While the 7th Pay Commission report recommendation bonanza will start accruing to the central government employees from August, there is a strong message from the government, which needs serious implementation now, though it would be difficult, that non-performers will no more keep on getting the benefits till they attain the age of retirement.
The government notified the pay hikes recommended by the Commission on Monday, that will benefit nearly 1 crore central government employees.
By accepting the 7th Pay Commission’s recommendation, “Withholding of annual increments in the case of those employees who are not able to meet the benchmark either for Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) or a regular promotion within the first 20 years of their service”, it has signalled that the officials taking the annual increase in their salaries for granted, will have to change their attitude now.
The 7th Pay Commission in its report raised concern on this issue which is in fact being already addressed through forced retirements, but this has to be strongly embedded now in the salary hike system for the government officials, like it is in the corporate sector.
“There is a widespread perception that increments as well as upward movement in the hierarchy happen as a matter of course. The perception is that grant of MACP, although subject to the employee attaining the laid down threshold of performance, is taken for granted. This Commission believes that employees who do not meet the laid down performance criterion should not be allowed to earn future annual increments,” the Commission observed in its report and suggested withholding of increments.
[related-post]
It has added further that, “This will be treated as an “efficiency bar”. Additionally, for such employees there could be an option to leave the service on similar terms and conditions as prescribed for voluntary retirement”.
Another significant change suggested by the Commission, which has also been accepted by the government is with regard to ‘the benchmark for performance appraisal for MACP as well as for regular promotion’.
The Commission recommended that, “…in the interest of improving performance level, be enhanced from ‘Good’ to ‘Very Good.’ In addition, the introduction of more stringent criteria such as clearing of departmental examinations or mandatory training before grant of MACP can also be considered by the government”.
Clearly, just getting a ‘Good’ will not be good enough any more for a regular promotion with the benchmark for performance appraisal for promotion and financial upgradation under MACPs getting enhanced from “Good” to “Very Good”.
The only care that needs to be taken into consideration here is that the appraisal system and decisions should be strictly rule-based and extremely transparent, leaving no space for discretion that can lead to resentment and litigation.
