Anomalies and suggestions for remedies in UGC teachers pay notification

This article concerns to the MHRD  Notification that lacks certain specific details about the pay revision and other requirements which have opened up further cluster of anomalies. Details are given below:

DESIGNATION RELATED ANOMALIES:

It is requested here by to make it known to community of teachers as to

a. Whether the post of ASSOCIATE Professor of MHRD Notification is same as that of earlier Associate Professor which is equivalent to Readers?

b. If so Assistant Professor AGP 8000 is an additional step teachers have to pass through to become Associate Professor?

c. The Already existing Readers and Lecturer Selection Grade are to be treated as Assistant Professor AGP 8000 or Associate Professor Equivalent to Readers/Lecturer SG?

d. What Pay Band will be applicable to already existing Associate Professors in various Universities and Institutions? If they are equivalent to Readers then Readers in other institutions and Universities shall also be eligible for PBIV or not?

e. The MHRD/UGC is hereby requested to state clearly regarding the fate of Readers appointed in 2007 to till date. What will happen if their University advertises the post of associate professor before their waiting period of three years is over? Will they have to appear in selection committee and get selected to protect their seniority?

^{Fitment tables are available at education.nic.in. If you are unable to open the file, click this link to download Fitmant tables for teachers, registrars, librarians etc}

ANOMALIES RELATED TO PAY BAND ALLOCATION:

1. If existing Principals of College in pay scale 12000-420-18300 are eligible for PB IV with AGP 10000 + Special allowance 2000, then why Readers and Lecturer Selection Grade also in the same Pay Scale 12000-420-18300 are kept in PB III as Asst. Professor AGP 8000?
2. If the Principals in the same pay scale as mentioned above are directly placed in PB IV what is the justification of stipulating the rider of 3 years for AP 8000?
3. What will be the fixation of a directly recruited Associate Professor of JNU with less than 3 year experience? I think according to clause 2(a) VIII of the MHRD Notification, he/she will go to PB-IV, whereas a similarly placed directly recruited DU Reader will be in PB-III. Evidently, qualification and pre-revised pay scale (12000-420-18300) for a directly recruited JNU associate professor and a directly recruited DU reader are same.
4. A Reader is senior to Lecturer (SG) as per existing rules. In fact, a selection committee is required for promotion from Lecturer (Selection Grade) to Reader. Now a Lecturer (SG) from July 2002 will be Associate Professor from 1.1.2006 and a July 2004 Reader who was never Lecturer (SG) will become Associate Professor only in July 2007 thereby becoming Junior. Is this not violative of set norms of seniority as per Service Jurisprudence?
5. At (x) in the MHRD Notification dated 31-12-2008 it is stated that “(x) Incumbent Readers and Lecturers (Selection Grade) who had not completed three years in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-18300 on 1.1.2006 shall be placed at the appropriate stage in the Pay Band of Rs. 15600-39100 with AGP of Rs. 8000 till they complete 3 years of service in the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader, and thereafter shall be placed in the higher Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 and accordingly re-designated as Associate Professor.

In continuation to this it is again stated in (xii) of the Notification that (xii) Assistant Professors completing 3 years of teaching in the AGP of Rs. 8000 shall be eligible, subject to other conditions that may be prescribed by the UGC and the university, to move to the Pay Band of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. 9000 and to be designated as Associate Professor.

Does it then mean that A Reader / Lecturer Selection Grade who have not completed three years as on 01.01.2006 are to be re-designated as Associate Professor after they complete three years and would be subjected to other conditions which are going to be prescribed by UGC, i.e., selection committee or interview?

1. Though the MHRD Notification dated 31/12/2008 states that the pay fixation will be as per the 6 CPC, it has failed to see that there exists no fitment table for 12000-420-18300 in 6 CPC and therefore many redundant variants are being used by different setups elsewhere in India. This anomalous condition reflects the callous attitude of the department concerned about the higher education.

1. The Pay Fixation as per 6 CPC for PGT of Kendriya Vidyalaya who are also in PB III, they are upgrading the scale, and then mapping to corresponding pay band and adding grade pay. If similar such procedure is not adopted for Assistant Professor in PB-III then Assistant Professors will get salary than PGT of Kendriya Vidyalaya. This is another anomaly that MHRD has to set right by instructive regulation for Assistant Professors in Colleges and Universities.

Suggestion:

1. Therefore in scrutiny of the above evident anomalies it is appropriate, accurate and strongly demanded to recommend PB IV to all Readers and Lecturer Selection Grade from 01/01/2006, without any riders with appropriate pay fixation in the stages referring to fitment tables to be given.
2. Issue proper guidelines for scale up-gradation and mapping to appropriate pay for Assistant Professors as has been dealt with for the PGT of Kendriya Vidyalaya.

ANOMALIES RELATED TO TWO PAY BANDS

a. It is stated interalia in the MHRD Notification dated 31/12/2008 at (iii) The pay of teachers and equivalent positions in Universities and Colleges shall be fixed according to their designations in two pay bands of Rs. 15600-39100 and Rs. 37400-67000 with appropriate “Academic Grade Pay” (AGP in short). Each Pay Band shall have different stages of Academic Grade Pay which shall ensure that teachers and other equivalent cadres covered under this Scheme, subject to other conditions of eligibility being satisfied; have multiple opportunities for upward movement during their career”. The AGPs as stipulated need a thorough re-look and redesigning in the light of the AGPs of Asst Professors/ Lecturers in the pre- revised scale of 8000-275-13500, vis-à-vis the GP of PGT Grade I and School Vice –Principal who were at par with one another in the pre-revise scale of pay Now the latter are placed in PB 3 with GP 6600, whereas the MHRD has stipulated a lower AGP for the same grade in 6000. Similarly, As per the pre revised scale Senior Lecturer and School Principals were at par (in the scale of 10000-325-15200). Now Senior Lecturer is placed with AGP 7000 whereas School Principals would draw salary with GP 7600. This is a clear case of discrimination and also violation of Article 14.

Suggestion:

1. Therefore, to absolve the above evident anomaly, the Assistant Professors with PB III may be provided equivalent AGP of 6600 & 7600, which is not only justified but also an act of equal treatment to equals.

REGULATION 4

1. Posts of professors in UG/PG Colleges:

1. It is stated vide (xiii) Ten percent of the number of sanctioned posts of Associate Professor in an Under Graduate College shall be that of Professors and shall be subject to the same criterion for selection/ appointment as that of Professors in Universities, provided that there shall not be more than one post of Professor in each Department; and provided further that One-fourth (25%) of the posts of Professor in UG Colleges shall be directly recruited or filled on deputation by eligible teachers and the remaining three-fourths (75%) of posts of Professors shall be filled by merit promotion from among eligible Associate Professors of the relevant department of the Under Graduate College.
2. And again under (xix) There shall be one post of Professor in each Department of a Post Graduate College and shall be subject to the same criterion for selection/ appointment as that of Professors in Universities, provided that One-fourth (25%) of the posts of Professor shall be filled on deputation/direct recruitment from among eligible teachers and the remaining three-fourths (75%) of posts shall be filled through merit promotion from among the eligible Associate Professors in the relevant department of the Post Graduate College.
3. Up to 10% of the posts of Professors in universities shall be in the higher Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 12000 with eligibility conditions to be prescribed by the UGC.

Anomaly:

1. There are UG Colleges spread widely in India where the posts of Associate Professors either or not sanctioned or do not exist at all. In such event the Lecturers/Assistant Professors who reach to Associate Professor 9000 pay are deprived of chances to become Professors. Thereby Equals are treated as unequal and hence a clear-cut anomaly in concern to Article 14 of Constitution of India.
2. Even in the PG Colleges stipulation of only One Post of Professor per Department takes away the chance from those who are equally qualified and eligible for Professorship but are denied because of this regulation at (xix) which is short of focus and reflects bias.
3. By no means 10% Professors can be screened out to be superior over the others who complete 10 years as Professors in universities. This is in view of the virtual truth that, barely a few, almost all are devoted to experienced deliberations/lectures, research guidance as internal and external supervisors, members of various high level committees for actually contributing to all developmental matters of the university in academics/ research/ policy making and face lifting in national and international delegations for duly elevating the scholastic status of Indian Nation. To doubt their credibility and integrity is appalling and painful (on the basis of just a few relatively slow workers, if any, owing to health ground).

Suggestion:

1. Instead of 10% law in UG Colleges and One post per Department in PG Colleges it may be treated in the same lines with the treatment given to Universities. This also will enable many aspirants at College level to enter University stream.
2. The graciousness, thus, on part of the Govt. is to allow the AGP of 12000 to all Professors in universities as and when they complete 10 years, because many of them will be superannuating (or having only a few years of service left) by the time they complete 10 years. This will (i) stop pick and choose on religion/ caste/ political/ local grounds which is a hard truth we must accept and (ii) relieve the administration, how-so-ever honest and meticulous it may be, of many of the worries (as to whether leave the selection process or get a bad name after conflict decisions). Thanks if the concerned authorities can accept these humble unbiased suggestions from the academic fraternity.

ANOMALIES RELATED TO NET:

National Eligibility Test (NET) shall be compulsory for appointment at the entry level of Assistant Professor, subject to the exemptions to the degree of Ph.D.

Discrimination and Anomaly:

1. There are already many persons serving or aspiring to serve as teachers who have acquired MPhil degree based on UGC notification dated 14.06.2006. If MPhil is given no weightage now then the time, energy, money put in is wasted. The reasons for exiling MPhil from exemption is not explicitly stated anywhere in the MHRD Notification. This amounts to discouraging the degree to be pursued. Why UGC is again and again changing its decision on eligibility criterion for lecturership?

Suggestion:

1. If PhD degree is exempted from NET why not MPhil? Therefore the discrimination needs to be corrected by exempting MPhil from NET.

   
   

Anomaly:

1. MHRD is very well aware of the decision of the Kerala High Court regarding the anomaly of implementing the Scheme 1998 from 27/7/1998 instead of 01/01/1996. In spite of such glaring decision from Kerala High Court, the present Notification is extending the similar anomalous conditions for the present and future thus inviting many cases of legal redressal through the High Courts and Supreme Court.

Suggestion:

1. Instead of offering the States to implement the Scheme 2006 from a later date than 01/01/2006, the MHRD needs to direct the States to implement it from 01/01/2006 thereby avoid the huge number of anomalies that would otherwise arise, and put the entire Higher Education out of gear. It is reminded again here to keep in the back of mind the decision given by Kerala High Court in 2002 & 2005 and recently in 2008. The reason of financial implication is a travesty in view of what is stated and said high about Higher Education. The financial support of 100% to states is one such act that would nib the buds of anomalies and discriminative treatments to teachers thus save many of them seeking legal redresses.

SUPERANNUATION

Anomaly;

1. Since the states are given free hand to decide due to financial reasons, the superannuation age in different states would be different. This has been one of the main issues to make the superannuation throughout India, whether in Government, University, and Private & Public SectorColleges. By not adhering to this principle of equality MHRD has given rise to anomalous situation. When UGC and MHRD can dictate on pay perks and service conditions why superannuating is let go to be different. This will rob off the chance for any professional progress to those who are made to retire early than their counterparts elsewhere.

Suggestion:

1. It is very much needed to make superannuation a uniform feature throughout India; it may be either present 62 or may be enhanced to 65.

Regulation:

1. That the teachers be paid 40% of the arrears in this financial year 2008-09 and rest 60 % in the next year.

Anomaly:

1. In absence of clear cut directions and lapses majority of Universities and institutions have not acted upon the directive. It has been a circular reference to MHRD Notification which contains no clarity about its own direction.

Suggestion

1. Immediate instruction may kindly be issued to pay some total of amount to teachers pending final fixation and clearance with UGC Issuing perfect regulations and scheme 2008.

The said anomalies in the MHRD Notification dated 31/12/2008 need to be immediately scrutinized and rectified in the UGC Notification to save the hassles of legal redresses. To restore the faith of teacher in the profession chosen passionately to perform and enhance the desire to learn more shall not be dwarfed by shortfall of regulations, and it is in this noble intention that this set of anomalies are brought to the notice of the concerned authorities for corrective measures at the immediate stroke.

Acknowledgement: This article is prepared by Dr B J Kopper after analyzing MHRD notification and incorporating suggestions received from teaching community

6CPC Fitment tables