Draft UGC Notification on Revision of Pay Scales

UGC Expert Committee “desires feedback”

Draft UGC Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges & Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards, 2009.

The University Grants Commission had appointed an Expert Committee which has submitted the enclosed Draft Regulations for UGC notification on revision of pay scales, minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers in universities and colleges & other measures for the maintenance of standards, 2009.
The Committee desired to have feedback from the stakeholders on these Regulations and the same would be finalized by 20th February, 2009.  If anybody wants to give any feedback, the same may be sent upto 19th February, 2009 to Dr. K C Pathak, Joint Secretary, University Grants Commission, 35 Feroz Shah Road, New Delhi – 110 002 (Phone No. 011-2383 1335 Fax 011-2307 3281 email : kcpathak@ugc.ac.in

See Draft UGC Notification online.

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Draft UGC Notification on Revision of Pay Scales

  1. Refer the subject in this thread
    Subject: Clarification regarding equivalence of M.E./M.tech. to M.Phill as per UGC notification 1998, for CAS purpose.

    Dear all,
    I wish to supplement the question of Mr(s) Nripjit. In his/her comment he/ she asked
    Is M.E./M.Tech. in UGC notification of 1998 equivalent to M.Phil for CAS?
    I wish to enquire about the scope of this question futher. It is said “ME /MTech, LLM., etc.” are eligible for Promotion in 5 years in the above said passage.
    My question is, I have finished Masters in Tourism Management, which is recognised by UGC as professional course. Kindly clarify whether I am eligible for promotion in 5 years as said in the passage.

    Like

  2. Subject: Clarification regarding equivalence of M.E./M.tech. to M.Phill as per UGC notification 1998, for CAS purpose.

    Respected Sir,

    I am working as a lecturer at Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar in the department of Electronics Technology .
    I’m in the process of getting promotion through CAS (Career Advancement Scheme).At this University my previous service is also being considered for the promotion. Earlier, I was a lecturer since 1999 in an engineering college and joined the University in August 2004.
    As per UGC notification on revision of pay scales, 1998 which were implemented from Jan, 1996, on page 7, para 7.1.1.: Minimum length of service for eligibility to move into the grade of lecturer (Senior Scale) would be four years for those with Phd, five years for those with M.Phil, is not clear. Nothing has been mentioned for those possessing M.E./M.Tech. Qualification.
    The question is: Is M.E./M.Tech. in UGC notification of 1998 equivalent to M.Phil for CAS?
    As clearly mentioned in the letter from Sh.R.Chakarvatry, Deputy Secretary to Government of India, dated 4th June, 2009 to the Secretary, UGC, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi “that Assistant Professor possessing M.Phill or Post graduate degree in professional courses approved by relevant Statutory Body, such as LL.M./M.Tech. shall be eligible for the AGP of Rs.7,000 after completion of 5 years service as Assistant Professor”, vide (para 2.(a) (iii)).

    Like

  3. Can a consolidated service of 7 years as Assistant Professor (selected by a duly constituted selection committee) acc. to UGC act followed by regular appointment as Assistant Professor in the same university without break of service be considered for CAS promotions from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor?

    Like

  4. The UGC draft regulation has made pay package offered to college and university teachers much more complicated than ever before. Such move will fail to attract talent to colleges and universities. Already talented persons left the system leaving only few talents which will jeopardise the functioning of the educational institutions. So, we urge upon the Hon’ble Minister of Human Resource Development to rescue the institutions from the clutch of bureaucrats and administrative complications and restore the previous 3-tier formula i.e.Asst Prof, Assoc Prof and Prof with selection for Senior Grade and Assoc Prof. This move will simplify many problems and enable the existing selection gr lecturer and reader to reach assoc Prof grade. There was no point of introducing so much of conditions for moving into higher ladder of careers as no other govt dept including Research Laboratories has such CAS system as it is proposed to be introduced in the college and universities . Morover such steps will not improve the quality of teaching learning process, so we strongly urge upon MHRD and UGC to simplify the CAS and make our education system dynamic, successful, fruitful and healthy.

    Like

  5. The UGC draft regulations which suggested API/WP system for promotion under CAS are very strict for young teachers who have started their career. I am not against the system, but the point system is very complicated. We are not feeling motivated by this system, as we have just started our career, and by looking at the system, it seems the promotions under CAS are next to impossible now. No other government department is having such a strict and complicated system for career promotions for GROUP A officials.

    We are of the view that UGC must retain previous CAS regulation.

    Like

  6. The Chairman,
    University Grants Commission,
    New Delhi.

    There was provision of grant of senior scale after 6 years of service to Lecturers and subsequent grant of selection grade after 5 years. Thereby grant of selection grade after 11 years. In some of the institutions the senior and selection scale are not granted in time. So the teachers have to suffer a lot. Now there is a provision of grant of PB-4 scale for those who have completed 3 years of service in selection scale. Thus if a lecturer completes 14 years of service he should get PB4. It is requested that for a person who has completed 14 years should be given PB4 directly.

    Like

  7. I will join the post of reader in 2 April 2009 as direct recruitment.
    What is supposed to be the pay band, AGP and designation as per UGC?

    Like

  8. To
    The Chairman,
    University Grants Commission,
    New Delhi.

    Subject: Readers in service at Present.

    Sir,

    It is humbly submitted before you the agony of the teachers working as Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) in service at Present as follows:

    In the MHRD Notification page 3 Clause 2 (a) xi it is said that Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) in service at present shall continue to be designated as Lecturer (Selection Grade) or Readers, as the case may be, until they are placed in the pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 and redesignated as Associate Professor in the manner described in subclause ( x ) i.e for incumbent readers and Lecturer (Selection Grade) who have not completed 3 years in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-18300.

    As per your clarification given on the UGC Website you have mentiod that incumbent Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) will be placed as Associate Professor as and when they complete three years of service in the pay scale of 12000-18300. But the point regarding the Readers/Selecturers (Selection Grade) in service at present has not been clarified. It is the demand of the teachers that Teachers who have been awarded the designation of Readers/Lecturer (Selection Grade) even after 01-01-2006 and are going to complete three years in service in the pay scale of 12000-18300 in 2008 or 2009 should also be re-designated as Associate professsor as and when they complete the required three years of Service and should not be imposed any condition. This is because MHRD Notification Clause 2 (a) (xi) also suggest the same formula as it is for Incumbent Readers/ Lecturer( Selection Grade) who has not completed three years of Service in the pay scale of 12000-18300 on 01-01-2006.

    It is therefore requested to you that kindly clarify this point also adopt the same forumula for promoting the Reader/Lecturer (Selected Grade) in service at present as it is applicable for the incumbent Readers/Lecturer (Selection Grade) who have not completed three years of service in the pay scale of 12000-18300 as given in the clause 2 (a) (x) and as suggested in the Clause 2 (a) (xi) in the page 3 of the MHRD Notification .

    Prof. Ashwani Bhalla
    Executive Vice President
    Punjab commerce and Management Association

    Like

  9. now again i want to raise a question to our teaching community dont forget those M.Phil students who passed their examination in between 14.06.2006 and 16.02.2009.
    Through this regulation ugc has finished their careers. We the part of your teaching community also. No one bother about this.
    Not a single statement or single article for these students from teaching community. Its a shame for us.

    But dont worry, I am fighting for this alone till ……….
    Thanking you.

    Like

  10. 6.4.2. Incumbent Readers and Lecturers (Selection Grade) who have completed 3 years in the current pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 on 1-01-2006 shall be placed in Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP Pay of Rs.9000 and shall be re-designated as Associate Professor on satisfying the API/WP as per Tables I & II through the PASS methodology stipulated in this guideline through a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Associate Professor

    “Only an astrologer cum teacher could have dreamt that these conditions which took birth in the hands of UGC experts in Feb 2009 be realised before 1-1-2006 to get themselves fit for Assoc.Prof!!!! Height of ridculousness exhibited by UGC experts.”

    Like

  11. An ad hoc teacher is perhaps the most oppressed of the lot, and the chadha committee promised to retain young talent. But the Pay commission treats us badly, and worse more so are the Guidelines.
    I would wish to respond to only one point: ad –hoc services. Ad hoc teachers continue to stay in service, with poor service conditions, and no increments not out of their choice. There was only one saving grace: their service would be counted.
    Out of the blue appears a mandate denying all that. There is this historicity to this issue. Most of us who were at the receiving end of the UGC’s cap on appointments were maintained as ad-hoc teachers. It is not out of choice, but any person from the system would know that the only possible entry route to teaching in DU is through the ad-hoc experience. I am purposely not getting into any debate about how appointments are made, but reiterate that this has been an honest trajectory- you get an appointment, prove your worth, and learn on the job. Keep trying interviews; you may get permanent somewhere, at places where selection committees are not pre-decided on a candidate.
    I wish to ask who decides how ad- hoc teachers are appointment and for how long? It is the colleges. But Sir, who suffers? Your recommendation makes the oppressed even more oppressed. No worthy candidate would now wish to stay ad-hoc, would rather look for employment elsewhere. (not that it a very lucrative and desirable option to stay ad- hoc)
    I also wish to state, how this one year tenure for ad hoc is arrived at is archaic and meaningless. I really wish you had spoken to some stakeholders or operated in a perhaps more realistic frame.
    In my argument above, I have tried hard to be rational, but it is difficult proposition when suddenly substantial years of hard work and struggle have been wiped away with no empathy or consideration.

    Like

  12. The following letter was forwarded to the dtf by Vasant Sharma.

    From: J.M.Manchanda
    To: Editor Pioneer
    Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 9:57 AM
    Subject: letter

    Sir
    The write-up entitled “Teachers want no work, only pay” (The Pioneer, Feb 18) is biased. It ignores a vital fact that it is only the teaching community whose working conditions have been tinkered with at the time of every pay revision. Many of them continue to retire with only one promotion in their life time, something unheard of in civil services. It was only after a flight of talent from teaching that the government decided to raise the entry level pay. Whether it would attract talent and stem the tide of deserters from the teaching profession, in the absence of matching perks and upward mobility, is yet to be seen. The claim that teachers do not want to work is malicious and motivated. Most of them continue to do their best under pathetic working conditions and inadequate infrastructure. Unfortunately the same cannot be said about educational administrators who are expected to uphold merit. The experience shows that discretionary powers to appraise have more often been misused or manipulated in favor of those who can pull strings. This will be borne out by the number of ad hoc teachers serving in colleges and the rate of their retention following interviews. Several departments have been run like fiefdoms with little or no transparency or accountability. It can not be a coincidence that names circulating before the interviews invariably end up getting appointed. In other cases, unpleasant fights either render the process infructuous or throw up a neutral candidate. Experts are known by their ideological or political affiliations and generally follow the familiar track. The selection and appraisal processes are subjective, archaic and feudal. Contrary to the claim made in the report, a large number of meritorious retiring teachers were denied re-employment for no rhyme or reason and the university did not even observe the courtesy of informing them. There is a clear disconnect between what the UGC aspires to achieve and the prevailing conditions on the campuses of Delhi. Hence the observation that proposed changes are idealistic and impractical. Let those wanting to judge the teachers discard the ‘holier than thou’ atttitude and reform themselves first.
    Yours truly
    J.M.Manchanda
    C/95, New Rajinder Nagar
    New Delhi. 110 060

    dear all
    Prof Manchanda has given a fitting reply to the untruths in the article published in the Pioneer. It is indeed surprising that a section of the media instead of presenting the truth is instead concealing it. But for the work done by the teachers of schools and colleges the country would be a land of ignorance, superstition and a slave of foreign powers in more ways than one. Perhaps some people want that good teachers should not be attracted to the profession and that the country should sink into a sea of ignorance.
    Regards
    Vasant Sharma

    Like

  13. It is ridiculous to have separate pay scales for direct recruited professors and CAS professors.This was never before nor should this be now.
    In this connection Chaddaha committee report should be honoured.
    sneha

    Like

  14. The implications of the UGC Draft as it seems to me and some of my colleagues:

    6.4.2-4

    Readers/Lectueres (Selection Grade) will be placed in Pay Band 4 after completion of required years of service.

    However, if they want to be redesignated as Associate Professors they will have to satisfy the Selection Committee.

    Since, the Draft states that an Assistant Professor would teach 16 hours in a week and Associate Professor 14 hours, how many hours would a Reader/ Lecturer (Selection Grade) be required to teach?

    10.1.7-10

    Ad hoc services which are:

    a) against non-substantive posts
    b) less than one year (even after considering the notional break) eg. situations where some one has served one or two 4 month terms and moved on to another college or someone who has taught as an ad hoc from 16 July to 30 April in one college and not been renewed on 16 July in the next session

    will not be counted. This will be a lottery. The lucky few who had been in one college for a substantial period will gain – the rest can go to hell!

    Like

  15. As per the earlier system , Readers in the University who had completed five years were eligible to become Professors, now first they would be required to appear before a selection committee to be designated as Associte Professor and then before another selection committee in due course for getting selected as Professor, with respect to criteria decided today and applied with retrospective effect.Am I right? So much for attracting talent in this field!

    Like

  16. The relevant clauses for incumbent Readers / Lecturers (Selection Grade) are the following:

    6.4.2. Incumbent Readers and Lecturers (Selection Grade) who have completed 3 years in the current pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 on 1-01-2006 shall be placed in Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP Pay of Rs.9000 and shall be re-designated as Associate Professor on satisfying the API/WP as per Tables I & II through the PASS methodology stipulated in this guideline through a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Associate Professor.

    6.4.3. Incumbent Readers and Lecturers (Selection Grade) who had not completed three years in the pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 on 1.1.2006 shall be placed at the appropriate stage in the Pay Band of Rs.15600-39100 with AGP of Rs.8000 till they complete 3 years of service in the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade) / Reader, and thereafter shall be placed in the higher Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 and accordingly re-designated as Associate Professor on satisfying the required credit points in API/WP as per Tables-I and II through the PASS methodology stipulated in this guideline through a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Associate Professor.

    6.4.4. Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) in service at present shall continue to be designated as Lecturer (Selection Grade) or Readers, as the case may be, until they are placed in the Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 and re-designated as Associate Professor on satisfying the required credit points in API/WP as per in Tables I and II through the PASS methodology stipulated in this guideline through a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Associate Professor.

    As regards 10.1.7, read it with 10.1.10.

    Like

  17. Am I correct? According to the UGC Draft Notification

    6.4.4 requires all teachers working currently as Readers to appear for another interview with a selection committee?;

    10.1.7 means ad hoc service will not be counted?

    Like

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s