Concerned Department : DOPT - Several grievances requiring immediate attention
Sanjeev Goyal
PMOPG/E/2026/0001476
1. Attendance Control: Basic discipline in government offices starts with effective attendance control. Although salary constitutes a major component of government expenditure, there are no clearly laid-down rules, procedures, or action points issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) regarding verification of attendance prior to the release of monthly salary. In particular, no procedure exists for mandatory authentication of monthly attendance records before salary disbursement.
As a result, a section of employees has developed a tendency of late coming, early leaving, or availing unrecorded leave. Ultimately, the public suffers, as many government offices witness thin attendance during various parts of any working day. In Delhi, for instance, it is common to see repeated directions being issued to government employees to adhere to office timings. Only a few days ago, news reports highlighted that the Delhi Government had again directed officers of the Labour Department to report on time.
This raises several pertinent questions:
If an employee does not adhere to prescribed working hours, how is full salary released without any deduction?
Is it really so difficult to ensure the presence of employees during notified working hours?
Whose responsibility is it to verify attendance before releasing salary?
Is there any prescribed reporting or certification proforma for this purpose?
If late coming or early going has no financial implication, what incentive exists for those adhering to punctuality?
With the introduction of biometric attendance systems, generation of data relating to late arrivals and early departures is now just a click away. Employees, by default, must also be served a copy of the last months attendance record. This long-ignored area requires focused attention, especially considering that salary expenditure constitutes a significant financial burden on the Government.
2. Family Definition: Family declaration is a vital document, and every public servant is required to submit it at the time of joining service. However, due to varying eligibility criteria across different facilities, multiple definitions of “family” exist. For example:
For LTC, only two children are entitled.
For medical facilities, all children residing with the employee may be entitled.
For Children Education Allowance (CEA), only the first two children are admissible.
For transfers, yet another set of criteria is applied.
In some cases, co-residence is mandatory, while in others it is not. Despite these complexities, no single comprehensive family declaration form has been designed by DoPT to capture all relevant information in one place. Further, no fixed periodicity has been prescribed for updating family details.
Such gaps create scope for malpractices, as employees may continue using outdated declarations without excluding ineligible family members due to age, marriage, or enhanced income. Therefore, it is suggested that DoPT may introduce a single, comprehensive family declaration form to be filled annually by all government employees, covering all admissibility conditions.
3. Uniform Expiry Date for Claims: Employees are entitled to various reimbursements such as Children Education Allowance, Travel Allowance, Newspaper Allowance, Telephone Claims, LTC, Transfer Grant, Medical Reimbursement, etc. However, it is observed that there is no uniform deadline for submission of these claims, nor is there a common time-bar applicable across all categories.
This lack of uniformity causes confusion, creates scope for manipulation and has made the delays and pendency a norm. It also adversely affects budget planning and reflects poor self-discipline among employees. Many employees accumulate claims over long periods and submit them in bulk, sometimes after considerable delay. Verification of very old claims also becomes difficult and unreliable.
Therefore in order to overcome this hurdle a uniform deadline be prescribed for submission of all employee-related claims to instil discipline, facilitate timely settlement, and improve financial planning.
4. Formula for Calculation of Leave Encashment: As per the existing practice, leave encashment is calculated by treating a year as consisting of 360 days. In the current environment, where all calculations are performed through computerized systems, there is no practical justification for continuing with this inaccurate convention.
Calculation of leave encashment on the basis of a 360-day year results in excess payment. This anomaly requires correction by adopting the actual calendar year of 365 days for computation, thereby ensuring accuracy, transparency, and prevention of overpayment.
5. Option under DoPT to Fix Pay from the Date of Next Annual Increment: Under the existing rules, a Government servant on promotion or grant of MACP is allowed an option to have pay fixed either from the date of promotion/MACP or from the date of the next annual increment. However, when an employee opts for pay fixation from the date of the next increment, it can result in eligibility for subsequent annual increment within a very short span of six months.
For instance, if pay is fixed on 1st January, the employee becomes eligible for the next annual increment on 1st July; similarly, if pay is fixed on 1st July, the next increment becomes due on 1st January. This effectively leads to the grant of two increments within a single year.
Such an outcome was never the intent of the rules and is inconsistent with the fundamental concept of an “annual” increment. This anomaly appears to have arisen due to a misalignment between the existing rule position and the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, which introduced two uniform increment dates six months apart. The present interpretation, therefore, results in unintended multiple increments within a year, leading to avoidable financial burden and a direct loss to the exchequer.
The matter needs re-examination by DoPT to ensure that the intent of the rules is preserved and the concept of one increment per year is strictly maintained.
6. Grant of Increment During Long Periods of Leave: The underlying rationale for granting an annual increment is the expectation of enhanced efficiency, improved performance, and greater contribution arising from one full year of active service and accumulated experience. Granting increments to employees who have remained on leave for a substantial portion of the preceding year defeats this basic principle.
Since Dearness Allowance already provides compensation for inflation and rising cost of living, the annual increment cannot be treated as an automatic or fundamental entitlement. Mechanical grant of increments merely on completion of the minimum residency period, without due regard to the actual service rendered during the year, represents a flawed interpretation of the rules.
This issue warrants a comprehensive review to align increment policy with the principles of performance, accountability, and financial prudence.
