Sub: Anomaly in increment & claim settlement period
Sanjeev Goyal
PMOPG/E/2026/0039084
Concerned Department: Department of Administrative Reforms
Increment Cycle: At present residency period of 6 months is prescribed for next increment. Person joining on 1st Jan/Jul would get next increment in exact 6 months. Further employees intermittently getting MACP/promotion are also entitled for next increment after completing the 6 months’ residency period. Specifically, those getting promotion close of Jun/Dec gets next increment too early. This has increased the avoidable burden of increments on the system and is resulting in too many of increments defying the basic hypothesis of annual increment. In a typical case where a new employee joins in the month of June will get first pay rise on 1st July with DA hike, on next 1 Jan annual increment and in March DA hike from January. This reflects too many pay rise in short period. Therefore, the residency period may be slightly extended of 9 months, as depicted in below table.
Sr. No. | Joining or getting MACP/promotion | Next Increment |
1 | 1st Jan to 31st March | 1st Jan |
2 | 1st April to 30th June | 1st April |
3 | 1st Jul to 3oth Sep | 1st Jul |
4 | 1st Oct to 31st Dec | 1st Oct |
Under pay fixation option 2 on promotion (under FR-22), employee gets 2 increments on schedule date of increment and one more increment in next six months, I think this provision is extremely misinterpreted. This could have been correct when increments were given only after completing full one year of service but how a residency period of 6 months can entitle another increment to an employee who is already part of the system and has opted to get increments on next schedule date under option-B? This has resulted in grant of next increment six month advance, in all promotion/CAS cases, and has cascading impact throughout the service period. It can never be the intention of rules if interpreted in a comprehensive manner.
A serving employee opting promotional increment (under option B) on 1st Jan/Jul getting another increment before completing next one year of service is grossly unfair? Such unwarranted increments are a burden on the system and requires a serious review. This option business needs to put to an end because this is fundamentally wrong. Such unwarranted increments are a burden on the exchequer and must be stopped.
Claim Settlement Period: Employees prefer several types of reimbursements such as Children Education Allowance, Travel Allowance, Newspaper Claims, Telephone Claims, LTC, Transfer grant, Medical reimbursement etc. However, it has been observed that there is no uniform set of due dates prescribed for the submission of these claims, nor is there a defined time-bar period applicable across all categories. As a result, delays and pendency have become a routine. This also affects budget planning, as employees tend to accumulate claims and submit long-pending ones in a single instance.
It is therefore requested that a uniform deadline be prescribed for all employee-related claims to instil discipline and ensure timely settlement, for example:
Sr No. | Claim | Due | Time Limit |
1 | Official travel/TTA/ LTC | As & when occurs | 60 days from completion of journey |
2 | Children Education Allowance | Annually on 1st April for previous financial year | Within 60 days of due date |
3 | Newspaper/Telephone | On 1st Jan/Jul for previous half year | Within 60 days of due date |
4 | TTA on retirement | After retirement | Within 6 months of retirement or 90 days of completion of journey whichever is earlier. |
Etc. Beyond which claim should stand forfeited. This is necessary to bring discipline. Further, in India there would always be cases where employee would seek extension. So rules must define that extension of 30 days can be granted where sufficient reason exists that prevented employee from filing claim, mere oversight or busy schedule should not be considered sufficient grounds for relaxation.
