Saturday, August 11, 2018
ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENT IN PLACE OF EMPLOYEES ON CHILD CARE LEAVE- LOK SABHA Q & A
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING)
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3587
(TO BE ANSWERED ON 08.08.2018)
ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENT IN PLACE OF EMPLOYEES ON CHILD CARE LEAVE
3587. SHRI P. NAGARAJAN:
Will the PRIME MINISTER be pleased to state:
(a) whether the Union Government is aware of the fact that the office work is being totally disrupted due to absence of women employees on account of the long paid maternity leave and child care leave;
(b) if so, the details thereof;
(c) whether the Government has calculated days and assessed working during maternity/child care leave for making provisions of staff to overcome the shortage or cope up with the work in the absence of women employees who are on maternity and child care leave;
(d) if so, the details thereof; and
(e) if not, the reasons therefore?
MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS AND MINISTER OF STATE IN THE PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE
(DR. JITENDRA SINGH)
(a) to (e) : Disruption in the office work due to absence of women employees on account of the long paid Maternity Leave and Child Care Leave has not come to the notice of the Government. Ministries/Departments are authorized to make suitable leave arrangements to cope up the loss of work hours when an employee proceeds on any kind of leave including Maternity and Child Care Leave. There is also provision for creation of leave reserve posts to cover the leave vacancies. No centralized data is maintained in this regard. Source: Lok Sabha
7TH CPC DEARNESS ALLOWANCE [LOKSABHA QA]
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO: 3948
ANSWERED ON: 10.08.2018
DA under 7th CPC
Will the Minister of
FINANCE be pleased to state:-
(a) whether the Dearness Relief of 119 per cent as effective from 1st July, 2015 was the last one taken into consideration by the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) while recommending the formulae for revision of pension for civilian personnel including Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) who retired before 01.01.2016 and if so, the details thereof;
(b) whether the retirees were in receipt of six per cent Dearness Allowance (DA) w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till the implementation of the Pay Commission Report and if so, the details thereof;
(c) whether at the time of implementation of 7th CPC Report, the six per cent has been denied and if so, the reasons therefor; and
(d) the remedial measures taken/being taken by the Government to remove their hardship and to restore the DA denied to them?
MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE
(SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN)
(a) to (c) : The pension of Central Government employees including personnel of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF), who retired prior to 1.1.2016, has been revised w.e.f. 1.1.2016 based on the recommendations of 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC), as accepted by the Government, taking into account Dearness Relief @ 125%.
(d): Does not arise.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RECENT SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT ON REGULARISATION OF CASUAL LABOURERS.
Significance of Supreme Court judgement is that Govt can not deny regularization stating that the Umadevi’s case Supreme Court has put a cut off period as 2006.
Whenever any case is filed by Casual labourers engaged after 2006 in CAT, the Govt is giving counter by quoting the 2006 judgment of Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case. CAT or High Court also reject their claim stating that after 2006 no regularization can be considered as per 2006 Supreme Court judgement in Umadevi’s case. Even in JCM (NC) Standing Committee Govt has repeated this stand. Now Supreme Court has clearly stated that 2006 judgement doesn’t mean that Govt is bound to regularise ONLY those irregularly appointed casual labourers up to 2006 only provided they complete 10 years service up to 2006 and can go on engaging casual labourers after 2006 as the question of regularization is not applicable to them and thus continue exploitation of them without regularization.
Court ruled that those appointed after 2006 should also be considered for regularization. Even if the appointment is made after 2006, those casual labourers can now approach the CAT for regularization quoting this judgement. This is the importance of this judgement.
Of course, this particular judgement will be implemented for Jhakhand State Govt casual laboureres only. But the above mentioned important observations and ruling of Supreme Court clarifying the 2006 Constitution Bench judgement of the same Court are beneficial to all casual labourers.
Similarly, the stand taken by the Govt that all appointments (engagements) of casual labourers made after 01-09-1993 are irregular and hence not eligible for regularization, will not also stand in the Court of Law after this judgement. In Umadevi’s case also Supreme Court has clearly ruled that those irregularly appointed casual labourers (even if appointed after 01-09-1993)are eligible for regularization, if they have completed 10 years of service.