Suggestions - Railway Board Secretariat Service Group 'A' Officers' Association
by: Guest
Total views: 217
Word Count: 10225
Sixth Central Pay Commission:Suggestions
User Name: Railway Board Secretariat Service Group 'A' Officers' Association New Delhi
Comparison with public/private sectors
Should there be any comparison/parity between pay scales and perquisites in Government and the public/private sector?
Comparison of income levels across employee populations with similar educational and professional backgrounds is natural and inescapable. Such comparisons not only determine career choices at entry levels, but also influence employee morale and motivation, attitudes and productivity. Government servants, especially at the Central Government level, are recruited through a nation-wide and extremely competitive selection process, and are comparable to the best in the private sector in terms of merit, competency and commitment. In the private sector, which operates in the market environment, employee remuneration is designed to motivate employees to achieve the overriding business motive of profit. This is also the case with PSEs, where more frequent pay revisions combined with better promotional avenues have led to higher payouts. In the private sector and most of the PSEs, it is possible to measure the output of an employee in visible/ tangible terms like production, sales, etc. with direct linkages to compensation packages. This is not so in the government service. Government servants are engaged in policy making relating to development and regulation of social and infrastructure sectors, law enforcement, defence, provision of basic infrastructure etc. where productivity is incapable of being measured in quantitative/ monetary terms. In recent years, the private sector, ably guided by business acumen, professional management and visionary leadership, has moved quickly to reap the benefits of rapid technological advances, liberalization and globalization, to create a world-class corporate working environment, especially in the IT sector, which has led to a quantum leap in employee remuneration. This has not happened in the government sector, which continues to be weighed down with obsolete systems and practices, lack of clear and consistent HRD policies and under-investment in training and creation of infrastructure. Performance of public service is constrained by complex rules, regulations, procedures and processes which have to serve the ends of fair play, transparency, overarching developmental objectives and strict control over allocation/ use of scarce public resources. Remuneration in Government sector, especially in the middle and upper management levels, has not only lagged behind the private sector and PSEs, but has also steadily deteriorated in real terms due to rise in cost of living. The import of providing public servants with a decent standard of living, commensurate with the onerous duties and responsibilities cast on them, can be ignored at great peril. It is therefore necessary to look at the pay, allowances and perquisites of government servants in perspective, giving due regard to the role and functions of public servants in providing good governance, need of attracting and retaining talent, and keeping up morale and motivation of public servants in the face of challenges and opportunities inherent in fast-paced economic growth. Determination of pay and allowances should also take into account specific features and requirements of different sectors under direct control of the Government. For example, in the Railway sector, the Ministry of Railways also performs the function of Railway Board, the apex management level of Indian Railways, with responsibilities for operational control and management of the vast railway network. In the past decade since the implementation of the Fifth CPC recommendations, the Indian Railways have recorded laudable growth in terms of traffic output and service quality. Volumes carried went up from 390.7 million tonnes of revenue earning freight traffic and 4,018 million passengers in 1995-96 to 602.1 million freight and 5,378 million passengers in 2004-05 (growth of 54% and 34% respectively), whereas manpower saw a drastic reduction from 15.84 lakh employees to 14.22 lakh (reduction of 1.62 lakh employees or 10%) during the same period. The increase in workload, caused among others by growth in volumes, creation of new Zones and fresh policy initiatives and programmes, has been absorbed by the reduced workforce. Substantial skill upgradation of the workforce at every level has taken place. At the administrative and secretariat levels, extensive use of computers and IT is being done which has improved employee productivity. Introduction of measures like RTI has also cast additional responsibility on the employees at the HQ & Railway Board levels. Railways are now poised on a high growth path, with ambitious investment plans for capacity generation and modernization to cope with the projected surge in traffic in the coming years. These factors should be given due weightage while deciding pay scales and allowances of Railway employees, both at operating and at apex/ secretariat levels.
Is it possible to quantify all other benefits, excluding pay, derived by employees in Government and the public and private sectors from security of tenure, promotional avenues, retirement packages, housing and other invisibles? In view of these benefits, can there be any fair comparison between the salaries available in the government vis-ŕ-vis the salaries in the private sector?
The so called benefits or perquisites like security of tenure, promotional avenues, retirement packages, housing, etc. are not unique to Govt. service. In fact, many private sector entities offer a whole range of perks and perquisites like entertainment allowances, medical facilities, foreign visits, family vacations, separation pay, performance-linked incentives and employee stock options. It may also be mentioned that for public servants, benefits like job security and pensions are designed to insulate decision making from the pulls and pressures inherent in the democratic political system. Current level of perquisites of Govt. servants can in no way be considered generous, let alone excessive, if we consider the level of responsibility devolving on them in terms of resources generated/ handled, complexity and magnitude of decision making, geographic/ demographic span of control, etc.
In order to ensure a fair comparison based on principles of equity and social justice, would it not also be appropriate to take into account the economic conditions of large sections of the community that are less privileged than Government employees and many of whom live below the poverty line?
It is felt that the comparison between earnings of Government servants and of large masses of people below poverty line is entirely misplaced. Government servants are qualified personnel recruited and employed by the Government to formulate and implement public policy. The remuneration given to public servants is not largesse, but wages of employment in return for service rendered. The vast majority of Govt. servants is engaged in a daily pursuit of jobs assigned to them and to be performed within the laid down framework and environment of public service. There is a general perception that the fruits of development do not percolate down to the lowest levels because of red tapism and corruption in the bureaucracy. If so, it is all the more necessary that the Govt. servants are well paid to insulate them from these evils which hamper progress. The objective should be to raise the standard of living of the less privileged sections by means of education, skill upgradation and creation of employment opportunities, so as to enable them to share the benefits of a growing economy, rather than to drag public servants down into the morass of poverty. Economic development and provision of decent scales of pay to government servants are not contradictory or mutually exclusive goals. Though it is often claimed that implementation of the FPC recommendations had disastrous consequences for the economy, the surge in economic growth rate in recent years indicate otherwise. The deplorable levels of poverty in the country can, by no stretch of imagination, be attributed to a well-paid bureaucracy. This is not to say that there is no scope for improvement of performance and service delivery, which can only be achieved by a determined effort to bring in organizational change designed to create a conducive working environment, develop appropriate skills, motivate and sensitize public functionaries.
International comparisons
Some countries have raised civil service pay scales almost to levels prevalent in the private sector on the hypothesis that a well-paid bureaucracy is likely to be honest and diligent. To what extent would such a hypothesis be valid and how far would such a course of action be desirable?
It is universally acknowledged that public officials tend to become corrupt when they are lowly paid, and India cannot an be exception. It would be a fatally pessimistic view of the Indian mindset to suggest that even better pay and perquisites would have no salutary impact on corruption and inefficiency. The fact is, if the goals of good governance are to be served, the compensation package to government servants should be adequately high so as to attract and retain capabilities and talent. Empirical evidence shows that successful and clean economies all over the world have long paid their public officials high wages. On the other hand, there would hardly be any instance of economic progress and good governance being achieved by low-paid employees. The dream of becoming an economic Super Power in the coming decades cannot be realized on the shoulders of men who merely eke out an existence. Salaries are not 'satisfiers', but great 'dissatisfiers' when inequity is perceived. In the context of higher rate of economic growth and goals of reaching the fruits of development to large masses of people, and also measures like the RTI to make government more transparent and responsive, the responsibilities and expectations from public servants have gone up manifold. There is need for the Govt. to shed its conservative outlook nurtured in long years of economic stagnation, and raise the pay and perks of its employees to levels which would make them willing and enthusiastic participants in the quest for even higher and sustainable economic growth.
Impact on other organizations
Salary structure in the Central and State Governments is broadly similar. The recommendations of the Pay Commission are likely to lead to similar demands from employees of State Governments, municipal bodies, panchayati raj institutions & autonomous institutions Their paying capacity is considerably limited. To what extent should this factor be considered in devising a reasonable remuneration package for Central Government employees?
Central Govt. employees and the employees of the State Govts./ Local Bodies/ Panchayats etc. are not similarly placed in terms of process of recruitment, scope of functions and responsibilities, control of public resources/ management, impact/ sensitivity of decision making, etc. Central Govt. employees are recruited based on a nation-wide, extremely rigorous and competitive selection process, and are liable to serve anywhere in India. The salaries and allowances of Central Govt. employees do not ipso facto apply to employees at State/ Local Bodies level, but are subject to decisions of the concerned bodies. The fact that State Govts. yielded to political compulsions or did not apply their minds before extending FPC's award to their employees cannot now be held against the Central Govt. employees. In fact, some State Govts. like Kerala, Punjab and UP have reportedly implemented further upward revisions of pay and allowances of their employees, without linking the same to the pay and allowances of Central Govt. employees.
Salaries
How should we determine the salary to be paid to a Secretary in the Central Government? Please suggest an appropriate basic pay for a Secretary? Can appointment to this post be made on a contractual basis where salaries and tenure are linked to the performance in terms of achieving defined targets?
A Secretary in the Central Govt. is responsible for development, regulation and implementation of Govt. policy in the sector(s), which falls under the purview of his Ministry/ Department. His decisions impact resource generation, allocation and distribution of a very large magnitude and have consequences for the economic life of large masses of people. Many a times, administrative control and management of a large governmental apparatus with thousands of employees devolve on him. In the Railways, the Chairman, Railway Board, and Members of the Board, are responsible for policy making, development and regulation of the key railway infrastructure. They have direct executive control over operation and maintenance of the large rail network, which carries huge traffic volumes of freight and passenger, incomparable with any other railway system in the world. The present pay, perks and perquisites of the job, however, provide inadequate compensation for the professional expertise, experience and managerial inputs required. On the other hand, a CEO of a private sector firm with much less functional scope and span of control, draws compensation packages many times equivalent to that of Chairman/Members of Railway Board. There is definitely a need here to close the gap between the pay and allowances of a Secretary level officer and of private sector CEOs, giving due weightage to quantitative and qualitative factors such as scale of operations, span of control, developmental impact, etc. A monthly salary of Rs. 1.5 to 2 lakhs is considered fully justified. Appointment to high level posts like Secretary can be considered on a contractual basis, provided the minimum pre-requisites for successful job performance can be ensured. These include (i) laying down clear and tangible goals, the achievement of which can be measured in an objective manner (ii) adequate functional autonomy for the officer (iii) suitable compensation package such as to attract the best talent and expertise in the relevant sector, and (iv) steps to mitigate demotivation down the line due to blocking of career prospects, which would have adverse consequences for the organization. It is felt that very few Govt. departments would be able to the meet the above requirements.
What should be the reasonable ratio between the minimum and the maximum of a pay scale?
4.2 While on the one hand, pay and perks at higher echelons of administration have to be linked to their job profile, pay and allowances to employees at the lowest levels should enable them to have a dignified standard of living. In the Railways, even unskilled or semi-skilled employees perform valuable functions in the field (e.g. gangmen engaged in track maintenance). Effective neutralization of the rise in cost of living and meeting genuine aspirations to betters standards of living should be basic considerations applicable to all groups of government employees. The emphasis should be on upgrading skills and raising motivation levels to increase employee productivity, rather than to reduce them to the predicament of manual laborers or workers in the unorganized sectors, where exploitation is widespread. A ratio of 1:10 between the lowest pay scale and the highest appears to be reasonable.
Is it necessary to persist with a pre-determined minimum-maximum ratio on ideological considerations? Or is it more important to ensure efficient administration by preventing flight of outstanding talent from Government?
4.3 While the pay scales at the maximum and minimum ends should largely conform to an agreed ratio, exceptions can be made at the maximum end to accommodate professionals of very high caliber, or demands of a particular sector which calls for extra-ordinary skills/ talent.
Relativities
Employees in the Secretariat and analogous establishments are entitled to higher pay scales than the corresponding field functionaries. This was supposed to compensate them for the loss of certain facilities available to them in field assignments and the extra effort required for decision-making at the policy level. Are these factors valid even today particularly in the context of decentralization and devolution of administrative powers? Is this discrimination between field and secretariat functionaries even justified today?
Performance at the field level and at the Secretariat level calls for different abilities, approaches and attitudes. The Secretariat level in government corresponds to apex corporate levels in the private sector/ PSEs. Policy decisions which impact the sector as a whole, such as developmental and regulatory framework, investment size/ priorities, strategic goals etc. are taken at the corporate/ secretariat level, which calls for a clear understanding of the sector, strategic thinking, analytic and conceptual skills. Decisions at this level encompass the organization's entire sphere of activity and have higher impact on achievement of organizational objectives. Decentralization and devolution of powers do not mean that sectoral/ corporate decision making has shifted to the field level. Considering the higher conceptual skills required and complex dimensions of decision making involved at the Secretariat level, it is felt that there is justification to maintain superiority in pay scales at secretariat level over field functionaries. Officers of the Railway Board Secretariat Service perform secretariat and logistical functions in the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board). Entry to the service is through national competitive examinations, where candidates achieving higher ranks are allotted to RBSS in preference to CSS/AFHQ etc. RBSS provides an element of stability in the administrative set up as well as continuity and consistency in decision making at the apex management level of Indian Railways. RBSS officers contribute to operational/ logistical policy decisions in all aspects of railway management, such as personnel management, finances including budgeting and expenditure control, project preparation/ approvals and monitoring of implementation, procurements, vigilance, customer services, etc. RBSS officers play a significant part in the Ministry's interface with Parliament through material presented to Parliamentary Committees, replies to Parliament Questions and handling of issues raised by people's representatives. It is an indication of the magnitude of the work that the Ministry annually receives and processes about 22,000 references requiring replies at Ministers' level, submits about 3,000 pages of written material to Parliamentary Committees and replies 1500 -1700 Parliament Questions. The Ministry presents a separate annual Budget to the Parliament, involving voted expenditure of Rs. 1,08,000 crore (BE 2006-07). Besides the Railway Budget documents running into 2500 pages, the Ministry publishes numerous reports and documents including voluminous Codes and Manuals governing every aspect of railway operations and management, Year Book, Annual Report and Accounts, Annual Statistical Statements, etc. Though RBSS thus forms a vital part of Railway administration at the apex level, the Service has been neglected and discriminated against in matters of career planning and development. This needs urgent attention and remedial measures to enable the Service to realize its full potential.
Group-A Services
Is there a case for a Unified Civil Service, merging therein all Central (both technical and non-technical) and All India Services, allowing vertical and horizontal movement ? Or should there be two distinct streams, one embracing all the technical services and the other for non-technical services?
It is felt that a Unified Civil Service, seen as a remedy to rampant departmentalism, is likely to create more problems than it would solve. A certain amount of specialization is called for in view of increasingly complex and varied issues of governance in the context of a development economy and evolving democratic polity. Separate services have benefited by creating stronger identities, sense of belonging and pride in the cadre, which have beneficial impact. The solution to departmentalism has to be found by defining and emphasizing organizational missions, objectives, goals, etc. and evolving a team approach to problem solving. It may be possible to achieve some convergence of careers at the upper end of the organizational pyramid e.g. general administration posts of SAG and above could be opened to all services subject to fulfillment of a laid down selection criteria. While doing so, a certain percentage of posts required for ensuring minimum career advancement may have to be reserved.
Do you feel that the pattern of pay scales for all Group A Services should be redesignated so as to attract candidates of the requisite caliber? Keeping in view some of the compensation packages being offered to fresh professionals by the private sector, what emoluments would you suggest for an entrant to a Group-A Service in Government?
There is no denying the fact that monetary benefits significantly influence the career choice of new recruits. The growing disparity between the government pay scales and the compensation packages in the private sector/PSEs is robbing Government of the best talent. The imbalance needs to be rectified quickly, if the decline in services is to be arrested. While it may perhaps not be possible for the Govt. to match the best pay packages in the corporate world, it would not be unrealistic to say that the Govt. should offer a new entrant to Group "A" with a monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/- to be considered credible.
Professional personnel
Should there be a higher compensation package for scientists in certain specialized streams/departments like Department of Space, Department of Atomic Energy? If so, what should be the reasonable package in their case?
There is certainly a case for offering higher compensation packages for scientists and similar highly specialized personnel. Their compensation packages should be such as to attract and retain special talents, which would mean that the same should be world-class. Contractual/ negotiated compensation packages could be one of the means to achieve this objective.
Classification of posts
Presently, civilian posts in the Central Government are classified into four Groups (A, B, C and D) with reference to their scales of pay. The Fifth Central Pay Commission had recommended their reclassification into Executive, Supervisory, Supporting and Auxiliary Staff. Would you suggest any changes in the existing classification or should the classification recommended by Fifth Central Pay Commission be adopted with/without modifications?
The objects sought to be achieved by substitution of the present classification with another are not clear. Such a change can be justified only if it serves the objectives of human resource development, especially employee motivation. The reclassification suggested by the FPC viz. Executive, Supervisory, Supporting and Auxiliary Staff, may at best serve to indicate functional levels. Since no change is envisaged in the existing system of career movement of employees within the same class and from one class to the other, it is felt that such a reclassification would not have much impact on job performance or motivation.
Restructuring of Group C & D posts
Should all lower Group C functionaries in the Secretariat be replaced by multi-functional Executive Assistants, who would be graduates and well versed in office work, secretarial skills and use of modern office equipment including computers? Should Similar arrangements can be evolved for Group C posts in other organisations of Government?
There has been a positive change in the work environment in Central Govt. offices in recent years as a result of wider use of advanced office equipments, especially computers. The strength of the clerical cadre in the Central Secretariat, Railway Board Secretariat, etc. has drastically come down and is bound to further deplete as part of the cadre restructuring exercise of CSS/RBSS etc. On the other hand, systems and procedures are yet to be evolved and put in place to discharge the functions hitherto performed by LDCs/UDCs. In this context, the concept of graduate, multi-functional Executive Assistants is considered a welcome step. Since a large chunk of existing clerical and stenographic cadre personnel are graduates, it should be possible to absorb them straight away into such a composite group. They can also be placed into two Grades, say, Junior and Senior EAs, based on existing grade of the individual employee and/or requirement of graduate degree. It is expected that such reorganization of the entire cadre of Group C functionaries in this manner, allowing for multi-skilling/ multi-tasking, could improve employee productivity as well as job satisfaction at this level.
Should a similar regrouping of Group D staff into fewer categories capable of performing diverse functions also be carried out?
The above concept of multi-functional staff can also be introduced in the Group D category so that the Group D staff can perform diverse functions.
Pay Scales
How should a pay scale be structured? What is a reasonable ratio between the minimum and maximum of a pay scale?
The existing pay scales, except for posts of Secretary/Principal Secretary, prescribe minimum and maximum of the scales, with different rates of annual increment applicable to each scale. Each scale runs for different periods ranging from 3 to 20 years and the rates of increment range from Rs. 55 to Rs. 650. This works well if adequate promotion avenues are available to employees in all grades, which is often not the case. It is suggested that the concept of 'running pay scales' may be considered for introduction so that the pay of an employee does not stagnate in the event of his not getting promoted to the next higher grade within a reasonable period of time. The structure of pay should be that of stairs with pegs. The objective is that while an employee continuing in a particular grade should not stagnate for want of promotion, when he is promoted to a higher grade, he enters a new and higher running pay scale with a higher rate of annual increment.
The successive Pay Commissions have progressively reduced the number of distinct pay scales. The number of scales has therefore come down from more than 500 scales at the time of the Second Central Pay Commission to 51 scales before Fifth Central Pay Commission, which was brought down to 33 scales by the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The reduction in the number of pay scales brings in attendant problems like the promotion and the feeder grades coming to lie in the same pay scale, etc. Do you feel whether the existing number of pay scales should be retained or increased or decreased or whether the same should be replaced by a running pay scale?
It is an acknowledged fact that long stay in each grade demoralizes employees, kills initiative and causes deterioration in output/ service levels. While accrual of annual increments is a reward in financial terms, it an accepted HR principle that higher status and dignity inherent in promotions is an important factor contributing to motivation and job satisfaction. The system should provide for promotions at the interval of 3-5 years, though the financial jump need not be huge. This calls for introduction of intermediate rungs/ grades in each promotional ladder. At the Secretariat level, the organizational shift to an officer-oriented set up, with drastic reduction in supporting staff especially at clerical levels and desk-pattern of working, should receive due consideration while fixing pay scales.
Increments
What should be the criteria for determining the rates and frequency of increments in respect of different scales of pay? Should these bear a uniform or varying relationship with the minima and/or maxima of the scales?
It is suggested that the annual rate of increment should be 5% of the minimum of the pay scale. It would be ideal to provide for higher increments (say, double the normal rate) to outstanding employees as one of the rewards for higher efficiency and productivity. However, the contours of such a system have to be defined clearly, providing for objectivity and transparency, for it to work as a true incentive for performance.
Revision of pay scales
Is there any need to revise the pay scales periodically especially when 100% neutralization for inflation is available in form of dearness allowance?
It is submitted that in the present system, DA does not provide 100% neutralization for inflation. In any case, determination of the pay scales should also take into account the changing organizational objectives and job requirements, changes in the socio-economic environment and genuine aspirations of the employees for a better standard of living. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the present pay scales are revised.
How should pay be fixed in the revised pay scales? Should there be a point-to-point fixation? If not, please suggest a method by which it can be ensured that senior personnel are not placed at a disadvantage vis-ŕ-vis their juniors and due weightage is given for the longer service rendered by the former
The revised pay scales should translate into higher real income to employees, to enable them to afford a better standard of living. This call for a doubling of the pay scales, which have been in effect from 1996. So far as the question of fixation of pay in the new scale is concerned, this Association fully agrees with the observation that the fixation should be on a 'point to point' basis. The number of increments earned by an employee should be taken into account while fixing his pay in the revised pay scale to ensure that due weightage is given for the longer service rendered by a senior employee.
Compensatory Allowances
Is City Compensatory Allowance a sufficient compensation for the problems of a large city? If DA and HRA provide full neutralization, do you think CCA should continue? Is there a need for changing the basis of classification of cities and the rates of CCA? If so, please suggest the revised basis and rates.
There is a need to take a fresh look at the Compensatory Allowances being given to the government employees at present and to raise them to realistic levels. a) HRA should be related to the prevailing market rent. At present, HRA is admissible to both husband and wife if they are government employees and live in private (rented or owned) accommodation. When one of them is allotted Govt. accommodation, HRA is denied to the spouse also. However, for deciding the entitled type of house, pay of only the allottee spouse is considered. Moreover, the allottee is required to bear 10% costs of even essential modifications/ improvements like grill doors for safety, bathroom tiles, etc. which are of a permanent nature. Since there are costs involved in occupying a house, including transfer costs for moving to a different govt. accommodation within the same city which are not reimbursed, the employee ends up incurring expenditure from his pocket on government accommodation. Considering the above, it is suggested that HRA should be deducted from the allottee employee only, and full HRA should be admissible to the spouse. It is also suggested that government employees should be allowed leasing of accommodation including self-lease of own accommodation as is available to employees working in the PSUs. b) Educational Allowance should be enhanced to realistic levels and also extended for higher education, including professional education, of children. c) TA & DA should also be raised to realistic levels and should be increased proportionately along with increase in Dearness Allowance. d) At present, Transport Allowance is paid according to the post held by an employee. This is not logical as employees pay the same fare in public transport, and those using personalized vehicles pay the same price for petrol/ diesel. Considering the manifold increase in petrol/ diesel prices, Transport Allowance should be raised to a minimum of Rs. 1,500/- per annum. (e) City Compensatory Allowance (CCA): Those living in Delhi are at a disadvantage even in comparison with those living in other metros. Employees living in major residential areas like Gurgaon & Noida have to commute long distances without the benefit of subsidized suburban transport systems like in other metros. The same also applies to cost of medical facilities, school fees etc. It is, therefore, suggested that Delhi may be given a higher classification of'AA' and CCA for Govt. employees in Delhi may be fixed at 10% of the Basic Pay.
Pay and perquisites for Armed Forces
What should be the basis for determination of pay scales for Armed Forces Personnel? What percentage weightage should be assigned to (i) parity with civil services, (ii) comparison with private sector, (iii) special and hazardous nature of duties, (iv) short career span and (v) restricted rights?
There is no doubt that our Armed Forces perform an extremely important function and serve in the most adverse of circumstances. Pay and perquisites for Armed Force should compensate them for the onerous tasks performed by them even at the risk of their lives and many a times at the cost of long forced separation from their families.
How should the pay of a soldier, sailor and airman be determined? How should it relate to the minimum wage in Government and the pay of a constable in paramilitary or internal security forces?
There is no doubt that our Armed Forces perform an extremely important function and serve in the most adverse of circumstances. Pay and perquisites for Armed Force should compensate them for the onerous tasks performed by them even at the risk of their lives and many a times at the cost of long forced separation from their families.
Abolition of feudalism
Should all vestiges of feudalism in the country like huge residential bungalows sprawling over several acres, large number of servant quarters, retinues of personal staff, bungalow peons, use of uniformed personnel as batmen or on unnecessary security or ceremonial duties etc. be abolished? Please make concrete suggestions.
Vestiges of colonialism and feudalism have no place in a democratic polity, where governance should be based on rule of law, principle of equality among all citizens, and goals of reaching the maximum good for the maximum people. Feudalistic facilities give sustenance to vainglorious and feudalistic attitudes in administration. It is high time that the bureaucracy is divested of all symbols of colonial/ feudalistic powers, which are a positive hindrance to the country's progress, and in its place, measures are taken to instill and promote the true spirit of democracy in public governance, based on egalitarian principles of modern management.
Specific proposals
In what manner can Central Government organizations functioning be improved to make them more professional, citizen-friendly and delivery oriented?
There is an urgent need to bring more professionalism into government services. This calls for radical changes in attitudes and approach to work. Clear definition and articulation of mission/ objectives of each and every organizational unit (ranging from Ministry/ Department to Branches/ Sections) is the first step, to be followed by decisions on broad strategies and long, medium and short term goals for each unit. Human Resource Development is one area which has suffered the most in Government for want of vision and perspective. (In Government, we still use terms like "Establishment" to refer to personnel management and HRD mainly consists of posting and transfers.) Modern principles of management have almost entirely escaped the top managers of government. Rules and regulations enshrined in the Establishment Codes and Manuals, with their origins in the colonial past, hardly promote job satisfaction or employee motivation. Training and capability building of employees at every level needs to be paid urgent attention. Deterrents to performance need to be identified and systematically eliminated. Creation of a comfortable and congenial working environment, provision of electronic equipment, widespread use of computer networking and data transmission, and an equitable work distribution are other requirements which will go a long way in achieving greater efficiency.
Please outline specific proposals, which could result in: (i) Reduction and redeployment of staff, (ii) Reduction of paper work, (iii) Better work environment, (iv) Economy in expenditure, (v) Professionalisation of services, (vi) Reduction in litigation on service matters, (vii) Better delivery of service by government agencies to their users.
(i) The Govt. is already implementing measures to reduce staff strength. Staff reduction should go hand in hand with multi-skilling and redeployment. Redeployment of existing staff should be done in a rational manner so as to serve developmental goals. To ensure that quality of service is not compromised, equitable distribution of work is necessary. This aspect needs to be looked into seriously and the system streamlined. (ii) With increased use of office automation in Government offices, paper work has been reduced to some extent. However, a lot still needs to be done in this area. Use of Internet and E-mail for dissemination of information, transmission of information and correspondence between Government organizations should be encouraged and supported with system improvements and changes. Proactive steps should be taken to progress from the present cumbersome working methods to an objective-driven, paperless mode of working. (iii) Optimum utilization of office space, work friendly seating arrangements and modular furniture, provision of centralised AC, etc. can go a long way in improving the work environment. (iv) If paper work is reduced, a lot of savings can be generated on office stationery. Voluminous paper consumption involved in Parliament-related work can be reduced with suitable system improvements in coordination with Parliament Secretariats. Increased use of Internet and E-mail can also bring down cost of governance. (v) Wherever possible, professional inputs should be obtained through engagement of management and manpower consultants for bringing organizational and attitudinal changes. Induction training and refreshment courses at every level is vitally important. Rotation of officers at an interval of 3-5 years would be beneficial. Service areas which can be outsourced need to be identified. This can bring in accountability as well as economy in expenditure. (vi) In order to reduce litigation in service matters, there is urgent need for bringing in transparency in the decision making process. The main reason for officers going to court is lack of open communication between decision makers and those who are affected. All rules, procedures, instructions and administrative decisions which have implications for career* prospects should be posted on the Net so that the same are accessible by all. Administrative policies and practices should be thoroughly reviewed and positive changes introduced in the light of court judgements and also experience gained by officers handling court cases. Accountability should be fixed, when decisions are found to be unsustainable/ malafide and are required to be reversed due to judicial verdicts. (vii) In Ministries/Departments where the nature of work is service oriented, the focus should be on the customers. 'Customer focus' should not merely be a slogan, but a way of work at offices, with officers at higher administration serving a lead example. Team meetings should be held regularly to discuss employee needs, problems, frustrations, etc and to instill an attitude of 'Service with a Smile'. A concerted effort has to be made to streamline procedures and processes to avoid red tapism and delays and to ensure better service delivery. A system of regular interaction with stakeholders should be created for achieving stakeholder participation and for increasing effectiveness of decision making.
New concepts
Do you think the concepts of contractual appointment, part-time work, flexible job description, flexi time etc. need to be introduced in Government to change the environment, provide more jobs and impart flexibility to the working conditions of employees?
With introduction of a more professional and productive working environment in Government offices, along with attitudinal changes, it should be possible to experiment with and adopt the many new corporate concepts in Government also. Seamless connectivity is changing the office landscape. Physical presence of the employee within the office premises is no more an essential prerequisite for effective job performance. As long as performance is the key, many present rigidities attached with hours of reporting, hours spent in office, etc. can be relaxed/ modified to suit individual needs and situations, but at the same time serving organizational interests. For instance, introduction of flexi-time can co-exist with much longer working hours for public dealing offices (even 24x7 where necessary, such as in the case of railway booking offices which cater to passengers who use trains in all hours of the day). Contractual appointments and part-time work can be taken recourse to where the nature of work (such as a system study/ data collection/ analysis etc.) is "one-time" and needs expert inputs. Flexitime and part-time work would be especially beneficial to particular sections of employees like married women employees with small children, while being cost-effective to Government.
For improving punctuality/introducing new concepts like flexi time, should biometric entry/exit be introduced?
This Association agrees with the view that in order to improve productivity as also to suit employee requirements, biometric entry/exit system should be introduced, which will ensure that each employee puts in the prescribed minimum hours at work or get penalized financially.
What steps should be taken to ensure that scientists, doctors, engineers and other professionals with sophisticated education and skills are retained in their specialized fields in Government? Should they be appointed on contract with a higher status and initial pay, advance increments, better service conditions, etc.?
This Association agrees with the concept of appointing professionals/ specialists on contract basis in areas calling for special skills.
Should there be lateral movement from Government to non-Government jobs and vice versa? If so, in which sphere(s) and to what extent ?
This Association is of the opinion that lateral movement from Govt. to non-Govt. jobs and vice versa should be facilitated. This will help Govt. officers to be exposed to market realities, gaining valuable knowledge and professional experience in the process.
It has been suggested that existing Government employees should be encouraged to shift to employment on contract for specified periods in return for a substantially higher remuneration package. Would you agree?
For specific assignments, option can be given to government employees to take up employment on contract basis for specified periods, without losing lien/ seniority in their cadre.
Performance Appraisal
In what way should be present system of performance appraisal be changed? Should be ACR be an open document?
Performance appraisal should serve the recognized goals of HRD namely (i) objective performance evaluation (ii) providing inputs to determine training needs (iii) preparing the ground for providing performance based rewards and incentives including promotions and (iv) employee motivation. The existing ACR system in the government has failed to achieve most of the above objectives and therefore needs to be drastically recast in line with modern HRD practices.
How far has the introduction of self-assessment helped in the process of appraisal?
Self-assessment, as it exists today, has not served much purpose, and the format need to be recast to be in line with a more objective Performance Appraisal system mentioned above.
Should appraisal be done for an entire team instead of for individuals?
There is no doubt that a team based appraisal will lead to better focus on performance, rather than on qualities of individuals as in the present system. Introduction of such a system should be done concurrent with improvements in other areas of man management, including development of a mission oriented approach and inculcation of leadership qualities.
In what manner can Government employees be made personally accountable for their acts of omission or commission, without any special safeguards? Would you recommend any amendments to Article 311 of the Constitution, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 17 and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and various rules relating to conduct of Government servants and disciplinary proceedings?
In order to make government employees more accountable for acts of omission and commission, their objectives/ goals/ targets should be clearly set out at the beginning of the year. This process should, however, be carried out very professionally and objectively with active involvement of higher levels of management and participation of the concerned employees themselves. Performance should be monitored on a quarterly basis, with due guidance and support. It is felt that the approach should be that of positive guidance and empowerment for achieving results, rather than emphasizing penalties and punishment for lack of performance. A careful consideration of disincentives and deterrents to performance and employee motivation and systematic elimination of such disincentives/ deterrents should precede the effort.
Holidays
Kindly comment on the appropriateness of adopting a five-day week in Government offices when other sectors follow a six day week. Please also state whether the number of Gazetted holidays in Government offices should be reduced? Please also comment on the appropriateness of declaring Gazetted holidays for all major religious festivals.
Five-day week has been in vogue in Central Govt. offices for quite some time and no significant problems have come to light. It is in line with the system existing in the private sector/ PSEs and is the norm all over the world. However, it is suggested that except for the National Holidays, all other holidays should be converted into Restricted Holidays so that members of different communities can celebrate their festivals while others can attend office.
What do you think is the state of work ethics and punctuality in Government offices? Kindly suggest ways of improving these.
It is a recognized fact that work ethics and punctuality are functions of employee motivation and commitment. Low standards of punctuality, sick reporting, etc. in Government offices aredirectly attributable to low levels of job satisfaction among Govt. employees. Pay and allowances in themselves do not make for job satisfaction and motivation. Only introduction of modern HR management, with emphasis on participative approach, objective performance measurement, appreciation and reward of performance, etc. can bring about a qualitative improvement. It is also suggested bio-metric entry/exit system could be introduced to ensure the prescribed minimum hours of work at offices.
