|
|
National Federation
of Atomic Energy Employees
NFAEE
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC
ENERGY
Regn.No.17/9615
Recognised by DAE vide DAE OM No. 8/1/2007 –
IR&W/95 dated 13th June 2007
NFAEE Office, Opp. NIYAMAK BHAVAN, Anusaktinagar,
Mumbai 400 094
|
Ref. No: nfaee/15/106 14.05.2015
Sub:
Bilateral meeting with NFAEE and other
Scientific
Assistant Associations
To
All Affiliates
NFAEE
Dear Comrades,
As intimated
earlier, meeting with Additional Secretary DAE was held on 11th May
2015 at the Anushakthibhavan, Mumbai to discuss about the issue pertaining to
Scientific Assistants of DAE.
Representing
NFAEE following were participated in the meeting:
1.
Jayaraj KV Secretary
General NFAEE BARC Mumbai
2.
A. Sreedharan Working President NFAEE BARC Mumbai
3.
Gaddam Ramesh Gen. Secretary HWP(M)SASSA HWP Manuguru
4.
S. Kiran Kumar Gen. Secretary NUFCOSSA NFC Hyderabad
5.
G.M. Karthikeyan Member AEEA RMP Mysore
6.
S. Ramesh kumarPresident BARCFEA BARCF Kalpakkam
7.
R. Visvalingam Member AEEA IGCAR Kalpakkam
8.
C.J. Samkutty Jt. Secretary AEW&SU BARC Mumbai
9.
D.B. Chandekar Member DCSEMSA DCSEM Mumbai
10. Harish
K Sharma Vice President HWBEA HWB Mumbai
11. M.I.
Parmar Gen. Secretary BPKS HWP Baroda
12. Sunil
Pawar Gen. Secretary DCSEMSA DCSEM Mumbai
The meeting
was chaired by Additional Secretary DAE and the following were represented
Official side:
1. Shri. Govardhan Secretary Trombay Council BARC Mumbai
2. Shri. Surabh Babu Director
(P) DAE Mumbai
3. Shri. B. P.Joshi CAO
(P) BARC Mumbai
4. Shri. S.B. Bose CAO DCSEM
Mumbai
5. Shri. K.P.S. Pillai Under Secretary (IR&W) DAE Mumbai
The meeting
also was attended by the office bearers of the Scientific Assistants
Associations of BARC Mumbai, BARC Tarapur, NFC Hyderabad and CAT Indore. After
the introduction the Chairman initiated the discussion and explained the back
ground for calling the meeting. S.K. Singh
of BARC Scientific Assistant Association started to object the proceedings and
raised unwanted questions and not allowed to take up the agenda for an hour.
Finally the Additional Secretary, the Chairman of the meeting, directed him to
stop his talk and told the meeting s convened by DAE and it is the prerogative
of the Department to whom to invite to the meeting and asked to continue
discussion on agenda
Even after
S.K. Singh was interrupting and shouting with un-parliamentary words in
between. Repeatedly the Chairman of the meeting, Shri, Govardhan, Secretary TC
and Shri B.P. Joshi, etc were directed him to stop his utterance.
Because of the
irresponsible and role of S.K. Singh and group the meeting could not complete
the discussion of agenda items.
After partial
discussion on 1st Agenda the Chairman declared the meeting is over.
The representatives of NFAEE sought discussion to continue, the Chairman told
will discuss later with Federation. The Chairman also intimated that he will
submit the report to the Secretary with a request for consideration of these
matters in the Tromaby Council
However NFAEE
prepared a note on all the agenda item circulated and additional point to be
taken up in the meeting and circulated among the Official side members.
Those who
participated from the staff side as well as Official side seen who was
responsible for not discussing the agenda item submitted for discussion.
Copy of the
note submitted by NFAEE is attached with this letter.
With fraternal Greetings
Comradely
yours
(Jayaraj KV)
Secretary General
Address for
Correspondence: Jayaraj. KV, Secretary General, NFAEE
PESS/UED; BARC, Trombay,
Mumbai 400 085
Tel. No: (O): 022 – 25596519; (Res): 022 – 25554179; (Mobile): 9869501189
Bilateral meeting with NFAEE and
other Scientific Assistant Associations
Note on issues pertaining to Scientific Assistants.
ITEM NO. 1: TRACK
CHANGE AND OVERALL CAREER PROSPECTS OF SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANTS:
This is the most important issue which continues as
unresolved. Though the department
attempted to resolve various anomalies created after the implementation of the
Sixth Central Pay commission, pertaining to Technical Staff, Scientific
Officers, no justice could be extended to the Scientific Assistant community.
The issue can be divided into two aspects. i.e, Track change and Career
Prospects
a. Track change
1.
Track change facilities
were continued till 2008 even though SA/D, SA/E and SA/F were introduced.
2.
During this period of SAs
and even technicians were considered for track change based on acquiring higher
education.
3.
After the implementation
of Sixth CPC recommendations, department virtually withdrawn the track change
based on the promotion interviews and linked the track change with exclusively
on acquiring additional qualifications and clearing DQE/STPT
4.
Whereas the similarly
placed Department reviewed the promotional position as well as the pay structure
based on the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, revised the
promotion norms as well as the recruitment norms. Thus in DOS, a Diploma holder
reach within a period of 7 years in the Grade Pay of Rs5400/- with gazetted
status.
5.
In all Government
establishments other than DAE those diploma holders and BSc graduates joining
as Scientific Assistants, Technical Assistants, Junior Engineers, etc are
getting track change as and when they reaches the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-
6.
Further DOS and DRDO made
the promotion norms such away the Technical Assistant and Scientific Assistants
as Technical Officer and Scientific Officers after 7 years in service.
7.
Government of India in
1977 itself issued OM to clarify the policy of the Government to consider the
Diploma holders having ten years of service as equivalent to BE/BTech. Even
there are legal vetting of the said order from CAT as well as High Court in the
year 2013 and 2014 respectively.
8.
The decision of the
Department to take away the existing track change resulted in
a.
humiliation and depression
b.
forced to retire as SAs in
non gazette status
c.
Those Scientific
Assistants in the grade pay of 5400 and above are carrying out the same job and
holding the responsibility of the Scientific Officers promoted or recruited afresh,
but the status as well as the remuneration having difference.
9.
The issues was represented
to Chairman, AEC, Chairman Trombay Council, Chairman Norms Committee and
various other authorities and made all effort to bring the notice of all senior
officials in the Department. Though the officers concerned assured to rectify
the anomaly, the issued are not been resolved till date.
10.
The solution for the above anomaly is to
consider those Scientific Assistants in the Grade Pay of Rs5400 and above as
Gazetted post as it is done in the Department of Space
b. Career Prospects
1.
After the introduction of
Sixth CPC Pay structure, the promotion avenues in DOS, DRDO, etc are improved.
Thus the SAs and TAs joined in DOS becoming gazette status at the Grade Pay of
Rs5400 in the 7th year in the normal channel without any additional
qualification
2.
Though in the terms of
reference for the committee constituted by DAE to look into the recruitment and
promotion norms directed the committee looking into the positions in comparable
Department such as Department of Space, the career progression in DAE for SAs
were gone to worst.
a.
The existing norms for
track change during normal promotion have been taken away.
b.
Track change has been restricted
to on Additional Qualifications
c.
Stringent conditionality
has been stipulated to drop the employees even after acquired additional
qualifications.
3.
The promotion avenues have
been curtailed by restricting promotion upto SA/G. A Scientific Assistant after
Diploma or BSc. Join in the Department at the age of 20 or 21 years. As per the
existing norms SAs may reach at the level of SA/G within 21 years. That means
at the age of 41or 42. In short the SAs
should work for another 18- 19 years without any career progression or hope of
promotions.
4.
Whereas prior to Sixth CPC
implementation the track change at any level was open and an SA F compulsorily
to move in to SO level if he/she satisfy the MEP or norms for promotion.
5.
By increasing the Minimum
Eligibility Period for promotion after Sixth CPC, the SAs may loose one
promotion during their careers which further blocks the career prospects.
6.
To bring back the
satisfaction among the Scientific Assistants, ample promotion avenues should be
created by ensuring track change at the level of Grade Pay of Rs5400/-
ITEM NO. 2: MEP FOR
PROMOTION OF SA:
1.
The Minimum Eligibility
Period (MEP) for considering the Scientific Assistants for promotion, is higher
level which considering the same of Engineering as well as Technicians.
2.
Prior to Sixth CPC
implementation the difference in the MEP for SAs and of SOs were one year
higher than that of SO. But after 6th CPC the difference has been
enhanced by 2 years. .
3.
A median MEP should be
adopted by which the SAs also should consider genuine norms, One year more than
that of SOs where as one year less than that of Technicians.
ITEM NO. 3: COMPENSATION
FOR LOSS IN CAREER PROGRESSION DUE TO VARIOUS POLICY CHANGES:
1. Those Scientific Assistants who had been promoted as
SA/D in Feb 2004 and SA/E in 2003 were eligible for their next promotions to
SA/E or SA/F respectively based on ‘MEP+1’ norms with effect from 1st
Feb 2009. (This was postponed to 1st July 2009 due to uniform date
of promotion). These employees had suffered a loss due to revision of norms in
the year 2009, and their proposals for promotion were considered only in the
year 2010. This Federation had intervened and the necessary correction was
incorporated in the year 2011. All such delayed promotion cases of 2009 had not
only lost one year in their career progression but had the cascading effect in
their future promotions also.
2. The case
of SA/D to SA/E, {The persons promoted on
MEP have not affected by this problem;} However the affected employees who
were eligible for promotion are to be
recommend for SA/E on the basis of MEP+1 in year 2009, as per the pre- 2009 & 2011 revised
norms. Accordingly the MEP was 4 yrs with all A1 grades and MEP+1 in 5yrs with
all A2 grades. The revised norms in 2009 required minimum ‘two A1s’ in the last
4 years and the rest A2s.
3. As the
MEP has been increased in the case of Scientific Assistants comparing that of
SOs, from SA/E onwards the SAs are losing one year on each promotion. Prior to
the implementation Sixth CPS the difference in MEP was one year where as after
Sixth CPC implementation it has been increased by two years.
4. By
changing the recruitment norms by appointing CAT I trainee as SA/C in the Grade
Pay of Rs4600 and the periodicity of
training enhanced into two years, from the year 2013, the senior SAs
joined SA/B in the Grade Pay of Rs4200 are losing pay, seniority as well as
grade.
5. Since,
these are genuine cases, we request
a. The
Department to extend one or more years relaxation in the next promotion to the
affected employees considering the cumulative period from SA/D to compensate
the loss that had in the last promotion.
b. The entry level Grade Pay should be upgraded into
4600 to SA/B and the cascading effect should be extended.
ITEM NO. 4: CONTINUOUS
EDUCATION PROGRAMME FOR SAs THROUGH HBNI:
Continuous Education Programme in the Deemed University (HBNI) funded by DAE, should be extended to Scientific Assistant
category also.
ITEM NO. 5: PRIS AND
OTHER PERKS:
1.
PRIS (I): PRIS (I) should
be uniform for the SOs and SAs with same Grade Pay
2.
Update Allowance: The
Update Allowance should be extended at the enhanced rate uniformly to those who
are having the same Grade Pay of Rs5400 and above.
3.
Two Additional Increments:
The two increment should be extended to all those who are having the Grade Pay
of Rs6600 and above.
ITEM NO. 6: ALLOTMENT
POLICY OF DAE FOR GOVERNMENT RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION:
1.
Allotment Rules framed by
the nodal Ministry, i.e. MOUD, should be followed by DAE also.
2.
Type D should be allotted
as per service seniority
3.
Wherever necessary transit
accommodation for SAs should be constructed.
ITEM NO. 7: OTHER
ISSUES:
1. Additional
Qualification:
a.
The written test to screen
those who acquired addition qualification having objective and subjective
questions. In all other recruitment
tests only objective questions are given. This subjective questions becoming a
weapon to cut the future of track change of employees. Therefore the subjective
questions should be discontinued.
b.
Those who cleared in the
Test further debarred for want of APAR grading. For granting permission for
acquiring AQ itself APAR grading is taken into account. Another APAR grading for appearing interview
is unwanted and hence should be removed.
c.
Those who deferred in
interview should be considered for track change on their normal promotion.
d.
Those who lost DQE/STPT
should give one more chance during his/her regular promotion
e.
Those who considering for
track change on AQE/STPT from same grade pay should be given one additional
increment based on the OM issued by Dept of Expenditure 7th January
2013.
f.
The condition of cooling
period for granting permission for AQ in subsequent occasion is not justified.
********
No comments:
Post a Comment