Comparison of Group ‘B’ Posts between the Railways and Other Central Govt Departments
A mild comparison of Group ‘B’ employees working in the Railways and other Central Government Departments as per the Census of 2001 and 2008. The Indian Railways Technical Supervisors Association(IRTSA) submitted an additional memorandum to 7th Pay Commission recently. The report is highlighted the situation of Group ‘B’ posts in Railways in last 14 years. We just reproduced the matter briefly for your information…
Meagre number of Group ‘B’ posts in Railways
Every department of central Government are increasing the number of gazetted posts for effective & efficient governance, Railways are not doing so inspite of huge need of it on Administrative & functional justifications and requirement thereof.
According to Census of Central Government employees published by Ministry of Labour, between the year 2001 and 2008 number of Group-B employees have increased to the tune of 35.65% from 1,59,517 to 2,47,822 despite of reduction of total number of employees to the tune of 24.5% from 38,76,395 to 31,11,610.
Source: IRTSA
So far the information available in different web sites, Central Government is going to revise the fitment factor of Level 1 to 5 from 2.57 to 3 times. As per the approved Pay Matrix Table,Gr. A employees at different levels are availing the fitment factor of 2.67 to 2.81 times. The fitment factor of Gr. B employees (GP 4200 to GP5400) is 2.62 at present. With the new decision of the Central Government Gr.B employees will be the most losers. I think either the Central Government should consider the rate uniformly or the decreasing factor rate with the increasing levels to minimize the difference of pay between minimum and maximum.
It is unfortunate to remark that Gr.B, the middle level employees will be really deprived due to reluctance of the highest decision making body of the Central Government. As they are holding responsible position in the system they should be given upgraded fitment factor proportionally, which should not be the lowest.