PARLIAMENT OF INDIA

RAJYA SABHA
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON HOME AFFAIRS

EIGHTY-THIRD REPORT
ON PERSONNEL POLICIES OF CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE AND CENTRAL SECRETARIAT SERVICE (PRESENTED TO RAJYA SABHA ON DECEMBER 19, 2001) (LAID ON THE TABLE OF LOK SABHA ON DECEMBER 19, 2001) RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI DECEMBER, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 1923 (SAKA) CONTENTS 1. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE 2. INTRODUCTION 3. REPORT CHAPTER - I Central Industrial Security Force CHAPTER II Central Secretariat Service 4 RELEVANT MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE 5. ANNEXURE List of Central Secretariat Service Officers who are empanelled to hold the posts of Joint Secretary and still awaiting placement COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE (2001) 1. Shri Pranab Mukherjee- Chairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Shri Hansraj Bhardwaj 3. Shri Hiphei 4. Shri Surendra Kumar Singh 5. Shri Sangh Priya Gautam 6. Dr. L.M. Singhvi 7. Shri S. Ramachandran Pillai 8. Shri K.M, Saifullah 9. Shri C.M. Ibrahim 10. Shri Raj Mohinder Singh 11. Shri C.P. Thirunavukkarasu 12. Shri Drupad Borgohain

13. Shri Kuldip Nayyar 14. Dr.(Smt.) Joyasree Goswami Mahanta 15. Shri Jayanta Bhattacharya # 16. Shri Pritish Nandy @17. Shri B.S. Gnanadesikan LOK SABHA 18. Shrimati Jayashree Banerjee 19. Shri S.K. Bwiswmuthiary 20. Shrimati Nisha Chaudhary 21. Shri Samar Chaudhary 22. Shri M.O.H. Farook 23. Shri Vijay Goel 24. Shri Rajen Gohain 25. Shri Suresh Ramrao Jadhav 26. Shri Vinay Katiyar 27. Shri Arun Kumar 28. Shri Ram Nagina Mishra 29. Shri P.H. Pandian 30. Shri Dayabhai Vallabhai Patel 31. Shri Shriniwas Patil 32. Shri Jitendra Prasada 33. Shri Subodh Ray 34. Shri N. Janardhana Reddy _______________________________________________________________ Ceased to be Member w.e.f. 1 March, 2001. Ceased to be Member w.e.f. 14 June 2001 on expiry of term as Member of Rajya Sabha. # Nominated w.e.f. 3 August, 2001. @ Nominated w.e.f. 20 August, 2001. Expired on 30 January,2001. Expired on 10 September, 2001. Ceased to be Member w.e.f. 1 September 2001 on being appointed Minister. Expired on 16 January, 2001. 35. Dr. Jayanta Rongpi 36. Shri Anadi Charan Sahu 37. Shri Iqbal Ahmed Saradgi 38. Shri Manabendra Shah 39. Shri Raghuraj Singh Shakya 40. Shri Vishnu Datta Sharma 41. Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh 42. Shri Lal Bihari Tiwari 43. Shri Prakash Mani Tripathi 44. Dr. S. Venugopal 45. Shri Beni Prasad Verma 46. Shri Raj Kumar Wangcha 47. Shri Harin Pathak

48. Shri E. Ponnuswamy &49. Shri Jaisingrao Gaikwad Patil SECRETARIAT Shri Satish Kumar, Additional Secretary Shri Tapan Chatterjee, Director Shri A.K. Singh, Under Secretary Shri Narendra Kumar, Research Officer Shri Ashok Kumar Sahoo, Committee Officer Expired on 27 November 2001. Ceased to be Member w.e.f. 19 March, 2001 on being nominated to Committee on Human Resource Development. Nominated w.e.f. 20 February, 2001. Nominated w.e.f. 8 March, 2001. &Nominated w.e.f. 21 November 2001. INTRODUCTION I, the Chairman of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs having been authorised by the Committee to submit the Report on its behalf, do hereby present this Eighty-third Report of the Committee on Personnel Policies of Central Industrial Security Force and Central Secretariat Service. 2.0 The personnel policies of CISF and CSS have been engaging attention of this Committee for quite some time. The Committee has made several observations/recommendations on various aspects of the personnel policies of CISF and CSS in its Fifty-fourth (1999) and Fifty-ninth (2000) Reports on Demands for Grants of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Thirty-third (1996), Thirtyeighth (1997), Forty-fourth (1998), Fifty-fifth (1999) and Sixtieth (2000) Reports on Demands for Grants of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, respectively. 2.1 The Action Taken Replies of both the Ministries on the observations/recommendations of the Committee contained in its aforementioned Reports are evasive, sketchy, self-contradictory, inconsistent, grossly unsatisfactory and misleading. 2.2 The Committee while examining the Demands for Grants (2001-2002) of the Ministry of Home Affairs decided to present a separate report on the grievances of direct recruit Group A officers of CISF. 2.3 In its sittings held on 28 March 2001, while examining the Demands for Grants (2001-2002) of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, the Committee took note of the relay hunger strike of the members of CSS Forum for fulfillment of certain demands with regard to their service. Accordingly, in case of personnel policy of CSS also the Committee decided to present a separate report. 2.4 Consequently, the Committee heard the Home Secretary and Secretary (Personnel) on personnel policies of CISF and CSS in its meeting held exclusively for the purpose on 10 April 2001. 2.5 The Committee was informed by both the Ministries about setting up of two separate Departmental Committees to go into the problems of CISF and CSS, respectively, which were supposed to present their Reports by 31 August & 31 May 2001, respectively. In its meeting held on 13 June 2001, the Committee decided to wait for their Reports before formulating its observations/recommendations. As the two Departmental Committees failed to meet their

respective deadlines, their term was extended upto the end of November 2001. In the meantime, the Committee, in its meeting held on 19 October 2001, took cognisance of the delay in submission of the reports of the two Departmental Committees and decided to wait for their reports which were likely to be submitted by 30 November 2001. 2.6 Interestingly, both these Departmental Committees have once again failed to submit their reports by the extended deadline i.e. 30 November 2001, and their tenure have been further extended upto 28 February 2002 for submission of their reports. 2.7 Since most of the areas on which this Committee has made observations/recommendations have been referred to these two Departmental Committees, the Committee, therefore, desires that these Departmental Committees should take due cognizance of the observations/recommendations of this Committee as contained in this report. 3. The Prime Minister and the Home Minister have been apprised of the Committees feelings on the issues of CSS and CISF, respectively. 4. The Report has two chapters. The first chapter is devoted to CISF and second one to CSS. 5. For Chapter-I, the Committee has made use of the Action Taken Replies of Ministry of Home Affairs on its relevant observations/recommendations as contained in its Fifty-fourth and Fiftyninth reports, replies to the questionnaire furnished by the Ministry, oral evidence of the Home Secretary and replies to the points raised by the Members of the Committee during the course of the oral evidence of the Home Secretary and the letters received from several members bringing certain aspects to the Committees notice. 5.1 For Chapter-II, the Committee has mainly relied on Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962, various executive instructions on Central Staffing Scheme, Orders, Notifications and Office Memoranda of Ministries of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Finance, replies to the questionnaire, comprehensive note on CSS, Action Taken Notes on the recommendations of the Committee as contained in its Sixtieth Report and replies to the Parliament Questions on the subject as received from the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and representations received from the associations of Central Secretariat Service, while formulating its views. 5.2 The Committee considered the draft Report in its sitting held on 11 December 2001 and adopted the same. 6. For facility of reference and convenience, observations and recommendations of the Committee have been printed in bold letters in the body of the Report. PRANAB MUKHERJEE NEW DELHI; Chairman December 11, 2001. Committee on Home Affairs REPORT CHAPTER-I CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE The grievances of Group A direct recruits of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) have been engaging the attention of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs for over a couple of years. It has dwelt at length on the grievances of these officers in its two successive Reports viz. 54th and 59th. Despite that the problems and grievances of these officers have remained unchanged mainly due to bureaucratic indifference and apathy towards them. It is this indifference of the mandarins of Ministry of Home Affairs which has impelled the Committee to present a separate Report on the long pending grievances. It, therefore, hopes that a

just, humane and lasting solution will be found by the Government to put an end to the seemingly endless miseries of Group A direct recruits of CISF. 2. It is worthwhile to have a brief peep into the genesis of the grievances before suggesting suitable solutions for their redressal. 2.1 Central Industrial Security Force is an armed force of the Union. Its primary role is to protect and safeguard industrial undertakings owned by the Central Government together with such other installations as specified to be vital by the Government which include certain State Government Undertakings. In addition to this, it is now mandated to perform internal security and election duties, and provide consultancy services to the industrial establishments in private sector. Besides, it performs any other duties that may be entrusted to it by the Central Government. 2.2 The rank structure of the force at Group A level is as follows: 1. Assistant Commandant 2. Deputy Commandant 3. Commandant 4. Deputy Inspector-General 5. Inspector-General 6. Director-General As is evident, the entry to Group A rank structure begins at the level of Assistant Commandant. Recruitment to the rank of Assistant Commandant takes place from four sources, viz. promotion from the rank of Inspector, absorption of security officers from PSUs, reemployment of ex-army officers and direct recruitment through Civil Services Examination. Here, it is pertinent to note that the post of Assistant Commandant was originally a Group B post and was elevated to Group A in 1987-88. With its elevation to Group A, the post of Assistant Commandant began to be filled up through direct recruitment also. Although, it gained the status of Group A post, it lacked the necessary attributes which characterise an organized Group A service. These attributes are as follows: (a) The highest cadre post is not below the level of Rs.5900-6700; (b) It has all the standard grades, namely, Rs.2200-4000, Rs.3000-4500, Rs.37005000/Rs.4500-5700 and Rs.5900-6700; (c) At least 50 per cent of the vacancies in the Junior Time Scale (Rs.2200-4000) are required to be filled by direct recruitment; and (d) All vacancies above the Junior Time Scale and up to the Senior Administrative Grade (Rs.5900-6700) are filled by promotion from the next lower grade. Evidently, CISF has only two attributes viz. (i) and (ii) as mentioned above which are not sufficient enough to enable it to earn the status of an organized Group A Civil Service. As a result of this, Group A direct recruits to the level of Assistant Commandant represent only a group of posts and not an organized civil service. 2.3 Apart from the above mentioned attributes which identify an organized Group A Civil Service, there are certain broad parameters which ensure organized career planning of a direct recruit. He/she is assured of Senior Time Scale around 4th to 5th year of service and Junior Administrative Grade by 9th year of service. Selection Grade by 14th year and Senior Administrative Grade after 17th year is ensured. Besides a smooth and assured career progression, Group A Civil Services undergo periodical cadre review once every 3-5 years so as to provide reasonable promotional avenues to the cadre officers. However, no such attributes and parameters

were formulated for CISF officers with the upgradation of the post of Assistant Commandant from Group B to Group A in 1988. 2.4 In this backdrop, we may now trace the genesis of the grievances of direct recruit Group A officers of CISF and explain the malaise with the help of following points which have perpetuated the plight of these officers: (i) IRRATIONAL AND UNJUSTIFIED ROTA-QUOTA SYSTEM Even though CISF lacks the essential attributes of being a Group A Civil Service, the magnitude of the sufferings of the direct recruit Group A Officers would not have been as much as it is if the ROTA-QUOTA system being followed in CISF had not been there. The real culprit behind the sufferings of these officers is nothing but this system alone. Ironically, CISF is the only organization where it exists and therefore has no parallel either in any of the Central Police Organisations or any of the Group A Civil Services. It is this system which has done maximum damage to the career prospects of these officers. The unjustness of the system can be illustrated by stating that out of 10 vacancies in any given year, first five go to the promotees, sixth and seventh vacancies are allotted to one optee and one ex-army officer, respectively, and the last three are given to direct recruit officers. This illustration clearly shows that ROTA-QUOTA system being followed in CISF is heavily stacked against the direct recruit officers whose career progression is doomed right from the moment they join the CISF as a result of this system. But for some inexplicable reasons, this system has been allowed to continue much to the agony of the direct recruit officers. The Nikhil Kumar Committee which was set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs to look into the grievances of these officers also realized the harm caused by this system to the direct recruit officers and therefore recommended that it should be done away with it. But this recommendation has not found favour with the Department of Personnel & Training due to which the anomalous ROTA-QUOTA system continues to exist as a thorn in the flesh for direct recruit Group A officers of CISF. (ii) DIRECT RECRUIT OFFICERS OF CISF - AN ORGANIZED CIVIL SERVICE OR AN ARMED FORCE OF THE UNION As stated earlier, the post of Assistant Commandant was elevated from Group B to Group A in 1987 and with this elevation began direct recruitment for it through Civil Services Examination conducted by Union Public Service Commission. Since it was elevated to the Group A status, the post of Assistant Commandant was treated at par with other Group A services included in the scheme of examination meant for recruitment to various Civil Services. Based on this premise, the direct recruit officers of CISF were prevented from appearing in the subsequent Civil Services Examination as they were perceived to be belonging to a Group A service. Not just that, in case of some of the Officers who were given extension of time for joining CISF so as to enable them to compete for IAS, IFS and IPS in the next examination, they were asked to join CISF even before their result for the examination was declared thereby snatching the opportunity from them to join one of the above mentioned services as some of them had, in effect, qualified for one of these services. This clearly proves that for all practical purposes Group A direct recruit officers of CISF were deemed to be part of a Group A Civil Service even though CISF does not have the attributes of an organized Group A Civil Service till date. On the other hand, the Ministry now emphasizes that CISF is an Armed Force of the Union and, therefore, cannot be equated or compared with an organized Group A Civil Service. Here the question arises whether the directly recruited Assistant Commandants of CISF

belong to an organized Civil Service or to an Armed Force of the Union. In response to this question, the Ministry of Home Affairs has replied that CISF direct recruit Assistant Commandants do not constitute or form part of an organized Civil Service. They are only recruited through the Civil Services Examination which is a vehicle for recruitment of direct recruit segment of Assistant Commandants of CISF. CISF is an Armed Force of the Union whose officers are governed by the CISF Act and Rules. The reply of the Ministry leaves no doubt as to the status of CISF. But the point which engages the attention of the Committee is the inconsistency in the Ministrys stand on the status of the direct recruit Group A officers of CISF. Direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant began in 1987 whereas CISF attained the status of an Armed Force of the Union in 1983. Therefore, it becomes amply clear that in 1987 when direct recruitment began, CISF was a full-fledged Armed Force of the Union. Since this is an undeniable fact, the question arises as to why the recruitment to the posts of Assistant Commandant was done through the Civil Services Examination? How far was it justified to recruit officers for an Armed Force of the Union and for organized Group A Civil Services through a common competitive examination which was primarily meant to make recruitment for various Civil Services? The point made by the Ministry that Civil Services Examination was only a vehicle of recruitment for filling up the direct recruit segment of the posts of Assistant Commandants in CISF is well taken. But the question arises if it was only a vehicle of recruitment then why conditions such as bar on appearing in the same examination for bettering their performance were imposed on these officers on the lines of an organized Civil Service? Should these officers not have been treated separately from their counterparts in various Civil Services as the former were governed by CISF Act and Rules and the latter by Civil Services Rules? The fact remains that direct recruit Assistant Commandants were and are officers of an Armed Force of the Union. Therefore, they should not have been treated at par with the officers of Civil Services and if at all they were treated at par then the attributes of a Group A Civil Service should have accrued to them. Evidently, these officers were treated at par with officers of Civil Services when they were denied the opportunity to compete for other Group A Civil Services in the subsequent Civil Services Examination though they lacked the attributes of an organized Civil Service. At the same time, when it came to evolving the attributes of Group A Civil Service in the CISF for these direct recruit officers, they were simply denied these attributes on the premise that they belonged to an Armed Force of the Union and not to any Group A Civil Service. This proven inconsistency vis--vis the status of direct recruit Group A officers of CISF has caused immense suffering to them. So much so that their career prospects are totally doomed with no relief in sight. (iii) DIRECT RECRUIT GROUP A OFFICERS OF CISF A CIVIL SERVICE OR A GROUP OF POSTS As explained above, the status of directly recruited Assistant Commandants of CISF has been marked with inconsistency and utter confusion. The Gazette Notification for the Civil Services Examination identifies these Assistant Commandants as a Group of Posts having a Group A status. As per the Ministry of Home Affairs own admission these Group A Posts do not constitute or form part of any organized Group A Civil Service. The veracity of the fact that these are only Group A posts and do not form part of a Group A Civil Service, cannot be questioned. But what can be highlighted is the injustice done to these officers due to the inconsistent stand taken by the Ministry vis--vis their status.

This inconsistency raises the question as to what is the difference between Group A posts and an organized Group A Civil Service? And if there is no difference between the two then why the benefits accruing to one should not be available to the other and vice versa? If there is any difference between the two then why there should be a common competitive examination for them? As mentioned earlier, Civil Services Examination is primarily meant for filling up the vacancies of Group A& B Civil Services of the Union. By including Group A posts of Assistant Commandants in CISF in this scheme of examination, an impression, advertently or inadvertently, has been created that these are also part of one of the organized Group A Civil Services. Thus, two patent errors have been committed. First, it was totally illogical and irrational to club Group A posts of an Armed Force of the Union with those of the Group A Civil Services by holding a common competitive examination for them. Second, it was even more illogical and irrational to treat these Group A posts of CISF at par with Group A Civil Services and at the same time deny them the attributes of a Group A Civil Service. This is a classic example of having your cake and eating it too. The fact is that these Group A posts of CISF have been perceived to be part of a Group A Service more often than not. This can be substantiated by quoting from a letter of the Home Minister dated 26 March 2001 addressed to the Chairman, Committee on Home Affairs wherein he has inter alia stated that CISF is one of the Group A services under the scheme of Civil Services Examination. This proves that technically it may be a Group of posts but generally it is treated as a Group A Civil Service by all concerned. It is mainly due to this reason that all those rules which are applied to other Group A Civil Services are also applied to direct recruit Assistant Commandants of CISF. Had this not been the case, these direct recruit officers of CISF would have been allowed to compete for other Group A Civil Services like their counterparts in CRPF, BSF and ITBP. 3. In view of the above mentioned, the following conclusions may be drawn: (a) The ROTA-QUOTA System being followed in the CISF is the root cause for the grievances of direct recruit Group A officers; (b) Technically, CISF is an Armed Force of the Union, the recruitment to Group A posts of Assistant Commandant is being done along with Group A Civil Services through Civil Services Examination; (c) Group A direct recruit officers of an Armed Force of the Union are treated at par with Group A Civil Services primarily because they are recruited through a common competitive examination; (d) Although, the common competitive examination i.e. Civil Services Examination is used mainly as a vehicle of recruitment for filling up the direct recruit segment of Assistant Commandants in CISF, it is also used for denying them the opportunity to better their performance in the same examination which is available to their counterparts in CRPF, BSF and ITBP; (e) Despite being treated at par with Group A Civil Services by virtue of being part of the same examination, CISF does not have the attributes of a Group A Civil Service; (f) Though Assistant Commandants are a mere group of posts having Group A status, the general impression is that they are part of an organized Group A Civil Service since the former have been clubbed with the latter by way of a common competitive examination; and

(g) The fact that direct recruit Assistant Commandants of CISF are generally perceived to be part of a Group A Civil Service is further substantiated by Home Ministers own statement that CISF is one of the Group A Services under the scheme of Civil Services Examination. 4. Keeping these grievances in mind, the Committee, in its 54th Report on Demands for Grants (1999-2000) of Ministry of Home Affairs, dwelt at length with a view to persuade the Ministry to find some lasting solutions to the problems of Group A direct recruit officers of CISF. Accordingly, it recommended for the reallocation of direct recruit Group A officers of CISF to Indian Police Service (IPS) or to any other Group A service as no other solution was going to make any perceptible change to their position because irreparable damage had already been done to them by the ROTA-QUOTA System. 4.1 In response to the recommendations/observations of the Committee as contained in its 54th Report vis--vis grievances of direct recruit officers of CISF, the Ministry of Home Affairs in its Action Taken Notes thereon, intimated that a Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri Nikhil Kumar, Special Secretary (ISP) in the Ministry had been constituted to examine the service grievances of these officers. Further action in the matter was proposed to be taken after the recommendations of the Committee became available. 5. Before moving to the recommendations of the Committee as contained in its 59th Report, it would be pertinent to have a brief look into the major recommendations of the Nikhil Kumar Committee. The Nikhil Kumar Committee made the following recommendations relating to the career prospects of the Group A officers of the CISF: (i) The promotion quota for cadre officers in the rank of Commandant (both Junior and Sr. Commandants) may be increased to 80 per cent while the deputation quota for the IPS officers be restricted to 20 per cent; (ii) Promotion quota for cadre officers of CISF at the rank of DIG may be increased to 60 per cent and the quota for IPS officers may be reduced to 40 per cent. The quota at the level of IG may be retained at 33.3 per cent; (iii) Rules relating to maintenance of seniority may be amended. All directly recruited officers of one batch should be placed in a bunch, above the promotee officers of the same year. The year of declaration of result of the relevant Civil Services Examination should be taken as the seniority year for the directly recruited officers as is done in case of All India Services; (iv) The Committee recommended that Group A officers of CISF may be nominated for deputation to other forces and organizations so that the prevailing stagnation is removed; and (v) The Committee did not find it feasible to reallocate the directly recruited Group A officers of CISF to IPS and other Group A Services. 5.1 The recommendations of the Nikhil Kumar Committee Report, though intended to improve the service conditions of CISF officers, have not been able to make any substantial change to the direct recruits. In pursuance to the recommendations of Nikhil Kumar Committee, the Ministry has done away with the deputation quota of IPS Officers at the Commandant Level. Promotion quota of cadre officers in the rank of DIG has been increased from 40 per cent to 60 per cent. For providing better avenues of deputation to CISF officers, instructions have been issued that if IPS officers are not available for deputation to SPG, NSG, NCRB, BCAS, BPR&D, IB, R&AW, etc., officers of the CPMFs may be sent on these deputations. The Ministry has informed that the only

recommendation that could not be implemented is the abolition of the ROTA-QUOTA system in the CISF. 6. In the meanwhile, the Home Minister on 20 December, 1999 gave an assurance on the floor of Lok Sabha that he would go into the grievances of these officers thoroughly and independently and would try to see that no injustice was done to them. He also assured to have a candid interaction with CISF officers and ensured that if there were any grievances on that score, particularly on the question of parity, they would be removed. After this assurance, the Home Minister met the delegation of these officers on 24 April and 24 July 2000. Thereafter, the grievances of these officers were examined afresh by the Ministry. Although, it was not found feasible to re-allocate them to the IPS or any other group A Central Service, the Ministry has taken following measures to improve the promotional prospects of the CISF Officers: (a) There are 464 sanctioned posts of Assistant Commandant in the CISF (Junior Time Scale). The recruitment to these posts is carried out in the following manner: (i) 30 per cent by direct recruitment through Civil Services Examination (ii) 50 per cent by promotion (iii) 10 per cent Optees } failing which by Direct Recruitment (iv) 10 per cent Re-employed personnel} It has been decided to revise the recruitment rules to increase the quota of direct recruitment from 30 per cent to 40 per cent and to reduce the recruitment of Optees and Reemployed personnel from 10 per cent to 5 per cent each. The revised recruitment rules are expected to be notified shortly. (b) There are 270 posts in the CISF at Deputy Commandant level (Senior Time Scale). Promotion from Assistant Commandant to Deputy Commandant is by promotion. By an order issued earlier this month, it has been decided to grant Senior Time Scale (STS) on a non-functional basis, to Assistant Commandants after completion of 6 years of service. This step will ensure grant of STS this year to all officers who joined as or became Assistant Commandant between 1990 and 1995. (c) At the Commandant level (Junior Administrative Grade), there are 133 posts. These posts also include 52 posts of Senior Commandant level in the Non-Functional Selection Grade. The recruitment at this level used to be done in the following manner: (a) 50 per cent by promotion (b) 40 per cent by deputation from IPS (c) 10 per cent Optees and Re-employed personnel It has now been decided to do away with the quotas for Deputationists, Optees and Reemployed personnel at this level, making thereby all the 133 posts available for promotion in the cadre. As a result, the cadre will get 66 additional posts at this level. (d) At the DIG level, there are 24 posts, out of which 40 per cent were available to the cadre, the remaining 60 per cent being filled by the IPS Officers on deputation. At this level, the deputation quota has been reduced from 60 per cent to 40 per cent. As a result, the cadre has got 4 additional DIG level posts. (e) There are 5 IG level posts in the CISF out of which 33.3 per cent i.e. 2 posts are already available to the cadre. (f) Being a uniformed service, longer residency periods had been prescribed at various levels of the CISF in order to give adequate experience to an officer before

promoting him to the next level. This seems to have come in the way of timely promotions of the officers. Therefore, without compromising on minimum length of experience required, the residency periods at various levels have been reduced as follows: (a) DCCommandant 5 years 2 years (b) Commandant Sr. Commandant 4 years 2 years (c) Sr. Commandant DIG 5 years 3 years (d) DIG IG 4 years 2 years 6.1 Even with these changes, the Ministry of Home Affairs has admitted that measures taken so far would bring , to begin with, only limited benefits with regard to the promotional prospects of the CISF direct recruits and it will take some time before durable benefits begin to accrue to them. 6.2 The Ministry has further informed that in deference to the wishes of the Committee, it has been decided to set up a Committee to look comprehensively into the cadre management of the CPMFs viz. BSF, CRPF, CISF and ITBP and suggest measures for improving the career prospects of direct recruit Group A officers. The Committee will be specifically tasked to go into the special problems with regard to seniority, promotions and deputation of the directly recruited Group A officers of the CISF which would also cover those who joined service between 1987 and 1996. The Committee will be given time upto 31 August 2001 to submit its Report. The Ministry expects to implement the cadre review/restructuring proposals by 31 August March 2002. The Committee has since been informed by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide its letter No.I-45022/58/2000-Pers.I dated 6 June 2001 that a Committee for the above mentioned purpose has been set up and it is likely to submit its Report by 31 August 2001. 6.3 The fact that the grievances of direct recruit Group A officers of CISF cannot be redressed by the measures taken so far by the Ministry of Home Affairs, has been accepted by the Home Minister also in his letter dated 26 March, 2001 addressed to the Chairman, Committee on Home Affairs. He has stated that some of the problems of these officers are really genuine and deserve early solution. He has further stated that these problems are deep rooted and will not submit to cosmetic solutions. 7. In the meantime, the Committee while considering the Demands for Grants (2001-2002) of Ministry of Home Affairs decided to present a separate report on the grievances of direct recruit Group A Officers of CISF. Accordingly, it heard the oral evidence of the Home Secretary and the Secretary, Personnel in its meeting held on 10 April 2001 for the purpose. 7.1 The Home Secretary in his presentation before the Committee stated that the Ministry had carefully looked into the grievances of these officers in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training in a bid to redress them. He informed the Committee that the Ministry had made genuine efforts to consider re-allocation and absorption of these officers in IPS or any other Group A Central Service. While doing so, a comparison of the promotional prospectus of the direct recruit Group A officers of CISF with their counterparts in IPS as well as other Group A Central Services revealed that conditions of promotion were nearly as bad in many of the Group A Central Services as in CISF. For instance, in the Indian Revenue Service, the Junior Administrative Grade was being given in thirteen years against the norm or nine years. Similarly, the non-functional Selection Grade was being given in twenty years against the norm of thirteen years. Though, the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service was only marginally better, the Indian Trade Service, Indian Postal Service, Indian Defence Estate Service, Indian Information Service, etc. were all reeling under similar stagnation. It was so because the promotions in all these services were vacancy-based and they all followed rota-quota system. He further stated that if

CISF Officers were re-allocated to the IPS then officers of all these Central Services who secured higher ranks than CISF Officers, would have a better claim for re-allocation to one of the All India Services then CISF Officers. Thus, any attempt to absorb CISF Officers in any other Group A Service which held better prospects, would give rise to similar competing demands from other services which would be difficult to resist on merits. He submitted that it was one of the primary concern on account of which a conscious decision had to be taken not to accept the demands of CISF officers. The Home Secretary also apprised the Committee of the various steps taken by the Ministry to augment the promotional prospects of CISF Officers. These steps have already been mentioned elsewhere in this report. He further informed that the Ministry of Home Affairs was engaged in considering certain proposals to increase the number of posts in higher levels. He stated that the Ministry was committed to make such structural changes as would bring durable and sustainable benefits in the career prospects of CISF Officers. 7.2 The Secretary, Personnel while clarifying certain points raised in the meeting, stated that the Department of Personnel and Training was in full agreement with the Ministry of Home Affairs that the CISF Officers who were recruited through Civil Services Examination could not be absorbed in the Indian Police Service. There were some valid reasons for that. One of those reasons was that CISF was not an organized Group A Service. Of the four criteria laid down to declare a service as organized Group A service, CISF fulfilled only two out of four. Referring to the merger of Indian Frontier Administrative Service with the Indian Administrative Service, he clarified that the former was an organized service and the Officers of both the services were doing the same job. He admitted that there was a feeling of discontent among CISF Officers. He stated that both Department of Personnel and Training and Ministry of Home Affairs were trying to find some solution to their problems. He submitted that if there was any proposal for removal of stagnation to improve the promotional prospects of CISF Officers other than re-allocation to IPS or any other Group A Service, the Department of Personnel and Training was prepared to consider it. He further stated that his Department had not agreed to only one proposal put forward by the Ministry of Home Affairs which provided for time-scale promotion at all hierarchical levels of CISF. That proposal was against the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission. He also referred to the six steps mentioned by the Home Secretary which were taken to improve the promotional prospects of CISF Officers. He assured the Committee that the Department of Personnel and Training would take a very positive view insofar as steps for removal of stagnation were concerned. 8. As stated elsewhere, the Committee has given extensive treatment to the grievances of direct recruit Group A officers of CISF in its 59th Report on Demands for Grants (2000-2001) of Ministry of Home Affairs. The Committee in this Report has inter alia recommended while reiterating its earlier recommendation as contained in its 54th Report, that direct recruit Group A officers of CISF who have been recruited through Civil Services Examination should be reallocated to IPS or any other Group A Service. 8.1 In response to the recommendations of the Committee as contained in its 59th Report, the Ministry of Home Affairs, in its Action Taken Notes, has stated that Director-General, CISF along with some of the directly recruited (through Civil Services Examination) officers of the CISF met the Home Minister on 24 April,2000 and made a presentation. They have again met the Home Minister on 24 July, 2000. The Government is considering the points raised by these officers again. It has further stated that it is expected that the final decision on the issues relating to grievances of the directly recruited Group A officers will be possible by 31 December, 2000. However, the Ministry could not meet the deadline and sought extension of time upto 28 February, 2001 for the

purpose vide its letter No. I-45022/58/2000-Pers.I dated 12 January, 2001. The Ministry again failed to meet the deadline and sought another extension of time upto 30 April 2001 vide its letter of even number dated 5 March, 2001. The Ministry failed to meet this deadline also and sought extension upto 31 August, 2001 vide its letter of even number dated 6 June, 2001. Even after this, the Ministry sought one more extension vide its letter of even number dated 7 September 2001 stating that the recommendations of the Committee appointed under the Chairmanship of Special Secretary (JKA) in the Ministry had not been received and were awaited. Further action on the grievances of Group A Officers of the CISF and other CPMFs would be taken on receipt of the report of the Committee. In the circumstances, the Ministry requested for extension of time upto 30 November 2001. 8.1.1 In response to the communication dated 7 September 2001 of Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry was requested to inform the Committee about the factual position with regard to the term of the Departmental Committee set up under the Chairmanship of Special Secretary (JKA). The Ministry was requested also to inform whether any extension had been given to this Committee and by what time it was likely to submit its report. 8.1.2 In response thereto, the Ministry vide its letter dated 1 October 2001 stated that the following terms of reference were made to the Committee appointed under the Chairmanship of Shri A.K. Bhandari, Special Secretary (JKA), Ministry of Home Affairs to consider the career prospects of Group A Officers of the CPMFs: (a) To examine the recruitment patterns in the past and suggest measures to remove any future bottlenecks in the promotions of the cadre officers of the Para-Military Forces; (b) To consider the anomalies in the principles of maintenance of seniority in the Central Para-Military Forces and to suggest measures to remove such anomalies; (c) To consider the quotas for the direct recruitment, promotion, deputation, etc. in different ranks and suggest changes if any; (d) To consider the restructuring of the CRPF, BSF, CISF and ITBP and to suggest a new structure so as to enable these CPMFs, to face the emerging internal security challenges, more effectively; and (e) To look into the specific grievances of Group A officers of CISF and other CPMFs and suggest measures to remove such grievances. The Committee had held its meetings on 6 June, 12 June, 25 June, 27 August, 31 August and 10 September 2001. The report of the Committee was in the final stages and it was expected that the Committee would submit its report in October 2001. 8.1.3 The above request of the Ministry of Home Affairs for extension of time upto 30 November 2001for submission of its ATNs was considered by the Committee in its meeting held on 19 October 2001. The Committee Members were overwhelmingly of the view that the Ministry of Home Affairs was adopting dilatory tactics by seeking extension in tandem and procrastinating the matter for too long a time with repeated attempts at misleading the Committee. In view of this, the Committee authorized its Chairman to draw the attention of Home Minister to the manner in which the Ministry of Home Affairs was handling the whole issue. 8.1.4 Before the Chairman could write to the Home Minister in this regard, the Ministry vide its communication dated 4 December 2001, sought one more extension upto 28 February 2002 for submission of its ATNs, once again on the same old ground that the recommendations of the Committee appointed under the Chairmanship of Special Secretary (JKA) had not been finalized and were awaited.

8.1.5 The Chairman, Committee on Home Affairs in his above mentioned letter to the Home Minister while expressing the feelings of the Committee inter alia stated that there was an urgent need for the personal intervention of the Home Minister in the matter so that a just and lasting solution to the grievances of direct recruit Group A Officers of CISF was found in an expeditious manner. 9. Having gone into the depth of the grievances of Group A direct recruit officers of CISF, the Committee has reached the conclusion that a historical blunder was committed in 1987 when the direct recruitment to Group A posts of Assistant Commandant in CISF an Armed Force of the Union began under the scheme of Civil Services Examination. By bringing these Group A posts under the umbrella of Civil Services Examination, a false impression has been allowed to gain ground that these posts are part of a civil service. The fact that CISF was treated as a Civil Service can be substantiated by citing the judgement of the Supreme Court in Mohan Singhania Vs. Union of India (AIR 1992 Supreme Court of India) case in which the apex court upheld the stand taken by the Union Government that all Group A Services included in the scheme of Civil Services Examinations stood on equal footing within their respective group of services/posts and that there was no point in competing for any one of the services by a candidate within the same Group A services when he has already been allocated and appointed to one of these services to which he has been selected on his/her merit. The above citation of the judgement of the Supreme Court upholding the stand of the Union Government leaves no doubt about the identification of Group A posts of Assistant Commandants in CISF with Group A Civil Services. Had this not been the case, these officers would not have been prevented from applying/joining other Group A Civil Services. Whereas the fact of the matter is that these Group A posts in CISF were never part of a Civil Service. They were, in effect, some isolated Group A posts in an Armed Force of the Union. Therefore, it was totally illogical and irrational to fill up these posts through the scheme of Civil Services Examination. The Government should have filled up these posts along with their counterparts in CRPF, BSF and ITBP through Special Selection Board instead of bringing them under the scheme of Civil Services Examination. The inclusion of these posts in the scheme of Civil Services Examination has created an impression that these are also one of the Group A Civil Services. It also proves that the decision to include these Group A posts in the scheme of Civil Services Examination suffer from myopia. The decision makers failed to perceive the shortcomings inherent in the decision. The direct recruit Group A officers of CISF are having to pay for the lack of foresight on the part of the decision makers. 9.1 In view of this, the Committee strongly feels that these direct recruit Group A Officers of CISF should not be made to pay for the wrongs of the decision makers who failed to foresee the negative fallout of their decision. It, therefore, reiterates it recommendation as contained in its 54th and 59th Reports that these officers be reallocated to IPS or any other Group A Civil Service. 10. It has already been made amply clear that these Group A Officers were deemed to be part of a Civil Service but as a matter of fact they were just a few isolated Group A posts in an Armed Force of the Union i.e. CISF. Since these posts have been filled up along with other Group A Civil Services, these posts too should have been given the attributes of a Group A Civil Service. In the absence of these attributes, the direct recruit Group A officers of CISF have suffered a lot. They may have preferred for CISF over other Group A Services while applying for the main examination of the Civil Services Examination thinking that it was a better option. But in reality it has proved to be the worst option for them because service conditions of other Group A Services are far better than CISF. They now feel totally betrayed by the fact that some Group A posts of an Armed Force were clubbed with Group A Civil Services thereby generating an impression that

those posts were also part of a Civil Service. The situation as it exists today calls for the reallocation of these officers to one of the Civil Services so that the injustice done to them by allocating them to an Armed Force of the Union instead of a Civil Service could be undone. Here, it may be pertinent to mention the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission which states that isolated posts in a Ministry should be merged with organized cadre within the Ministry. As for the stand taken by the Ministry that reallocation to IPS or any other Group A Service may lead to similar demands from other services, the Committee would like to emphasize that the Secretary, Personnel and Home Secretary submitted before the Committee, in its meeting held on 10 April, 2001, that Group A direct recruit Assistant Commandants of CISF are only a few isolated Group A posts and not any Civil Service. Therefore, based on this premise it would be illogical to compare Group A posts with Group A Civil Services. Hence, any reallocation or lateral shifting to any Group A Civil Service should not raise any demands from any other Civil Service because here the reallocation would be from a Group A post to a Group A Civil Service. Had the reallocation or lateral shifting been from one Civil Service to the other Civil Service for the sake of better promotional or career prospects, the similar competing demands from left out Civil Services would have been justified. Therefore, in the view of the Committee, the apprehension of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Department of Personnel and Training that there will be competing demands from similarly placed services for reallocation is nothing but an attempt to dodge the real issue. 11. The fallibility of the ROTA-QUOTA system being followed in CISF has already been highlighted elsewhere in this Report. Therefore, the Committee would like to lay emphasis on the need for doing away with this system so that injustice caused by it to the hitherto recruited officers is not done to the future batches of direct recruit officers. 12. The Nikhil Kumar Committee had recommended for adoption of a liberal deputation policy for direct recruit Group A officers of CISF so as to remove stagnation. The Ministry of Home Affairs has replied that for providing better avenues of deputation to CISF officers, instructions have recently been issued that if IPS officers are not available for deputation to Special Protection Group (SPG), National Security Guard (NSG), National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D), Intelligence Bureau (IB), Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW), etc., officers of the CPMFs may be sent on these deputations. This measure will benefit the CISF officers also. 12.1 In sharp contrast to the above, the fact of the matter is that the Ministry has imposed restrictions on these officers thereby preventing them from applying for the deputation in other organizations. Deputations have now been totally stopped for these officers. Not only this, those who have already been sent on deputation to various other organizations are now being called back. This proves how sympathetically the Ministry of Home Affairs is dealing with the grievances of these officers. Instead of providing any relief to them, the Ministry is persecuting them by blocking their deputation to other organizations. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Ministry of Home Affairs should adopt a liberal deputation policy vis--vis these officers so that some temporary relief is provided to them till a lasting solution is found to their grievances. The Committee would like to have a quarterly report on this issue so as to know the number of officers actually sponsored and released for deputation. 12.2 The Committee has also learnt that recently an exercise was done to send these officers on deputation to Tripura Police which happens to be a Group B Service. This attempt to send these Group A officers on deputation to a Group B Service raises serious doubts about the genuineness of Ministrys efforts to redress their grievances.

12.3 In the context of deputation of these officers, the Committee expressed its dismay over the fact that the Ministry of Home Affairs went over the board by allowing a direct recruit Group A Officer to shift laterally to RAW with backdated seniority while ignoring the similar demands of 140 odd direct recruit Group A Officers. This smacks of favoritism and crass discrimination on the part of the Ministry. While deploring favoritism and discrimination, the Committee exhorts the Ministry of Home Affairs to adopt a favourable and sympathetic attitude towards all these officers in the matter of their lateral shifting to other organizations like RAW etc. The Ministry should desist from favouring a few while ignoring and persecuting others. Such a blatant favoritism will further demoralize this already distressed and harassed lot of officers. 12.4 In the same context, the Committee expresses its unhappiness over the perfunctory manner in which the Ministry has gone about the task of sponsoring/sending these officers on deputation to some other organizations. Here, a reference may be made to the replies of the Ministry to the written queries of three members of this Committee. In reply to a query as to how many officers were sent on deputation, the Ministry replied that following number of officers had been/were being offered to various organizations: - 142 have been offered to RAW in June 2001/July 2001. - 12 have been offered to IB in Aug., 2001. - 19 have been offered to SPG in June, 2001. - 01 has been offered to BCAS. - BHELs Tamil Nadu based units have asked for deputation recently and officers are being asked for their willingness. - Offer has also been made to CBI and their response is awaited. - ONGC has asked for deputation-cum-absorption basis in the rank of Commandant but no response has been received from direct officers. However, the Committee learnt that as a matter of fact not a single officer has been sent on deputation till date. Moreover, what could be worse then the situation that the Director-General, CISF, in the first instance, turned down the request of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) for sending CISF officers on deputation to that organization. Later, when the names of a few officers were sent to IOCL in deference to the wishes of this Committee, it was already too late. The IOCL refused to consider their names after the expiry of the prescribed date for the purpose. This shows the indifference of the Ministry and Directorate-General, CISF towards the grievances of these officers. The Committee strongly condemns such an attitude and hopes that some sincere efforts will be made to ensure deputation and lateral shifting of the direct recruit Group A Officers of CISF. 13. The Committee has been apprised that the Ministry is now adopting intimidatory and vindictive tactics such as circulation of Civil Service Conduct Rules which forbid outside influence for furtherance of career prospects involving disciplinary action, granting of powers of suspension of Gazetted Officers to the Director-General, CISF, introduction of new pre-promotion cadre course with compulsory attendance and qualification and making physical fitness mandatory for promotion. Not just that, the height of vindictiveness has gone to the extent that almost all the officers who met the Home Minister to air their grievances have since been transferred out of the headquarters either on one pretext or the other. All these steps smack of some well thought out actions to somehow victimise these already harassed and persecuted direct recruit Group A officers of CISF. Keeping this in view, the Committee urges upon the Ministry of Home Affairs not to indulge in these type of activities. It should, instead, come out with some positive policy measures to heal the wounds of these officers who have been going through a lot of trauma.

14. The Home Secretary, in his oral evidence before the Committee held on 10 April 2001, had apprised the Committee of the six steps taken to improve the service conditions of direct recruit Group A officers of CISF. One of these steps was to reserve all Commandant level posts for the cadre officers. In sharp contravention of this, the Committee has learnt that a Jharkhand cadre IPS officer has recently joined CISF as a Commandant on deputation basis. This clearly proves how serious is the Ministry to improve the service conditions of these officers. 15. The Committee expresses its sense of displeasure and indignation over the perfunctory manner in which the Ministry of Home Affairs has been handling the whole issue pertaining to the grievances of direct recruit Group A Officers of CISF. A series of extensions for submission of its Action Taken Notes (ATNs) on the recommendations of the Committee vis--vis grievances of these officers as contained in its 59th Report amply proves that the Ministry has been adopting dilatory tactics in order to avoid taking a decision in the matter. Earlier, the Ministry misled Committee by furnishing factually incorrect replies and thereafter it put the whole issue on backburner first by referring it to a Departmental Committee and then by seeking one extension after the other on the ground that the report of the said Committee was awaited. The Committee takes a strong exception to the evasive and lackadaisical attitude of the officials of the Ministry of Home Affairs in dealing with the issue. It perceives that an attempt is being made on the part of the Ministry to dillydally a satisfactory and reasonable decision in order to add to the agony of direct recruit Group A Officers. The Committee, therefore, deplores the officials of Ministry of Home Affairs for their lackadaisical and diversionary attitude in the matter of finding a just and lasting solution to the grievances of these officers. CHAPTER-II CENTRAL SECRETARIAT SERVICE Introduction Central Secretariat Service (CSS) consisting of four grades, namely, Assistant, Section Officer, Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary, has been devised primarily to manage the middle level posts in the Central Secretariat, which is the Head Quarters of the Union Government, housing the Offices of the Central Ministries located in Delhi/New Delhi. The role of the service is also to ensure continuity in administration and policies. 1.1 Induction to this service is through direct recruitment both at the levels of Section Officer (Group B Gazetted) and the Assistant (Group B non-Gazetted), but it is different from other Group B services, inasmuch as this service unlike most other Group B services does not form feeder service to any of All India Services or any of the Central Group A services. It is also different from other two services found in the Central Secretariat, namely, Central Secretariat 1 2 Clerical Service (CSCS) and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS) which are designed to provide assistance to the members of CSS and other senior and top level officers in the Secretariat. 1.2 The Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) of the Ministry of Personnel, Public 3 Grievances and Pensions is the cadre controlling authority of all three Central Secretariat Services i.e. CSS, CSCS and CSSS. Historical Background of the Service 2.0 The Central Secretariat Service (CSS) is one of the earliest organized services in the country. The origin of the service can be traced back to the year 1919, when the Imperial Secretariat Service came into being as one of the off-shoots of the Lewllyn-Smith Committee which had been set up

on the eve of the introduction of the Montague Chelmsford Reforms. The Committee envisaged the Secretariat Organisation in the nature of a pyramid, the apex of which was the Secretary and the base of the body of Assistant Secretaries. 2.1 In March 1946, a Committee set up under the Chairmanship of Sir Richard Tottenham, diagnosed the then situation prevalent in the Secretariat as one characterized by too few officers of the right kind and too many clerks of the wrong kind. The Committee suggested that to improve quality and reduce quantity, each Under Secretarys branch should contain two sections and each section should consist of one Superintendent and three Assistants. Each Superintendent should have a smaller charge, but would be expected to do much more original work. He would not just supervise the work of number of Assistants. 2.2 The Central Secretariat Service (Reorganisation and Reinforcement) Scheme, submitted by Sir R.A. Gopalaswamy Iyengar, which can be regarded as the precursor of the service as it stands today, was evolved in 1949. The Scheme gave concrete shape to the service which was designed to consist of following grades which is produced in the accompanying table. TABLE -I Grade Grade-I Grade-II Grade-III Grade-IV Designation & Scale of Pay Under Secretary (Rs.800-50-1150) Superintendent (Rs.530-30-800) Asstt.Superintendent (Rs.275-325-25-500) Assistant (Rs.160-450) Class Class-I Class-I Class-II (Gazetted) Class-II (Non-Gazetted)

2.3 The designations of Assistant Secretary and Assistant-in-charge ceased to exist. The scheme provided for 100 percent promotion to Grade-I and II from the ranks of Superintendent and Asstt. Superintendent, respectively. Induction to Grade-III of the service was to the extent of 50 percent by direct recruitment based on the results of the IAS etc. examinations, 25 percent by the Annual Departmental Examination and 25 percent by promotion from amongst senior most Assistants. But in 1959, both the grades of Grade-II (Superintendent) and Grade-III (Asstt. Superintendent) were merged and became known as Section Officer Grade-II. The two grades were merged following II Central Pay Commissions recommendation. But the merged grade was classified as Class-II post (Gazetted). 2.4 The Central Secretariat Service in its present form was constituted with effect from 1October 1962, with the notification of CSS Rules 1962. Rule 3 which deals with composition of the service, states that there shall be four grades in the service, classified as follows:TABLE-II CADRE STRUCTURE OF CSS S.No. Grade Classification

1. 2. 3. 4.

Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary to Government ofCentral Civil Service Group A India or equivalent) Central Civil Service Group A Grade-I (Under Secretary to the Govt. of India orCentral Civil Service Group B equivalent) (Ministerial) Section Officer Grade Central Civil Service Group B Assistant Grade (Ministerial)

Recruitment and Promotion 3. Recruitment and promotion to various grades are governed by the CSS Rules, 1962, supplemented by the CSS (Promotion to Grade-I and Selection Grade, Regulation 1964). The present mode of recruitment to various grades of CSS is given below:4 (i) Assistant Grade : Recruitment to this grade is made to the extent of 50 percent by direct recruitment through All India Open Competititve examination earlier by UPSC and now by Staff Selection Commission and 50 percent by promotion from the UDC level with a minimum of 5 years approved service in that grade. (ii) Section Officers : (a) 20 percent of the vacancies in this grade are filled up through the Combined Civil Services Examination, held annually by the UPSC (b) 40 percent of the vacancies through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held by the UPSC for eligible Assistants/Grade C Stenographers; (c) 40 percent by promotion from amongst Assistants with a minimum of 8 years approved service. (iii) Under Secretary : Promotion to this grade are 100 percent on the basis of selection out of Section Officers having fulfilled the eligibility condition of 8 years approved service as Section Officer. (iv) Deputy Secretary : Promotion to this grade is made from amongst Under Secretaries having 5 years qualifying service on the basis of seniority-cum-selection. Role of Central Secretariat Service 4.0 While important structural changes have been made several times since 1919, one common thread running through all the stages of the evolution of the service, has been the role of the service in ensuring continuity of administration in the Central Secretariat which is in common parlance called Secretariat Administration and House Keeping. 4.1 In the areas of policy making, where specialized unifunctional services are available and also in areas where these are not available, there is need at middle levels of the Government personnel who are especially trained to coordinate various experts opinions, ideas to present a balanced picture. Presently, these jobs are being largely handled by officers of the CSS, and it is because of this new role that the service today is different from what was originally envisaged for There is also a need to have a strong permanent bureaucratic set up at middle levels of the Government who would be able to provide necessary continuity to its administration and policies. The better skills in noting and drafting and in interpretation of rules and regulations by members of CSS is wellrecognised. As a matter of fact, they facilitate maintaining the vital link between Parliament and the Central Secretariat, especially when it comes to handling of Parliament Questions, Assurances, Government Bills, etc. Another important area where they substantially contribute is the work
7 6 5

relating to cadre management of various organized services, work relating to financial management and preparation of the budget of various Departments of the Central Government and litigation work of the Central Government, which are also largely being handled by the CSS officers. Thus, the CSS ensures continuity in the policies of the Government of India. 4.2 Performance of work in these areas require a definite kind of a skill and specialization and officers of CSS by virtue of experience, become well-versed in these fields. In brief, the Central Secretariat Service performs the following roles: (i) To provide especially trained service personnel at lower and middle level management to coordinate various experts opinion, ideas and experiences and analyses and dissect these ideas to present a balanced view for policy formulation. (ii) To provide personnel, who are better skilled in noting and drafting and interpretation of rules and regulations. (iii) To provide personnel, who would be responsible for record management of the Central Secretariat. (iv) To provide personnel, who would give continuity at lower and middle levels of the Government and would serve as carrier of the Secretariat tradition, bridge between the past and the present and between lower and top management of the Government. 4.3 The Committee observes the fact that CSS has successfully coped with the fast changing environment to diversify and widen its role while maintaining its core role of coordinating various experts opinion, ideas to present an analytical and balanced view for policy formulation and providing continuity at the middle levels of Government, has been acknowledged by both the Bandopadhyay Committee and the V Central Pay Commission. The V Pay Commission has lauded the role of CSS in following words the Central Secretariat Service has undergone radical and qualitative changes and the tasks performed by it have become more complex, varied and function specific. Members of CSS have revealed their potentialities for being able to perform much larger and complex tasks and have acquainted themselves as creditably as members of other services. It would therefore be desirable to induct fresh blood at the level of Section Officer and we have accordingly recommended that direct recruitment in the Section Officer grade may continue as at present (para 45.23). Pay Structure and Strength of CSS 5.0 Pay structure of officers at different cadre of CSS at different point of time and strength of each cadre, as furnished by their cadre controlling authority, to the Committee is given in the accompanying table. TABLE- III CADRE STRENGTH AND PAY STRUCTURE OF CSS Sr.No. Grade Classi- Strength as Pay scale given at different point of time (in Rupees) fication on 1 March V IV III Central II Central Prior to II 2001 Central Central Pay Pay Central Pay Commi -ssion 288 12000including 16500 in-situ Pay Commi -ssion 37005000 Commi -ssion pay Commi ssion 1500-20001100-1800N.A. Commission

Deputy Secretary

Group A

2 3

Group B 2353 650-1200 350-900 530-800* (Gazetted) 275-500 4 Group B 4906 425-800 210-530 160-450 (NonGazetted) *Before the II Central Pay Commission there existed a designation, namely, superintendent in Grade II/Class-I. Problems of CSS 6.0 Till a few years back, this service was well-managed and smoothly run in terms of promotion and proper pay scale. Timely release of panels for promotion of CSS officers to Deputy Secretary and the higher posts was ensuring availability of vacancies in lower grades for timely promotion of the members of feeder grades. But unfortunately during the last fifteen years the situation has periodically deteriorated to such an extent that there is unprecedented stagnation in all grades of the service. Even after completion of 15-18 years in the grades against the eligibility of 8 years for promotion, the Assistants and Section Officers have not been regularly promoted. The problem of stagnation is so acute in Under Secretaries grade that even after completion of 15 years of service in that grade, against the eligibility of 5 years for promotion, most of them are still awaiting for regular panels in Deputy Secretary grade. 6.1 The CSS officers, especially in the grades of Section Officer and Assistant are aggrieved by the recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission, which rejected their claim for upgradation of the pay scales to Rs.8000-13,500 and Rs.6500-10,500 for Section Officers and Assistants, respectively, while upgrading a number of posts and services including DANICS (Delhi and Andaman Nicobar Civil Service)/ DANIPS (Delhi and Andaman Nicobar Police Service) etc. and DASS Grade-I (Delhi Administrative Subordinate Service), which were either similarly placed or some of them were even lower than the grades of Section Officer and Assistant with regard to method of recruitment, classification of service/posts, pay scales as recommended by the previous Pay Commissions. 6.2 It has been reported that the members of CSS Forum ( a joint representative body of various Associations of CSS) are on continuous relay hunger strike since 4 October 2000 in support of their demand for better promotional avenues and upgradation of pay scales of Section Officer and Assistants. The CSS Forum has submitted the following broad demands to the Ministry:(i) Upgradation of pay scales of Section Officer and Assistants to that of Rs.8000-13,500 and Rs.6500-10,500, respectively in parity with DANICS/DANIPS etc.and DASS respectively. (ii) In-situ promotion of all eligible Assistants, Section Officers, Under Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries. (iii) Encadrement of GCS (General Civil Service) ministerial posts equivalent to Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary in the Ministries/Departments to regularize the insitu Under Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries. (iv) 320 posts of Deputy Secretary (@ 40 per year) which were filled by other services for want of regular panel in Deputy Secretary grade should be given to CSS for outstanding panels from 1993-2000.

Under Secretary Section Officer Assistant

Group A

766

10000300015200 4500 6500200010500 3500 5500-9000 16402900

1200-1600900-1250 800-1150

(v) Immediate Cadre Review of the CSS for which posting of a CSS Additional Secretary is necessary. (vi) Filling up the posts of Deputy Secretary/Director only by CSS officers. (vii) Earmarking of specific posts of Joint Secretary for CSS restoring condition of 3 years eligibility for promotion. (viii) Time-bound promotions and timely holding of DPCs in different grades. (ix) Introduction of Non-Functional Selection Grade at Directors level. (x) Redesignation of Section Officer as Assistant Secretary and that of Assistant as Processing Officer/Examining Officer. (xi) Restoration of open pass facility to Assistants. 6.3 Although the CSS Forum has given a long list of demands to the Ministry, the Committee observes that except the minor demands at Serial No.(xi), there are broadly two demands viz. (a) demand relating to better promotional avenues (demands at Serial Nos.(ii) to (x) and (b) demand relating to better pay scale {(demand at serial No. (i)} 6.4.0 In the meetings of the Committee held on 28 March 2001 and on 10 April 2001, most of the Members expressed their anxiety over the continuation of the relay hunger strike by the members of CSS Forum. Members were unanimous that certain urgent steps should be taken by this Committee so that both the Ministry and the agitating officers came to the discussion table to resolve the issues through dialogue and negotiation and that the relay hunger strike was called off. 6.4.1 The Ministry had informed that the representatives of the CSS Fourm had met Minister of State (Personnel), Secretary (Personnel) and other senior officers in the Ministry a number of times. The Secretary (Personnel), while deposing before this Committee on 10 April, 2001, had also mentioned that the representatives of the CSS Forum met the senior officers of the Ministry and the Minister on several occasions. He also alleged that the attitude of the representatives of the CSS Forum was not conducive for a negotiation. The Ministry, however, could not give details of the representatives who met the Minister (Personnel) or the senior officers in the Ministry. The Ministry also could not furnish the details of the dates, agenda items and discussions/negotiations held between the representatives of the CSS Forum and the officials of the Ministry of Personnel. 6.5 The Committee feels that in the absence of the details of the discussions/negotiations, it is difficult to say whether any fruitful discussion between the Ministry and the CSS Forum, if at all, was held. Relay hunger strike by itself reflects that no formal negotiation/discussion with the representatives of the CSS Forum had been held after the officers proceeded on strike. The Committee is of the view that the Ministry should not take it as prestige issue for not inviting the agitating officers for negotiations. The Committee urges upon the Ministrynot to adopt vindictive attitude towards the agitating officers. The Committee, therefore, desires that the Ministry should take the initiative by immediately inviting the agitating officers for negotiations for a meaningful solution of the problem and the agitating officers on their turn should withdraw their relay hunger strike. The Committee feels that the inaction and apathy of the Ministry may prolong the agitation which may further vitiate the atmosphere in the Headquarters of the Government of India and demoralize and demotivate the officers further. 6.6 The Committee has already given a number of recommendations in its earlier Reports relating to Demands for Grants of the Ministry, dealing with most of the demands of the CSS Officers.

Continuation of their agitation for a long time without making any attempt by the Ministry to resolve the issues through discussion across the table gives the impression that the Ministry is not responsive and there has been complete failure of the grievance redressal machinery in the Ministry. The Committee takes a strong exception to indifference and insensitivity of the Ministry towards the problems of CSS Forum. 6.7 In that context, the Ministry has informed that in pursuance of the recommendations made by this Committee, a Committee of Senior Officers headed by Additional Secretary (Pension) has 8 been constituted with effect from 28th February, 2001, to go into the cadre structuring of the CSS with the following terms of reference and to submit its report within three months. (i) To assess the magnitude of stagnation in Assistant grade and to suggest remedial measures. (ii) To assess the magnitude of stagnation in the grades of Section Officer, Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary and Director of CSS vis--vis similarly recruited/placed officers of other services and to recommend measures to remove stagnation. (iii) To review the structure of CSS keeping in view various recommendations and demands of the CSS Associations. 6.8.0 The Committee takes note of this step of the Ministry which has of late realized the gravity of the problem of stagnation being faced by the members of CSS. But looking at the service profile of the members of the Committee of Senior Officers including the Chairman himself, it appears that no member of the said Committee belongs to CSS and this factor alone puts a question mark on the impartiality and fairness of the Committee. But before the expiry of the term, the Committee was granted six months extension (twice the terms of original time given to the Committee) in May 2001 i.e. upto the end of November 2001. Therefore, the Committee in its meeting held on 13 June 2001 decided to wait for the Report of the Departmental Committee and present its Report after going through the recommendations of the said Committee. Till the preparation of this Report, it has not given any report. Had the Committee submitted its report or for that matter an interim report, this Committee could have taken note of that in its report. 6.8.1 The Departmental Committee could not complete its report even during the extended period. Moreover, the Chairman of the Departmental Committee did not show seriousness and urgency to submit the Report before demiting the office of Additional Secretary (Pensions) in the Ministry on 4 October 2001 at the end of his tenure. 6.8.2 In the meeting of the Committee held on 19 October 2001, the Committee decided to present its Report at the end of extended term of the Departmental Committee i.e. end of November 2001 without wasting any further time. 6.8.3 It has been informed to the Committee through Department of Personnel and Training letter No. 21/214/2001 CS-I, dated 29 November 2001, that the tenure of the Committee has been extended upto the end of February 2002. It has been stated therein that the Government, however, will give due consideration to the recommendations of this Committee, when received. Similar 9 reply has been given by the said Ministry to a Question of Rajya Sabha. 6.8.4 It has been further informed that the said Committee has also been examining the order delivered on 12 September 2001 by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 197/1997, MA. No. 243/1997 relating pay scales of the Section officers of the CSS, in pursuance of the judgement of the CAT. 6.8.5 The Committee is not happy with the manner the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions has granted extension to the Departmental Committee without any plausible reasons.The Committee takes a serious view of the fact that the Departmental Committee is

examining the issue of CSS at snails pace in perfunctionary manner. The entire composition of the Committee has undergone change with two members of it, posted in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, has been reverted back to their respective parent cadres. The first Chairman of the Committee (Shri Brahma) fully knowing his tenure in Ministry of Personnel did not exhibit any seriousness and urgency to submit the Report before his tenure. 6.8.6 After perusal of replies to a set of 47 supplementary questions of some Members of this Committee on the subject, it appears that most of problematic areas of the CSS pointed out by this Committee in this Reports have got referred to the Departmental Committee. Further, the Ministry could not furnish certain data in the replies to some of the questions maintaining that data are not centrally maintained. For example, to a question as to what is the total number of CSS officers who have been recruited both as Direct Recruit Assistant and Section Officer and how many of them have been promoted to higher grades and what is the percentage of respective stream of recruitment in promotional grades, the Ministry being cadre controlling authority of CSS, in brazen faced manner have stated that no such data is centrally maintained/available. To another question, as to what were the details of year wise break up of the direct recruit and promotee Assistants stating how many from each stream of officers made career progression to which grade/stage, the Ministry have also given similar reply. The Committee is surprised as to how the Departmental Committee could asses the magnitude of stagnation in Assistant Grade of CSS (which is its first terms of reference) without the basic information which this Committee sought from the Ministry. Even till the preparation of the Report, these informationwhich are not centrally maintained was not collected10 from the individual Ministries/Reports and furnished to the Committee. This shows the lack of seriousness of the Department of Personnel and Training to bring an end to the problems associated with the CSS as a whole and doubts usefulness of the Departmental Committee. Therefore, the Committee desires that its recommendations on those areas which were stood referred to the Departmental Committee should be considered seriously and judiciously. 6.9 The Committee is also aware that a similar Committee of senior officers headed by Shri A.R. Bandopadhayay, the then Additional Secretary in the Ministry, was alsoconstituted in 1991 to look into the problem of stagnation of CSS in each grade. That Committee took nearly two years in finalizing its recommendations. It came out with flimsy and superficial measures like timely reporting of vacancies, bringing down eligibility criteria of Assistants for taking Section Officer Grade Limited Departmental Competitive Exam from five years to four, discontinuing direct recruitment in Section Officer grade, etc. without making serious attempt to assess the acute stagnation crippling the various grades of the service and the factors responsible for the problem. The Committee notes with deep regret the failure of the Bandopadhyay Committee to serve its purpose for which it was constituted in 1991. 6.10 The Ministry in its reply has, however, not mentioned if the recommendations of the Bandopadhyay Committee were discussed in the Departmental Council of the JCM for soliciting the viewpoints from the CSS Officers Associations before finally deciding to accept or not to accept any recommendation through an official communication. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Government of India being a model and responsive employer, presumably having a transparent method of working, should henceforth, place reports/recommendations of such Departmental Committee of officers/expert bodies etc. on personnel issues having direct bearing on the service condition before the related Departmental Councils of JCM, inviting the view-points of the Service Associations and should notify the acceptance/non-acceptance of the recommendations/reports along with the reasons therefore through normal official channels of communication.

6.11 Against this backdrop, the suggestion of the two members of Bandopadhyay Committee, contained in their dissenting note holds good, i.e. the entire matter of restructuring the CSS should be considered in a threadbare manner by an High Powered Committee headed by non-official of appropriate status which may at least have 2-3 members who have an expertise in cadre management and are thoroughly familiar with CSS and its ethos. 6.12 The Committee feels that any delay in finalisation of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee will defeat the very purpose for which it has been constituted. The Committee further recommends that the report of the Departmental Committee may be discussed with the representatives of the CSS Forum. In case it results in a stalemate, the services of an independent consultant, having expertise in cadre management and familiarity with CSS may be commissioned to give its recommendations on restructuring of CSS with a view to relieving the present problem of stagnation at the middle management level posts like US, DS and Director while meeting the aspiration of the members of CSS for career progression. Stagnation in CSS 7.0 The Committee feels that lack of promotional avenues for all four grades of the CSS is the major cause of dissatisfaction amongst the officials of the CSS. The problem of stagnation in the CSS is analysed in the following sub-heads: (a) Stagnation in Assistant Grade (b) Stagnation in Section Officer and Under Secretary Grades 7.1 To the question as to stagnation in the grades of CSS and its comparable grades under Central Government against their normal period of eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade, the Ministry has furnished comparative position of stagnation in various comparable grades existing in some other similarly placed services, namely, Armed Forces Hqr. Civil Service, Railway Board Secretariat Service, which is reproduced in the accompanying table: TABLE-IV STAGNATION IN GRADES OF CSS AND COMPARABLE SERVICES IN THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Name of Post or equivalent post/Group/Scale of pay Minimum ServiceAverage time Service prescribed fortaken for promotion frompromotion the lower grade Central Assistant (Group B) Rs.5500-9000 5 Years 13 years Secretariat S.O.(Group B-Gazetted) Rs.6500-10500 8 Years 14 years Service U.S.(Group A)-Rs.10000-15200 8 Years 13 years D.S.(Group A)-Rs.12000-16500 5 Years 13 years Armed Forces Assistant (Group B)-5500-9000 5 Years 15 years Hqr. Civil A.C.S.O. (Group B-Gazetted) Rs.6500-10500 5 Years 18 years Service CSO (Group A)-Rs.10000-15200 8 Years 10 years D.S. (Group A)-Rs.12000-16500 5 Years 17 years

Name of Service

Post or equivalent post/Group/Scale of pay

Railway Board Assistant (Group B) Rs.5500-9900 Secretariat S.O.(Group B-Gazetted)-Rs.6500-10500 Service U.S.(Group A)-Rs-10000-15200 D.S.(Group A)-Rs.12000-16500 7.2.0 (a) Stagnation in Assistant Grade Assistant Grade is at the lowest rung of the CSS and is also feeder grade to the Grade of Section Officer. Recruitment to Assistant Grade is made through two channels:(i) Direct recruitment through Assistants Grade Examination conducted by Commission11 i.e. 50%. (ii) Promotion from feeder grade i.e. UDC having five years approved services i.e. 50%. 7.2.1 For promotion to the Grade of Section Officer, 8 years approved service in the grade of Assistant is required. Promotion to the Grade of Section Officer from amongst the direct recruit and promotee Assistants was tilted towards the direct recruit in view of the procedure of appointment meant for them which has caused stagnation particularly amongst the promotee Assistants. 7.2.2 As per the appointment procedure, a direct recruit Assistant who got appointment in Select List gets substantive appointment after completion of probation period of two years but for the promotion to the grade of Section Officer the period from the date of joining is counted as the approved service whereas the case is not so in the case of promotee Assistant who undergoes the following types of appointment. Usually it takes normally more than 16 to 20 years to get promotion to Section Officer grade in the said procedure. 7.2.3 Prior to dispensation12 of Long Term Appointment, a UDC used to be promoted/appointed to the same post of Assistant, four time in the same pay scale which is as below::(i) Short Term Appointment/promotion i.e. on ad-hoc basis DOPT OM No.20/17/88-CSII dated 10.5.1988 (ii) Long Term Appointment on Temporary/ Long Term basis- Rule 13(7) of CSS Rules, 1962. (counted for promotion through Limited Department Exam for Section Officer but does not count for promotion through seniority quota) (ii) Select List Appointment - Rule 13(6) of CSS Rules, 1962 ( counted for promotion through Limited Department Exam for Section Officer but does not count for promotion through seniority quota) (iv) Substantative appointment Rule 13(6), 18 and Regulation 3(3) to Fourth Schedule of CSS Rules, 1962 (counted for seniority for promotion through seniority quota.) 7.2.4 After dispensation of long term promotion, DOPT came up with a substitute policy of recruitment to regular vacancies instead of to substantive vacancies and temporary/long term vacancies in 199113 those UDC who are appointed in the Select List for the year 1981 were made eligible for consideration for appointment as Assistant against the recruitment year 1989. It is mentioned that while the dispensation order was issued, Select List for the year 1985 was completed therefore Long Term appointees of the years 1983-88 would have become consider for appointment against the recruitment year of 1986 instead of recruitment year 1989.

Minimum ServiceAverage time prescribed fortaken for promotion frompromotion the lower grade 5 Years 7 Years 8 Years 11 Years 8 Years 11 Years 5 Years 9 Years

7.2.5 The approved service has been redefined in 199514 which modified the definition of the term given in the CSS Rules, thereby service rendered in long term appointment would not be considered for seniority. Thus long term Appointees ( LTA) numbering 156015 in the Select List year 1989 were the worst sufferer since their long term services became infructuous. They have completed 12 years excluding their LTA and yet to get the promotion to Section Officer grade. The Ministry has admitted that the average period taken for Assistant to Section Officer is 14 years of approved service in both direct recruit and promotee Assistants as against the eligibility period of 8 years. 7.3 On the issue of problem of stagnation in various grades of CSS, the Ministry has been maintaining the stand that owing to protracted litigation in Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and Supreme Court on inter-se seniority of Section Officers, panels of CSS officers for promotion to Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary levels could not be finalized after 1986 for Under Secretaries and after 1993 for Deputy Secretaries. 7.4 The Ministry has admitted that there is apparent stagnation in Section Officer and Under Secretary grades. The Ministry has further stated that Section Officers with 16 years or more service were awaiting promotion to the next higher grade. In order to reduce the prevailing stagnation in the Section Officers grade of CSS, the Government decided to give in-situ upgradations to 225 Section Officers and orders were issued in September, 1998 in the first phase. Since the situation had still not improved, it was decided to give personal upgradation to all such Section Officers with 12 years of approved service. About 900 Section Officers have been given in situ promotion to the level of Under Secretary in two batches in 1998 and 1999. Similarly, with a view to removing stagnation, 256 Under Secretaries were upgraded on personal/in-situ basis and the senior-most 256 officers (based on common seniority list of Section Officers dated 3/12/1997) have been given the benefit of in-situ upgradation. 7.5 The Ministry, however, has admitted that there is stagnation in the grade of CSS Assistants. The Ministry has stated that for the purpose of promotion from Assistant grade to Section Officer grade, approved service is taken with reference to the year of Select List in which they are so included. On that basis, as per the Ministry, there are no such Assistants awaiting promotion with 16-17 years of service. Assistants belonging to Select List of 1986 were being considered for promotion against the Select List of Section Officer grade for the year 1999. The Ministry has further stated that there are some Assistants who have rendered 16-17 years of service, which also include service rendered by them on long term basis. The system of long term appointments was discontinued from the year 1988. The ad hoc service does not qualify for seniority or approved service. In the case of Assistants, select list for promotion to Section Officers grade were being issued regularly. The Ministry is of the view that in the case of Section Officers, there was a protracted litigation on the question of interpretation of rules relating to inter-se seniority between promotee and direct recruit Section Officer due to which no regular select list of Under Secretary Grade could be issued after 1983. As the case of Section Officer and Under Secretary cannot be compared with Assistant grade, the Ministry has declined to give the benefit of in-situ promotion. The Ministry has further contended that following the introduction of Assured Career Progression (ACP), career prospects of the Assistants can be well taken care of. No separate scheme of promotion can be devised for Secretariat staff alone due to its wider legal and financial implications. 7.6 In reply to a question put by the Committee as to how many Assistants are eligible for promotion to the Section Officer grade, the Ministry has replied that out of a total of 4906 Assistants, nearly 2000 of them are eligible for promotion to Section Officer grade having put in 8

years of approved service. The figure obviously does not include the promotee Assistants who have put in ah-hoc and long term service in Assistants grades. In another question as to what annual inflow of regular vacancies in Section Officers grade is being made available to these eligible Assistants, the Ministry has given the following data:TABLE-V Year 1 Vacancies in Departmental Quota 2 LimitedVacancies in Seniority Quota Total 3 (2+3) 4

1995 102 103 205 1996 115 129 244 1997 58 70 128 1998 16 18 34 1999 10 18 28 7.7 To another question as to what is the expected period by which the junior most eligible Assistant as on 31 December, 2000, will be promoted on regular basis, the Ministry, instead of giving a definite reply, has furnished an evasive reply stating that their promotion would depend on several factors like availability of vacancies, impeding move of the Government to rightsize the Government machinery. The Ministry, to another question as to why in-situ promotion as an interim measure may not be given to all eligible Assistants on year to year basis, has replied that in-situ upgradation after introduction of ACP scheme will open a Pandoras Box. The Ministry has, however, not furnished the details as to how it will impact on all the Central Government Departments and what is the total financial implication, if in-situ promotion is given to Assistants. The Promotee Assistants who are stagnating for more than 12 years are not eligible for promotion under ACP Scheme, as they have already got two promotions. Further Financial burden would not be much on the exchequer as all those Assistant have crossed the minimum limit of pay scale of Section Officer. 7.8 The Ministry has claimed that a direct recruit Assistant can easily get promoted to the grade of Section Officer and Under Secretary or reach these levels under ACP scheme after 12 and 24 years of service respectively. On a question as to how many direct recruit Assistants have been promoted up to Under Secretary/Deputy Secretary rank giving the year-wise break-up, the Ministry has avoided to provide any such information stating that the grades of Assistant and Section Officers are decentralized among 33 cadres and hence detailed information since 1970 is not available. This Committee observes that the Ministry could have asked these cadres to provide requisite information. If concerned files are not available, information can be obtained from the records like services books of the officers and the Pay Bill Registers as these records are usually retained upto 35-40 years. This Committee directs that the Ministry should collect the requisite information and submit the same in the Action Taken Report. This Committee does not understand how could the Ministry make a sweeping claim about the normal career progression of a direct recruit Assistant without having the requisite data/information. This Committee desires that the Ministry should refrain in future from making such unsubstantiated and unsupported claims. 7.9 To another question whether statutory CSS rules provide normal career progression of a direct recruit Assistant upto Deputy Secretary grade, i.e., for three promotions and that if it is true, why the Ministry intends to restrict their career progression by granting only two promotions under ACP scheme, the Ministry has given an ambiguous reply. It has stated that there is no specific

provision entitling CSS Assistants to progress atleast upto Deputy Secretarys level, but they are eligible for promotion to Deputy Secretary as per CSS Rules. On the point of ACP Scheme, the Ministry has admitted that the ACP Scheme is not specifically meant for the Assistant of CSS. The Committee takes serious note of the fact that the Ministry gave correct and factual position only when faced with direct and specific questions, otherwise either it suppresses information or gave ambiguous information. 7.10 As per Rule 3 of the CSS Rules 1962, there shall be four grades in the Service, namely, Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary), Grade-I (Under Secretary or equivalent), Section Officer Grade and Assistants Grade. In other words, as per statutory provisions of the CSS Rules, the normal career progression for a direct recruit Assistant is upto the grade of Deputy Secretary. As per the terms of conditions of service, a direct recruit Assistant has to be given a minimum of three promotions. 7.11 The Committee has gone through the provisions of the ACP Scheme, as circulated by the Department of Personnel & Training vide OM No.35034/1/97-Estt. (D) dated August 9, 1999. In the opening para of the Scheme, the objective of the Scheme is declared to be as follows:The ACP Scheme needs to be viewed as a Safety Net to deal with the problem of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues. The Scheme at para 4 states:Introduction of the ACP Scheme should however, in no case affect normal (regular) promotional avenues available on the basis of vacancies. Attempts needed to improve promotion prospects in organizations/cadres on functional grounds by way of organizational study, cadre review, etc. as per prescribed norms, should not be given up on the ground that the ACP Scheme has been introduced. At para 5 of the Scheme, it has been stated thatvacancy based regular promotions, as distinct from financial upgradation, shall continue to be granted after due scrutiny by regular DPC as per relevant rules/guidelines. 7.12 The Scheme further declares thatwhile in respect of Group B, C and D services/posts, promotion shall continue to be duly earned, it is proposed to adopt the ACP Scheme in a modified form to mitigate hardship in cases of acute stagnation either in a cadre or in an isolated post. Keeping in view all relevant factors, it has, therefore, been decided to grant two financial upgradations on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service, respectively. 7.13 The Committee, however, fails to understand why the Ministry has declined to grant in-situ promotion to eligible stagnating Assistants, simply on the ground that ACP Scheme has been introduced. The Committee does not find any rationale of linking the matter of introduction of ACP Scheme with that of rejection of in-situ promotion to Assistants. The Committee feels that granting of in-situ promotion to eligible Assistants is rather complementary instead of being contradictory to the introduction of the ACP Scheme. 7.14 The Committee is of the view that confining the bright young persons selected on all India basis in the Assistant grade to the purview of the ACP Scheme, which provides only two financial upgradation, that too the first one after 12 years and the second one after 24 years, without subjecting them to the process of selection, will be unjust on the part of the Ministry. The Committee is also of the opinion that the directly recruited Assistants, unlike other subordinate services, are recruited with the specific purpose of assisting and in the process getting involved in the decision making process of the Union Government and their career progression has been

designed upto Deputy Secretary level in the statutory recruitment rule itself. Therefore, restricting their career progression to just two financial upgradation, without undertaking the exercise of cadre review/cadre-restructuring for their timely upward movement, may lead to the violation of the service rules of the directly recruited Assistants, who are governed by the service conditions prevalent at the time of their appointment. 7.15 The Ministry has admitted that non-release of regular panels for promotion to Under Secretary grade and Deputy Secretary grade resulted in acute stagnation in Section Officer and Under Secretary grades. The Ministry, therefore, decided to give in-situ promotion to such stagnating officers in both grades in phases. But the contention of the Ministry for not giving similar benefit to stagnating Assistants is not convincing. Non-promotion of 1986 select list of Assistants on regular basis even till today against the background of gradual shrinking in number of vacancies in Section Officer grade for promotion to the Assistants gives a fair idea that unless some drastic step by way of in-situ promotion is given, it is bound to have demoralizing effect on the officers and thereby seriously undermine their efficiency and productivity. 7.16 The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Assistants who have put in ten years of approved service should be given in-situ promotion pending completion of cadre review/cadre restructure of the CSS. 8.0 (b) Stagnation in Section Officer and Under Secretary grade In reply to a question, the Ministry has admitted that as on 1 March, 2001, out of total number of 2353 Section Officers, 915 of them who were stagnating for more than fifteen years have been given in-situ promotion to Under Secretary grade and another 600 Section Officers are eligible for promotion to the next higher grade having fulfilled the eligibility condition of 8 years. Since regular panels have not been brought out since 1986, it is difficult to assess how many regular vacancies in Under Secretary grade will be available to these 1500 Section Officers. Since there are only 766 posts of Under Secretary grade as on 1.3.2001, made available to CSS officers, it will take not less than two decades for promotion of these officers, if it is assumed that the expected number of annual vacancies in Under Secretary grade will be about 100. 8.1 The Ministry has not given any plan or concrete proposal to meet the career progression of this huge force of Section Officers against the limited vacancies in Under Secretary grade available only due to retirement of the members of the service in view of the fact that 228 Under Secretaries who have been given in-situ promotion as on date have not vacated these posts due to nonavailability of physical posts of Deputy Secretaries. Although Supreme Court had resolved the seniority issue between the two streams of members of CSS in 1997 and thereafter the Ministry has finalized and operated the Common Seniority List (CSL) of the Section Officers in order to prepare the long pending panels of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary,the Ministry is still trying to avoid its responsibility by stating refrains like protracted litigation. This approach of the Ministry reflects its insensitivity, lack of seriousness and sincerity to the genuine problem of stagnation in CSS. 8.2 In the Action Taken Report on the 60th Report of this Committee, the Ministry, while expressing its inability to evolve a scheme to give in-situ promotion to all eligible Section Officers on year to year basis until the panels of Under Secretaries are prepared, has given the following reasons (a) it is not feasible to evolve a scheme exclusively for CSS officers; and (b) it will be a precedent for other comparable services to demand similar benefit, resulting in enormous expenditure. But the Ministry, however, has not given details of such enormous expenditure. 8.3 This Committee observes that the justification given for not accepting the recommendations of the Committee to clear stagnation of CSS is far from satisfactory. The Committee understands that

by agreeing to similar proposals of AFHQ and Railway Board Secretariat, etc. which have similar sister services like CSS, the Ministry has already set a precedent for comparable services. The Committee does not find anything wrong in the Ministrys agreeing to such in-situ promotion proposals of the AFHQ and the Railway Board Secretariat. But the Committee does not accept the explanation of the Ministry to deny similar scheme to CSS on the plea of enormous expenditure, Non-acceptability of the recommendation of this Committee by the Ministry on the plea of huge financial burden is not convincing especially at a time when a large number of Section Officers have crossed or are at the verge of crossing the minimum of the pay scale of Under Secretary. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Section Officers who have put in ten years of regular service should be given in-situ promotion pending cadre review/cadre restructure of the CSS for which a committee of senior officers has been constituted. 8.4 The Committee reiterates its recommendation given in para 19.4 of the Sixtieth Report and asks the Ministry to prepare the Select List (panels) of Under Secretaries and publish the same in a time bound manner, failing which the Scheme of in-situ promotion on year to year basis should be given. 8.5 As the process of preparation of regular panels and vacation of the posts by Deputy Secretaries from other services will take some more time, the Committee recommends continuation of the scheme of in-situ promotion to stagnating Under Secretaries also to keep the members of the service motivated. Cadre Management of CSS 9.0 As per the statistical data maintained by the Ministry, the number of CSS Officers working at Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary posts as on 1.7.2000, was 117 and 533, respectively. In reply to a supplementary question, the Ministry has admitted that there were only 60 CSS officers holding physical posts of Deputy Secretary. But surprisingly as per the latest data as on 1.3.2001, the number of CSS Officers in Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary posts has been shown to be 288 and 766, respectively. The Committee does not understand the reasons for sudden spurt in the increase of posts made available to CSS officers within a span of less than a year. On a question posed to the Ministry about the reasons for a sudden spurt of the physical posts of Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary that too for CSS Officers only, the Ministry has not categorically admitted that there has been increase of physical posts. The Ministry had replied that the figures indicating the number of CSS Officers working on posts at Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary levels as on 1.3.2001 are 288 and 766, respectively and those reflect that such number of CSS Officers are working as Deputy Secretaries and Under Secretaries. The Ministry had further replied that in the figure of Deputy secretary, the officers of CSS who are working as Deputy Secretary on personal up-gradation basis have also been included as they are getting all the benefits of pay, status etc., as admissible to the officers of the rank of Deputy Secretary. As far as the figure of Under Secretaries is concerned, it indicates the number of CSS Officers occupying physical posts at the level of Under Secretary. This Committee views that clubbing of two different types of information, i.e., the number of officers holding physical posts of Deputy Secretary and the number of officers promoted on in-situ basis, is wrong and misleading. This Committee, therefore, rejected the reply/ information given by the Ministry and directed to give separate information of physical posts in Deputy Secretary grade held by CSS officers and in-situ Deputy Secretary in the monthly statement published by the Establishment Officers office. 9.1 In reply the Ministry has informed that as on 1.3.2001 only 60 CSS Officers are holding physical posts of Deputy Secretary grade whereas members of IAS alone hold 122 physical posts of Deputy Secretary. This clearly proves that out of 288, as many as 228 CSS Officers (288-60) are

only given promotion to Deputy Secretary on in-situ basis while holding the physical posts of Under Secretary. If the Ministry has added this number in Deputy Secretary grade to show it to be 288, the posts of Under Secretary should have been shown to be 538, i.e.(766-228), not 766. 9.2. To another question as to whether 228 CSS Officers holding equal number of physical posts of Under Secretary have been given in-situ promotion and that whether the number of 766 shown as CSS Officers working in the level of Under secretary includes the figure of 228 who have been promoted only on in-situ basis, the Ministry having been cornered by specific questions, has admitted the facts. But when the Ministry was further asked as to whether it is a fact that the figure 288 shown as CSS officers working in the posts of Deputy Secretary as on 1.3.2001 has been inflated ( 60 physical posts of Deputy Secretaries + 228 Under Secretaries promoted on in-situ basis ), the Ministry instead of giving a straight forward clear reply has stated that the officers who have been promoted as Deputy secretary on in-situ basis have been included in the figure as given on 1.3.2001 because they are getting all the benefits in the form of salary of Deputy Secretary. But to another query as to whether the Ministry admits that the figure 766 shown as CSS officers working in the posts of Under Secretary as on 1.3.2001 has also been inflated by including this figure of 228 with the number of Under Secretaries, shown to be 533 as on 1.7.2001, the Ministry, has admitted that in the figure 766, the officers who have been promoted as in-situ Deputy Secretaries, have been included because the substantive posts held by them are that of Under Secretary. To a part question posed to the Ministry as to what is the reason for not including the figure of 915 CSS Section Officers promoted as in-situ Under Secretaries in the figure of 766 shown to be the total number of CSS Under Secretaries, the Ministry has stated that the officers who have been promoted as Under Secretary on in-situ basis have not been included in the figure of 766 as the cadre of the Section Officers is decentralized and the Ministry of Personnel does not control such officers. 9.3. The Committee observes with deep anguish that the above replies of the Ministry are inconsistent, ambiguous and self contradictory. The Ministry applies two different sets of norms in the same situation and tries to justify its own contradictory replies on each occasion. If 228 CSS Under Secretaries are promoted as in-situ Deputy Secretaries, and are included in the list of Deputy Secretaries, they shall not be included in the list of Under Secretaries again. Moreover, since 228 CSS Officers do not hold the physical posts of Deputy Secretary, they can not be compared on equal footing with other members of Group A and AIS officers appointed as Deputy Secretaries though Central Staffing Scheme. All these actions of the Ministry on compilation of statistical data especially on CSS gives the impression of its prejudiced and biased approach towards CSS. By giving such inflated figures of the share of CSS both in Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary grade in the Secretariat, the Ministry tried to mislead the Committee by depicting a false picture of better promotional avenues in CSS so as to justify its inaction for managing the cadre of CSS effectively and smoothly. This Committee takes serious note of this approach and attitude of the Ministry of Personnel. 9.4 The way, the statistical figures have been shown by the office of Establishment Officer in the Ministry, one cannot be naive to believe that it is just a clerical or typographical error. The Committee is convinced that this is an attempt on the part of the Ministry to inflate the figures in respect of CSS by way of manipulating statistics with the clear objective of misleading this Committee. The Committee has taken a serious note of this act of the Ministry and directs the Ministry to enquire as to why the inflated figures in respect of CSS Officers has been projected and fix responsibility and exemplary punishment be given to the officer treating the Committee in such casual manner.

Authorised Permanent Strength 9.5 In response to another question, the Ministry has shown the Authorised Permanent Strength in Deputy Secretary grade of CSS to be 133 as on 1.5.1984. This Committee fails to understand why the outdated figures has been supplied when the question relates to current status. The Ministry has not explained as to why such data has been given. The Ministry is the Cadre Controlling Authority of CSS and the Deputy Secretary grade is the topmost cadre grade of CSS. This Committee wonders if the Ministry intends to say that the Authorised Permanent Strength of Deputy Secretary has not undergone any change during the last seventeen years. On a supplementary question to the Ministry to state the present Authorized Permanent Strength of CSS in both the grades of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary as on 1.5.2001, the reply of the Ministry is very strange and surprising. The Ministry has replied that the concept of Authorised Permanent Strength of CSS in Grade-I (Under Secretary ) and Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary) of CSS is no longer relevant because all the posts of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary in various Ministries are now to be filled in accordance with the Central Staffing Scheme. 9.6. The Committee does not understand how a statutory provision can be made irrelevant simply on the plea of the Ministry that all the posts of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary are now to be filled in accordance with the Central Staffing Scheme which is a mere compendium of executive instructions. The Ministry intends to say as if this appointment in these posts has been initiated just now. The Committee has been recording its observations all through its earlier reports that there has been serious undermining of the provisions of statutory CSS Rules in the appointment in the posts of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary. 9.7. 0 Rule 6 of CSS Rules captioned as Authorized Permanent Strength and Temporary Strength of the Service spells out the following provisions:(1) The authorized permanent strength of the various grades of the service on the appointed day shall be as specified in the third schedule. (2) After the appointed day, the authorized permanent strength of the various grades shall be such as may, from time to time, be determined by the Central Government. (3) The cadre authority may make temporary additions to a cadre as it may deem necessary from time to time. 9.7.1 The plea of the Ministry that Authorized Permanent Strength is irrelevant is illogical as it violates the statutory provisions and hence is not acceptable. The negative approach of the Ministry is deplorable. The Committee, therefore, recommends that there shall be clear-cut separation between the cadre posts of CSS and the posts which will be filled up Central Staffing Scheme by the officers other than CSS. The Ministry shall determine the posts specifically for CSS expressed in number, which shall form the Authorized Permanent Strength of CSS both in the grades of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary. In view of acute and unmanageable stagnation in Section Officer grade, except a few posts, all the posts of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary should form the part of Authorized Permanent Strength of CSS and should be included in the third schedule of the CSS Rules of 1962 as provided under Rule 6 of CSS Rules, 1962. The Ministry should immediately initiate prompt action to fix the Authorized Permanent Strength of each grade of CSS, i.e, Assistant, Section Officers Under Secretary and Deputy secretary MinistryDepartment wise and inform the Committee . 9.8 The Ministry has taken this stand that all the posts of rank of Under Secretary and above are to be filled on tenure deputation basis from All India Services and the Central Group A Services participating in the Central Staffing Scheme excluding such posts of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary as filled by CSS Officers. The Ministry therefore contends that if the posts of Deputy

Secretary are reserved for the CSS, such reservation, apart from going against the spirit behind the central staffing scheme, would also deprive the central government obtaining the services of officers from diverse sources of manning posts at that level. Further such reservation would also in effect debar officers of AIS and Central Group A services. The Ministry further argues that allowing only the CSS which is basically a Group B service to man these posts would amount to depriving members of Group-A and AIS to come to the Secretariat on central deputation at Deputy Secretary level. 9.9 In this context, the attention of this Committee has been drawn to the opening para of the original version of the central staffing scheme which was introduced by an executive instruction in 1957. It stipulated that all the senior administrative posts of and above the post of Deputy Secretary would be included within the purview of central staffing scheme. The Committee fails to understand how the post of Under Secretary can be regarded as a Senior administrative post. The factual position is that the post of Under Secretary is equivalent to Senior Time Scale (STS) post of All India Service and Central Group A Services. The Ministry has been consistently concealing the facts as to how and under what circumstances, the post of Under Secretary was included in the Central Staffing Scheme of 1957 when the Scheme was originally introduced. The Committee however, has reason to believe that the post of Under Secretary was intentionally included while finally deleting the words Senior administrative posts of the Central Govt. from the scheme, as it is found in the printed version of the central staffing scheme circulated on 5th January, 1996. The action of the Ministry to distort the original scheme is objectionable. In spite of repeated recommendations of this Committee to exclude the post of Under Secretary which is the cadre post of CSS from the central staffing scheme, it has fallen on deaf ears of the Ministry. 9.10 Even as per para 5(ii) of the 1996 Central Staffing Scheme, it has been categorically stated that a specified number of posts at the levels of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary will be treated as posts of their cadre and the posts over and above there will be filled under Central Staffing Scheme. A plain reading of this reveals that it is necessary to know out of the total posts available in Deputy Secretary level what is the exact number of posts which have been earmarked to CSS, which will facilitate preparation of regular panels and enable a CSS Under Secretary to know when he/she will be covered in the panel. On the other hand, the earmarking of definite posts in Deputy Secretary Grade will also make it clear as to how many posts will be filled up from amongst the other services participating in the Central Staffing Scheme. The argument of the Ministry for not reserving the posts for CSS in Central Staffing Scheme does not hold good in view of the specific provision of the scheme. The Committee, therefore rejects such contention of the Ministry. 9.11 The other argument of the Ministry that reservation of all the posts of Deputy Secretary to CSS would amount to debarring officers of Group A Services and allowing only the CSS which is Gr.B service to man these posts is also not acceptable in view of the fact that in accordance with the schedule Part-I, of the Central Civil Services CCS (Clarification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Central Secretariat Service in the grades of (a) Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary) (b) Grade-I (Under Secretary) is a Group A Service. As the CSS Officers of Grade-I (Under Secretary) are appointed as Deputy Secretary on promotion, the argument of Ministry is factually wrong and fallacious. 9.12 The attention of this Committee has been drawn to another fact that the Statutory Rules of CSS has debarred the Ministry to exclude the duty posts of Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary) and Grade-I (Under Secretary) from the cadre of CSS. Rule 7 of CSS Rules, 1962, declares as follows:

Rule-7. Exclusion of duty posts from the cadre Except in the case of the Selection Grade or Grade-I of the Service, any duty post in a Grade may be declared by the cadre authority, with the concurrence of the central government. in the Deptt. of Personnel & Administrative Reforms in the Ministry of Home Affairs to be excluded from the cadre(i) if such post is required for, the time being, to be filled by the appointment of persons possessing special or technical qualification or experience; or (ii) if it is necessary, for the time being to fill such post by a person other than the cadre officer of the appropriate grade and the post shall remain excluded from the cadre so long as such declaration remains in force. 9.13 The Ministry has been asked to state whether Rule 7 of CSS Rule, 1962 expressly prohibits the Government from excluding any posts in Grade-I (Under Secretary or equivalent) and Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary or equivalent) and if so, under what provisions of the constitutional/ statutory law, the posts of CSS have been excluded from CSS and included in the Central Staffing Scheme which is a mere executive order of the Government, and that this post are to be filled up from amongst the members of All India Services and Group A services. In view of the explicit provision under Rule 7 of CSS Rules, the Committee finds that there has been violation of statutory rule by the Ministry, accordingly it expects the Ministry to accept the fact. But instead of admitting the Ministry gives not only an evasive but factually wrong reply with clear intention to shy away from the pertinent and specific question. To the above question theMinistry has replied that as per the provisions contained in para 5(ii) of the Central Staffing Scheme, in so far as the officers from CSS are concerned, a specified number of posts at the level of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary are to be treated as part of their cadre, and the posts over and above these are filled under the Central Staffing Scheme. As long as the posts at the level of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary are held by CSS Officers, these posts stand outside the Central Staffing Scheme. The strength of the CSS in the Selection grade and Grade I of the CSS is supposed to be fixed under the Central Secretariat Service Rules 1962. Besides under Central Staffing Scheme no post is specifically reserved for any particular service/cadre. The Cadre posts in the Selection Grade and Grade-I of the CSS has not been identified. However, every effort is made to appoint only CSS officers at the level of Under Secretaries and to adhere to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinets directions of ensuring not less than 25% representation for the CSS at the level of Deputy Secretary. The Committee observes that the reply of the Ministry is evasive, factually wrong, contradictory and misleading. The reply of the Ministry is untenable and the Committee directs the Ministry to follow the provisions of statutory Rule 7 of CSS Rules, 1962, and if necessary, amend the provisions of the Central Staffing Scheme in the light of the statutory CSS Rules, giving no scope for ambiguity either in expression of the provisions of Central Staffing Scheme or in the interpretation of such provisions. 9.14 The Committee is of the opinion that whatever amendments that have taken place by way of Office Memoranda, issued from time to time to have the posts of Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary included in Central Staffing Scheme, following introduction of statutory CSS Rules in 1962, are void. The Committee, therefore, calls upon the Ministry to amend the relevant provisions of the Central Staffing Scheme for excluding the cadre posts of CSS from the purview of Central Staffing Scheme. 9.15 The Committee also finds that the officers, belonging to All India Service (AIS) and Central Group A services, who are initially appointed as Deputy Secretary are also promoted to the Directors level automatically by simply upgrading the post of Deputy Secretary to Director on

personal basis on fulfilling the eligibility condition stipulated at para (6) of the Central Staffing Scheme. The normal practice is that these officers when they are in their respective parent cadre, are posted to the Director level, only against available vacancies and that too after due process to be followed in accordance with the statutory provision of service Rules. Hence, in the absence of any specific statutory provision mere fulfilling of condition of number of years in Deputy Secretary level does not confer automatic right to the incumbent to be promoted to Directors level under Central Staffing Scheme. The CSS officers on the other hand, even if they fulfil eligibility condition and are empanelled, they are not posted as Director for years together. The Committee is of the considered view that undue advantage is being bestowed on these officers by giving them automatic promotion. The Committee intends to make it clear to the Ministry that Central Staffing Scheme is not a device to be used as means for additional avenues for promotion for the members of AIS and Central Group A services, who have already had their promotional avenues in their respective parent cadres. The CSS is the only service which can have promotional avenues in the middle and higher level available in the Central Secretariat. The Committee, therefore, directs the Ministry immediately to amend the relevant provisions of the Central Staffing Scheme and stop automatic appointment of the officers in Deputy Secretary level as Directors, simply on the ground of fulfilling of eligibility condition of years of service. The Committee also recommends to the Ministry not to keep the posts of Deputy Secretary and Director on floating basis so as to make conversion and re-conversion of the posts easily in arbitrary manner as per the sweet will of the managers of the Central Staffing Scheme. Lateral entry of CSSS to CSS 9.16 The V Central Pay Commission, having due regard to the fact that there is acute stagnation in the CSS at the level of Section Officer and Under Secretary to the grades of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary as also the improved promotional prospects of Central Secretariat Stenographer Service(CSSS) Officers, in their own line, feels that a review of the existing promotion in terms of which CSSS officers are allowed lateral entry into CSS is overdue. The V Central Pay Commission accordingly has recommended at para 45.37 (iv) that lateral entry of Private Secretaries to the grade of Under Secretary should be discontinued. 9.17 The Committee is of the view that the V Pay Commission has made a commendable recommendation to improve the service condition of the CSS. But the Ministry has so far not implemented the above recommendation of the Pay Commission. This Committee notes the grievance of the CSS Assistants as pointed out by CSS Forum with regard to their limited opportunity of promotion to Section Officers grade through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) to which Steno Grade C are not only allowed to compete with the CSS Assistant for promotion to Section Officer grade, but also allowed to compete with fellow Grade C Stenos in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to Private Secretary Grade. The Committee is, therefore, of the view that this is an unfair against the CSS Assistants. The steno grade C officers are apparently enjoying double advantage of promotion in their own cadre as well as in Section Officers grade at the cost of CSS Assistants. The channels of promotion for CSS Assistant and Grade C Stenographers are different from each other. As the promotional prospects for Grade C Stenos have improved over the years in their own cadre and as they are enjoying the opportunity to compete in the Examination for promotion to Private Secretary Grade, the Committee is of the considered view that only CSS Assistants shall be allowed to compete in the LDCE for CSS Section Officers. The provisions which allow the Steno Grade C to compete in Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to CSS Section Officer may be deleted from the Rules.

Centralization of CSS Cadre 9.18 The V Central Pay Commission has also recommended at para 45.23 (j) that having due regard to the fact that DOPT is already fixing the Zone for promotion and handling work relating to recruitment at the level of Section Officer, preparation of Common Seniority List of Section Officers for promotion to Under Secretary grade, the CSS cadre may be centralized and computerized so that the existing disparities in the promotion prospects of CSS officers in different Ministries are removed and the seniority of those who move out because of non-availability of vacancies in the own cadre to other cadre is protected. 9.19 The representatives of CSS Forum in their Memorandum have submitted that Ministry/Department-wise decentralization in the grades of Assistant and Section Officers is another cause for disorganization of the organized service of the CSS. As observed by this Committee while discussing the problems of CSS, due to the concept of decentralization, the cadre of CSS has been rendered orphan inasmuch as neither the Ministry of Personnel nor the CadreMinistry/Department owns the responsibility to nurture the cadre of CSS. It has been reported that there has been no proper reporting of vacancies and the Cadre-Ministry/ Departments tend to suppress the vacancies in order to give undue benefit of ad-hoc promotion to the most favoured ones. The representatives of CSS Forum have also submitted that the Ministry of Personnel virtually does all the functions of cadre-management of CSS both in the grades of Assistant and Section Officers except in respect of the officers who are adjusted in the same Ministry/Department on the promotion to Assistant grade and a few cases of the Assistants on their promotion to Section Officers grade in the same Ministry/Department based on seniority-cumfitness. It has also been alleged that due to decentralization of cadres, junior Assistants in certain large cadres get the undue advantage of getting promoted earlier to their senior counterparts in small cadres. This creates anomalous situation for the Senior Assistants. Keeping in view of what has been discussed above, the Committee is in full agreement with the V Pay Commission that the cadre of CSS in all four grades shall be centralized and computerized. Centralization will facilitate proper movement of the CSS officers in all grades from one Ministry/Department to another for cross fertilization of ideas and experiences. 9.20 The Committee therefore, recommends that on promotion to each grade of CSS (Assistant, Section Officer, Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary), the officers shall be transferred out of the Cadre-Ministry/Department where the officer is working irrespective of availability of vacancies in the cadre Ministry/Department. It is also recommended that the Ministry may restructure the cadre sections of each Ministry/Department, so the officers in the level of Deputy Secretary/Director in charge of cadre section will be made directly accountable to the Ministry of Personnel in respect of CSS issues in that Cadre-Ministry/Department in order to implement the recommendations of the V Pay Commission with regard to centralization of CSS cadre. If necessary, some staff working in the cadre may be deployed in the Ministry of Personnel to handle the work. This exercise will not involve any major financial implication by way of creation of posts or building of any additional infrastructure. The Committee also recommends that all the Section Officers who have completed eight years of service in the grade and have been promoted to Under Secretary on in-situ basis shall also be subjected to transfer as per rotation policy applicable to ad hoc/ regular Under Secretaries and Deputy Secretary/ Director. The plea of the Ministry that Section Officer grade is decentralized is not be acceptable to the Committee. 9.21 It has been brought to the notice of the Committee that the Establishment Wing of the Ministry vide its OM No AB-14017/2/97-Estt (RR) dated 25th May 1998, has instructed the Ministries/Departments to amend the existing service Rules/Recruitment Rules on a priority basis

so as to provide promotion from the feeder Grade scale to the merged (promotional) grade scale according to the revised qualifying service as per Annexure A to the that Office Memorandum. It has been provided at serial No. 20 in the said Annexure that the fixed qualifying service for promotion from the feeder grade scale of ( Rs. 5500-9000) to the merged ( promotional) grade of Rs. 6500-10500 is three years. 9.22. On a question addressed to the Ministry if the qualifying service from the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 to Rs. 6500-10,500 has been fixed to be three years and if so what are the reasons for not amending the relevant CSS Rules to fix the qualifying service for Assistant ( present pay scale Rs. 5500-9000) from the present eight years to three years for promotion to Section Officers grade ( present pay scale Rs. 6500-10,500), the Ministry has stated that the instructions are essentially in nature of guidelines and if any cadre intends to prescribe higher residency requirement in a pay scale for promotion to the next higher grade, it is for the cadre to decide. The provision for qualifying service which is eight years from the grade of Assistant to Section officer is statutory in nature and therefore, the Ministry does not consider it appropriate to amend the same to three years. 9.23 The Committee does not understand how the instructions issued by one wing in the Ministry for compliance to amend the statutory rules is being dismissed by another wing in the same Ministry stating that the instructions are mere in the nature of guidelines. All the guidelines/ instructions are issued on behalf of the Govt. with certain specific purpose. If these are not complied with by any authority within the Government on the ground they are mere guidelines, the whole purpose of issuing the instructions/guidelines is defeated. The Committee is of the considered view that this action of the authority in the Ministry not to comply the instruction appears to be arbitrary. Cadre Review of CSS 10.0 The opening para of the Chapter 3 of the Annual Report of the Ministry captioned Cadre Review states the following :Periodical review of the cadre structure of a regularly constituted service/Cadre is an important cadre management function. It attempts to bring about congruence between functional needs of the organization as well as the legitimate aspirations of the members of the service. The main thrust of the cadre review is on manpower projections and recruitment, planning on scientific lines aiming at rationalization of the cadre structure of the service in order to achieve the objectives of improved efficiency, morale and effectiveness of the cadre. 10.1 The Committee is shocked to know that the Ministry has not done cadre review of CSS during the last 40 years ever since the formulation of CSS Rules in 1962, in spite of Ministry's homily given in a separate chapter on "Cadre Review" in the Annual Reports of the Ministry. The Committee, therefore, urges upon the Ministry to initiate the exercise of Cadre Review immediately and to complete it on war footing basis by fixing a deadline. The Ministry should not take the plea that grades of Asstt. and S.Os are decentralized, grades of US and DS are incorporated under Central Staffing Scheme or participating Cadre Ministry/Department are not cooperating to provide requisite data, etc. The Ministry should however, complete the exercise of cadre review of CSS within six months. 10.2 The Ministry has been asked if the Ministry is responsible for reviewing the cadres of three All India Services and 58 Group A services, what are the reasons for not carrying out cadrereview of only service of CSS of which the Ministry is also the Cadre Controlling authority? The Ministry has also been asked what are the cadre structure of these 61 organized services which are

also recruited through UPSC like CSS and whether the members of these services get a minimum of four promotions ( even more than that) normally during their career? The Ministry has replied that the cadre structure of these 61 services is not maintained by the Department of Personnel & Training. As far as promotional prospects within various grades of each of such Services is concerned, the issue pertains to the other Ministries/Departments which control the cadre of these Services without giving a specific reply as to why no cadre review of CSS has been done since this is also one of the organized Central Civil Group A Services ( The Schedule to Classification and Control and Appeal Rules, 1965), the Ministry has just given an assurance that a committee of senior officers has been set up to under take a review of cadre structure of CSS and Government will give due consideration to its recommendations. The Committee is not satisfied with the reply given by the Ministry. It is just unthinkable how the Ministry, on the one hand claims to be responsible for cadre review of 61 services, yet on the other hand, it pretends its ignorance of cadre structure of any of such services, that too stating the ground that the cadre-structure of these services is not maintained by the Ministry. The Committee does not understand how can the Ministry remain ignorant of the promotional prospects of each of these 61 services on the plea that these services are controlled by other Ministries/Departments, while undertaking periodic cadrereview of each of these Services. The explanation of the Ministry suppressing the pertinent information is not acceptable to the Committee. This clearly proves the apprehension of the Committee that the Ministry is heavily prejudiced against CSS. The Ministry is therefore, directed to furnish the specific information to the specific question put by the Committee in the Action Taken Report. 10.3 To another question, the Ministry has stated that Government has proposed to create some additional posts of Under Secretary to upgrade the posts of Desk Officers. But the Ministry has not carried out the exercise on the ground of alleged serious difference of opinion between direct recruit and promotee Associations. The Committee is happy to note that the Ministry has initiated certain concrete step to relieve the section officers who are stagnating for a quite long time. But at the same time it is not understood if there is any provision under the Rules which requires eliciting the opinion of the Associations for upgrading the posts. The Ministry is supposed to carry out the exercise of upgradation of the posts in accordance with the existing rules and common practice followed in this regard. This Committee, therefore, recommends that the Ministry should ensure upgradation of the post of Desk Officers to that of Under Secretary in accordance with the prevailing rules and Common Seniority List and that the Ministry should not drop the proposal in the pretext of alleged serious differences between direct recruit and promotee Associations. 10.4 The Ministry has informed in reply to a question that the Stenographer Grade D C and A&B (merged) of Central Secretariat Stenographer Service (CSSS) has been restructured in the ratio of 40: 40: 20 with effect from 1st November 1993 with a view to provide better promotional avenues to Stenographers. The Ministry has also informed that two more grades of Principal Private Secretary (equivalent to Under Secretary) and Senior Principal Private Secretary ( equivalent to Deputy Secretary) have since been constituted in Central Secretariat Stenographer Service. The Ministry has assured that the committee of Senior Officers which has been constituted, will look into cadre-restructure of CSS. 10.5 To a question as to whether the Govt. has already introduced an NFSG ( Non-functional Selection Grade) in the scale of Rs. 14,300-18,300 on fulfilling the residency requirement of 18 years for DANICS/DANIPS, the members of which also belong to Group B and are recruited through Civil Services Examination conducted by UPSC like CSS Section Officers and if so, what are the reasons for not introducing similar grade in CSS, the Ministry has admitted that a Non-

functional Selection Grade in the scale of Rs. 14,300 18,300 has been introduced in DANICS and DANIPS with effect from 1.1.1996 for which Junior Administrative (JAG) Grade Officers (equivalent to Deputy Secretary) with not less than 18 years of approved service are eligible to be considered for appointments. Ten percentage of the total number of duty posts sanctioned for each of the two services shall be operated in this grade subject to the condition that the number of posts to be so operated shall not exceed the total sanctioned strength of posts in the JAG of the respective Services. The DANICS/DANIPS rules are being a amended suitably. With regard to the other part of the question, the Ministry has replied that the demand for introduction of NFSG to CSS officers is, inter alia under the examination of the committee of Senior Officers and the Ministry has assured that due consideration will be given to the recommendation of the committee in this regard. 10.6 The Ministry has further intimated that following are the grades of services structure of the Armed forces Head Quarters (AFHQ) Civil Service which is the sister service of CSS having the same pattern of nature of duties, job responsibility and method recruitment:TABLE-VI Sl. No. Name of the grade No. of Pay scale (in Rs.) Category posts 1. Principal Director 2 18,400-500-22,400 Group A 2 Director 9 14,300-400-18,300 -do3. Joint Director 72 12,000-375-16,500 -do4. Deputy Director 253 10,000-325-15,200 -do5. Section Officer 683 6500-200-10,500 Group B(Gazetted) 6. Assistant 1709 5500-175-9000 Group B (NonGazetted) The Committee recommends that the Ministry shall also consider giving a similar cadre-structure to CSS forming certain posts of Joint Secretary at the apex of the structure. 10.7 The Ministry had claimed that directly recruited Section Officer can move upto the level of Secretary to the Government of India and the Secretary (Personnel) while deposing before the Committee on 10.4.2001, informed that some CSS officers had been appointed as Secretary to the Government of India. But he, however did not give details of appointment of any CSS officer at the level of Secretary. In the absence of such information, the Committee is not in a position to take note that the CSS officer can move upto the level of Secretary to the Government of India in the present scenario of stagnation in all the grades of CSS. This Committee, therefore, directs the Ministry to furnish such instances of appointment of any CSS Officer as Secretary to the Government of India even during last fifteen years stating all relevant service particulars, including entry/induction in the service(s)of such officer(s) to justify such possibility. Group A status to Section Officer 11.0 In its Sixtieth Report, the Committee had recommended that Section Officer of CSS should be conferred/awarded Group 'A' status and the post of Section Officer may be re-designated as 'Assistant Secretary' to the Govt. of India. 11.1 In the Action Taken Reply, the Ministry had stated that a Departmental Committee headed by of Sh. A.R.Bandopadhyay, which was constituted in December, 1991, for examining the desirability and practibility of restructuring CSS considered inter alia, the suggestion of the CSS Associations of giving Group A status to Section Officers of CSS. The Departmental Committee had concluded that it was neither feasible nor tenable to recommend for conferring Group 'A' status

for Section Officers and suggested that the matter be placed before the next Pay Commission. The V CPC considered the matter keeping in view the fact that the observations of the Bandopadhyay Committee were based on rational consideration and did not recommend placement of the Section Officers in the existing pay scale of Rs. 2200 4000 with Group 'A' status or constitution of the CSS as a group 'A' service (para 45.23). The Ministry has, therefore, declined to redesignate the post of Section Officer as "Asstt. Secretary" with Group 'A' status. 11.2 The members of CSS specially those who are directly recruited as Section Officers are placed in a disadvantageous position vis--vis their batch mates in other services who are similarly recruited through Civil Services Examination. It is true that prior to the amendment of CSS Rules in 1984, the direct recruit Section officers were enjoying certain " leverage over their promotee counter parts by way of added years of seniority which enabled only a few of them to go upto the level of Additional Secretary. But with the amendment of CSS Rules in 1999 resulting in the 'added years of seniority' gone, a direct recruit Section Officer recruited after 1998 can not go beyond the level of Deputy Secretary. Even in the present scenario of stagnation of CSS at all levels upto Director, non posting of empanelled Director from CSS (Annexure) in the post of Joint Secretary coupled with the amendment of the eligibility conditions for CSS from 3 to 7 years, no CSS Officer would ever be posted as Additional Secretary after the superannuation of the serving Additional Secretaries. After some years no CSS officer would ever be posted as Joint Secretary and still after some Years no CSS officer would be posted as Director. In such a scenario what career prospect lies for a direct recruit Section Officer recruited after 1998? The Ministry has failed to give reasonable explanation to this issue. 11.3 It is in this background the Committee has recommended Group A status to Sections Officer with restoration of earlier designation of Asstt. Secretary. Conferment of Group A status to Section Officer should not, therefore, be confused with constitution of a Group A Service for Section Officers. In other words, three grades (D.S., U.S. and S.O.) will belong to Group A category and since Assistant grade will continue to be in Group B (non-gazetted) from where the service starts, CSS will continue to be Group B service. Conferring Group A status to CSS Section Officers will enable them to place themselves on equal footing with other members of Group A services participating in the Central Staffing Scheme. This is because the service rendered in Section Officer grade being Group B does not reckon counting for consideration to higher level posts under Central Staffing Scheme. The Committee understands that conferment of Group A status to Section Officers will provide a viable permanent set up in place of existing weak and fragile setup of the Secretariat in order to provide more stability, continuity and accountability. It would also remove ad-hocism and total dependence of Secretariat on other uni-functional services on tenure basis to man its senior level posts. It will also help to provide a service specially trained for requirements of the Central Secretariat with all India look. It would provide a set up to the Secretariat having judicious mix of a permanent component and a temporary component through deputation at senior levels. Conferment of Group A status will also allow Central Secretariat to have the benefit of special attribute of CSS officer at senior levels of the Government such as, expertise in Parliamentary work, policy formulation and implementation, Court cases, procedures and practices of the Secretariat, noting and drafting, vigilance matters, cadre review, and inter-action with independent bodies/organisations such as Supreme Court, Parliamentary Committees, Planning Commission, State Government and national level institutions. The Committee, therefore, reiterates its earlier recommendation made at para 19.8 in its Sixtieth report. Anomalous Pay Scales

12.0 Another issue which has been agitating the CSS officers is that the Pay Scales granted to Section Officers and Assistant are quite lower to that of the services/ posts which are equal or some of these are even lower to Section Officers in terms of classification, method of recruitment and nature of duties and responsibilities. The grievance of the Section Officers is that their pay anomaly originated from the recommendation of the IV Pay Commission who had granted them only replacement scale of Rs. 2000-3500. Following the direction of the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in 1989 in the OA No. 1538/87 in which the Honble CAT acknowledged the pay anomaly of Assistants who were recommended Rs. 1400-2600 pay scale by the IV Pay Commission and directed the Govt. to consider their pay anomaly, the Govt. revised the pay scale of Assistants from Rs. 1400-2600 to Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from 1.1.1986. But the Govt. did not consider the pay anomaly of Section Officers who had disturbance of pay scale with regard to both vertical and horizontal relativity vertical relativity with the revision of pay scale of Assistant and horizontal relativity with many services like Deputy Superintendent in CBI whose rank was lower than CSS Section Officers in the merit list but were granted the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4400, by a suo moto action of the Government in 1991. The Section Officers Association had been consistently submitting before the Govt. to upgrade their pay scale from Rs. 2000-3500 to Rs. 2300-3700 based on the principle of parity with the Section Officers of Supreme Court who have been granted the scale of Rs. 2300-3700 at that time. 12.1 But the Ministry of Personnel had not considered the matter. After some individual Section Officers filed an original application before the Principal Bench, CAT, praying for removal of the pay anomaly, the Hobble CAT disposed off the case based on the submission of the Ministry of Personnel that as the V Pay Commission had been constituted by the time, the pay anomaly of the pay scale of Section Officers would be considered by the Pay Commission. But the V Central Pay Commission vide Member Secretarys d.o. letter dated January, 1996 addressed to all Secretaries to the Govt. of India, expressed its inability to consider past anomalies arising out of recommendations of the IV Pay Commission. It requested the Ministries to take decision on their own in this regard. But finding that the issue was reverted back to square one, the CSS Section Officers filed an OA No. 197/97 before the Principal Bench of CAT praying for directing the Govt. to remove the pay anomaly and revise the scale to Rs. 2300-3700. The Honble CAT vide its order dated 12.9.2001 has acknowledged that there is prime facie pay anomaly in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 granted to CSS Section Officers. It directed the Govt. to refer this pay anomaly to the committee of Senior Officers which has been constituted to look into the cadre review and restructure of CSS. The committee of Senior Officers will listen to the submission of the representatives of the Association and to give its recommendations in the report. A copy of the said order of the Honble CAT was made available to the Committee by the CSS Forum and has been forwarded to the Ministry for necessary action. 12.2 This Committee is of the considered view that pay scale anomaly of the CSS Section Officers which was not properly looked into by the Govt. ever since the recommendation of the IV Pay Commission, deserves fair and judicious consideration. If the pay anomaly of the Section Officer as pointed out above, which continue from IV Pay Commission, their grievance for the pay revision as per the recommendation of the V Pay Commission can also be simultaneously taken care of since the V pay Commission has only given normal replacement of scale of Rs. 2000-3500 to Section Officers. The Committee, therefore, desires that the Committee of senior officers give due and sympathetic consideration to the past pay anomaly in the pay scale of Section Officers and recommend for removal of the anomaly.

12.3 The Committee has been informed that V CPC while upgrading pay scales of a number of services/posts rejected the similar upgradation of pay scale of CSS Section Officers and Assistants to Rs. 8000-13500/- and Rs. 6500-10500, respectively,on the principles of parity and relativity. The CSS Officers protested not only against rejection of upgradation of their pay scales but also against introduction of an intermediary grade (Group-B) between the grades of Section Officer (Group-B) and Under Secretary (Group-A). The Government took a decision not to operate the intermediary grade in the CSS and also to constitute a Fast Track Committee of Secretaries to look into the distortions and disturbance of existing relativities on this account of such categories of employees like Mail Engine Drivers, Diesel Assistants in Railways, Engineering Assistants in Doordarshan, CSS employees, Senior Auditors and Accoutants etc. The decision with regard to non-operation of intermediary grade in CSS was promptly conveyed to representatives of CSS Officers' through Ministry's letter No. 8/2/97-CS.I dated 21.7.1997. But while notifying the constitution of the Fast Track Committee and its terms of reference through OM No. 2/24/97-PIC issued on the same date i.e 21.7.97, the Ministry surprisingly omitted the demand of CSS Officers for upgradation of pay scale as an independent item of terms of reference and instead incorporated the other demand of CSS for removal of intermediary grade which, in fact, had already been decided and conveyed to the representatives of CSS. 12.4 The Ministry instead of giving specific reply to the specific query made, has given rather irrelevant information. To another query as to under which provision of the Transaction of Business Rule, the decision of the Cabinet not to operate Desk Officer grade in CSS, taken in July 1997was referred to Fast Track Committee of Secretaries again, the blunt reply of the Ministry was that the Government has the inherent powers of referring any issue to Committee of Secretaries without specifically replying to the question of the Committee, has not been appreciated by this Committee. 12.5 The Committee was informed that the Fast Track Committee of Secretaries in their Report expressed the view that the Scale of pre-revised Rs. 2000-3200 (revised Rs. 6500-10500) is generally operated at Group"B' Non-Gazetted level. On a query as to the reasons for not revising the pay scale of CSS Assistant (Group B Non-gazetted) to Rs. 6500-10500 the Ministry of Personnel has avoided to give specific reply to this question. The Committee has also noticed that the Ministry has not only avoided to give specific answer to specific question it has also tried to suppress relevant information by way of stating irrelevant and unrelated issues to specific questions. The Ministry has also expressed its inability to provide certain documents like report of Fast Track Committee of Secretaries, decision of Group of Ministers thereon on the ground of "Secrecy". Incidentally, some members of Committee produced a copy of the Fast Track Committee report before the Committee on 28.3.2001 and authenticated the same to be true copy of the Report. 12.6 The Ministry has been claiming that the matter relating to demand for up-gradation of scale of pay was not referred to the Fast Track Committee of Secretaries but it only considered the issue along with the case of DANICS/ DANIPS etc. But the Ministry has suppressed to provide the information relating to Fast Track Committees recommendations on the pay scale of Section Officers and Assistants of CSS in its report which was submitted on 01.10.1997. To a query raised by the Committee that when did the Govt. consider the recommendations of the Fast Track Committee and what was the decision of the Govt. on the report of the Fast Track Committee, and that when did the Govt. notify the replacement pay scales of Section Officers and Assistants to be Rs. 6500-10,500 and Rs. 5500-9000, respectively whether prior to or after the recommendations of the Fast Track Committee were submitted, the Ministry has suppressed the information relating

to the decision of the Govt. on the implementation of the recommendation of the Fast Track Committee. The Ministry has simply stated that the Fast Track Committee submitted its report on 01.10.1997 which was considered by the Union Cabinet on 03.10.1997. The replacement pay scale of CSS Section Officers and Assistants was granted vide Ministry of Finances notification dated 30.09.1997 as per the recommendation of the V Central Pay Commission. This very admission of the fact by the Ministry in reply to the query of the Committee has proved that the statements of the Secretary and the subsequent clarificatory written statements of the Ministry in this regard are false and misleading. 12.7. The Ministry has made another false claim that the issue of Desk Allowance to Desk Officers was referred to the Fast Track Committee for consideration. But to a query that which of the issues whether the issue of Desk Allowance to Desk Officers or the issue of demand of the CSS to remove the intermediate pay scale in the grade of Rs. 2500-4000(Pre-revised) was referred16 to the Fast Track Committee and that if it is the latter, i.e. removal of intermediate pay scale of Rs. 2500-4000 was referred to the Fast Track Committee, when was the issue of Desk Allowance to Desk Officer referred to the Fast track Committee and through which order (the Ministry was requested to furnish a copy of such order), the Ministry admitted the fact that it is only the issue of removal of intermediary pay scale and not Desk Allowance was referred to the Fast Track Committee for consideration. But the Ministry has maintained a stunning silence on the other fact as to why this very issue was referred to the Fast Track Committee after the Govt. had already decided to remove the intermediary scale and this very decision had been communicated to the CSS Forum representatives on the same date, i.e., 21.7.1997. This clearly proves that the Ministry has given false and misleading information. Without mentioning as to when the issue of Desk allowance to Desk Officers was referred to the Fast Track Committee, it has been further stated giving misleading information that since the pay scale recommended by the Pay Commission has not been operated for the officers of CSS as demanded by them, it was felt necessary to decide the quantum of Special Pay to be granted to the Desk functionaries. This has again proved that the claim of the Ministry for reference of the matter relating to Desk Allowance to the Desk Officer , to the Fast Track Committee for consideration is false and misleading. As the Ministry has failed to produce a copy of the Govt. order through which the issue of Desk allowance to Desk Officer was referred to the Fast Track Committee, it appears that this issue was never referred to Fast Track Committee for consideration. Thus, it appears that the claim of the Ministry is factually wrong and misleading. The Ministry has tried in vain to mislead and confuse the Committee by raising the issue of Desk Allowance to Desk Officer which was presumably decided subsequently, by the Govt. separately. 12.8 The Committee is convinced that the Ministry has acted in a vary unfair and prejudicial manner in rejecting the upgradation of pay scale of Section Officer . Contrary to the stand taken by the Ministry pertaining to upgradation of pay scale of DANICS / DANIPS and DASS Grade-I vis-vis Section Officer and Asstt. of CSS, the recommendation of Fast Track Committee to reject the upgradation of pay scale of both of DANICS / DANIPS and DASS , clearly established the parity and relativity between these two grade of services. It has also confirmed the Committee's apprehension that the Fast Track Committee consciously rejected the upgradation of pay scales of DANICS/DANIPS & DASS, on the ground that similar upgradation of pay scale had to be acceded in the case of Section Officer and Asstt. of CSS. 12.9 The Ministry in it's reply to Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2786 for 14.12.2000 has stated that the Govt. has carefully considered the recommendations of the V CPC and decided that the following pay structure may be allowed to DANICS/DANIPS,etc.:

On initial appointment On completion of 4 years On fulfilling the residency requirement of 8 years On fulfilling the residency requirement of 13 years On fulfilling the residency requirement of 18 years

Rs. 6500-10,500/Rs. 8000-13500/Rs. 10000-15200 Rs. 12000-16500/Rs. 14300 18300/-

12.10. The Ministry has been maintaining this stand that the Pay commission which is an expert body examines various aspects like inter-se- horizontal/ vertical relativities, educational qualifications, recruitment procedure, duties and responsibilities etc. of each post and recommended appropriate pay scales. These recommendations, wherever accepted by the Govt. were implemented. To a question as to whether representatives of CSS Forum have been continuously and consistently demanding for up-gradation of pay scales of Section Officers and Assistants since January, 1997, the Ministry, without specifically admitting or denying the fact, has stated that representations were received from CSS Forum for the need for upward revision of pay scales of Assistants and Section Officers. To another question as to why the Ministry has not written to the CSS Forum so far along with details of reasons if the Govt. rejected their demand for revision of pay scale, and that how did the Ministry maintain that it was very late stage to consider their demands when the fact is that non- issuance of any communication in writing expressing the decision of the Govt. presupposes that the matter is under consideration/ examination, the Ministry, without giving any specific reply, has simply stated that the representations were examined in details. However, looking to the recommendations of the V Pay Commission and merits of the case, the Govt. could not agree to upward revision of scales of pay, as demanded. Representatives of CSS Forum have been meeting official from time to time and position has been apprised to them during discussions. 12.11. The Ministry has been asked if non-grant of pay scales of Rs. 8000-13,500 and Rs. 650010,500 to Section Officers and Assistants of CSS, respectively, by the Govt. is based on Govts decision not to disturb the original recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission? Without giving the direct and specific reply, the Ministry has stated that pay scales of Rs. 6500-10,500 for Section Officers and Rs. 5500-9000 for Assistants of CSS have been recommended by the Pay Commission and the same have been accepted by the Govt. To the next part of the question that if so what are the reasons for suo moto action of the Govt. to upgrade the pay scales of Pragramme Executives and Transmission Executives of Doordarshan, Field Assistants and Field Supervisor of Cabinet Secretariat, Postman of Department of Posts and various categories of Para-military forces and Defence Forces, the Ministry although admitted the fact and stated that the Govt. considered the alleged anomalies in the recommendations of the V Pay Commission and after due consideration allowed high pay scales to categories on merit in each case. The Ministry was asked vide the other part of the question that whether all the recommendations of the V Pay Commission regarding replacement of upgraded pay scales have been accepted on merits and if so what are the reasons for non-acceptance of the V Pay Commissions recommendation for upgraded pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500 with Group-A status to DANICS and DANIPS? The Ministry has again without giving any specific and to the point reply, has stated that the recommendation of the V Pay Commission regarding up-gradation of pay scales was considered and accepted on merit and where any modification was required the same was done. It has further stated that the V Central Pay Commission recommended entry level pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500 for DANICS/DANIPS etc. in Junior Executive, category with initial pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500 which is equivalent to

Group-A as per the present classification of various groups of posts, the Ministry, in its usual response of suppressing the facts and not replying specifically, has stated that the classification of Govt. servants into various categories, as recommended by the V Pay Commission, was not accepted by the Govt. The Ministry has just attached a Govt. gazette notification17as per which the Ministry has simply indicated the replaced pay scales of the posts as per the existing classification in the following manner. TABLE-VII Sl. No. Description of posts Classification of posts 1. A Central civil posts carrying a pay or a scale of pay scale with Group A maximum of not less than Rs. 13,500. 2. A Central civil posts carrying a pay or a scale of pay with maximum Group B of not less than Rs. 9000 but less than 13,500. 3. A Central civil posts carrying a pay or a scale of pay of with Group C maximum of not less than Rs 4000 but less than Rs. 9000 4. A Central civil posts carrying a pay or a scale of pay with maximum Group D of less than Rs. 4000. 12.12. While denying to another question that whether it is a fact that the reasons for nonacceptance of the sole recommendation for upgraded pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 were to deny rightful claim of the same scale of pay to Section Officers of CSS on parity, the Ministry stated that the recommendations relating to DANICS/DANIPS were considered on merit. It was decided to grant the entry pay scale of Rs. 6500-10,500 and the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500 after four years of service after taking into account all factors which are relevant to DANICS/DANIPS. 12.13 The Committee has noticed that the Ministry has tampered with the original recommendation of V CPC for upgraded pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- to DANICS/DANIPS. While deciding such tampered pay structure to DANICS/DANIPS , the Ministry has forgotten the fact that scale of Rs. 6500-10,500 is also the pay scale for its feeder grade i.e DASS Gr.I. On a question as to whether the decision of the Ministry has resulted disturbance of the internal relativity between Supervisor Grade (DANICS/DANIPS ) and Supervised grade (DASS Gr.I), the Ministry has replied that as per Deptt. Expenditure O.M No. 169/2/2000-IC dated 24.11.2000 the feeder grade and promotion grade post can be same. The Committee has gone through the said OM of Deptt. of Expenditure issued on 24.11.2000 and has found nothing as claimed by the Ministry. It is true that the V CPC has merged the pre-revised scale of Rs. 2000-3200 with pre-revised scale of Rs. 2000-3500 having replacement scale of Rs. 6500-10500 for DASS Gr.I. But the Pay Commission has also upgraded pay scale of DANICS/DANIPS to Rs. 2200-4000 (Pre-revised) with replacement scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- . Therefore, the anomalous situation between supervisor grade (DANICS/DANIPS) and supervised grade DASS having the same pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 has arisen only due to meddling with the original recommendation of the V Pay Commission. 12.14 On analyzing the statements, made by the Ministry and clarifications furnished to the queries raised it has been noticed that there are inconsistencies and incoherences in the statements. Information given in the statements is incomplete at some places and at other places irrelevant and misleading. The Ministry has maintained double standards with regard to decision of the Govt. in principle and the implementation of the same in the case of CSS. The Committee does not understand the reason as to why the Ministry is so heavily biased against CSS when it knows that it is this Ministry of Personnel who is responsible for nourishing this Service being the Cadre

Controller. The Ministry has not stated how it considered the normal replacement pay scale to CSS Section officers and Assistant was adequate, after the representatives of CSS Forum had convincingly given the reasons as why there was the necessity of upward revision of pay scale based on parity and principles of both vertical and horizontal relativities. On the one hand the Ministry has been maintaining that the recommendations of the V Pay Commission which is an expert body are final and are beyond the purview of the Govt. to change, but on the other, the Govt. has in a number of cases including the case of Programme Executives and Transmission Executives of Doordarshan, Field assistants and Field Supervisors of Cabinet Secretariat, Postmen of Department of Posts and various categories of para-military forces and Defence Forces, revised the pay scales upwardly on its own after finding anomalies in such pay scales as recommended by the Pay Commission. But the Ministry did not apply the same yardstick in the case of CSS in spite of the representatives of CSS Forum earnestly submitted their case before the Ministry. It also supplied no reasons/ grounds as to why it should not apply that yardsticks in the case of CSS. In spite of denial of the Ministry to deny the DANICS/DANIPS etc. of the recommended scale of Rs. 8000-13,500 with Group-A status by the Pay Commission, this Committee is of the considered view that the DANICS/DANIPS etc. were in fact denied their rightful due only because the same would be given to CSS Section officers based on parity and relativity. The Ministry has acted in such an unfair manner that it did not hesitate to tamper the original recommendation of the Pay Commission by granting the entry scale at Rs. 6500-10,500 and the scale of Rs. 8000-13,500 after 4 years of entry scale in order to given false impression that the initial entry scale for both CSS Section officers and DANICS/DANIPS etc. is same, i.e., Rs. 6500-10,500. In order to justify its arbitrary and prejudiced action, the Ministry has been offering a number of false, inconsistent, incoherent and incomplete explanation. This Committee has, therefore, taken strong exception and rejected all such replies, statements, clarifications which are factually wrong, ambiguous, inconsistent incoherent and misleading. This Committee is of the considered view that since there is direct recruitment in both the grades of Section Officer and Assistant on the basis of Civil Services and All India Competitive Examinations, the need of attracting fresh young talents of graduates of the Universities can not be overlooked in view of the important role played by the officers of CSS in the middle level of decision- making of the Govt. of India. But if the Ministry does not revise their pay scales based on parity and relativity on any plea, it is bound to demoralize and demotivate the members of the service and the fresh and young talents will not be attracted to this service. As the quality of the service will deteriorate so also it will lead to decrease the efficiency and productivity. 12.15 In view of the foregoing, the Committee strongly desires that in the interest of justice and fairplay, the original parity between DANICS/DANIPS and CSS may be restored . The Committee also strongly recommends that the upgraded pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 as granted to the DASS Gr.I, (Gp.'B' Non-gazetted) may also be granted to CSS Assistants (Gp.B Non-gazetted) on the basis of traditional parity and relativity. Publications of CSS Rules 13.0 The Committee has noticed that the last edition of the CSS Rules was printed fifteen years ago. The copies of the earlier edition of the Rules are not available. Meanwhile, although a number of amendments have taken place, no effort has been made by the Ministry to publish a new revised edition of CSS rules. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Ministry shall publish a fresh edition of CSS rules incorporating all amendments made therein within a deadline of six months. 13.1 In reply to a question, The Ministry has admitted that the guidelines containing instructions to Cadre Controlling authorities in the Ministries/ Departments were issued vide OM No. 1/2/88-CS-I

dated 19.1.1989 that the issue of one time confirmation in the service of Govt. employees in the existing recruitment rules of organized services stood modified. But to the other part of the question that if so, what are the reasons for amending relevant provisions in CSS Rules only in February, 1999, the Ministry has replied that the action for amendment to CSS Rules was initiated in the right earnest on 30.5.1988. However, it required examination/ consultation/concurrence of the Establishment Division, Ministry of Law, UPSC, etc. and the process took considerable time. But this Committee is surprised to find that an action which could have taken ten months or so to complete the process of the so-called examination, consultation, concurrence etc. among the Ministries, it look ten long years to amend the CSS Rules. This Committee does not understand how could the Ministry took so much of time, if it claimed that it initiated the process in right earnest. This Committee is not satisfied with the explanation of the Ministry and is convinced that there has been negligence and deliberate attempt to thwart the process. This is clearly in contravention of different recommendations of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation. The Ministry has given a vague explanation to hush up the issue. This Committee, therefore, desires that the Ministry shall enquire into the matter in order to find out why there was delay, looking into every stage of movement of the concerned file and movement of other relevant document/ papers on the basis of normal average time taken for each occasion of movement file/papers. The Ministry shall fix responsibility wherever lapse/negligence has been found. The Ministry shall submit details of the enquiry and action initiated/ taken to the Committee. 13.2 In response to another question that whether action regarding filling up of vacancies in Section Officer grade, maintenance of their respective cadre seniority, etc. were being taken every year in accordance with the instructions OM No. 18011/1/86-Estt.(D) dated 28.3.1998 pending amendment of CSS Rules, the Ministry has replied that Section Officer grade is decentralized into 33 cadre controlling units. While instructions were issued to all the cadre controlling authorities to include all regular vacancies, but it appears that all of them did not follow these instructions. To another query that whether the Ministry had monitored, if its instructions issued on 19.1.1989 were being carried out properly by Cadre Units in letter and spirit and if so, how many cadres had failed to follow the instructions, the ministry has admitted that no monitoring was done. It simply believed that all cadre authorities were expected to follow the instructions as responsible units of governmental system. This Committee has noticed that when the Ministry itself did not act in a responsible and responsive manner, how could it expect the cadre units of CSS act in responsible and responsive manner. This has been viewed very seriously by this Committee. The Committee desires that the Ministry should mention about the cadre units of CSS had not complied its instructions contained in the OM dated 19.1.1989 along with the reasons and furnish a report in this regard in the ATR. 13.3 The Ministry has been asked what are the reasons for changing the position of DR Section Officers recruited after 1988 in the Combined Seniority List in contravention to the instructions issued vide OM No. 18011/1/86-Estt.(D) dated 28.3.1988? The Ministry has replied that the instructions vide OM dated 18.3.1988 could not be given effect to immediately as recruitment to the grade of Section Officer is governed by the CSS Rules which have statutory force. Till the rules could be amended, seniority of Section Officers between DR and promotee were required to be interpolated in terms of the existing CSS Rules. This committee has noticed that the Ministry has been interpreting the statutory force of the rules as per its own sweet-will, convenient to justify its own action/inaction.When this Committee has invited the attention of the Ministry to the statutory force of the CSS Rules over Central Staffing Scheme which is an executive order of the Govt. in the areas where the provisions of CSS Rules and Central Staffing Scheme overlap, like

Rule 7, Rule 3 of CSS Rules on the one hand, and para (3) and para (5) of the Central Staffing Scheme 1996 on the other, the Ministry has been taking an ambiguous stand and avoiding to give a direct reply. This Committee takes serious note of such the ambiguous reply of the Ministry. Training of CSS Officers 14.0 The Committee is surprised to note that notwithstanding the fact that India is fast emerging as a global IT super power, at the apex level of the Government viz. the Central Secretariat, no specific programme has been drawn up by the Government for training Central Secretariat Service officers in IT related areas. The Committee would like the Ministry to draw up a firm programme for imparting adequate level of proficiency in IT related areas in a time bound manner not exceeding two years. The Committee would like to be apprised of the programme so drawn up by the Government within a period of three months from the date of this Report. 14.1 The Committee has taken note of the data furnished by DOPT with regard to the training of officers of various services abroad in the past few years. In view of the fact that the Central Secretariat Service is operating at the apex of Union Government the Committee recommends that a minimum of 25 percent of all the slots in training programme abroad should be reserved for officers of CSS. 14.2 The V Central Pay Commission has recommended in its Report (Vol.-I) for field posting of CSS officers in the following words: We are of the view that the effectiveness of CSS officers can be definitely improved if they are given filed posting in the states where they would get an opportunity for learning on the job. This will be an improvement over the scheme of field training. We therefore recommend that training posts should be earmarked in the States for CSS officers and the DOP & T should evolve a scheme of field training involving independent posting to various posts in States for a period of three years.(para 45.23) 14.3 The Committee is given to understand that the Ministry has not implemented the above recommendation of the Pay Commission. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Ministry shall reconsider the recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission in this regard. The officers may be given the option for posting in their respective home States. If there are more candidates for a particular State, a panel of the officers may be prepared to depute them in batches/phases. The Officers, so deputed for the field posting may be allowed to retain their Government accommodation, if allotted, in order to enable their families to stay at the Headquarters. Central Staffing Scheme 15.0 The Central Staffing Scheme was introduced through Government of India Resolution No. F. 34 (3)-E.O/57 dated 17 October, 1957, which was subsequently published in Gazette of India on 26 October, 1957. The scheme was introduced with clear-cut intention to provide systematic arrangement for manning senior administrative posts at the Centre of and above the rank of Deputy Secretary. Subsequently, the Central Secretariat Service Rule was enacted in 1962. Rule 3 of the said Rule speaks about the composition of service which includes Assistant at the bottom and Deputy Secretary at the top. The Bandyophadyaya Committee and the DOPT has maintained that CSS is specifically created to man lower and middle management level posts in Central Secretariat. 15.1 In the face of above two rules, it is difficult to understand whether the post of Deputy Secretary is actually middle level or senior level administrative post. The Committee is of the considered view that such provisions of the Central Staffing Scheme are inconsistent with the statutory Rule viz. the Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962. It is surprising to know that the DOP&T has continued to operate the Central Staffing Scheme, which prima facie contravenes the

provisions of the Central Secretariat Service Rules to the detriment of the Central Secretariat Service all these years. In keeping with this scheme and the CSS Rules, as stated above, all posts in these grades should be filled up by the CSS officers. The Committee notes from the reports of III and IV Pay Commission that the Central Secretariat Service held much higher percentage of Deputy Secretary/Director level posts in the Secretariat in earlier years. However, their representation has gone down considerably in percentage terms over the years and has reached as low as 10 percent Such a situation apparently goes against the letter and spirit of Central Secretariat Service rules. 15.2 The Committee desires that the Resolution of Government of India on Central Staffing Scheme should be reviewed in the light of Rule 3 of CSS Rules, 1962. 15.3 The Committee had desired to know from the Ministry as to whether the post of Deputy Secretary was a cadre post for the Central Secretariat Service and if so, what was the authorized/sanctioned cadre strength in that grade. While the Ministry has not categorically informed the Committee of the fact whether or not the post of Deputy Secretary is a cadre post of the Central Secretariat Service, it has indicated that the authorized permanent strength of the Central Secretariat Service in Deputy Secretary grade was 133 as on 1-5-1984 (that is roughly 17 years back) as per the Civil List of the Central Secretariat Service officers and that Deputy Secretary is the highest grade in the Central Secretariat Service. To present such outdated data to the Committee is against the spirit of responsive administration especially for a Department that also happens to be the Cadre Controlling Authority of the Service. The Ministry has nowhere explained as to why such outdated data was being furnished to the Committee or how come the authorized permanent strength of the Service has not undergone any revision for 17 long years. The negligence of the Ministry as the Cadre Controlling Authority is clearly manifested from the reply furnished to the Committee. Besides, when the yearly panels of Deputy Secretary have not been brought out from 1993 onwards, such data does not have any reliability or nexus with the ground reality. The Ministry should immediately take action to revise the position in conformity with the relevant Rules and also in the light of the recommendations of the Committee in the succeeding paragraphs. 15.4 The Ministry has in its reply also informed that as on 1.3.2001, 288 Central Secretariat Service officers are working in the grade of Deputy Secretary including those on personal upgradation basis and out of them, 60 Central Secretariat Service officers are working against the regular posts of Deputy Secretary. The Committee has been informed that the officers working as Deputy Secretary on personal upgradation basis are working against the posts of Under Secretary and they are not recognized as regular Deputy Secretary in so far as their deputation elsewhere, their eligibility for promotion to the post of Director or any other entitlements are concerned. To that extent, in Committees view, there is no logic in including the officers upgraded on personal basis in the total number of posts of Deputy Secretary held by the officers of the Central Secretariat Service. If the figure of 60 Deputy Secretary of CSS indicated by the Ministry is correct, in percentage terms, against the combined strength of around 1000 in the grade of Deputy Secretary/Director, this represents a miniscule percentage (10 percent to 20percent) especially in view of the fact that Deputy Secretary is a cadre post of the Central Secretariat Service. It is surprising that over 80 per cent of the posts in the grade continue to be filled up by drawing officers from other Services notwithstanding the fact that there is acute stagnation in the Central Secretariat Service and this has duly been acknowledged by the Ministry. In fact, the grade of Deputy Secretary being part of middle management (for which specially the Central Secretariat Service has been contributed), should not have been included in the Central Staffing Scheme which

is basically a scheme for filling up Senior Administrative Grades posts i.e. Joint Secretary and above where decision making in substantially involved. 15.5. The Ministry has been asked whether the participation of Central Group A Services not (AIS) is justified in the grades of Deputy Secretary and Director in the Secretariat through Central Staffing Scheme on the ground of these services being unifunctional and their character of functional specialization in these posts? If so, what are the details of all the posts of Deputy and Director Ministry/ Department wise filled up from amongst Central Group A Services through Central Staffing Scheme, nature of duties/ responsibilities of each of such posts in both grade of Deputy Secretary and Director, and the members of which Central Group A Service holding the posts individual-wise as on 1.4.2001? The Ministry in its reply reproduced para (4) of Central Staffing Scheme, which states that the raison d etre of the Central Staffing Scheme is the Central Govts need for fresh inputs at senior levels in policy planning, formulation of policy and implementation of programmes from diverse sources namely AIS and Group A services. The experience gained by the officers while working in their cadres could be effectively utilized in policy planning, formulation of policy etc. in the Govt. of India. The experience gained by the officers while working in the Govt. of India could be effectively utilized in implementation of the policy in implementation of the policy when they work in their cadre. This two-way movement of the officers as envisaged under the Central Staffing Scheme has proved to be beneficial to the service cadres and Govt of India. But this Committee does not understand all these officers who have hardly put in nine years of service in the field, how much experience they have gained, so as to justify their posting in the Central Staffing Scheme. The reply given by the Ministry may hold true in so far as members of AIS are concerned. But what purpose dose it serve with regard to members of Group-A services numbering more than 300 officers posted as Deputy Secretaries out of 563 posts through Central Staffing Scheme. For example, if an officer of Indian Postal Service is posted as Deputy Secretary of Establishment in a Ministry/Department in what way the Govt. of India is benefited from his so-called field experience of management of postal affairs and in what way the Deptt. of Post will benefit for the management of postal affairs from the experience of that officer posted as Deputy Secretary in a Ministry/Department. This Committee is of the considered view that the posts in the level of Deputy Secretary which can be managed/ handled by CSS officers, shall be filled up from amongst CSS officers only. This Committee therefore, directs that the Ministry of Personnel shall identify such posts in the level of Deputy Secretary in all the Ministries/Department to be cadre posts of CSS immediately and shall fill these posts from amongst the panels of CSS officers only. With regard to other part of the question, the Ministry has replied that the details of nature of duties/responsibilities of each post of Deputy Secretary/Director held by a member of Group A Service in each Ministry/Department in the Govt. are not maintained. This Committee is not satisfied with the reply given by the Ministry and therefore, rejects it. The Ministry is again urged to furnish the information, as sought by this Committee in the ATR. 15.6 The Ministry has been claiming that the members of Group-A services have to be accommodated in Deputy Secretary grade in spite of these posts not being senior level posts keeping in view of provision of Central Staffing Scheme. The Ministry has been asked that what is the Central Deputation Reserve (CDR) for each of service (AIS and Group-A Services) participating through Central Staffing Scheme as per their respective services Rules and that whether the quota is meant for each grade ( i.e. JTS, STS, SG etc.) separately of a particular service or is taken together for that service as a whole? What criteria are followed by the cadre authorities to send the officers on Central deputation without creating any imbalance within the

grades of that Service? The Ministry in its startling reply has stated that some of the Central Group-A Services do not have a deputation reserve at all, some of the services do have a deputation reserve though such reserve is not exclusively for deputing officers to posts under Central Staffing Scheme. The Ministry has pretended its ignorance stating that it is not aware of any specific criteria followed by the cadre controlling authorities while sponsoring the names of the officers for central deputation. This Committee does not understand how the Ministry is manning the Central Staffing Scheme by making tall claims without ascertaining basic facts/ information from the cadre authorities of the group A services participating under Central Staffing Scheme. The explanation of the Ministry is far from satisfactory and is not acceptable. This Committee therefore, directs the ministry to collect relevant information as asked by this Committee from the cadre authorities and furnish the same to the Committee. 15.7. The Ministry has been further asked whether the members of Group-A services have their own promotional channel and career progression in their respective cadres/services at least up to Deputy secretary/ Director level as per their respective service rules? The Ministry has also been asked if the members of these Services would have got normal promotion at least up to Deputy Secretary/Director level in their respective cadre/service had they not joined the posts under Central Staffing Scheme up to Deputy Secretary level? The other part of the question is that has there been any instance wherein a member of a particular Service who had joined a lower grade under Central Staffing Scheme and had been appointed to the next higher grade by upgrading the post by adjusting that officer against an available vacancy on fulfilling of requisite years of service as prescribed at para (6) of Central Staffing Scheme, but subsequently the officer was reverted to the lower grade on his repatriation to his parent service/ cadre due to non-availability of vacancies? In stead of giving reply to these four parts of the question separately, the Ministry clubbed together the parts of the question and gave a very vague reply while admitting the fact that members of these service have their own promotional channel and career progression in their respective cadres/services not only up to Deputy Secretary/Director level, but even beyond Joint Secretary and above. The Ministry has further stated that the Central Staffing Scheme has laid down specific eligibility criteria for holding the posts of Under Secretary and above. The officers who fulfill these criteria while on Central deputation, are appointed to the posts to which he/she is eligible, irrespective of the post which he or she would have held, had he/she not been on central deputation under Central Staffing Scheme. The Committee has observed that the Ministry has deliberately clubbed the reply together in order to suppresses the information. This Committee is not satisfied with the reply given by the Ministry. 15.8 The Ministry has been asked to inform this Committee as to how many officers of Central Group A Officers and All India Services were appointed as Under Secretary/Deputy Secretary and Director through Central Staffing Scheme and how many of such officers were repatriated on completion of tenure or otherwise to their respective parent cadres in each of the financial years during the last eight years as on 31.3.2001? The Ministry has replied that all officers appointed under Central Staffing Scheme at the level of Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Director are reverted after completion of their prescribed tenure. Information in respect of officers appointed and reverted in the last eight years has not been maintained. To another question that what is the total annual expenditure incurred by the Govt. of India in each of the financial years during the preceding eight years as on 31.3.2001 with regard to Traveling Allowance, Daily Allowances and Transportation of personal effects etc. in respect of each of such officers (including family members) on their appointment as Under Secretary/Deputy Secretary/Director through Central Staffing Scheme and/or their repatriation to parent cadres and that what is the total annual

expenditure incurred by the Govt. of India towards their Deputation Allowance to these officers of Group A services and All India Services in the levels of Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Director in each of the financial years during the preceding eight years and on 31.3.2001, the Ministry has declined to provide information stating that the expenditure incurred by the Ministry/Department on these heads is not centrally maintained. But this Committee is not satisfied with the reply given by the Ministry and hence rejects the replies. This Committee is of the view that this is a very vital piece of information to assess the operation of Central Staffing Scheme. This Committee must see if the expenditure incurred for the purpose is justified and if not, how best and effectively the work of the Govt. can be managed in the Secretariat without such expenditure. The Ministry can not escape its accountability to provide information on the plea of non-maintenance of the expenditure on their heads. This Committee, therefore, directs the Ministry to collect the data from the other Department/ Ministries and furnish the same to the Committee. 15.9 The Ministry has been asked whether the participation of the members of these services under Central Staffing Scheme up to Deputy Secretary level in the Secretariat is not an additional benefit to them in view of the fact that they are already enjoying smooth promotional channel and career progression at least up to Deputy Secretary/ Director level? The Ministry has shied away to give a specific reply to this question. In its ambiguous reply it has stated that the specific purpose the Central Staffing Scheme is to induct officers at senior level from diverse sources. Their appointment at the centre at various levels for a fixed tenure is not only beneficial to them but also to the Govt of India. 15.10. It is observed that in view of the very admission of the fact by the Ministry that members of both Group-A services and all India Services have their own promotional channel and career progression in their respective cadres/ services, it is, in fact an additional benefit for members of these services to join a post in the Central Secretariat through Central Staffing Scheme. More the representation of a particular service through Central Staffing Scheme means wider the purview of the cadre of that particular service and hence more opportunity for the members of that service for promotional channel and for wider career progression. As the members of a particular service who have joined the Central Secretariat though Central Staffing Scheme, got their promotion in time bound manner on fulfillment of the eligibility period as prescribed in the Scheme during their period of deputation, they need not come back to the cadre in normal circumstances before completion of deputation. This Committee understands that this is the reason as to why there is so much craze for members of these Services to seek posting through Central Staffing Scheme especially in the level of Deputy Secretary/Director and Under Secretary which will not only widen the area of their respective cadres, but also will provide an opportunity for them to stay in Delhi. But for the members of CSS on the other hand, their career progression is only confined to the posts of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary in the Central Secretariat. Hence as the representation of the Group-A services and AIS in the Central Secretariat at the level of Deputy Secretary/Director grows, so the promotional opportunity for the members of CSS shrinks. In this way the members of the CSS are at a disadvantage position. This Committee, therefore, desires that the members of CSS shall be given fair treatment by the Ministry by way of clear demarcation of their cadre posts up to Deputy Secretary grade out of Central Staffing Scheme so as to give them fair and equal opportunity for their career progression. This Committee recommends accordingly. 15.11.0 Another question whether it is a fact that career progression of CSS officers is confined only to the posts of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary available in the Secretariat as per statutory CSS Rules, the Ministry has replied that as per Rule 3 of CSS Rules, 1962 the composition of the CSS cadre is up to the selection grade of the CSS (equivalent to Deputy

Secretary grade). The CSS officers are entitled to be promoted up to level of Deputy Secretary. The posts of Director and above are outside the CSS cadre. In order to satisfy the aspirations of the CSS cadre for representation at higher levels of the Central Secretariat, through an administrative modality, the CSS cadre has been included as one of the participating services in the Central Staffing Scheme for the posts at the level of Director and above. 15.11.1 The other part of the question put before the Ministry is that whether it is a fact that all posts of Under secretary and Deputy Secretary have been taken away from the purview of statutory CSS Rules and placed under Central Staffing Scheme vide an office memorandum, inasmuch as no fixed percentage/ number of posts have been given to CSS as their cadre posts and that the career progression of CSS officers has been squeezed due to non-demarcation of fixed number of posts of Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary? The Ministry has habitually evaded to give specific and direct reply to the question neither denying or admitting the fact. The Ministry has merely quoted the provisions contained at para 5(ii) of the Central Staffing Scheme as per which in so far as the CSS officers are concerned, a specified number of posts at the level of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary are treated as part of their cadre, and posts over and above these will be filled under the Central Staffing Scheme. As long as the posts at the level of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary are held by CSS officers, these posts stand outside the Central Staffing Scheme. The Ministry has further stated that the Central Staffing Scheme is a compendium of executive instructions issued by the Government from time to time and it lays down the methodology for making the senior level appointments. The Ministry has also claimed that the Scheme has stood the test of the time and provisions contained in the scheme have been upheld in the Court. But the Ministry has not given the details of the cases filed in the Courts, challenging which provisions of the Central Staffing Scheme and the ruling of the Court thereon. The Ministry has also claimed that there is no contradiction between the CSS Rules 1962 and the Central Staffing Scheme. 15.12. This Committee has observed that the Ministry has not specifically denied the existence of CSS cadre up to the level of Deputy Secretary as per Rule 3 of statutory CSS Rules. But this Committee does not understand unless the number of posts in the grades of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary are specified in number and distinctly demarcated how can the cadre would be constituted? Unless the cadre of CSS in Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary is constituted, how could it be known as to how many posts of Under Secretary and Deputy secretary will be kept over and above the CSS cadre posts to be filled under Central Staffing Scheme? The stand of the Ministry that as long as the posts at the level of Deputy secretary and Under Secretary are held by CSS officers, these posts stand outside the Central Staffing Scheme, is devoid of reason and logic is not acceptable to this Committee. This Committee is of the view that this is a ploy devised by the Ministry to keep the total number of posts at the level of Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary in floating so as to maneouver filling the posts through Central Staffing Scheme to the maximum extent possible when the CSS officers demit office in Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary grade by reasons of retirement or promotion. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the posts of Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary shall be specified in number Ministry/Department wise to the treated as CSS cadre posts and these shall remain outside the Central Staffing Scheme to be filled up only by CSS officers in terms of CSS Rules 1962. In case at a given time, CSS officers are not available to fill up a cadre post of CSS by any reason, such posts of CSS cadre may be filled up temporarily through Central Staffing Scheme on loan basis. But as soon as CSS officers are available, either these cadre posts so filled up through Central Staffing Scheme shall be vacated for CSS officers, or equal number of posts which remain inside

Central Staffing Scheme shall be filled up from amongst the CSS officers in accordance with CSS Rules treating these as CSS cadre posts. 15.13 This Committee also understands that since the members of CSS have not separate cadre for promotion to the posts of Director and above outside the Central Secretariat, it is high time that the Ministry shall consider the post of Director and above in the Ministry/Departments for which CSS officers are suitable to handle, to be the cadre posts of CSS. This shall be done to provide career prospects to CSS DR Section Officers who join the service through Civil Services Examination. This Committee is not happy with the present arrangement of keeping all the posts of Under Secretary and above within the purview of Central Staffing Scheme without giving a separate cadre for CSS. This is because posting under Central Staffing Scheme means posting on tenure basis. Whereas posting of CSS officers in the Secretariat can not be treated as tenure post. Because unlike members of other services of Group-A and AIS, they are not reverted to parent cadre on completion of tenure. They continue to remain in the Secretariat even if they are transferred from one Ministry to another on the basis of rotation transfer policy. However, the Ministry is of the considered view that once their cadre is constituted up to Joint Secretary level, the rest of the posts shall remain within Central Staffing Scheme for which the CSS officers shall continue to have their right to participate as the selection for these posts will be based on suitability of the officers for the specific posts and on tenure basis. The CSS officers shall be reverted back to their cadre like members of other services on completion of the tenure. This Committee therefore, recommends that the Ministry shall review the provisions of Central Staffing Scheme. The Ministry shall initiate an exercise to name each post in the grades, of Deputy Secretary, Director and Joint Secretary Ministry/Department wise, based on the job description of each post and specifically put the suitability conditions of each post while inviting nominations from the eligible officers of the services participating in the Central Staffing Scheme. The Ministry shall devise the ways and means so that the selection process to be completed in time so that no post shall be left vacant at a given time. This Committee believes that this recommended arrangement will bring transparency in the operation of the Central Staffing Scheme and will reduce the feeling of heartburning among members of different services participating in the Central Staffing Scheme. This Committee recommends accordingly. 15.14 The Ministry has also sought to misrepresent the facts to the Committee inasmuch as it has intimated that the powers to make appointment at Deputy Secretarys level post is vested with the Minister in charge of Ministry of Personnel. The fact is that the process of forwarding the panels of the officers to the concerned Ministries is initiated by the DOP&T and the Minister in charge comes into picture only after grading of the officers placed in the panels by the DOP&T has been finalized by the Civil Services Board (CSB) headed by the Cabinet Secretary. The Committee learns that the Establishment Officer rarely forwards the panels of CSS officers to the concerned Ministries and since very few panels are forwarded, lesser CSS officer get selected. The preponderance of probability in the circumstances suggests that the entire process of preparation of panels and selection of officers for appointment in the Ministries has been mismanaged by the DOP&T with malafide intensions and consequently, the interests of the Central Secretariat Service officers have continued to be harmed. 15.15 In reply to a specific question put by the Committee, about junior officers of various Services being appointed against the senior posts in the Central Secretariat, the Ministry has sought to mislead the Committee and taken refuge behind the provisions of the Central Staffing Scheme, which is in fact highly in-equitious as far as Central Secretariat Service officers are concerned in view of the fact that it violates the statutory rules. Instead of taking steps to remove the ambiguities

from the Central Staffing Scheme, the Department has sought to take refuge behind it not realizing the fact that the scheme to a great extent is ultra vires and inconsistent with statutory provisions. The Ministry has not categorically replied to the question as to whether officers of various Group A services who are still in the senior time scale (equivalent to Under Secretary) in their parent cadre and many of whom are nor in fact eligible to be appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade (equivalent to Deputy Secretary) in their parent cadres, have been appointed to the Grade of Deputy Secretary as well as Directors in various Ministries and Departments including the Cabinet Secretariat. 15.16 The fact that the Ministry has sought to be evasive on this ground lends credence to the fact that Central Staffing Scheme is being operationalised so as to ensure that Central Secretariat Service officers do not get promoted to the higher grades in time. The Committee notes that CSS officers promoted way back in 1984 as Under Secretary have not been promoted on regular basis as Deputy Secretary even now whereas officers of other services who got STS (equivalent to US) in 1998 have been appointed as Deputy Secretary. Even if a person were to be recruited afresh in 1984 from the market in the lowest of Group A, he would have become eligible for appointment in Directors grade, but the Central Secretariat Service officers in the senior scale are yet to be promoted to the next higher grade. The appointment of Group A Officers under Central Staffing Scheme and subsequently promoting them in Central Secretariat while their promotions are not due in their respective parent cadre poses stumbling block on the way of promotion CSS Officers who happens to be more experienced than the Group A Officers appointed/promoted under Central Staffing Scheme. 15.17 The Committee is of the opinion that at the apex level of the Government, persons with sufficiently higher seniority need to be inducted and the circumstances wherein the officers of different services, who are still not eligible or have not been appointed to equivalent posts in their respective parent cadres should not be appointed at the apex of the Government in higher positions. Besides undermining the position of the Government, such a scheme also dilutes the decision making process. In any case, an officer who is not deemed to be fit to man the DS or Director level post in his parent cadre, should in Committees considered view not merit consideration for manning posts at these levels at the apex of the government. 15.18 The Ministry has sought to justify non-preparation of panels of Grade I and Selection Grade on the ground of persistent litigation between Direct Recruit and promotee officers over a number of years. The Committee understands that at no given point of time, the preparation of panels for Grade I or Selection Grade of the Central Secretariat Service had not been stayed by any Court and at any given point of time, a seniority list of Section Officers was in existence. The panels of Grade I and Selection Grade, could as such have been brought on an yearly basis subject to the decision of the Court in such cases. The Committee is aware of the fact that litigation between the direct recruits and promotees is a phenomenon not specific to CSS and exists in all other services also, but unlike in the CSS, the process of empanelment has not been withheld elsewhere. The Department is trying to justify its inaction in preparing the panels of Grade I and Selection Grade on the pretext of litigation relating to seniority in Section Officers Grade. The Committee learns that the ACRs of the officers of drawing part Panel of 1993 have been pending with various officers for over a year now and even though some panels of Grade I of CSS were brought out about a year back, no panel of Selection Grade has been brought out even after that. Such enormous delay in the process is not at all justifiable. The Committee had earlier recommended that all outstanding panels of CSS be brought out in a time bound manner. However, the Ministry has failed to do so. The Committee now directs that all outstanding panels of Central Secretariat

Service be brought out within four months and a comprehensive report should be sent to the Committee. 16.0 The Government has stated in reply to a question of the Committee that the rationale for revising the eligibility criterion for Additional Secretary was to correct the anomaly earlier existed in respect of CSS officers on the one hand and the officers of All India Services and Group A Central Services on the other in this regard. It further stated that while a CSS officer with threeyear service in the Joint Secretary grade, irrespective of his total length of service, particularly Group A service, was eligible for consideration for empanelment at Additional Secretary level, the officers of all other services became eligible only after they had completed 20 years of Group A service and at least seven years in Joint Secretarys grade. Further, there were inequity within the CSS also. While a junior officer in the CSS suitability list getting replacement as Joint Secretary earlier than his senior, became eligible for consideration for Additional Secretary level empanelment after completing three years service in Joint Secretarys grade, the senior who might have been appointed as Joint Secretary later than his Junior, could get left out at that point in time. This inequity was corrected by doing away with the requirement of actual service as Joint Secretary as a criterion for Additional Secretary level empanelment. It is adequate if the officer has been in the Joint Secretarys suitability list for at least 7 years for being eligible for consideration for empanelment at Additional Secretary level. The Department of Personnel and Trainings note further states that as per the revised eligibility condition, 16 CSS officers are at present eligible for consideration for empanelment for appointment to the grade of Additional Secretary. It concludes by saying that there is no proposal at present to revert to the earlier eligibility condition of three years service in the grade of Joint Secretary for Central Secretariat Service Officers. 16.1 The lengthy explanation furnished by the Department earlier to the Committee is a wellthought out action to ensure that the CSS officers should never become Additional Secretary. It is not correct to say that the CSS officers only with 3 years service as Joint Secretary were eligible for consideration for empanelment as Additional Secretary. This is only half the truth. In fact, the condition hitherto was 3 years actual service as Joint Secretary and two years to retire. Even with these requirements very few CSS officers in the past had the distinction of reaching the high post of Additional Secretary. There were only one or two who could reach this level. It is only in the recent past that five CSS officers over a period of last few years have reached this level and that too almost towards the fag end of their service career. In fact, they have received a sort of bonanza because of increase in retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. Otherwise, they would have not even enjoyed the benefit of drawing the average pension of Additional Secretarys pay of one year. It will be useful to know as to how many CSS officer made to the grade of Additional Secretary during last fifteen years prior to the present five officers who are in position as Additional Secretary. 16.2 The Ministry has stated that there are 16 CSS officers at present eligible for consideration for empanelment for appointment to the grade of Additional Secretary. It is this large number which has suddenly arisen which has prompted the Ministry to change the criterion for empanelment of CSS officers to the level of Additional Secretary and not that earlier rules which have been in existence since 1957 were iniquitous. In any case, these 16 officers have only become eligible for consideration for empanelment as Additional Secretary. The point to be noted is as to how many of them, if at all, some of them do get into the panel. Further, how long more will they have to wait before they actually get placement? 16.3 It will be relevant to add that the officers who have reached senior administrative grade of Joint Secretary equivalent can be appointed as Additional Secretary immediately if the post is

available in their respective cadre. The appointment in the Central Secretariat Service for other Group A services provides an additional avenue to them for promotion. 16.4 The Committee has also noted that the DOP&T talks of parity between CSS and other Services only when such parity is used as an instrument to harm the interests of CSS, otherwise they refuse to acknowledge that CSS is a Group A Service. How else can the Ministry explain the fact that the CSS officers who form Group A Service do not get parity with other equally placed officers from other Group A services? It is a matter of law and natural justice that once an officer gets inducted into Group A service, he should get all the entitlements of Group A services in matters of promotion and placements. 16.5 The Committee is not convinced with the argument furthered by the Ministry. Firstly, in the matter or appointment in the Central Secretariat, there is no question of any parity between Central Secretariat Service officers and officers of other Services. As far as Central Secretariat Service officers are concerned, the post of Additional Secretary is a promotion post and officers of other Services get their promotion within their cadres. 16.6 The Committee, therefore, recommends that the eligibility conditions of Central Secretariat Service officers for appointment as Additional Secretary may be revised and the period of residency in the suitability for Joint Secretaries be reduced from seven years to three years as it had been earlier, without any restriction with regard to the total number of years of service in Group A. The Committee finds it paradoxical while the Ministry steadfastly has been referring to the Central Secretariat Services Rule 1962 to further the career progression opportunities for the CSS officers without any valid and good reasons, but at the same time has been unnecessarily modifying the rules to the disadvantage of CSS officers purely with a view to destroy and harm the service. The time has come when this retrograde step should put to an end so as to provide justice to the service.

MINUTES VIII EIGHTH MEETING The Committee met at 11.00 A.M. on Wednesday, 28 March 2001 in Main Committee Room, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT 1. Shri Pranab Mukherjee Chairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Shri Hansraj Bhardwaj 3. Dr. L.M. Singhvi 4. Shri S. Ramachandran Pillai 5. Shri C.P. Thirunavukkarasu 6. Shri Kuldip Nayyar LOK SABHA 7. Shri S.K. Bwiswmuthiary 8. Shri Samar Chaudhary 9. Shri M.O.H. Farook 10. Shri Vijay Goel 11. Shri Suresh Ramrao Jadhav 12. Shri Arun Kumar 13. Shri Ram Nagina Mishra 14. Shri N. Janardhana Reddy 15. Shri Anadi Sahu 16. Shri Iqbal Ahmed Saradgi 17. Shri Manabendra Shah 18. Shri Raghuraj Singh Shakya 19. Shri Vishnu Datta Sharma 20. Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh 21. Shri Lal Bihari Tiwari 22. Shri Raj Kumar Wangcha SECRETARIAT Shri Satish Kumar, Additional Secretary Shri Tapan Chatterjee, Director Shri A.K. Singh, Under Secretary Shri Narendra Kumar, Research Officer Shri Ashok Kumar Sahoo, Committee Officer WITNESSES Representatives of the Ministry of Home Affairs 1. Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Additional Secretary 2. Shri G.K. Pillai, Joint Secretary 3. Shri N.A. Viswanathan, Financial Adviser 4. Shri P. Sudhir Kumar, CCA 5. Shri P.C. Rastogi, Director 6. Shri P.K. Swain, Dy. FA 7. Shri S.K. Singh, Deputy Secretary

Representative of the Ministry of Personnel, PG& Pensions 1. Shri B.B. Tandon, Secretary 2. Shri K.R. Nair, Additional Secretary & EO 3. Shri V.K. Agnihotri, Additional Secretary (AR & PG) 4. Shri D.C. Gupta, Additional Secretary (S&V) 5. Shri P.K. Brahma, Additional Secretary (Pension) 6. Shri Harinder Singh, Joint Secretary (Estab.) 7. Shri R.K. Tandon, Joint Secretary (AT&A) 8. Shri O.P. Agarwal, Joint Secretary (Trg.) 9. Shri NA. Vishwanathan, Joint Secretary & F.A. 10. Shri A.K. Saxena, Secretary, PESB 11. Shri B.K. Mishra, Secretary, UPSE 12. Shri P.C. Sharma, Special Director, CBI 13. Shri SNPN Sinha, Secretary CVC 2.0 * * * 3. * * * 3.1 * * * 4. * * * 5. * * * 6. Thereafter, Chairman and Members sought several clarifications. Members expressed their serious concern over the agitation of the CSS Officers and the grievances of the CISF Direct Recruits Officers. Queries pertaining to the functioning of UPSC, CBI and CVC, promotion prospects of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees, the accountability and transparency in the Ministry were also raised. 7. The Secretary, Personnel responded to some of the queries and assured to send written response to the remaining points. (The meeting adjourned at 2.35 P.M. and reassembled at 4:00 P.M.) 8. * * * _____________________________________________________________ *** Relates to other matters. 9. * * * 10. * * * 11. * * * 12. A verbatim record of the proceedings was kept. 13. The meeting adjourned at 5.08 P.M. to meet at 11:00 A.M. on 29 March 2001. *** Relates to other matters. XII TWELFTH MEETING The Committee met at 11.00 A.M. on Tuesday, 10 April 2001 in Main Committee Room, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT 1. Shri Pranab Mukherjee Chairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Shri Hansraj Bhardwaj 3. Shri Sangh Priya Gautam 4. Dr. L.M. Singhvi 5. Shri C.P. Thirunavukkarasu 6. Shri Drupad Borgohain 7. Shri Kuldip Nayyar 8. Dr.(Smt.) Joyasree Goswami Mahanta 9. Shri Jayanta Bhattacharya LOK SABHA 10. Shri S.K.Bwiswmuthiary 11. Shri Samar Choudhury 12. Shri Arun Kumar 13. Shri Dahyabhai Vallabhbhai Patel 14. Shri Subodh Ray 15. Shri N. Janardhana Reddy 16. Shri Anadi Sahu 17. Shri Iqbal Ahmed Saradgi 18. Shri Raghuraj Singh Shakya 19. Dr.Raghuvansh Prasad Singh 20. Shri Lal Bihari Tiwari 21. Shri Prakash Mani Tripathi SECRETARIAT Shri Satish Kumar, Additional Secretary Shri Tapan Chatterjee, Deputy Secretary Shri A.K. Singh, Under Secretary Shri Narendra Kumar, Research Officer WITNESSES Representative of the Ministry of Home Affairs 1. Shri Kamal Pande, Secretary 2. Shri M.B. Kaushal, Special Secretary 3. Shri N.A. Viswanathan, Financial Advisor Representative of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grivances and Pensions 1. Shri B.B. Tandon, Secretary 2. Shri D.C. Gupta, Additional Secretary 3. Shri P.K. Brahma, Additional Secretary 4. Shri K.R. Nair, Establishment Officer 2.0 * * * 2.1 * * * 2.1.0 * * * 2.1.1 * * * 2.2.0 * * *

2.2.1 * * * 2.2.2 * * * 2.2.3 * * * 2.3.0 * * * 2.3.1 * * * 2.3.2 * * * 2.4.0 * * * 2.4.1 * * * 2.5.0 * * * 2.5.1 * * * 2.6.0 * * * 2.6.1 * * * 2.7 * * * 3.0 * * * 4.0 * * * 4.1 * * * *** Relates to other matters. 4.2 * * * (The Committee adjourned at 1.00 P.M. and reassembled at 3.00 P.M.) 5. The Chairman welcomed the witnesses from the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and drew their attention to the Committees dissatisfaction over the Action Taken by the Government on the recommendations of the Committee contained in its earlier Reports. He apprised the Members of the letter forwarding a note of CISF to the Home Minister to which an interim reply from the Home Minister had been received which indicated the requirement of some more time to resolve the issue. But on the issue of reallocation of CISF officers into IPS, the Home Minister has expressed his difficulties and mentioned that it would not be possible to do the same. 6. He, then invited the witnesses to indicate their views on what manner the Department plans to resolve the problem of the grievances of CISF and CSS officers. 7. The Home Secretary at this point made a brief sketch of the promotion prospects of Direct Recruit Group A CISF Officers with their counterparts in IPS as well as other Group A Central Services concluded that the conditions of promotion in other Group A services were more or less the same due to the fact that promotions in these services are vacancy-based and prevalent follow rota-quota system. He mentioned that reallocating CISF officers to IPS would give rise to similar competing demands from other services which would be difficult to resist on merits. He also apprised the Members of the six steps the Department has taken to augment the promotional prospects of officers in the CISF as well as its sister Para-military Forces.

8. Most of the Members voiced their desire to propose a sensible solution on the issue and resolve the deep-seated and legitimate dissatisfaction of these officers and to have the assurance given by the Home Minister on the floor of the House fulfilled in a rational and just manner at the earliest. Members also expressed their disappointment at the DOPTs disposal of the Ministry of Home Affairs proposals for improving the service conditions of the CISF Officers. 9. The Secretary (Personnel) at this point offered justifications and highlights of the steps taken by the Department to improve the promotion prospects of these Officers. 10. Some Members also wanted to know how this Civil Service was converted into CISF and therefore requested for more information on its recruitment. 11. The Chairman while concluded the interactions on the issue of CISF with a request to Secretaries of Ministries of Home Affairs and Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions to furnish written replies within the next three days and a suggestion to find a way out and resolve this genuine grievances amicably. He then invited the Secretary (Personnel) to give a brief presentation on the grievances of the CSS officers and steps taken to resolve the issue. 12.0 The Secretary (Personnel) gave a brief sketch of the agitation of the CSS officers and informed the Members that eleven demands have been specified with regard to this. 12.1 The first demand specified was an increase in the pay scale in tune with employees of Supreme Court. The second demand is that all eligible Assistants, Section Officers, Under Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries should be given in situ promotion. 12.2 Other demands included all posts of Deputy Secretaries should be filled up by the CSS, panel of Deputy Secretaries should be made, open pass facility for Assistants, CSS should be given a Group A status and the Section Officers should be given Under Secretarys scale ,etc. *** Relates to other matters. 12.3 The Secretary also brought to the notice of the Members that a Departmental Committee had been set up on 28 February 2001 to look into the grievances of these officers and present its Report within three months time. 13. Most of the Members expressed their strong resentments over the manner the Government handles the issue and urged the Ministry to solve the problems at the earliest. Suggestions were also made that immediate intervention of the Department to bring the agitating officers of CSS to the negotiating table was the need of the hour. 14. The Chairman noted that the agitational path chosen by the CSS officers was not conducive to a proper working atmosphere. However, he stressed that no vindictive action from any side should be resorted to. He made suggestions as to whether it is possible to stop direct recruitment of Section Officers, keep all posts of Under Secretary level on the promotion quota, reserve 50 per cent of Deputy Secretary posts of promotion quota for Under Secretaries who are promoted from the CSS cadre, bringing down the length of service for the CSS officers for promotion, give some more in situ promotions and regular cadre review to subdue the agitation. 15. The Chairman then asked the Secretary (Personnel) to send written replies to the queries raised. 16. A verbatim record of proceedings was kept. 17. The witnesses then withdrew and the Committee adjourned at 5:27 P.M. XX

TWENTIETH MEETING The Committee met at 11.00 A.M. on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 in Committee Room C, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT 1. Shri Pranab Mukherjee Chairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Shri Sangh Priya Gautam 3. Shri C.P. Thirunavukkarasu 4. Shri Drupad Borgohain 5. Shri Kuldip Nayyar 6. Dr.(Smt.) Joyasree Goswami Mahanta LOK SABHA 7. Shri S.K. Bwiswmuthiary 8. Shri M.O.H. Farook 9. Shri Arun Kumar 10. Shri Ram Nagina Mishra 11. Shri P.H. Pandian 12. Shri N. Janardhana Reddy 13. Shri Anadi Sahu 14. Shri Iqbal Ahmed Saradgi 15. Shri Manabendra Shah 16. Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh 17. Shri Lal Bihari Tiwari 18. Shri E. Ponnuswamy SECRETARIAT Shri Satish Kumar, Additional Secretary Shri Tapan Chatterjee, Director Shri A.K. Singh, Under Secretary Shri Narendra Kumar, Research Officer Shri Ashok Kumar Sahoo, Committee Officer 2.0 At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the Members and informed that some members of the Committee and a few other Members of Parliament had requested him to invite the officers of Central Secretariat Service, who were on relay hunger strike for quite some time and the DirectorGeneral, CISF, to hear their viewpoints on the personnel policy of CSS and CISF, respectively, before the Committee. He then told the Members to consider the draft Report on the personnel policy of CISF and CSS, as circulated to them, as a preliminary document and give suggestions/comments thereon. 2.1 The Chairman mentioned that if the Committee so desired, Director-General of CISF and representatives of CSS Forum might be invited to appear before the Committee before the draft Report on the subject was finalized and sought the opinion of the Members. 3.0 Members expressed diverse views on the issue. Most of the Members were of the view that the DG, CISF could be heard regarding the genuine grievances of CISF officers. As regards hearing the agitating CSS Forum officers, Members differed in their opinion. Some felt that representatives of CSS Forum be heard whereas others were of the view that the agitation of the Forum smacks of indiscipline and they should not be encouraged by giving an audience before the Committee. Again

some Members were of the view that inviting the representatives of the CSS Forum before the Committee would set a bad precedent. 3.1 Some Members expressed the view that strictures may be passed against the Home Secretary and Secretary (Personnel) for furnishing wrong replies to the Committee, on CISF and CSS issues. Another Member brought to the notice of the Committee that six months extension had been given to the Brahma Committee, which was instituted to go into the personnel policy of CSS. 3.2 After due deliberations, the Committee tentatively agreed that the Director-General, CISF may be invited in connection with the grievances of direct recruit Group A CISF Officers. 3.3 Regarding invitation to the representatives of CSS Forum, the Committee agreed that the matter be left to the Chairman to take a decision. It also decided that the Report on CISF and CSS be taken up at a later date after considering every aspect of the issues involved. 4.0 * * * 4.1 * * * 5. The Committee adjourned at 11.45 A.M. to meet again at 3.00 P.M. on 25 June 2001. *** Relates to other matters. XL FORTIETH MEETING The Committee met at 11.00 A.M. on Friday, 19 October, 2001 in Committee Room C, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT 1. Shri Pranab Mukherjee Chairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Shri Hansraj Bhardwaj 3. Shri Sangh Priya Gautam 4. Dr. L.M. Singhvi LOK SABHA 5. Shri S.K. Bwiswmuthiary 6. Shri Ram Nagina Mishra 7. Shri P.H. Pandian 8. Shri Subodh Ray 9. Shri Anadi Sahu 10. Shri Iqbal Ahmed Saradgi 11. Shri Manabendra Shah 12. Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh 13. Shri Beni Prasad Verma 14. Shri E. Ponnuswamy SECRETARIAT Shri Satish Kumar, Additional Secretary Shri Tapan Chatterjee, Director Shri A.K. Singh, Under Secretary Shri Ashok Kumar Sahoo, Committee Officer WITNESSES

Representatives of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Shri A.K. Agarwal, Secretary Shri K.V. Eapen, Director Shri Bhaskar Khulbe, Director 2.0 At the outset, the Committee took up for consideration Memoranda Nos. 1 & 2 pertaining to personnel policies of Central Industrial Security Force and Central Secretariat Service. In that context, the Chairman informed the Committee that he alongwith another member of the Committee [Shri Anadi Sahu, MP (LS)] had met Home Minister sometime ago and urged upon him to use his good offices to find an early solution to the problems of the direct recruit Group A officers of CISF and also of the members of the CSS. He further informed that the matter, however, had remained unresolved and two Departmental Committees (Bhandari Committee on CISF and Brahma Committee on CSS), constituted to look into the grievances, had been given extension of time uptil the end of November 2001. 2.1 Thereafter, the Chairman drew attention of the Committee to the draft Report of the Committee on Personnel Policies on CISF & CSS which had been circulated to the Members and the consideration thereof was deferred. In those circumstances, he sought the opinion of the members as to the course of action to be adopted. He suggested two course of action for the consideration of the Committee i.e. (i) the Committee could wait for the reports of the two Departmental Committees or (ii) the Committee could reiterate its views/observations/recommendations and present its Report to Parliament. 3.0 Some of the Members desired that the Committee should wait for reports of the two Departmental Committees and finalise its Report after taking into account the recommendations made therein. 3.1 Another strand of opinion was that the Committee should not wait for the reports of those Committees and straightway finalise its Report as the Committee had already waited for too long. Certain Members wanted that the Committee should pass severe strictures against the Home Ministry and the Ministry of Personnel for their casual and perfunctory manner of handling the subject and repeated attempts at misleading the Committee and procrastinating the subject for too long a time. 4. The Chairman striking a balance between the different strands of opinion of the Members of the Committee suggested that the Committee may wait till the end of November by which time some inputs were expected to be received. He also suggested that in the interim the Committee may authorise him to write to Prime Minister in respect of CSS and Home Minister in respect of CISF, conveying the feelings and decision of the Committee in the matter. The Committee endorsed the suggestions of the Chairman. (At this point the witnesses took their seats) 5.0 * * * 6.0 * * * 6.1 * * * 7.0 * * * 7.1 * * * 7.2.0 * * *

7.2.1 * * * 7.2.2 * * * 7.3 * * * 8.0 * * * 8.1 * * * 8.2 * * * 8.3 * * * *** Relates to other matters. 9.0 The Chairman informed the Committee that clause by-clause consideration of the Bill would be taken on 1 November, 2001 as more than fifteen members had already made their observations. He requested the Secretary (Personnel) to send their submission on the queries by 30 October 2001. 10. A verbatim record of the proceeding was kept. 11. The meeting was them adjourned at 1.20 P.M. to meet again at 3.00 P.M. on 30 October 2001. XLIX FORTY-NINTH MEETING The Committee met at 3.00 P.M. on Wednesday, 11 December 2001 in Committee Room No.63, First Floor, Parliament House, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT 1. Shri Pranab MukherjeeChairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Shri Surendra Kumar Singh 3. Shri S. Ramachandran Pillai LOK SABHA 4. Shrimati Jayashree Banerjee 5. Shri Ram Nagina Mishra 6. Shri M.O.H. Farook 7. Shri P.H. Pandian 8. Shri Dahyabhai Vallabhbhai Patel 9. Shri Subodh Ray 10. Shri N. Janardhana Reddy 11. Shri Anadi Sahu 12. Shri Manabendra Shah 13. Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh 14. Shri E. Ponnuswamy SECRETARIAT Shri Satish Kumar, Additional Secretary Shri Tapan Chatterjee, Director Shri A.K. Singh, Under Secretary Shri Narendra Kumar, Research Officer Shri A. K. Sahoo, Committee Officer 2.0 * * * 2.1 * * * 3. * * *

3.1 The Chairman informed Members about the letters he had written to Prime Minister and Home Minister with regard to the feelings of the Committee on issues of personnel policies of CSS and CISF, respectively. ____________________________________________________________________________ *** Relates to other matters. 3.2 He also suggested to the Members that if they desire any change in the draft Eighty-third Report, they may write to the Secretariat within the next four days. 4. At this point, a Member while making a reference to the agitation of the CSS Forum, observed that the CSS could not be compared with All India Service. He also opined that it was not desirable of the CSS to put pressure on the Government by resorting to the agitation. He also pointed out that since the Central Secretariat Service constitutes upto the rank of Deputy Secretary, the members of CSS have legitimate claim upto Deputy Secretary and their representation beyond Deputy Secretary may not be emphasised and that there should be no weightage from Deputy Secretary and above. 4.1 Some Members observed that the Parliamentary Committees were losing credibility and the Government was not taking their recommendations/suggestions seriously especially with regard to this Committees recommendations on CSS and CISF. Other Members observed that the agitation of the CSS was constitutional and, therefore, should be viewed sympathetically. 5.0 The Committee, however, adopted the draft Eighty-third Report and decided to present the same to both the Houses of Parliament on 19 December 2001. 5.1 The Committee authorised its Chairman and in his absence Shri S. Ramachandran Pillai, MP (RS) to present the Report in the Rajya Sabha. It nominated Shri Anandi Sahu and in his absence Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh MPs (LS) to lay the Report in the Lok Sabha 5.2 * * * 6.0 * * * 6.1.2 * * * 6.2 * * * 6.2.2 * * * 6.3.0 * * * 6.3.3 * * * 6.4.0 * * * 6.4.1 * * * 6.5.0 * * * 6.5.1 * * * 6.6.0 * * * 6.6.1 * * * 6.7.0 * * *

6.7.1 * * * 6.8.0 * * * 6.8.1 * * * 6.9.0 * * * ____________________________________________________________________________ *** Relates to other matters. 6.9.1 * * * 6.10.0 * * * 6.11.0 * * * 6.11.1 * * * 6.11.2 * * * 6.11.3 * * * 6.11.4 * * * 6.11.5 * * * 6.11.6 * * * 6.11.7 * * * 6.12.0 * * * 6.12.1 * * * 6.13.0 * * * 6.14.0 * * * 6.14.1 * * * 6.14.2 * * * 6.15.0 * * * 6.15.1 * * * 6.16.0 * * * 6.16.1 * * * 6.17.0 * * * 6.17.1 * * * 6.18.0 * * * 6.18.1 * * * 6.19.0 * * * 6.19.1 * * * 6.20.0 * * *

6.20.1 * * * 6.21.0 * * * 6.21.1 * * * 6.21.2 * * * 6.22.0 * * * 6.22.1 * * * ____________________________________________________________________________ *** Relates to other matters. 6.23.0 * * * 6.23.1 * * * 6.24.0 * * * 6.24.1 * * * 6.25.0 * * * 6.25.1 * * * 6.25.2 * * * 6.26.0 * * * 6.26.1 * * * 6.27.0 * * * 6.27.1 * * * 6.28.0 * * * 6.28.1 * * * 6.29.0 * * * 6.29.1 * * * 6.30 * * * 6.30.1 * * * 6.31 * * * 7. The Committee adjourned at 5.05 P.M. to meet again at 3.00 P.M. on 19 December, 2001. *** Relates to other matters. ANNEXURE ANNEXURE-I (See page 41, para 11.02 of the Report) A list of Central Secretariat Service Officers who are empanelled to hold posts of Joint Secretary and still awaiting placement is given below:1. Shri B.L. Bhadu 2. Shri R.K.M. Bhattacharya

3. Smt. Jayashree Gupta 4. Shri P.M. Sirajuddin 5. Shri R.T. Pandey 6. Mohd. Aslam 7. Shri J.B.Sinha 8. Shri S.S. Sharma 9. Shri Mohinder Singh 10. Smt. Gargi Mukherjee 11. Smt. P. Mohan 12. Shri D.P. Roy 13. Shri Joginder Singh 14. Smt. Veena Brahma 15. Shri P.K. Seth 16. Shri H.C. Jayal 17. Shri Harcharan J. Singh 18. Shri A. Banerjee 19. Dr.(Smt) Kiran Chadha 20. Shri Surender Dev Singh 21. Shri S. Gopal 22. Shri P.N. Thakur
1

Central Secretariat Clerical Service consisting of two grades viz. LDC (Lower Division Clerk) and UDC (Upper Division Clerk), who usually report to Section Officers, is subordinate to CSS and is also the feeder service to CSS at Assistant level.
2

Central Secretariat Stenographers Service, consists of four grades viz. Grade D (Steno) Grade C (Personal Assistant) Grade B (Private Secretary) and Grade A (Principal Private Secretary). Grade-D Stenographers normally assist the Section Officers/Desk Officers/Under Secretaries, Grade C Stenographers to Deputy Secretary/Director, Private Secretaries to Joint Secretary and Principal Private Secretary to Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India in discharge of their duties. 3 Annual Report (2000-2001) of Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions,p.8 (para 2.9)

4 5 6
7

Central Secretariat ( Rules, 1962), Rule 13(6). Ibid, Rule 13(1) Ibid, Rule 12(2) Ibid, Rule 12(1) DOPT Order No. 21/6/98-CS-I dated 28 February 2001. Unstarred question No. 1323 dated 29 November 2001.

8 9

10

The Ministry in the reply to the Unstarred Question No.1741 dated 28 November 2001 has assured that the said information is being collected and would be laid on the Table of the House.
11

Prior to the year 1989 the Union Republic Service Commission (UPSC) and now the Staff Selection

Commission(SSC).
12

DOPT OM No. 12/4/87-CS-11, dated 12 October 1980. DOPT Order No. 5/28/89-CS II (iii) , dated 12.11.1991. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Notification, dated 21 June 1995. Annexure to DOPT OM No. 5/26/89-CS II(iv), dated 12.11.91. DOPT OM No.2/24/97-PIC, dated 21.7.1997. DOPT order No. 13012/1/98-Estt(D), Dated 20.4.1990.

13

14

15

16

17