Revise the Kilometrage rates to not less than Rs. 648 per 100 kilometres to Running Staff – NFIR request

Revise the Kilometrage rates to not less than Rs. 648 per 100 kilometres to Running Staff – NFIR request

Revise the Kilometrage rates to not less than Rs. 648 per 100 kilometres to Running Staff – NFIR request
revision-of-kilometrage-rates-and-other-allowance-of-running-staff-nfir-govempnews
Revision of Kilometrage rates and other Allowances of Running Staff – Summary Record note of discussions held on 04th and 05th January 2018-reg.

N F I R


National Federation of Indian Railwaymen


3, CHELMSFORD ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 055


Affiliated to :


Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC)


International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF)
 No. IV/RSAC/Conf./Pa1t IX
Dated: 07/02/2018
The Secretary (E),
Railway Board, 8
New Delhi
Dear Sir,
Sub: Revision of Kilometrage rates and other Allowances of Running Staff –
Summary Record note of discussions held on 04th and 05th January 2018-reg. 
Ref: (i) Railway Board’s file No. E (P&A) II/2013/RS-14.
(ii) NFIR’s letter No. IV/RSAC/Conf./Part IX dated 12/01/2018 to Secretary, Railway Board, copy endorsed to EDPC-I and ED (IR), Railway Board. 
With reference to Summary record note of discussions held in the meeting on
04th & 05th January 2018 in Rail Bhavan, New Delhi with the Federations on the issues
relating to revision of rates of Kilometrage Allowance and other related Allowances to the
Running Staff & NFIRs letter of even no. dated 12/01/2018, the Federation desires to elaborate
again, its points of View on Official Side’s views for favourable appreciation and deciding the
revision of rates of KMA through consensus:- 
II. In the light of the Government’s decision to decide revision of rates
of kilometrage Allowance and other related Allowances of the Running Staff through
bilateral discussions between the Federations and Railway Ministry, it needs to be appreciated
that the bilateral negotiated settlement is required to be worked out taking into account
various factors relating to working conditions of Running Staff, Risks involved and their abnormal
nature of duties. In this connection, NFIR invites Railway Board’s attention to Para 28 of IInd CPC,
Para 187 of IIIrd CPC, Para 104.56 of IVth CPC and Para 133.40 of Vth CPC with regard to pay
element and revision of Running Allowance rates. Ashruff Committee (1968) and Running
Allowance Committee (1980) had also clearly stated that the actual measure of the
efficiency of performance is the “Running Allowance” which should motivate Running Staff
and act as an incentive for over all improved performance.
III. With reference to Official Side version vide Para 2.1 and 2.2 of
summary record note of discussions, NFIR contends that there is no concept as “depreciation factor
on pay element” as claimed by the Official Side in the light of the relevant paras of RAC
Report, 1980 which are placed below:- 
709
: POSSIBLE METHODS OF DETERMINING THE PAY ELEMENT: 
“The Committee considers that basically there should be two methods for determining the element of pay: 
i) The first method would be to decide the Scales of Pay which would have
been applicable to Running Staff had the Running Allowance Scheme not been in
vogue at all (hereinafter called “notional scales”) and then proceed to determine
the percentage of the pay element with reference there to; and 

ii) The second method would be to determine the pay element on the basis of average earnings of the Running Staff”. 
710.
NOTIONAL SCALES METHODS: 
“In the first method, the scales of pay, which, it can be reasonably
assumed, would have been allotted to the running staff had the running allowance scheme
not been in vogue at all, is taken as the “Notional Scales”. The difference in the
mean of the existing scales and that of the notional scales expressed as a percentage
of the mean of the existing scales would represent their percentage which their pay
element can be treated as bearing to the basic pay of the running staff. The committee
requested the Railway administrations as well as the Organised labour during
discussion with them, to suggest the notional scales which should be adopted for this
purpose. Taking into account the suggestion received in this regard, the committee
considers that for this purpose it would be fair by and large to proceed on the
assumption that but for the existence of the Running Allowance Scheme, the highest grade of
the Drivers (Driver A Special) would have been allotted the scale of pay,
immediately below the grade applicable to Supervisor namely Loco Foremen A (Rs.
840-1040) to whom they report. Accordingly the scale of pay which would have been
allotted to Drivers grade A Special, but for the existence of the Running Allowance
Scheme can fairly be assumed to be Rs. 700-900 (RS). On the other hand, the organized
labour had put forward the view point that the notional scale or the highest grade
of Driver should be assumed to be atleast the same as to be the highest scale of pay
admissible to the generality of non-running staff. In other words, it is their
contention that the scale of pay to be assumed for this purpose should be atleast Rs. 840-1040
in the case of Drivers A special. The committee would like to clarify here that the
scales under discussion are purely notional and they are intended to only provide a
basis for the determination of Pay Element. The committee considers that a liberal
approach in this regard is called for. Accordingly it would not be inappropriate to
assume for this limited purpose only, that the notional scales of pay for Driver Grade
A Special should be Rs.840-1040 and that applicable to Guard A special grade
immediately lower than the above viz. Rs.700-900. The notional scales for the other
Grades of Drivers and Guards should be correspondingly lower. On this basis the
percentage of pay element worked out in the manner outlined above in the case of
Drivers Grade C and Guards Grade C could, in the opinion of the committee, be taken
as indicative of the range in which the Pay element lies. The percentage in
the case of Grade C have to be taken for this purpose as in the last revision in the
rates of the allowance, the calculation in the rates of Running Allowance in the case of
Grade C Drivers and Grade C Guards was made the base for determining the rates of running allowance applicable to other categories of Guards and Drivers. The percentage of the pay element determined in the manner works out to 27 for
Drivers Grade C and 20 for Guards Grade C”. 
711
: PAY ELEMENT DERIVED FROM AVERAGE EARNINGS 
“In the second method, the pay element is sought to be derived by deducting
from the average running allowance, travelling allowance for 25 days, the
balance being treated as representing the pay element (TA for 25 days is taken as that
was the basis adopted in revising the rates of running allowance during the past
decade). This balance expressed as a percentage of the mean of the relevant scale of
pay can be taken as the percentage of pay element. Here again, for the reasons
explained above, the percentages thus worked out for Grade C Drivers and Grade C
Guards may be taken as indicative of the percentage of pay element for running
staff in general. Adopting this method, it is seen that the percentage of pay
element works out to 28 in the case of Drivers Grade C and 13 in the case of Guards Grade
C”. 
712: “Application of the same method to the scales of pay and average running allowance obtaining in the prescribed scales of pay immediately before
introduction of the authorized scales and in the authorized scales of pay immediately
after introduction of revised scales yields a figure of 32% and 30% respectively
as the pay element in the case of Drivers Grade C and Nil and 19% respectively in the
case of Guards Grade C”. 
713
: PERCENTAGE ARRIVED AT BY SAMPLING: 
“As a further exercise to determine the range of pay element, samples of
figures of running allowance actually earned by Drivers Grade C and Guards Grade C.
over a period of one year have been taken and the TA that would have acquired to
the staff considered under the TA rules applicable to the non-running staff, have
been deducted there from, treating the balance as pay element. The balance
expressed as a percentage of the basic pay of the individual drivers and Guards Grade C concerned, has been taken as the percentage of pay element in each case.
The average (mode) of the figures thus arrived at works out to about 30% in
case of Drivers Gr. C and 23% in the case of Guards Gr. C”. 
714
: NO ADDITION NEED BE MADE TOWARDS INCENTIVES.
“It will be seen from the fore going that the percentage of basic pay which
can be treated as the pay element varies from 0 to 32, but mostly it falls in the
range of 20 to 30. In this context, the committee considers that there is merit in the
suggestion that the percentage, viz. 30, laid down in the letter dated 15/06/1979 of
the Ministry of Railways (cited in para 708 above) should be taken as the guiding
factor. As regards the further suggestion that an addition should be made to the said
30% towards “the incentive element in the running allowance, it is to be noted
that for the reasons explained in chapter VIII dealing with the determination of the
rates of running allowance, the committee considers that the incentive part of the
scheme should be kept outside the structure of the rates of running allowance and
not built into the rates themselves. Accordingly, the committee is of the opinion
that no addition need be made on this account”. 
715
: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 30% OF BASIC PAY AS PAY ELEMENT. 
Considering all the aspects of the matter including the percentages arrived
at by the various methods outlined above, the committee is of the view that it would
be on the whole, fair and equitable to take the pay element in the running allowance
as 30% of the basic pay of the running staff. Accordingly, the committee
recommends that: 
a) 30 percentage of the basic pay of running staff should be taken as
representing the pay element 
b) Such pay element should be treated as falling under the class “other
emoluments specially classified as pay by the President”; and 
c) Except where the circumstances justify a different treatment, the said
30 percentage should be treated as pay for the purpose for which running allowance is to
be reckoned as pay. 
NFIR had strongly pleaded before RAC 1980 for 40% Pay element, taking
incentive factor also into consideration to compensate for the unnatural type of work
such as stress, strain, loss of sleep, absence from head quarters, dislocation of family life,
unhygienic working conditions/atmosphere, adverse effect of noise and vibrations and other job
related problems risks of Running Staff. Sadly, however, the pleading was not conceded,
probably with a View, that such an increase will disturb the relativities in pay and pension of
Loco Running Staff with that of other supervisory staff. On the said ground only, a decision was
taken to prescribe 30% as Pay element. It is worth-noting that the recommended 30% pay element for
various purposes falls under clause 3 of Rule 2003 of R-II under the clause “other
emoluments” classified by the President. From this, it could be seen that the pay element was not decided
on the depreciation factor. 
If RAC 1980 had gone by depreciation factor, at that point of time the
depreciation factor would have been as follows:- 
The difference in the mean of the scale of Driver A (Passenger Driver) and
that of the notional scales expressed as a percentage of the mean of the existing scale
of Driver A could have been the “Pay element”. 
Mean of Notional Scale of Rs.840 – 1040 was Rs.940. 
Mean of Pay Scale of Driver A (IV CPC) Rs. 550-750 was Rs.650. 
Therefore, Pay element should have been 940-650 = (290/650) x100 =
44.61%.
Read also :  स्वतंत्रता दिवस की हार्दिक शुभकामनाएं
                                                                                            650 
However, pay element was identified as 30% only instead of 44.61%. 
 
Moreover, at present, the Loco Pilots are in L6 of the 7th CPC pay with a
pay matrix of Rs 35400-112400, and the mean pay works out to (35400+112400)/2=73900. The
Apex scale of Group ‘C’ of non-running staff, is in L9 of the pay matrix of Rs
53100-167800 and their mean pay is 110450. 
The percentage of depression (Pay element), therefore, is:- 
110450 – 73900 = (36550 / 73900) x 100 = 49.45%, 
This is the exact position of the depression factor in VII CPC pay matrix.
This is the basis of the submissions made by the Federation, that the depression factor
is presently at 50% (as seen in Para 2.2 of the Summary record note of discussions), basing its
demand on the highest group ‘C’ VIth CPC Grade Pay of Rs.5400 ( L9 of 7th CPC Pay
Matrix).
Read also :  PL Bonus for 60 days to Postal Employees, Gramin Dak Sevaks and Ad-hoc Bonus to Casual Labours
Hence, it can be adduced that the measure of depression, at present,
stands at 50% and not at ‘minus 13%’ as claimed by the Official side

Additional Allowance
The Pay Commission’s further observation, is reproduced here under:
“On account of more onerous nature of work as well as process of
selection involved, Loco Pilots for passenger trains shall be given an additional
allowance of Rs.500 p.m. Loco Pilot for mail/express trains will be given this
allowance at the rate of Rs.1000 p.m. Dearness allowance shall be payable on this allowance.
The existing parity with cadre of Guards, for other allowances like running
allowance, may also be retained in respect of this allowance which is being recommended for
the first time (Refer Para 7.36.50 of 6th CPC report)”.
However, this was continued as an allowance and ‘ not as Pay, despite
several representations by NFIR. This subject is also figuring in the PNM agenda,
but Railway Ministry has not been able to get clearance from MoF, inspite of several reminders.
If a higher Grade Pay would have been allotted to LP/ Passenger & LP/ Mail, their in-service
as well as retirements, would have been reasonably compensated and this small consolation given by
6th CPC, has not translated into a meaningful benefit, even after passage of 12 years. 
IV. With reference to Official Side view in Para 2.3 of Summary record note
of discussions, the Federation clarifies as under:- 
The VII CPC report in para 8.2.5.4 reads as follows:- 
For most of the allowances that have been retained, we have sought to
provide a raise that is commensurate with the rise in DA. Accordingly allowances that are
in the nature of a fixed amount but not DA indexed have generally been raised by a factor of
2.25. Allowances that are in the nature of a fixed amount but are partially indexed to DA
have generally been raised by a factor of 1.5. Allowances that are in the nature of a fixed
amount but fully indexed to DA have not been given any raise. Regarding percentage based allowances,
having regard to the increase in the pay structure (and consequently the Basic pay) as a result
of the recommendations of this commission, and keeping in mind the rise granted to slab based
allowances, the quantum of percentage based allowances has been rationalized by a factor of 0.8″ 
A clear reading of this recommendation of 7th CPC, which was accepted by
Government, reveals that the rationalization by the said factor applies only for
Allowances. Whereas the Pay element to Running Staff is ‘Pay’ as defined by the Rule
1303-FR-921(a)(iii) and the same is specially classified as ‘Pay’ by the President. Therefore, the attempt for
applying the rationalization factor of 0.8 on Pay element is totally incorrect and
violation of codal provision. 
V. With reference to Official Side view recorded in the Summary record note
of discussions (vide Para 3.1), the comments of NFIR are placed below:- 
The KMA rate consists of two components, one is Pay portion, i.e. the Pay
element and other is TA portion. As already spelt out, the VII CPC recommendation is to
rationalize only the allowances with the recommended factor. As long as one of the components in
Running Allowance is “Pay”, any rationalization by a factor is totally wrong. It is
also a known fact that the other component in Running Allowance is the TA portion. 
A plain reading of paras 8.15.12 to 8.15.16 of the VII CPC report reveals that the enhancement of DA/TA rates recommended by the VII CPC has not been done
with any factor. Evidently, for all other allowances, the VII CPC specifically stated the
factor, which is required to be applied to increase the rates, but not for TA/DA. 
VI. NF IR reiterates that in any case, the 7th CPC as well the Government
have left this issue to the Railway Ministry to discuss with the Federations for reaching an
agreement for revision of Kilometrage Allowance rates, therefore the 7th CPC recommendation to
multiply with 1.5 or 2.25 is not at all relevant, so far as Running Staff Kilometrage Allowance
rates are concerned. The observation of the VIIth CPC in para 8.2.5.5, that “ There are, however, exceptions to the above approach
(rationalization factor)”, strengthens NF IR’s contention. This very
observation, by itself, gives a free hand to the Railway Ministry to decide for upward
revision of rates of Running Staff Allowances, through bi-lateral discussions and agreements
thereon. 
VII. Joint Committee of Running Allowances (2008):
 
The Joint Committee on Running Allowances, 2008 recommended two rates of
running allowance, first from 01-01-2006 since Kilometreage allowance contains a
pay element and thereafter from 01-09-2008, when the revised TA/DA rates were implemented
(Refer Para 13 of the report).But the Railway Board, while revising the Kilometreage rates,
pursuant to implementation of the 6 CPC pay scales, did not take this into account and
KMA rates were not revised with effect from 1.1.2016 unlike that of revisions made while
implementing revised pay scales of previous pay commissions. Continued representations from “NFIR
and discussion in DC/JCM & in the Joint Committee constituted to discuss Running Staff
issues to correct this historical blunder and revise the KMA rates with effect from 1.1.2006 &
thereafter from 1.9.2008, 1.1.2011, 1.1.2014 & so on, has not yielded fruitful result. 
VIII. With reference to Official Side View contained in Para 3.2 of the
Summary record note of discussions, NF IR elaborates its views as given below:-
Read also :  Extension of Timelines for completion of online APAR on SPARROW for the year 2018-19 – DOPT
Had the Running Allowance rate been arrived at, in the year 2008 based on
the recommended TA rate of Rs.340, there may be some logic in the argument of
Official Side for multiplying the present rate by a factor of 1.5 (as per the VII CPC
recommendations) or more precisely by 1.5686. 
The Joint Committee on Running Allowances, 2008 had recommended double the
rates of Kilometerage allowance on an assumption that the Government of India
would double the rate of Travelling Allowance / Daily Allowance. This is amply clear from the
observations of the Joint Committee, 2008 reflected in Para 14 “… By application of similar methodology w.e.f 1/09/2008 when the rates of TA/DA are revised, assuming that the rate
of TA/DA for employees in the pay band 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200 is fixed
at Rs.210 per day”
 
But, subsequently, the TA rate of Rs. 105 (prior to VI CPC), was revised to
Rs. 340 and not to Rs. 210 as assumed by the Joint Committee, 2008. 
The demand of the NFIR had all along been that the rates of KMA should be
revised from 1.1.2006 on the implementation of VIth CPC Pay Band and thereafter
application of the revised multiplification factor of 3.238 (based on TA revision from Rs.105
to Rs.340), instead of doubling, has also remained unsolved. 
It is most relevant to appreciate that the TA rates of Rs 340 would reach
to Rs 510 on 30.06.17 and not the rate of Rs 210 assumed (while fixing KMA rates for the
Running staff on VI CPC Pay Band implementation). 
Therefore, the percentage of increase has to be calculated from Rs 315
(210, 262.50, 315) to Rs.800, which works out to 2.539 times approximately. Therefore the KMA
rates of Rs 253.50 existing as on 30.06.17, needs to be raised by 2.539 times (which
works out to Rs.643.60) and accordingly it was suggested to be fixed at Rs.648 with effect from
01.07.17. 
However, if the fitment factor of 3.001 of Running Staff (which ensures
14.29% hike) is applied to the RAC 1980 formula, then the KMA rate of LP/Passenger, works
out to Rs.669/- per 100 kms, as given below: 
Equivalent of 6th CPC 19560 = 19560*3.001′ = 58699 is equated to 60400 in
Pay Level 6. 
KMA as on 1.7.2017= (30% of 60400)+(20 x 800) X 100
                                                                         5100
= 34120 / 51 = Rs.669/-
From the facts explained above, it is very clear that the Official Side
views are quite contrary to the factual position. 
IX. With reference to Official Side version in para 3.4 that both the
Federations were signatories to the Joint Committee 2008 report, NFIR desires to clarify as
under:- 
The Joint Committee on Running Allowances, 2008 recommended double the
rates of Kilometerage Allowances, based on the assumption that the rates of TA would
be doubled. But, subsequently, the rate of TA of Rs. 105 existed prior to VI CPC report, was
revised to Rs.340 (3.2 times) and not to Rs. 210 as assumed by the Joint Committee, 2008.
Immediately realizing this negative situation, NFIR had raised the issue before the Railway Board
and demanded review of the the decision of Joint Committee, 2008 for upwardly revising
the rates of KMA from 1.1.2006 on the implementation of 6 CPC Pay structure and thereafter
from 1.9.2008. The Railway Board did not resolve the issue even after 10 years, though Note
sheets were prepared for upward revision and circulated to Federation during discussions. Had
the issue been considered and aberrations rectified then, the present impasse would not
have arisen.
Summing up, NFIR again urges upon the Railway Board to kindly ignore the
views of the Official Side and agree with the Federation’s proposal for revising the
kilometrage rates to not less than Rs. 648 per 100 kilometres, as already explained vide NFIR’s note
attached as Annexure ‘B’ to the Summary record note of discussions. NFIR also suggests
that a meeting of the Federations with the CRB, MS, FC be arranged, for the purpose of
apprising Federation’s case, in the event of doubts continued to persist, for accepting the rate
of Rs. 648/- while continuing 55% and 30% pay element. 
Yours faithfully
(Dr. M. Raghavaiah)
General Secretary
Copy to the Additional Member (Staff), Railway Board, New Delhi.
Copy to the Executive Director/PC-I, Railway Board DFCC Building, Pragati
Maidan, Metro Bhavan, New Delhi.
Copy to the Executive Director (FE), Railway Board, New Delhi.
Copy to the EXecutive Director (IR), Railway Board, New Delhi.
Copy to the General Secretaries of Zonal Unions of NFIR.
Media Centre/NFIR.

FOLLOW US FOR LATEST UPDATES ON  FACEBOOK AND TWITTER 
Source :  NFIR

COMMENTS