Pay Scale withiut Stagnation

I would like to request IBA and Bank unions to remove the stagnation from Pay scales likely to be reconstructed afresh in line with new Bipartite Settlement signed last week. Since the scale is too short in each scale from I to VII to accommodate officers for long period and provide annual increment every year, there is a provision of stagnation in each pay scale.

It means officers are not given annual increment for two or three years when reach at last or penultimate stage of their scale. Obviously officers are not given increment as he grows senior only because management is unable to promote him to higher scale because there are not enough vacancies.

I feel pity for those experienced officers who have all talent and who are hard workers but could not get promotion due to many constraints beyond the control of officer. I agree when number of vacancies is less in upper scale, management is also constrained to give fewer promotions even though such senior officers are good worker,. But I am of the view that such senior officers must get at least annual increment.

I feel pity for such senior officers because they are not getting annual increment after they reach last stage of their scale even when they are shouldering responsibility of large branches successfully.

I feel pity for such senior officers when other non performing clerks as well as officers get annual increment only because they are junior.

Obviously the word stagnation is deceptive and a curse for senior officers.

In olden days when officer was not found fit for promotion due to inefficiency he was to face stagnation as mild dose of punishment. This used to happen when promotion based on seniority used to take place and management used to give promotion even if there were not adequate vacancies in that scale.

In most of the central government department there is provision for time bound promotion and hence question of stagnation in particular scale does not arise. It is perhaps only in banks that even after completing twenty or thirty years of service in a particular scale promotion is not given to an employee. (Now-a-days Interview is a killer injection in the pocket of management which can be injected to any good or bad performer in promotion process as per whims and fancies of the interviewer).

When leaders and bank management can give relief to retired employees (refer agreement signed between bank unions and IBA), why can’t they agree for continuous annual income to those who have reached last stage of their scale?

Here I would like to add that when management finds an officer guilty of minor misconduct they penalize him by stopping his one annual increment for one year with or without cumulative effect. It means disallowing an officer for increment for two three years in the name of stagnation, or for the reason that he has reached the last stage of his pay scale is tantamount to penalizing him with more greater penalty for none of his fault. And this is why I pity for senior officers

In brief there is no justification for stopping increment for two three years to a senior officer in the name of stagnation. If management feels that there is no scope for promoting officers in a particular scale to upper scale in lack of adequate vacancy , they must keep the scale long enough to accommodate senior officers and ensure that they continue to get increment every year until there is report of any misconduct or inefficiency.

However if management finds an officer unfit for promotion and unfit for release of annual increment in the name of increment they are not at least justified in entrusting such stagnated senior officer with higher responsibility such as Branch Manager of large branch, rather they should prefer junior officer to should responsibility of bigger branch.

It is undeniably ridiculous that most of senior middle management officers and most of the executives in Scale IV to scale VII in banks are not getting annual increment even though they are holding important and responsible post.

It is ironical that in banks, an officer is considered unfit for promotion but fit for giving higher responsibilities. On the contrary juniors (who are yes-men) are promoted but not found fit for placing them at sensitive and important posts such as Branch Manager. Similarly seniors are not found fit for annual increment whereas juniors and even clerks are allowed increment every year even if they perform less and even if they are inefficient and corrupt.

I hope signatories of wage revision agreement will take care of this anomaly and remove the word ‘stagnation’ from pay scale for god and for ever.

.