Fitment Tables (Table No.1 to 9) of UGC Pay Scales
71 No.F.3- 112009-U.1
Government of India
Ministry of Human Resource Development
(Department of Higher Education)
New Delhi, the 4' ~une, 2009 The Secretary,
University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110002.
(Kind Attn: Dr.R.K. Chauhan, Secretary)
Subiect: Scheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in universities and colleges and as also for the posts of Registrar, Deputy Registrar, etc.
Sir,
I am directed to invite your attention to this Ministry's letter No. 1-3212006- U.II/U.I(i) and No. 1 -3212006-U.IIRT.I(ii), dated the 3 1'' December, 2008 as also your D.O.letter No. F.l-212009 (EC) dated the 27" January, 2009, on the above subject and to forward herewith authenticated Fitment Tables (Table No.1 to 9) for fixation of pay of the existing incumbents, who were in position as on 1.1.2006, in various categories of posts as indicated in the Tables, for appropriate action at your end.
Yours faithfully,
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Fitment table issued by MHRD for university and college teachers is not in accordance with the method adopted by central and state govts. for their own employees. In case of central and state govt. employees in Band -4 one increment of 3% has been given for every two years but in the case of university and college teachers this method has not been adopted and the teachers with basic pay of 13260,13680,14100 and 14520 has been fixed at the same stage and due to this mistake the complete fitment table for Readers and Professors has been decreased by one increment at the each stage for Readers above 14520 and Professors also , it shows that the Readers and Professors has been moved two years backward, It is not fair.We should represent our case to the HRD Ministry and should not accept this fitment table.
I fully agree with what AKK says .The fitment tables are not in accordance with central and state governments.We have been duped of one increment.The HRD ministry should rectify the problem. I got LECTURER( SG) in the year 2000 .But i have been fixed in 46400 as on 1-1-2006 where as it should be 47530 why this anomaly.?
It is understood why University Higher Education has taken so much time to declare such simple fitment table - probably to deny a few increments
Why there is no statment from AIFUCTO, JNUTA, DUTA, ETC ETC about the injustice given to University teachers, How can they go back from earlier announcements.
The senior readers are so selfish that tey always think about themselves but they do'nt say anything about the lecturers though in sixth pay revision the lecturers pay is less than even a school teacher.
In B.Ed college, there requird two extra degree B.Ed and M.Ed but no such extra increment.
In B.Ed college, there requird two extra degree B.Ed and M.Ed but no such extra increment.
Even after the release of fitment table after a long time, with one increment loss to SGLecturers/Readers/Professors, no word about the rectification of anamoly of CAS of Vth revision, which was stated in the pay review commitee report and also by kerala court verdict, it is very disaapointed like me who have lost two increments from 1996.
I joined on 2001 with NET and awared Ph.D on 2007, when I will promote to Associate Professor on 2013 or 2015?
Dear Sir,
you have cut shorted my name from Dr.Akhilesh Kumar Kulshreshtha to AKK, no problem, my name is not important,but the matter which I pointed out was importanat. I am glad to inform you that AIFUCTO has paid the attention on that point and:
"AIFUCTO has demanded that the anomaly be corrected immediately,failing which AIFUCTO will be compelled to respond
by direct action. "
for the full
AIFUCTO PRESS RELEASE
11.06.09
please see on www.aifucto.org
I fully endorse the comments on official fitment tables released by the Ministry of Human resource Development in case of Professors,Readers and SG lecturers.After more than five months of delay, they have have come up with the defective tables. Natural justice demands that fitment tables should be in accordance with the fixation rules of Sixth pay commission.Thus bunching of two increments should have been done,so that there is no loss of one increment to the incumbent readers/SGlecturers/Professors. AIFUCTO has also rightly pointed it out. The ministry should rectify it at the earliest,so that there is no injustice with teachers.
Shocked to see no incentive to >10 year experienced Professors. If AGP12000 is not possible, at least they should be given a few extra increments as and when they complete 10 years as a Professor. Even is this minimum sense of respect is denied by politicians/beurocrats to top creators of able human resources, the future building blocks of India, it will be just shameful an act by people on chair in the new Govt.
What about the fate of incumbent Readers/SG lecturers who have not completed 3 years of service on1.1 2006. When will they move to the position of Asociate Professor?
How will the UGC protect the seniority of the existing staff?
Whu does the UGC not treat the incumbent Readers as equivalent to Associate Professors?
What has AIFUCTO done to rectify these anomalies?
For a central Government Employee with a grade pay a Rs. 8900 in the pay band 4 the basic pay is Rs. 49100 (39200+8900), while for the University teacher inspite having a higher grade pay of Rs. 9000 in the same pay band his total basic salary is just Rs. 46400 (37400+9000), this is a greate anomoly in the fitment table issued by UGC.
it is just shameful an act by people on chair in the new Govt. by depriving >10 yr experienced University Professors in the conversion of AGP from 10K to 12K (for just few countable number of old Professors, because many will superannuate by the time they complete 10 yrs). Prof. Kirloskar is right to say in this regard that even this minimum sense of respect and courtesy is being denied by politicians/beurocrats in the New Govt. to top creators of able human resources, the future building blocks of India (>experienced Professors who work more than teaching and research towards university policy making and a variety of confidential development programmes/ international relations, etc. as a pride of the nation). Surprisingly, to choose among the >10 yrs experienced Professors for 12K AGP is another paradox through which the Govt. wants to retain the key of castism, regionalism, minoritism and other malpractices in the higher temples of learning (in which the Vice-Chancellors will be innocently accused and penalised for causing series of favouratism on backdoor instructions from the Ministry & Govt.). Only, God can save to come out of this succumbing situation created by the bull-headed MHRD machinery of the Indian Govt. without any rhyme & reason for harming those who help building up the nation through their vast academic experience and competence. Thanks to Prof. Kirloskar for raising this issue which is unanimously supported by the entire community of Senior Professors across the nation.
I do agree to Prof. Mirloskar's view to allow either an AGP of 12000 or few extra increments to Professors who have served for more than 10 years in a university, instead of creating a new selection process for this. Because who will select? All old professors are more or less alike in higher abilities and accomplishments. Please do not allow pick and choose among them who will be just few in numbers. Most 10 year experienced Professors will retire. Therefore, picking and choosing up will culminate the career of those old in-service professors who have no political connections or outside extra relations with V.C.s, Deans, etc. Does the Govt. wish that on the fag end of ones professional career a Professor should start making undue practices with VCs, Govt., MHRD for achieving 2000 extra AGP through caste, religion and money-based affairs. Never such a heinous criminal approach of MHRD can be tolerated. I would suggest all old professors of India better to resign than accept such creaming and polishing terms as a return of whole life service in evolving able and competent human resources.
I joined with NET and JRF as Lecturer on 1-08-1995. Under CAS promoted as Senior Scale Lecturer on 1-08-2001 and Lecturer Selection Grade on 1-08-2006. I was warded Ph.D. on 20-09-2008.
When I will be placed in Associate Professor Scale and what will be my basic on 1-08-2009.
I AM NOT SATISFIED WITH THIS FITMENT TABLE.
What is the fate of Sel Gr Lecturers who have not completed 3 years of service on 01-01-06. Which of the fitment table is applicable to them. What is their scope for further promotions.
Can any one tell me about the pay band and grade pay of those promoted to reader post after 1.1.2006.
No words are about them.
regard
Neel
Can any one tell me about the pay band and grade pay of those promoted to reader post after 1.1.2006.
No words are about them.
regard
Neel
Under U.P.State Govt the pre-revised scale for Principals of grade 'A' Colleges is 16400-450-21900-500-22400 and not 12000-18300 as shown in the Fitment table 6.This anomaly will create problem in fixation in revised pay band.
The fact that the UGC Pay report approved by the Government does not incorporate the fitment table is strange and defies all logic. It is still more puzzling how the Teachers Unions have not pointed out this glaring blunder in a report. While the employees of the Central Government could have their first instalment of arrears, the UGC is yet to present a fulfledged report enabling the UGC teachers enjoy the new package, even after a lapse of six months.
Even more puzzling is the fact that the MHRD has introduced a strange philosophy of applying an illogical principle of classifying the Readers/Associate Professors into (a) those who have completed 3 years of service and (b) those who have not competed 3 years of service in the cadre as on 01.01.2006. No Pay Commissions have in the past made such a wonderful(!) classification, as adopted above, and thus depriving a just and equitable treatment to this hapless cadre “Readers/Associate Professors” which is the middle position between Lecturer and Professor. It is imperative on the part of the Government to set right this anomaly and do justice to this important cadre among UGC teachers.
Indifference in this regard will only complicate the matters resulting in discrimination and injustice meted out to this cadre.
Let the UGC, the MHRD and Government act and rectify the blunder committed.
The fitment tables fail to bridge the gap between University and college teachers on the university campus.While a teacher in the university teaching departments is certain to get readership after8 yeras of service,and professorship after16 years of service in total(acc to pre-revised scales),the campus college teachers retire after 35 years of their service at the same designation at which they had joined as lecturers.Where is the correction factor in fitment tables for this damned stagnation or professional decay(negative growth)????
After many months a faulty fitment table was produced by the MHRD. A couple of months have passed since then. When will a decision be taken on the fitment table, one way or the other, and the new scales implemented? What has AIFUCTO done after issuing an ultimatum for correction of anomalies two months back?
UGC Teachers ignored!
While it is categorically and unequivocally asserted by those at the helm of affairs of the domain of Education in our country at various fora that the role of teachers (of higher education in various Universities in India)is crucial to take India forward as the leader of Human Resources in the world, the inordinate delay on the part of the University Grants Commission in coming out with the fitment formula in respect of the UGC Sixth Pay Commission even after a lapse of three months (the HRD Ministry had issued the Fitment Notification on 4th June 2009)will only send the unfortunate message of how the UGC teachers are ignored, humiliated and deprived of equality in enjoying the fruits of the enhanced privileges given by the Central Cabinet in January 2009. For, the Central Government employees, for whom the Government had implemented the Sixth Central Pay Commission last year after paying the first instalment of arrears (40%), are going to get their second and final instalment of arrears (60%) before the Vijaya Dasami/Diwali festival. When would the UGC teachers get their pay package implemented?
: Anomaly in the CCS Rules for Pay Fixation
Sir,
Due to the first time introduction of one uniform date of annual increment i.e., 1st July (July to July as year) for all the employees, severe injustice and discrimination has been caused to those 50% of the existing employees whose date of annual increment in the unrevised pay scales otherwise falls after 1st January but before 1st July qua those whose date of annual increment falls after 1st July but before/on 1st January.
Those whose date of annual increment in the unrevised scales is in December, their annual increment is pre-poned (advanced) to 1st July by nearly 6 months in the revised scales and hence get a recurring benefit, for all years to come, of an advanced annual increment by 6 months and consequently increased retirement benefits as well.
On the other hand, 50% of the employees whose date of annual increment in the unrevised scales falls in January/February etc. their annual increment is postponed to July upto/by 6 months( annual becomes 13-18 months) and hence suffer a recurring loss, for all years to come, in the revised scales and a consequential loss in retirement benefits also for no fault of theirs.
Solution: As a one time measure, commensurate with the first time introduction of one uniform date(1st July) of annual increment, it is requested to pre-pone notionally the date of annual increment in the pre-revised scale to 1st January of all those employees whose date of annual increment otherwise falls between 2nd January and 30th June, so that they can also get a similar benefit of their due annual increment, six months before at least in the pre-revised scale (if not in the revised scale) seemingly at par with those who have already been given of a similar benefit of preponement (whose date of annual increment otherwise falls between July and December) before the first annual increment is given to all the employees on one uniform date in the revised scales i.e., 1st July.
In the matter of annual increments, between July to July in the unrevised scales, there should be no discrimination among the employees; one set of 50% getting the benefit of annual increment and the other 50% not getting the benefit. If as a one time measure, the annual increment of December can be pre-poned (advanced) and reduced by/upto 6 months to July in the revised scales, and then there is nothing wrong to set the parity by pre-poning the benefit of annual increment notionally for others also in the unrevised scale from June to 1st January, again as a one time measure only.
By doing so, heartburning, injustice and discrimination, arising out of (by) giving annual increment after 13-18 months, against 50% of the employees can be redressed.
As per Clarification-1 vide F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 13.9.2009, only employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure are to get increment on 1.7. 2006.
On this very basis, before switching over to the new system of one uniform date of increment (1st July) for all the employees, firstly acknowledge, credit and give benefit of one pre-revised increment on 1.1.2006 to all those who have completed 6 months or more, after their last increment, in the pre-revised scale in 2005. Otherwise, they will suffer a loss of more than 6 months service and their annual increment will be after 13-18 months and not after 12 months resulting in a recurring loss to the 50% of the employees and consequently loss in retirement benefits (whose date of increment is between Jan. and June).
Since 1st July 2006 is the benchmark for the first increment purposes in the revised scales, preceding one year from July to July should be the basis of the last increment and every employee who has completed 6 months or more should get one increment of the pre-revised scale by/on 1.1.2006. for fixation purposes.
In the revised pay structure, due to the introduction of one uniform date of increment 1.7. 2006, the worst losers/sufferers are those 50% employees whose date of increment in the unrevised scales was between 2nd Jan. and 30th June. Between July to July for 12 months preceding 1.7.2006, such employees have not got any increment (even of the unrevised scale). They get annual increment on 1.7.2006 after a gap of 18-13 months.
If they exercise their option under Rule 11 and get their fixation postponed to their next date of increment (as per unrevised scale) between Feb. 2006 to June 2006, then the next increment they will again get after 13-18 months on 1.7.2007 and not on 1.7.2006.
The only solution is to give one increment in the pre-revised scale on 1.1. 2006 at the time of fixation to all those who have completed 6 months or more after the last date of increment in the pre-revised scale.
: Anomaly in the CCS Rules for Pay Fixation
Sir,
Due to the first time introduction of one uniform date of annual increment i.e., 1st July (July to July as year) for all the employees, severe injustice and discrimination has been caused to those 50% of the existing employees whose date of annual increment in the unrevised pay scales otherwise falls after 1st January but before 1st July qua those whose date of annual increment falls after 1st July but before/on 1st January.
Those whose date of annual increment in the unrevised scales is in December, their annual increment is pre-poned (advanced) to 1st July by nearly 6 months in the revised scales and hence get a recurring benefit, for all years to come, of an advanced annual increment by 6 months and consequently increased retirement benefits as well.
On the other hand, 50% of the employees whose date of annual increment in the unrevised scales falls in January/February etc. their annual increment is postponed to July upto/by 6 months( annual becomes 13-18 months) and hence suffer a recurring loss, for all years to come, in the revised scales and a consequential loss in retirement benefits also for no fault of theirs.
Solution: As a one time measure, commensurate with the first time introduction of one uniform date(1st July) of annual increment, it is requested to pre-pone notionally the date of annual increment in the pre-revised scale to 1st January of all those employees whose date of annual increment otherwise falls between 2nd January and 30th June, so that they can also get a similar benefit of their due annual increment, six months before at least in the pre-revised scale (if not in the revised scale) seemingly at par with those who have already been given of a similar benefit of preponement (whose date of annual increment otherwise falls between July and December) before the first annual increment is given to all the employees on one uniform date in the revised scales i.e., 1st July.
In the matter of annual increments, between July to July in the unrevised scales, there should be no discrimination among the employees; one set of 50% getting the benefit of annual increment and the other 50% not getting the benefit. If as a one time measure, the annual increment of December can be pre-poned (advanced) and reduced by/upto 6 months to July in the revised scales, and then there is nothing wrong to set the parity by pre-poning the benefit of annual increment notionally for others also in the unrevised scale from June to 1st January, again as a one time measure only.
By doing so, heartburning, injustice and discrimination, arising out of (by) giving annual increment after 13-18 months, against 50% of the employees can be redressed.
As per Clarification-1 vide F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 13.9.2009, only employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure are to get increment on 1.7. 2006.
On this very basis, before switching over to the new system of one uniform date of increment (1st July) for all the employees, firstly acknowledge, credit and give benefit of one pre-revised increment on 1.1.2006 to all those who have completed 6 months or more, after their last increment, in the pre-revised scale in 2005. Otherwise, they will suffer a loss of more than 6 months service and their annual increment will be after 13-18 months and not after 12 months resulting in a recurring loss to the 50% of the employees and consequently loss in retirement benefits (whose date of increment is between Jan. and June).
Since 1st July 2006 is the benchmark for the first increment purposes in the revised scales, preceding one year from July to July should be the basis of the last increment and every employee who has completed 6 months or more should get one increment of the pre-revised scale by/on 1.1.2006. for fixation purposes.
In the revised pay structure, due to the introduction of one uniform date of increment 1.7. 2006, the worst losers/sufferers are those 50% employees whose date of increment in the unrevised scales was between 2nd Jan. and 30th June. Between July to July for 12 months preceding 1.7.2006, such employees have not got any increment (even of the unrevised scale). They get annual increment on 1.7.2006 after a gap of 18-13 months.
If they exercise their option under Rule 11 and get their fixation postponed to their next date of increment (as per unrevised scale) between Feb. 2006 to June 2006, then the next increment they will again get after 13-18 months on 1.7.2007 and not on 1.7.2006.
The only solution is to give one increment in the pre-revised scale on 1.1. 2006 at the time of fixation to all those who have completed 6 months or more after the last date of increment in the pre-revised scale.
The UGC revised pay as rightfully commented by one serves the purpose of senior readers and professors in terms of monetary benefits while lecturers and senior lecturers are paid like school teachers. The number of years needed for promotion for lecturers has also been increased. This shows the domination of the senior teachers in decision making who can influence the pay commission and the ministry for their selfish benefit
veeps says:
7 months ago
Thanks to Dr.N.V.POORNACHANDRA RAO by posting it first on net.
AP.AIDED DEGREE COLLEGE LECTURERS' ASSOCIATION