DTF submits memorandum to VC on pressing issues.
Prof. Deepak Pental
University of Delhi
Delhi – 110007
18 June 2009
Dear Prof. Pental,
We wish to draw your attention to the following issues that need to be addressed and taken up with the MHRD and the UGC for immediate redressal:
The fitment tables for fixation of pay of existing incumbent teachers and librarians issued by the MHRD on 4 June 2009 are flawed and prejudicial to the teaching profession. In Table 4, the pay in pay band for all those drawing a basic salary of 13260, 13680, 14100, 14520 in the pre-revised pay scale has been fixed at 37400. This deprives all those drawing 14100 and above of one increment. This reflects the government’s attitude towards the teaching profession. As the Vice-Chancellor, you should also take up the case of Lecturers and Sr. Lecturers who have now been given AGPs of 6000 and 7000. The pay in pay band being given to these AGPs is the same as what is being given to government servants with GPs of 5400 and 6600 respectively. This negates the government’s claim of making the teaching profession attractive.
The UGC regulation issued through a notification on 1 June 2009 withdrawing exemption from NET for those possessing MPhil is a cause of concern. Large numbers of aspirants and those teachers in temporary positions will be denied appointment. It should be brought to the notice of the UGC that since the introduction of NET there has been no consistency. Exemptions are provided and withdrawn depending on convenience. It also shows that the UGC has scant regard for research. The UGC should be asked to make amendments to the regulation so that all those who are registered for MPhil before June 2009 may be exempted from the NET.
It is unacceptable that the University appointed teachers have not received 40% of their arrears due in the last financial year till date. This should be redressed without any further delay.
It is a matter of serious concern that the University has not implemented the guidelines on SC/ST reservation, specifically in reservation at all entry levels, in violation of the constitutional provisions. Further, the University is guilty of manipulating the reservation roster in teaching. Many Departments have been left out of the reservation roster. Such non-transparent and arbitrary implementation of the roster is also a reflection of a bias against reservation.
We urge your immediate intervention and action on these issues.
Abha Dev Habib
6 thoughts on “Memorandum to VC, 18.06.2009”
Dr Vijender Sharma and Dr. Kiran Shirlal
I agree with your view that all college teachers having Ph.D should be brought at par (at same basic salary) irrespective of junior or senior in the respective college seniority list. Aquiring Ph.D degree itself shows that the teacher is academically excellent and should be given special pay package whatever may be his experience in terms of years of service. Afterall he is going to use his knowledge for benefit of the student. Giving such incentives may motivate other teachers to aquire Ph.D.
I do not think any senior teacher will feel jealous of junior teacher coming at par with him.
In the present sixth pay fixation as 3 non compounded increments are given to those who have aquired Ph.D only after 1.1.2006 leads to anomaly that the young junior teachers will draw more salary than his senior who motivated him for higher education. Those who have aquired Ph.D much earlier either in fourth pay or fifth pay are surely at LOSS no doubt they have enjoyed such increments for a longer duration. So the senior teachers who excelled much earlier at the beginning of their career are at LOSS.
will this issue be resolved before the actual pay fixation?
Dr. Vandana Vijay Gawde
Could you kindly clarify what the scale should be for readers appointed on 1.1.2008, through application while being a lecturer(senior grade). According to the notification issued in Sept 2009, they should be accorded the Associate Professor grade. But Calcutta University is not providing the same. Please guide and advise.
The advance increments for doing Ph.D. while in service cannot be selectively given to teachers (irrespective of pay-band).
Thank you for the useful inputs and support for the cause.
I have recently learned that at our institute, teachers who are drawing pay in PB-3 are given 3 non-compoundable increments for completing Ph.D after 1-1-2006 with the reason that it will not affect the seniors and a junior will not draw higher pay than a senior.
My doubt is that, can the increments be sanctioned selectively in PB-3 and denied for those drawing pay in PB-4 ? when the clause in UGC order doesn’t discriminate between PB-3 and PB-4?
I would be highly obliged if you can clarify this issue.
With kind regards
Dr. Kiran G. Shirlal
In Delhi University, three increments for doing Ph. D. while in service, as per MHRD notification of December 2008, is for the time being not implemented for those who acquired Ph. D. after 1.1.2006 on the ground that final notification has not yet been issued by the UGC.
A junior can draw more pay than a senior if the qualification (like Ph.D.) of a junior is higher than that of a senior. And this would not cause any anomaly.
However, the pretext that a Junior will draw more pay than a senior becomes real, under new pay scales, in case the senior had acquired Ph.D. before 1.1.2006 or much earlier and was given the benfit of two increments under the then existing scheme. This issue, raised by Dr. Kiran G. Shirlal, should be appropriately taken up so that the pay of the senior (with equal qualifications, like Ph.D.) is stepped up to that of such a junior.
Further, this issue is also going to be real for those junior teachers who had acquired Ph.D. much earlier, before 1.1.2006 or even before 1.1.1996, and were promoted as Reader/Lecturer (Selection Grade) much before compared to some senior teachers who did not have Ph.D. Such junior teachers have been drawing higher salary for many years (even for more than 10 – 15 years). Senior teachers (without Ph.D.) could get promotion as Lecturer (Selection Grade) on a later date campared to junior teachers (with Ph.D.) and were therefore drawing lesser salary. Such a junior teacher was fixed at a higher basic pay as on 1.1.2006 than such a senior teacher. If such a senior teacher who has been a Lecturer (Selection Grade) and now redesignated as Associate Professor acquires Ph.D. after 1.1.2006 will draw more salary after getting three non-compounded increments than a junior teacher with Ph.D. who had been drawing higher salary for so many years.
Here, a junior teacher acquired Ph.D. much earlier, got promoted as Reader/Lecturer (Selection Grade) much earlier and has been drawing higher salary for a long number of years compared to a senior teacher who was promoted as Lecturer (Selection Grade) on a later date acquires a Ph.D. now after 1.1.2006. Senior teacher has come to a level of same qualification as that of a junior teacher now. The question being raised is that how come such a teacher who had been drawing lesser salary for so many years get higher salary on acquiring same qualification (Ph.D.) as that of a junior teacher now after 1.1.2006?
My personal understanding is that in both the cases, as mentioned by Dr. Kiran G. Shirlal and by me, the salary of a teacher (whether senior or junior) who had Ph.D. and was drawing higher salary should be stepped up to that of a teacher (whether junior or senior) who acquires Ph.D. after 1.1.2006 and gets three non-compounded increments and thus get higher salary than the former.
I am at present working as an Asst Professor (CAS promotee)
at NIT, Surathkal. I am a regular reader of your web page/site.
I completed my Ph.D on 4th Jan 2006 while working as Lecturer(Sel Gr). And got promoted as Asst Professor under CAS.
Now, while fitting the new pay scales, I am placed as Associate Professor but denied 3 non-compounded increments for completing Ph.D while in-service (which should be sanctioned as per the UBC order dated 31-12-2008) on the pretext of a Junior will draw more pay than a senior.
With kind regards
Dr. Kiran G. Shirlal