Remember | Register | Forgot Password?
Bookmark This Page   RSS Feeds  Follow On Twitter

 

Search for Lawyers          
    



Please Wait ..


Discussion > Labour & Service Law > Others > MEANING OF STAGNATION INCREMENT   Unanswered Threads Post New Topic

Pages : 1


There are 8 Replies to this message


krishnamurthy


employee
[ Scorecard : 40]
Posted On 24 February 2011 at 21:35 Report Abuse

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF STAGNATION INCREMENT?

1]       IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES BECAUSE THERE IS DIFFICULTY IN  CREATING VACANCIES, IT IS PAID FOR THOSE WHO HAVE REACHED MAXIMUM AND WHO ARE SENIORS

 

2]      IN PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANISATIONS LIKE BANKS, EVEN THOGH  PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ARE AVAILABLE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS,  SENIORS WHO ARE RELUCTANT TO GET PROMOTED FOR THEIR PERSONAL REASONS   ARE ALSO PAID INCREMENTS "STAGNATION INCREMENTS"

WHAT IS THE CORRECT MEANING ?

A]  IS IT INCREMENT GIVEN TO EMPLOYEES WHO COULD NOT BE PROMOTED AND HENCE BEING  COMPENSATED - AS IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ?

                OR

B]  IS IT A BENEFICIAL PROVISION FOR SENIORS WHO HAS REACHED MAXIMUM ?

                OR

C] THE MEANING DEPENDS UPON WHERE YOU ARE EMPLOYED ? 

    



Online certification courses in IP, IT and Social Media laws


krishnamurthy


employee
[ Scorecard : 40]
Posted On 25 February 2011 at 20:03 Report Abuse

Hello.........  is this a reply?



Isaac Gabriel


Practicing Advocate
[ Scorecard : 4441]
Posted On 26 February 2011 at 10:08 Report Abuse

Those who have no chances for promotion and has to remain in the same scale of pay evenafter reaching the maximum are granted stagnation increments. This may vary to state to state i.e one increment for every two years or every year In my earler post it meant to read as item B



krishnamurthy


employee
[ Scorecard : 40]
Posted On 28 February 2011 at 21:00 Report Abuse

Thanks sir.

My specific question is this.  ONly in Govt. Depts. there is every chance that many of the employees may not get promotion.  In public sector like Banks, the promotion process is initiated on an annual basis.  In this case, the seniors in the list do not opt for promotion for fear of change of place, etc.  They are given stagnation increment.  In these cases, it is a question of having reached the maximum avoiding promotion  and they are given increments as they continue in the same scale .

In this context is it correct to call the increment as "Stagnation Increment"?

I think the concept of  "chances of promotion" we have inherited from Govt and hence can we safely that those who have reached maximum in some sale are given "Stagnation increment"?  

So, I think we should not include "promotion" while defining such increments -as I correct.



Isaac Gabriel


Practicing Advocate
[ Scorecard : 4441]
Posted On 28 February 2011 at 23:22 Report Abuse

The service rules in Government do not encourage those who opt out for promotion .But as you say the banks are adopting soft corner towards its employees..In such an event they should be sent on compulsory retirement instead of grnating premium by stagnation increments. 



krishnamurthy


employee
[ Scorecard : 40]
Posted On 03 March 2011 at 19:47 Report Abuse

Thank you sir.  Is there  any specific guideline / G O in this regard, sir

Since the granting of stagnation increments have no relevance to the acceptance of promotion in Banks, can these increments be called stagnation increments.

It is the basis on which I am being denied stagnation increments.  The details of my case is available under the topic  "INCREMENT WITHHELD " posted by me on 22 02 2011.

I solicit your reply / guidance for the same also, sir.



PS Dhingra, dcgroup1962@gmail.


[ Scorecard : 36703]
Posted On 07 March 2011 at 12:48 Report Abuse

Dar Krishnamurthy,

 

Irrepective of whether the employee has reached the maximum level of his pay scale in ordinary course of his service or is not able to get pomotion, stagnation increments are granted after a spcific period of stagnation, as per the guidelines of the Government or the organization concerned. In Government of India's organizations, stagnation increments are governed under the provisions of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), Office Memorandum No. 1(9)E.III-A/97, dated 22nd July, 1998. Autonomous banks usually follow the Government norms.

 

There is a lot of difference beween a stagnation incremen and increment withheld. Unless you provide proper link to your earlier query of 22.02.2011, I don't think any expert would find such a lot of time to waste in just trying to trace your post of 22.02.2011. So, if you really want help, you could well have posted the the weblink of the concerned query .

 

PS Dhingra

Chief Executive Officer

Dhingra Group of Management & Vigilance Consultants

New Delhi-110089

Mobile: 09968076381

[dcgroup1962@gmail.com]



krishnamurthy


employee
[ Scorecard : 40]
Posted On 08 March 2011 at 08:32 Report Abuse

Dear sir

Thank you very much sir.  For your easier reference, I am reproducing my earlier post, since I don't know how to insert the link.  

 

 

I AM WORKING IN A NATIONALISED BANK.   IN BANKS, PAYMENT OF SALARY, REDEFINING OF RESPONSIBLITIES AND SERVICE CONDITIONS CHANGE DEPENDING UPON THE SETTLEMENTS SIGNED BETWEEN THE BANKS UNIONS AND THE MANAGEMENTS.  THESE SETTLEMENTS ARE CALLED BY THE NAME  BIPARTITE SETTLEMENTS.     IN THE CASE OF BANK EMPLOYEE ANY SERVICE CONDITION PRIMARILY DEPENDS UPON THE CURRENT BIPARTITE IN FORCE AND IS NOT GOVERNED BY HIS DATE OF JOINING, PROMOTION (LIKE IN SOME GOVT POSTS )

 

 STAGNATION INCREMENT WAS A NEW CONCEPT INTRODUCED IN THE III BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT DATED 8/9/1983, WHEREIN IT WAS STIPULATED THAT AN EMPLOYEE ON REACHING MAXIMUM IN HIS SCALE WILL BE RELEASED CERTAIN INCREMENTS,AFTER COMPLETION OF CERTAIN PERIOD (because, the terms and the amount of increment are revised from time to time as per the Bipartite settlement)  DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN BELOW.

Employees who opt for reversion will not be eligible for promotion / to officiate in higher allowance carrying posts for a period of 2 years.

 

DATE OF JOINING              ::                 5 5 1977

DATE OF PROMOTION      ::                1983

DATE OF REVERSION        ::                1987 ( I requested for reversion to clerical cadre from officer cadre-

                                                                            There was a provision in our Bank for such reversion -

                                                                            My request was also acceded to by the Bank)

   REACHED MAXIMUM     >>              01 05 1991 (at this time eligibility after reaching maximum

   ELIGIBLE FOR STAG INC                 01 05 1994     3 years later)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I reached Maximum in my scale of pay in MAY 1991 and a STAGNATION INCREMENT WAS also released by the Bank on May 1994.  However, during the next month, June 1994. the same was recovered and to my query I was informed that I was not eligible for stagnation increment in terms of III Bi partite settlement. 

 

MEMORANDUM OF  SETTLEMENT  -  08 09 1983 - THIRD BIPARTITE

 

CLAUSE 1 (i)  For every five completed years of service after reaching the maximum in 

                             the scales of pay, members of the clerical and subordinate staff will be 

                             granted stagnation increments,…………………   etc

 

(ii)   The grant of stagnation increments would be subject to the following   conditions :

(a)     Stagnation increments would rank for superannuation benefits, HRA,

CCA and other benefits. 

 

(b)   Stagnation increments would not be given to an employee who at

any time after the commencement of this settlement after being offered  and / or selected for promotion refuses to accept such promotion.

 

 

When I sought reversion (1987) , the provisions of III Bipartite were in force .

 

I INTERPRETATION FOR THE BIPARTITE  CLAUSE  1(ii) b : 

 

I]       The above clause is split up and could be explained  as follows :

 

     1]    After being offered and selected for promotion refuses to accept

     2]    After being offered or selected for promotion refuses to accept

 

Both the above meanings apply only to those  who refuse to accept promotion   in  the immediate/initial  scenario only.  I have accepted promotion worked as officer for  more than 3 years and hence I am not covered under this clause.

 

II]       The non eligibility for Stagnation Increment was not mentioned in my reversion proceedings of 1987. The ineligibility clause was supposed to be in existence from 1983 and after 4 years, the same is not stated in my reversion proceedings. This itself implies that the above interpretation  was the one that was  prevailing at that time.

 

III]                The non inclusion of the disability for Stagnation Increment  itself indicates that the Bank was also under the impression that refusal to accept and reversion are two quite distinct matters.  Atleast it could be presumed that there was an ambiguity in the interpretation between the two words.    

IV]       To strengthen the above belief the First Stagnation increment was released to me in May 1994 by the Bank  on the due date.   and then subsequently recovered from my salary next month without any communication to me. 

                 

There is no change in the above clause during 4th and 5th Bipartite settlements  (The very same clause of settlement dated 8 9 83 was reproduced asClause 4b dated 10 04 1989.)

 Another Bipartite ( 6th Bipartite ) settlement was signed w e f 1 11 94

 

 JUSTIFICATION AS PER SIXTH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT

 

CLAUSE  5 – STAGNATION INCREMENTS –

 

       [i]        In substitution of CLAUSE 4B of Bipartite Settlement dated 10th April 1989, both clerical 

                 and  substaff shall be eligible for four stagnation increments at the rates and frequencies as       stated hereunder, and subject to the terms and conditions enumerated below:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

 

          [a]   the clerical and subordinate staff on reaching the maximum in their respective

                          scales of pay shall draw THREE stagnation increments at the rate of …………. 

 

         [b]  A workman already in receipt of three stagnation increments,…………………..

 

[c]  In supersession of Clause  1(ii)(b) of Bipartite Settement dated 8th Sep 1983, read             

           with  ‘Note’ to Clause 4B of Bipartite Settlement dated 10th April 1989,

 

       i)    Refusal to accept promotion at any stage or reversion within a year of promotion,

             wherever permissible under Bank’s rules will not dis-entitle an employee from 

             getting stagnation increment/s.

 

   ii)   An employee shall not be eligible for stagnation increment/s, if he, after      

             accepting promotion, seeks, and is granted, reversion after one year from date of .

              promotion.

  

[d]    In respect of employees who, in terms of the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement 

        dated 8 9 83, had not received stagnation increment/s, will now be eligible for the

        same with effect from 1st November 1994 to the extent available to others under the

        previous Settlements.  In one year, however, of the due increment/s, not more than

        one stagnation increment will be granted after 4 years from the date the third

        stagnation increment is released.

 

EXAMINATION  OF CLAUSES  5 C [i] AND C [ii]  :

 1]      It is to be noted that only in this Bipartite  the word REVERSION  is being  

          brought in for the first time.  

 2]     This is quite distinct from  after being offered and / or selected for promotion

           refuses to accept as per the THIRD BIPARTITE.

   3]      The above change in the words accepts  that there has been an anomaly in the

            meaning of III Bipartite Settlement which is being set right / rectified. 

 

  4]    In supersession of Clause 1(ii)(b) of Bipartite Settement dated 8th Sep 1983, read

        with  ‘Note’ to Clause 4B of Bipartite Settlement dated 10th April 1989, 

   

         By the above sentence,  the  Stagnation Increment clauses of the III and IV th

         Bipartite settlements are superceded by the new conditions for the eligibility  

         for  stagnation increment with effect from the date of settlement  14 2 95

5]      The phrase will not disentitle  in Clause [C] [i]  indicates futuristic reference

          only  and it does not cover the past cases.  

 EXAMINATION  OF CLAUSES  5 C [ii]

   6]      The phrase in C(ii)  employee shall not be eligible for stagnation increment/s

                      Shall is used in the futuristic tense only meaning that those who seek reversion

           beyond  one year after the settlement are not eligible for stagnation increment

 From the above it could be inferred clearly that CLAUSES 5C[i]  & [ii} have given a  revised conditions for the eligibility of stagnation increments from the date of the SIXTH Bipartite Settlement  i.e. 14 2 95

 EXAMINATION OF CLAUSE  5 [d] :

 Having redefined the eligibility clauses w e f the date of 6th Bipartite Settlement the next Clause 5 [d]  is meant to set right the anamoly in the earlier settlement.

 [d] In respect of employees who, in terms of the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement  dated 8 9 83, had not received stagnation increment/s, will now be eligible for the same with effect from 1st November 1994 to the extent available to others under the  previous Settlements.  In one year, however, of the due increment/s, not more than  one stagnation increment will be granted after 4 years from the date the third    stagnation increment is released.

 

1]      This is a different clause and has no reference to 5C [i] and [ii]

2]      The above clause does not say anything about 1 year condition to be   eligible for stagnation

          increments.

3]       If the intention  has been to include those sought reversion beyond   1 year relating to the period prior to the date of this settlement ,  this should have  been worded accordingly and differently.

4]       In any settlement when an ambiguity /  anamoly has crept in it is only natural  to    redefine the conditions for removing the anomaly and providing succour to  those who had been affected earlier.

My Bank is applying the VI Bipartite Settlement 5c(i) and 5(c)(ii) to my case conveniently arguing  the these clauses apply with prospective effect only.    They are applying on the III Bipartite settlement which is not correct.  By virtue of 5c(i) and (ii), they have refused to pay me the stagnation increment.  

My question is as follows :

1]  Whether the explanations  given above are correct?

2}  What is the meaning of  "supersession " and its effect ?  Can it be interpreted to go back and redefine from 8 9 83?  Whether "supersession" can be interpreted with a retrospect effect ?

3]  Whether there are any Supreme Court cases involving the meaning and effect of "supersession" ? Can I get the details of the case and the no is possible ?

3]  Stagnation increments are payable who are reverted to clerical cadre as punishment by the management for any misconduct.    Whether this is justified ?  When stagnation increment is payable to an employee who has been reverted by management as punishment,  how come it is not payable to those who sought reversion on their own ?

4]  The prohibitive clause was meant to be a deterrent one and this is more draconian- whether there is any justification for such a clause / interpretation.

5]   Seeking reversion is not a suo moto decision - which Bank fancy in repeating ?  There is a provision in my Bank - request is granted by the competent authority - How can this be termed as  "suo moto"?

6]  While employees who are reverted from a higher scale to lower scale after 1 year are eligible for stagnation increments, is it justifiable constitutionally that those who have sought voluntary reversion are not eligible for stagnation increments ?

 



Member (Account Deleted)


LAWYER-ADVOCATE
[ Scorecard : 4594]
Posted On 10 April 2011 at 12:35 Report Abuse

STAGNATION INCREMENT IS AN INCREMENT GRANTED TO THE EMPLOYEES WHO REACH THE MAXIMUM PAY SCALE FO R THE POST HELD BY THE SAID EMPLOYEE. GOVT AND SEMI GOVT UNDERTAKINGS HAVE THEIR LAID DOWN PROCEDURE BUT BANKS AND OTHER PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANISATIONS MAY FOLLOW THEIR AGREEMENTS WITH THE EMPLOYEES UNION IF ANY, OR MAY FOLLOW THEIR RULES AND SERVICE REGULATIONS.

BUT IN GENERAL AN EMPLOYEE WHO REACHES HIS MAXIMUM PAY SCALE IS GRANTED STAGNATION INCREMENT AFTER EVERY THREE YEARS AND ALSO SUBJECT TO ANY SPECIFIC AGREEMENT WITH THE EMPLOYEES UNION. IT IS JUST TO COMPENSATE AND ENCOURAGE THE SAID EMPLOYEE WHO HAS PUT ON VERY LONG SERVICE WITH THE ORGANISATION CONCERNED.

WITH BEST REGARDS TO ALL.GOOD LUCK.

NANDKUMAR B.SAWANT,ADVOCATE





Previous Thread
Previous
Next Thread
Next

Related Threads


Post your reply for MEANING OF STAGNATION INCREMENT



Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to login


Not a member yet ?? Click here to signup

Message







    

  • This is a public forum. Avoid posting content which you do not wish to disclose in public.
  • Use thank button to convey your appreciation.
  • Maintain professionalism while posting and replying to topics.
  • Try to add value with your each post.





Subscribe to the latest topics :


Forum Home | Forum Portal | Control Center | Who is Where | Popular Threads | Today's Topic | Recent Posts | Today's Posts | Post New Topic | Thread With Files | Top Threads - Month | Unreplied Topics | Forum Stats


web analytics