House secy-gen better paid than SC judge?

Rs 30k Perk Would Have Put Secretariat Heads Above All SC Judges, HC CJs, 3 Service Chiefs & Cabinet Secy

If a relatively small disparity in the Servicescivilian pay structure had the soldiers up in arms last year, then Parliament managers nearly did enough to wreak havoc across the top echelons of governance.

As national focus veered towards the shrill poll campaign this February, the Parliament honchos tried to push a special monthly allowance of Rs 30,000 for the secretaries-general of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. It would have put the two secretariat heads above all judges of Supreme Court, chief justices of high courts, three Service chiefs and the cabinet secretary.

The controversial proposal was dropped only after Pawan Bansal, minister of state for finance in UPA-1, in a conscientious intervention, wrote a series of letters objecting to the move, warning that it would send the salary balance across constitutional offices haywire. Bansal, by a quirk of fate, is now the parliamentary affairs minister. While PDT Achary, SG, Lok Sabha, and VK Agnihotri, SG, Rajya Sabha, were both on the parliamentary pay committee, headed by C Kuppusami, which examined the proposal, it was LS secretariat which serviced the committee.

The controversy finally ended in late April, but not before raising the serious issue of letting an institution decide its pay structure. The parliamentary pay committee sought a special allowance of Rs 30,000 for the SGs besides seeking other hikes for Parliament staff, triggering a chain of events. A harried Bansal, jolted by fine details of the pay proposal, wrote to Kuppusami that it be rejected.

“It will disturb the pay structure at the top level in government and other constitutional bodies.... The emoluments of SGs will be more than that of the judges of the Supreme Court, chief justices of the high courts, the three Service chiefs and the cabinet secretary.” To buttress his point, Bansal said the world cannot be convinced that duties of the two SGs “are more arduous than other above-mentioned functionaries”. The proposal finally had to be dropped.

When contacted by TOI, Achary denied there was any such proposal but added, “I can’t speak on the committee’s proceedings which are confidential.” He said, “What was being dubbed as a confrontation was airing of opinions which is normal in any committee.”

The glamorisation of SG’s post emerged a flashpoint in the panel mandated to suggest pay hike for Parliament staff in view of the 6th Pay Commission. In a bid to justify the extraordinary Rs 30,000 allowance, the draft report explained the role of SG, “He should be the one who has proven capabilities to manage the House...”

A miffed Bansal protested to Kuppusami that the report erroneously suggests that SG manages the House, “while actually, it is the Speaker who does so”, he wrote, seeking that the report, adopted in his absence, be recalled. The offensive clause was later modified.

The confrontation only turned bitter. So much so, that Bansal and Vyalar Ravi, then parliamentary affairs minister, refused to sign the report in protest against the haste shown — Bansal’s request for postponement of a meeting on February 25 was denied and the report was adopted in his absence.

It led to a chain reaction. RS chairman Hamid Ansari did not accept the report for Upper House because it was not signed by two panel members. He sent it back. The report was finally reported as adopted on April 15.
Source:- The Times of India 21 June 2009 P. 16 Delhi

For any query:- legalbuddy@gmail.com