Controversy of 11th Pay Revision Commission Implementation in Andhra Pradesh

Controversy of 11th Pay Revision Commission Implementation in Andhra Pradesh

adminlawyers Leave a Comment

The Andhra Pradesh government had ordered the implementation of the 11th Pay Revision Commission last month. The 11th Pay Revision Commission consists of the recommendations. The 11th Pay Revision Commission was expected to come into force in May 2018. But the government delayed implementation and set up the Ashutosh Mishra committee in July of the same year. The committee gave its report in October 2020. A secretary headed by Sameer Sharma was set up to look into the 11th Pay Revision Commission. The committee has recommended the extension of fitment up to 14.29%. The committee also suggested the new pay scales after the implementation of the Pay Revision Commission, which came into retrospective effect on 1st July 2018. This was expected to cause a burden of R.S. 8,00,000/- to 10,00,000 Crore to the state. Mr. Sharma had submitted his Pay Revision Committee recommendation to the C.S. to review. The C.S. had also discussed its reports at the Joint Staff Council meeting. The Chief Secretary had submitted their report on 12th December 2021. Respective unions have questioned the behavior or conduct of joint staff council meetings for not disclosing the Pay Revision Commission report. Despite heated arguments and debates, the Andhra Pradesh government had not announced the Pay Revision Commission report of Ashutosh Mishra. 

In the presence of employees, Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy made an announcement related to the Pay Revision Commission status. He made it clear that the Chief Secretary had recommended 14% fitment while the government gave 23% fitment for the common good. The government decided to increase the retiring age of employees from 60 years to 62 years. On 17th January 2022, the Andhra Pradesh government ordered the implementation of new Pay Revision Commission recommendations from 1st February 2022. 

The 11th Pay Revision Commission report recommended 27% of basic pay. The Pay Revision Commission arrived at a 23% fitment benefit as per its calculations based on ILC norms. However, it recommended a 27% fitment benefit as interim relief of 27% is already being given by the State government[1]. “The fitment benefit should be allowed to bridge the gap between the increase in minimum pay as determined in the previous chapter based on ILC norms, on 01-07-2018, over that fixed as on the date of implementation of the last RPS (i.e., 01-07-2013) less the neutralization of inflationary impact on prices of essential items of consumption effected through the merger of Dearness Allowance with the basic pay.

Based on this principle, in the present case, the fitment works out to be 23%. Keeping in view the fact that the government has already approved an interim relief of 27%, which is higher than the fitment arrived at by the commission based on ILC norms, as mentioned above, the commission deems it proper to recommend a fitment benefit of 27%,” the report says. 

The committee secretaries realized that the fitment sanctioned over the years was consequently high. For example, in the 9th Pay Revision Commission, only 27% fitment was recommended, while 39% fitment was sanctioned. In the 10th Pay Revision Commission, only 29% fitment was recommended, while 43% fitment was sanctioned. 

However, the employees were not really happy with the new Pay Revision Commission fitment report submitted by the committee of secretaries, which recommended 14.29% fitment. As the employees are not satisfied with the fresh fitment recommended, they request the government to pay salaries according to the 10th Pay Revision Commission, which suggests 29% fitment where 43% fitment was sanctioned. Therefore, the employees and the Union of employees are demanding the government to reconsider its decision. 

In the light of employees’ dissatisfaction with the new Pay Revision Commission, the employees decided to go on a strike on 3rd February 2022. Several employees, teachers, pension benefits, and related unions kept all their efforts in reaching Vijayawada after the call for protest from the Pay Revision Commission (PRC), a joint action committee of all employees and teachers. The police personnel had taken all the steps or measures to intervene in the strike. Even though police denied permission to the protest, thousands of employees disguised themselves and reached Vijayawada. ‘Chalo Vijayawada’ protest was a huge success. Protestors held flags and banners, demanding the government to pay their salaries according to the 10th Pay Revision Commission. The protesters began their protest rally from NGO Bhavan, Gandhi Nagar to BRTS road. The protesters took their protest forward, chanting, ‘We want Justice’. The union leaders and protesters demanded the government revoke the G.O. of implementing the 11th Pay Revision Commission from 1st February 2022. 

 

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court, as the 11th Pay Revision Commission affects many employees across Andhra Pradesh. Advocate General S. Sriram appeared for the state. On the other hand, advocate P. Ravi Teja appeared on behalf of employees. The writ petition was filed by A.P. gazette officer’s Joint action committee chairman K.V. Krishnaiah. The petition questioned the validity of the G.O. The bench constituting Justice BS Bhanumathi and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said that “Hence, the petition should not have come up before us as per roster and instead it should be sent to an appropriate bench,.” The bench was directed to file it before Justice Prashanth Mishra. After filing the petition, advocates representing employees argued that implementing the 11th Pay Revision Commission would cut down the salaries and not raise the employees’ wages. He also contended that the non-disclosure of Ashutosh Mishra’s report of 2018 is disabling the government employees to know the basics of the G.O. passed by the government for implementing revised pay scales. He also cited section 78(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act 2014 argued that employees of Andhra Pradesh working Telangana have their rights and interests protected even in the state’s bad financial conditions Telangana. Advocate General S. Sriram stated that the interim was of implementing the final Pay Revision Commission just as mentioned in the G.O. He also argued that no right would arouse for implementing a particular fitment. He argued that the state’s income was 60,000 crore in 2018-19, but the income has drastically fallen due to covid-19. The state was to earn 70,000 crores in 2021 but got only 60,000. Out of which, the government is supposed to pay 67,000 crores to employees. The court asked “whether the wages of employees were increased or decreased”, the court also highlighted that Pay Revision Commission has the power only to make the recommendation. At the same time, only the government is entrusted with the ability to take the decision. The court opined that the government could reduce the employees’ wages if the state’s financial condition is not good. In such a case, employees can raise the issue, but it would not be appropriate to say that the government does not have the right to do so. The case would be again heard on 23rd February 2022. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *