CAS & Promotional Fixation

Hi friend, I tried hard to find a suitable solution of it and I reached near to it but alas, the clarification made in point 1 of the attached G.O. is only for the employees who has got first higher scale on completion of 8 Years service . I am producing the same below:

The points raised:
1. An employee holding Scale No. 1 to 16 after getting first higher scale on completion of 10 years/8 years service under C.A.S., 1990 or C.A.S. 2001 as the case may be, gets promotion to a post the pay scale of which is the same as that of 1st higher scale before completion of 16 years of service. The question is whether the said employee is entitled to get 2nd higher scale under C.A.S., 2001 on completion of 16 years service.
Clarification
1. The reply is in the affirmative.

In common sense, it appears to us that the employee is entitled to have the benefit but its lacking G.O. and I think, it should knock the door of law and we also know that law is nothing but apply of common sense.
I am further sorry to say that sharing contact number is against the rule of this forum and I also dont like to disclose my identity. Please forgive me.

@saurav dutta, @kayshikr and @som Bro
In my understanding, promotion from Dy. Director to Jt. Director in the identical pay structure (PB & GP) shall entail one increment on the promotee because of assumption of duties & responsibilities of greater importance in higher post. Otherwise, there may be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution which envisages EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK. I refer to the case where Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India has approved the incremental benefit in favour of the Sr. Accounts Officers of Defence Accounts for their promotion from Gr-B, Gazetted post (GP Rs 5400 in PB-3: Rs.15600-39100) to JTS (Junior Time Scale) grade i.e. Entry level of Gr-A, Gazetted service (GP Rs.5400 in PB-3: Rs 15600-39100). This has also helped the KV Aurthority to understand the spirit of rules and extend the same benefits to their teachers in the similar situation. These are the classic examples to clear confusion about the case where promotion involves no change in either grade pay or pay band. The provision of such benefit is mentioned neither in the CCS (RP) Rules,2008(in case of central govt.) nor in ROPA,2009 (in case of state govt.). But,it is there in the fundamental rules of pay.
On completion of 8/10 years of service, as the case may be, the Jt. Director will not be eligible for further financial upgradation under CAS as he has already got the financial benefit at the time of promotion from the post of Dy. Director on completion of 7 years of service. Double benefit for a single promotion is not admissible under rules. Pls understand the spirit of MACP (central govt.) and CAS (state govt.) – why such benefits are given!

thanks. it is now understood how and when gp do not change even after promotion.

As per MCAS policy under govt of West Bengal, the sr deputy director will get 3% incremental benefit for promotion and as within 8 years of service, no change in scale of pay happens i.e. change of grade pay happens, he will get 8 year benefit in next one year. This will not be treated as double benefit as in first case the promotional benefit does not involved change of scale i.e. change of grade pay. This is the policy of MCAS scheme which is differ from central government policy. However as ROPA rule 2009 does not clear about same scale promotion incremental benefit, then no govt department presently allowed the same to any incumbent where promotion involves same scale promotion. But as per article 14 of the Constitution, the incumbent has the right to get the same. However, like central government, no such cases has been fought till date against W.B. govt in this matter, as far as i know. In my department also, some employee got 3% incremental benefit in time of same scale promotion and some did not due to change of interpretation of the ROPA rules by various DDOs but till date Directorate’s view is that “in same scale promotion no incremental benefit will be given” and against this view till date nobody moved to any court.