's rally in Rewari, Haryana in September 2013. But as the current impasse shows, it now seems that the Modi government is having a rethink and may even be reluctant to implement its proposals in full. The Seventh Pay Commission is set to be implemented beginning January next year. If OROP is not implemented soon, veterans fear the Seventh Pay Commission will only widen the disparity between pensioners. The issue, as Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha says, is more than just pensions. "At a time when countries such as Britain are entering into legal covenants between government, citizens and their armed forces-enshrining in law the country's obligations for the sacrifices and service of armed forces-it's important that we do the same and most importantly not to break OROP commitments made to our veterans and serving men and women."
When did the OROP issue surface?
Successive governments since those of Indira Gandhi have worried over a phenomena. Each year, nearly 60,000 trained Army soldiers retire and become civilians. This is among the largest drain of trained manpower in the world. The 1.5 million-strong armed forces, the world's fourth largest, retires its soldiers at the age of 34 to ensure they retain their youthful profile. Most draw military pensions that ranges between 35 and 50 per cent of the last pay drawn. The Sixth Pay Commission was the first to suggest a way out of the pension trap. The Commission presented its report in 2008, in the midst of a surge in central paramilitary force numbers to counter left wing extremism. It devoted a full chapter to the issue of lateral induction to what it saw was the clearest solution yet to providing trained manpower for central paramilitary forces and providing sufficiently long tenure for defence forces personnel. It even suggested abolition of the armed forces pay group structure so that a lateral shift would not lead to a loss of pay. But this was not to be. While implementing the report in 2008, the government promised to "examine the issue at a later date". After five years, in 2013, the home ministry finally wrote to the Central Pay Commission that the proposal was "not acceptable at this point". The proposal for laterally inducting personnel to save paying them pensions, was thus quietly buried.
Can NDA afford to implement OROP?
An Indian Army presentation to the Seventh Pay Commission earlier this year attacked the very basis of the government's opposition to OROP: that pensions are simply unaffordable.
The MoD's opposition to OROP came through in its 2011 deposition by the Secretary (Expenditure) before the Koshyari Committee estimated it would cost Rs 1,065 crore to implement OROP. This figure would increase by 10 per cent each year, finally touching Rs 2,379 crore by 2016-17, when the Seventh Pay Commission would add a 25 per cent increase in pensions. This calculation, as Parrikar's newest OROP estimate of Rs 8293 crore now shows, underestimated the payout.
The Army presentation prepared by its Pay Commission Cell, excerpts of which were accessed by india today, says this is far from the truth. The Army has linked defence pensions with the growth of the GDP to show that they are actually shrinking as a percentage of the defence pension budget with regards to GDP. The Army says the present pension bill of Rs 54,500 crore also includes those for 4 lakh defence civilians. "There is no doubt the (pension) figures would rise in absolute numbers. However, when viewed as a percentage of the nation's GDP, the expenditure on defence pensions shows an overall declining trend-from 0.54 per cent of the GDP in 1999-2000 to 0.38 per cent in 2014-15," the Army presentation says. The ex-servicemen have pointed at the bureaucracy as being the stumbling block to OROP. "It is the bureaucracy that is denying us our rightful dues. Before he took charge of his bureaucrats, (Parrikar) was fed figures ranging from Rs 1,300 crore to Rs 22,000 crore to create a scare of a financial shortage," says Major General Satbir Singh. But the bureaucrats deny this. "Left to itself the bureaucracy would not like to implement OROP because of various reasons such as other services asking for it. But once the political leadership commits to it, then all other reasons cease to matter," a senior defence ministry bureaucrat says.
The ex-servicemen, have meanwhile, intensified their agitation with calls to boycott the government's commemoration of the Golden Jubilee of the 1965 India-Pakistan war this month and, an indefinite hunger strike after August 15.
The political will to implement OROP seems to have vanished and this is what is worrying retired service chiefs. At least two former service chiefs, Admiral Arun Prakash and General Ved Prakash Malik, recently warned of the impact of the OROP on the morale of serving soldiers. General Malik, Army chief during the 1999 Kargil War, said: "The government must take a decision soon. The agitation is going on in different cities. Sooner or later, it will impact serving soldiers." That could be the real worry.
Sunday, 16 August 2015
Seventh Pay Commission Likely To Abolish Gazetted Holidays.
New Delhi: The Seventh Pay Commission is expected to reward the central government by its recommendation on abolishing 18 days gazetted holidays and to provide three days national holidays to central government employees to reform the work culture in central government offices.
Pay commission sources said the number of holidays should come down to improve work culture.
The sources also added, “A survey has revealed that India has the highest number of gazetted holidays per year and close on her heels are her Asian neighbours like Philippines, China, Hong Kong, Malaysia. We need to cut down on holidays to facilitate more work culture.”
The sources argued that the government offices worked only for 196 days in India in a year. Besides, whenever there was election, the government servants were pressed into election work. This affected the routine government business, sources contended.
Earlier, the sixth central pay commission recommended that central government offices should remain closed only on three national holidays (Republic Day, Independence Day and Mahatma Gandhi Jayanti) and all other gazetted holidays should be abolished and the number of restricted holidays (optional) depending on one’s religious persuasion should be increased from two to eight days.
The Seventh Central Pay Commission is also likely to make suggestion for flexible work hours for women and employees with disabilities.
Flexible working gives them greater choice over when and where they work, allowing them to better manage their work-life balance
“As flexi working hours will allow women central government employees to strike a balance between her professional and family responsibility, maintain healthy lifestyles and contribute to parenting well, it is recommended for the same and urge upon the government to work out the modalities in this direction,” the pay panel source said.
“Flexible working can also provide central government employees with disabilities with a ‘bridge’ into retirement. Many of surveys show that often the complete loss of professional work account of disability can leave employees with disabilities feeling depressed and unmotivated, even to the point of affecting mental health. Flexible working time can help employees with disabilities delay retirement without giving up too much of their hard-earned freedom.” said an official.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)