AIFUCTO - Circular

The VI Pay Review Committee Report was submitted to the UGC on 3rd October, 2008, twenty seven days after the original schedule and three days ahead of the extended schedule .AIFUCTO had to organize two nation wide protests in this connection: one, on 5th September, 2007 demanding immediate appointment of the Pay Review Committee and the other on 24th September, 2008, demanding immediate submission of the Report by the Committee. Going by the Report submitted to UGC, it appears that AIFUCTO has to be prepared to wage bigger battles , first to rectify the anomalies in the Report and then to get it implemented uniformly and simultaneously throughout the country, within the next few months , at any rate , before the country goes to the next general elections. It is an urgent, uphill task. AIFUCTO has to gear itself towards this task.

The AIFUCTO had, after careful deliberations at various levels and after discussions at its NEC held at New Delhi in April, 2008 submitted a detailed representation for the consideration of Prof. Chadda Committee. The charter of demands submitted by AIFUCTO included the following:

Parity of college and university teachers with at least Group A Officers of the Central Government in pay scales ,allowances and perquisites
Incentive for contribution to teaching and extension on par with research
Resolving the anomalies in the V th Pay revision ,particularly that relating to the date of implementation of C.A.S
Implementation of new scales w.e.f.1.1.2006
100% Central Assistance for the implementation of the revised pay package for 10 years
Mandatory, uniform and simultaneous implementation of the new package throughout the country

The AIFUCTO had also submitted its Policy on Higher Education to the Pay Review Committee with a request to base its recommendations on the general principles enunciated in the document. While AIFUCTO has reservations about some of the general principles and specific recommendations evolved by the PRC, it is acknowledged that the PRC has, in a large measure, accommodated the general principles and specific demands of AIFUCTO.
The most positive feature of the PRC Report is that it has, at least in part, rejected the neo-liberal approach to higher education as a non-merit good, a commodity to be traded in the market. AIFUCTO’s slogan “Share Knowledge; Share Development” has been endorsed by the PRC which argues that inclusive higher education is the key to inclusive development in a knowledge economy. The Report notes with concern that the enrolment ratio of higher education in the country at 11% is very poor in comparison with the world average of 23%. The Report also takes note of the deterioration of quality in higher education during the last two decades .It correctly identifies non-filling of vacancies and contractualization of teaching are the prime causes of this quality crunch. The Report states:

According to a survey of the universities and colleges, conducted, during April-July 2008, by the Pay Review Committee itself, 44.63 percent of the sanctioned positions of lecturers at the university-level, 41.0 per cent of those at the college-level, were found to be vacant .The institution of part-time, ad hoc or contract teachers started proliferating and this added further to the damage. The quality of teaching undoubtedly suffered.

However, the PRC has failed to comprehend the root cause of the malady, which is the application of the principles of globalization, liberalization and privatization to higher education. PRC’s perception of globalization as a window opportunity which has unleashed a spirit of “healthy competition” is highly debatable. While adequately recognizing the role of higher education in economic development, there is a certain failure on the part of PRC to give equal weight to the roles of higher education in cultural development and peaceful coexistence. The PRC recognizes the importance of research, which would lead to production of knowledge, and teaching which would facilitate the dissemination of knowledge among those engaged in higher education. But it fails to recognize the role of extension in higher education which would extend higher education beyond the boundaries of universities and colleges to the larger population. The failure of the PRC to recognize the role of extension in higher education is a reflection of its failure to appreciate the larger societal function of higher education. The emphasis through out is on competitive individual initiative rather than co-operative collaboration. Another lacuna in the Report is its unwillingness to critique the present strategy for the development in higher education. The unbounded enthusiasm of the PRC for the increased allotment for higher education in the 11th plan shows that the PRC has been carried away by the rhetoric of the Prime Minister who is fond of calling the 11th Plan an “Education Plan”. It is true that there is a nine fold increase in the allotment for higher education in the 11th Plan as compared with 10th Plan and that a host of schemes have been announced for setting up new institutions. But it is equally true that of the estimated 3.52 lakh crores, only 30, 682 crore would come from public coffers, which is less than 10% of the total requirement. The Planning Commission proposes to raise the rest of the funds from private sources, by encouraging Public- Private –Partnership (PPP) in existing as well as new institutions. The mixing of public and private funds will inevitably lead to private appropriation of public funds and assets, especially as the ratio of private investment is much larger as compared with public investment. This will have adverse impact on access and quality.
The specific recommendations of the PRC in respect of pay scales and service conditions of teachers do not provide for parity between higher education teaching personnel and Class 1 employees, as demanded by AIFUCTO. The non-inclusion of Assistant Professor (Selection Grade) in pay band four and the stringent conditions put up for placement as Senior Associate Professor (which unduly privileges research and marginalizes both teaching and extension) show that the PRC has not internalized its own rhetoric about the higher status of teachers vis-à-vis administrators on the one hand and the importance of teaching vis-à-vis research on the other.
The decision to limit Professorship to post graduate departments and to confer the status only on those that are actively engaged in research emanates from a failure to understand the dimensions of teaching and extension. A ceiling on performance related additional increment to 25% of the teachers would encourage only unhealthy competition rather than healthy competition as envisaged by the PRC. A better alternative would have been to fix a benchmark on the minimum requirements, on the basis of which everyone could aspire to get the higher increment. This would have been conducive to the creation of a healthy academic atmosphere in an environment of cooperation rather than competition.
The most laudable aspect of the PRC recommendations is that it has made a proper estimate of the existing disparities in the salary and service conditions of teachers across the country and has made certain wholesome and enabling recommendations, with a view to eradicating such disparities. It has noted with concern the glaring disparities in the implementation of the earlier reports in respect of pay scales, CAS, service conditions and retirement age and has now recommended that the VI Pay Review recommendations be implemented as a package from the same date, uniformly and simultaneously through out the country. Realizing that the recommendations are unlikely to be implemented by the States, unless there is adequate financial support from the Centre, the PRC has recommended 100% financial assistance for the implementation of the scheme by the States for the first five years and 50% for the next five years. Though the recommendation falls short of AIFUCTO’s demand for 100% subsidy for 10 years, the present recommendation is nonetheless a great improvement on the recommendations by earlier Pay Review Committees for 80% assistance, limited to the first five years.
The PRC’s efforts to link up the pay review with the project of enhancement of quality in education uniformly through out the country and across various disciplines needs to be appreciated. The PRC has successfully withstood the pressure from influential lobbies like the National Knowledge Commission (NKC) to recommend differential salaries for teachers in different disciplines, linking it to the market demands of each discipline. Adoption of such a perception would have killed research and ruined the possibilities for sustainable development in higher education. The PRC has attempted to promote quality by attracting young men and women to the profession through a scheme of special incentives and retaining experienced teachers in the stream by advancing the age of superannuation and by providing new avenues for their career advancement. The new scheme for monthly academic allowance to all teachers is recognition of the need for life long learning for which the individual teacher has to spend money on books and periodicals on a regular basis.
The AIFUCTO has submitted a memorandum to the UGC highlighting the most crucial anomalies in the report and requested the UGC to rectify the same before recommending the Report for the consideration of the MHRD. The main demands include the following:
1. CAS to Senior Associate Professor

The long pending demand of AIFUCTO for third promotion to all teachers needs no further justification other than that such promotion is available to all classes of central government employees , which is fully reflected in the 6th CPC recommendations , which has already been implemented. While the PRC has applied the logic and scheme of CPC recommendations in almost all other cases, its failure to apply the same standards in respect of CAS for college and university teachers is incomprehensible. The recommendations in 5.9.1., 5.9.8., and 5. 10.1, of the PRC Report lay down such rigorous criteria for the selection process and eligibility criteria that most of the senior teachers will not be able to avail the benefit of third promotion, which is available to other sections of employees as a matter of routine. In the absence of a scheme ensuring third promotion to all incumbent teachers, the extension of the date of superannuation will only help to retain a large number of dissatisfied teachers in service which will defeat the very objective of the enhancement of the retirement age. Apart from the fact that the eligibility criterion laid down in 5.10.1. of the report is at variance with that laid down in 5.9.8, in some details, the conditions privilege research over teaching, which is contradictory to the general guidelines on CAS of the PRC in 5.9.5, which states as follows:
Since opportunities for research work in most colleges are practically non-existent and teachers have heavy class room work load , it is recommended that for college teachers , greater emphasis may be laid on actual class room teaching ,holding tutorials, conducting examinations and evaluating answer scripts and lesser emphasis on research work while considering them for promotion under CAS.
While not fully sharing PRC’s implied perception that research is per se superior to teaching and that contribution to teaching may be treated on a par with research in the absence of adequate opportunities for research, AIFUCTO would insist that PRC at least apply its own logic in the implementation of the scheme of CAS by treating teaching on par with research.
AIFUCTO’s position in respect of the CAS to Senior Associate Professor is as follows:
(1)All teachers who have completed 6 years of service in the selection grade as on 1-1-2006 should be placed in the post of Senior Associate Professor, as a matter of routine, without insisting on undergoing the formality of a selection process, as was done in the implementation of CAS during the last pay revision.
(2)The avenue for third promotion should be available to all teachers in service as on 1-1-2006, without insisting on their acquiring additional qualification of PHD, on the basis of criteria applicable to promotions CAS for senior scale and selection grade.
(3)The scheme for promotion to the post of Senior Associate Professor should be implemented along the following lines in respect of all teachers appointed after 1-1-2006.Teaching, Research and Extension are three dimensions in higher education, which are treated on a par by Kothari Commission and UGC and contributions to teaching /extension should be given equal weightage as contributions to research while considering the eligibility conditions for promotion under CAS. Criteria in this respect should be evolved in such a way as would give the benefit of CAS to all teachers, with insistence only on minimum qualifications and attainments.
2. CAS from 1-1-96

AIFUCTO fully appreciates PRC’s commitment to the rectification of anomalies in the implementation of Vth Pay review Committee Report, especially that of the anomaly caused by the implementation of CAS from 27-7-1998 instead of 1-1-96, which is reflected in the following recommendation of the PRC in section 5.19 of the Report.
That all regularly appointed teachers in universities and colleges who were selected as per the University Grants Commission guidelines and were in service 0n 1-1-1996 should be given the benefits of pay scale and allowances as well as other benefits recommended by the last pay review committee w.e.f.1.1.1996
Though the objectives and intentions of the PRC are clear enough, the benefit intended by PRC would be pipe dream for teachers, unless it is clearly stated that CAS will be implemented from 1-1-1.996. It is requested that clause 5.19. be suitably modified accordingly.

The recommendation in chapter VI that teachers who were in the scale of Associate Professor/Assistant Professor (Selection grade) on 1.1.1996 and who completed five years between1.1.1996 and 27.7.1998 should be placed at Rs 14940/- basic would take away existing benefits rather than confer new benefits on teachers. As it is, all teachers who are on selection grade as on 1-1-96 get the benefit of placement at Rs. 14940/- irrespective of whether they complete five years on 27-7-98 in the selection grade. Extension of the same benefit to teachers who are placed in the selection grade as on 27-7-98, which is a laudable objective, would require the modification of the recommendation by clearly stating that those who are placed in the selection grade as on 27-7-98 will be eligible for the benefit of placement under 14940/- as and when they complete 5 years in the selection grade. Suitable modifications may be made in Chapter VI accordingly.
3. Revised Pay Scales for Assistant Professor (Selection Grade)/Associate Professor (Reader)
It may be noted that the existing pay scale, Rs. 12000 -420 – 18300, was given after merging the scales S-23, S-24 and S-25, i.e. Rs. 12000 -375 – 18000, Rs. 14300 -400 – 18300, and Rs. 15100 -400 – 18300. While S-23 has been kept in PB-3, the others, S-24 and S-25, have been included under PB-4 by the CPC. The principle of parity with CPC ,which has been followed PRC in most cases ,has been ignored in recommending PB-3 scale of Rs. 15600 - 39100 + GP Rs. 8000 for Assistant Professor/Associate Professor .In view of the above , the existing scale for Assistant Professor (selection Grade)/Associate Professor(Reader) should be appropriately raised and its equivalents in PB-4 .
4. Professorship in colleges
Professorship should be instituted for both PG and UG courses, applying the same criterion of scholarship, irrespective of the level at which one is teaching. This would facilitate the mobility of teachers across universities and colleges as envisaged in the PRC Report.
5. Parity between Teachers and Physical Education Directors/Librarians
Full parity b should be maintained between teachers and Physical Education directors/Librarians, in terms of CAS and age of superannuation and other benefits.

AIFUCTO would make a comprehensive set of demands to the UGC after a full review of the PRC proposals at the Academic Conference to be held at Bangalore on 17th, 18th and 19th of October, 2008. It is expected that UGC recommendations on PRC Report would be available by then, on the basis of which the future course of the movement could also be decided at the Conference.