I am working in Maharashtra Gramin Bank as an assistant. In December 2009, I faced disciplinary action, and as a result, a penalty was imposed on me - a reduction to 2 stages with cumulative effect and a reduction to 1 stage without cumulative effect. All punishments shall run concurrently. As a result, my basic pay was reduced from 11,680 to 13,210. In December 2012, my basic pay was restored to 13,210. My date of increment is 1st February. My query is whether the restoration of my basic pay in December 2012 is correct, or if it should have been restored in February 2012. I need advice from a relevant knowledgeable person.
Thank you.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Thank you.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It needs a little more clarity on the factual aspects. The normal increment is to accrue in February and the time period of punishment?
As I understand, there are two punishments, both resulting in a reduction of your salary. One has a cumulative effect of two increments, and the other has a non-cumulative effect of one increment. In December 2009, you were imposed a punishment of reducing your basic pay from Rs. 13210 to Rs. 11680. The reduction without cumulative effect lasted until December 2010. Therefore, if there were no additional punishments, you would have been restored to the position you would have been in had you not been punished. This means that in December 2010, you should have been restored to the original Basic Pay of Rs. 13210 and received an increment. However, due to the punishment of reduction by two increments, you had to remain at the basic pay of Rs. 11680 until December 2011. Subsequently, you were to be restored back to Rs. 13210 and receive the next increment in February 2012. There is no justification for receiving the next increment in December 2012 as it would imply that the increment due in Feb 2012 was being withheld until December 2012, for which there is no corresponding punishment order.
You have a case to request the recalculation of your pay.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1655As I understand, there are two punishments, both resulting in a reduction of your salary. One has a cumulative effect of two increments, and the other has a non-cumulative effect of one increment. In December 2009, you were imposed a punishment of reducing your basic pay from Rs. 13210 to Rs. 11680. The reduction without cumulative effect lasted until December 2010. Therefore, if there were no additional punishments, you would have been restored to the position you would have been in had you not been punished. This means that in December 2010, you should have been restored to the original Basic Pay of Rs. 13210 and received an increment. However, due to the punishment of reduction by two increments, you had to remain at the basic pay of Rs. 11680 until December 2011. Subsequently, you were to be restored back to Rs. 13210 and receive the next increment in February 2012. There is no justification for receiving the next increment in December 2012 as it would imply that the increment due in Feb 2012 was being withheld until December 2012, for which there is no corresponding punishment order.
You have a case to request the recalculation of your pay.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Normally, the punishment would be like stoppage of increment or reduction of increment with or without cumulative effect for certain years. If your punishment is for three years (as I understand), you will start getting increments from 2012 onwards. I presume that the increment is Rs 510. For the punishment of reduction of increments with cumulative effect, you will start getting an increment of Rs 510 on Rs 11680 in 2012. But the other punishment of reduction of one increment is without cumulative effect; your pay should get restored to the pay of 2012 as follows:
Pay of 2009.........Rs 11680 Increment of 2010 510 Increment of 2011 510 Increment of 2012 510 Basic Pay of 2012 should be Rs 13210. If you had only the first punishment, i.e., stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, then your basic salary in 2019 after the deduction of two increments would have been Rs 12190. In 2012, when the punishment period is over, you will start earning an increment (of Rs 510) on this basic only. Then it would be Rs 12190 + 510 or Rs 12700.
KK, please comment.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Pay of 2009.........Rs 11680 Increment of 2010 510 Increment of 2011 510 Increment of 2012 510 Basic Pay of 2012 should be Rs 13210. If you had only the first punishment, i.e., stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, then your basic salary in 2019 after the deduction of two increments would have been Rs 12190. In 2012, when the punishment period is over, you will start earning an increment (of Rs 510) on this basic only. Then it would be Rs 12190 + 510 or Rs 12700.
KK, please comment.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In your scenario, you faced disciplinary action in December 2009, resulting in a penalty of reduction to 2 stages with cumulative effect and reduction to 1 stage without cumulative effect, with both punishments running concurrently. As a result, your basic pay was reduced from 13,210 to 11,680.
Later, your basic pay was restored to 13,210 in December 2012. Your date of increment is 1st February.
The query is whether the restoration of your basic pay to 13,210 should have taken place in December 2012 or February 2012.
To address this, let's break down the timeline and calculations:
December 2009: Disciplinary action taken, resulting in a reduction of basic pay to 11,680.
December 2012: Basic pay restored to 13,210.
Now, let's consider the increment:
Your date of increment is 1st February. Therefore, your basic pay increment would normally take place on that date each year. Here's how the calculations would work:
On 1st February 2010: Basic pay increment would take you to 11,970 (assuming 3% annual increment).
On 1st February 2011: Basic pay increment would take you to 12,320.
On 1st February 2012: Basic pay increment would take you to 12,685.
Now, considering your restoration to 13,210 in December 2012, there are two scenarios to consider:
Restoration in December 2012: This means your basic pay was restored after 11 months of your last increment (February to December). Your next increment would have been due on 1st February 2013, taking you to a higher amount than 13,210.
Restoration in February 2012: This means your basic pay was restored before your increment date. This would have ensured that your increment calculation considers the restored pay as the base. Your increment on 1st February 2012 would have been higher due to the restored basic pay.
Given the timeline and your increment date, it would be more accurate for the restoration of your basic pay to have occurred in February 2012 rather than December 2012. This would align with the calculation of increments and ensure that your restored pay is taken into account for subsequent increments. However, for accurate advice tailored to your specific situation.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Later, your basic pay was restored to 13,210 in December 2012. Your date of increment is 1st February.
The query is whether the restoration of your basic pay to 13,210 should have taken place in December 2012 or February 2012.
To address this, let's break down the timeline and calculations:
December 2009: Disciplinary action taken, resulting in a reduction of basic pay to 11,680.
December 2012: Basic pay restored to 13,210.
Now, let's consider the increment:
Your date of increment is 1st February. Therefore, your basic pay increment would normally take place on that date each year. Here's how the calculations would work:
On 1st February 2010: Basic pay increment would take you to 11,970 (assuming 3% annual increment).
On 1st February 2011: Basic pay increment would take you to 12,320.
On 1st February 2012: Basic pay increment would take you to 12,685.
Now, considering your restoration to 13,210 in December 2012, there are two scenarios to consider:
Restoration in December 2012: This means your basic pay was restored after 11 months of your last increment (February to December). Your next increment would have been due on 1st February 2013, taking you to a higher amount than 13,210.
Restoration in February 2012: This means your basic pay was restored before your increment date. This would have ensured that your increment calculation considers the restored pay as the base. Your increment on 1st February 2012 would have been higher due to the restored basic pay.
Given the timeline and your increment date, it would be more accurate for the restoration of your basic pay to have occurred in February 2012 rather than December 2012. This would align with the calculation of increments and ensure that your restored pay is taken into account for subsequent increments. However, for accurate advice tailored to your specific situation.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Register and Log In.
DISCIPLINARY ACTION.ppt
Record of disciplinary action.doc