Wage revision in Banks and Stagnation Increment

stagnation in pay scale

I will definitely expect that leaders will remove the word stagnation in pay scale of officers. I feel pity for those experienced officers who have all talent and who are hard workers but could not get promotion due to many constraints beyond the control of officer. But due to constraints before management, senior officers reach last stage of their scale and they are denied annual income.

When number of vacancies is less in upper scale, management is constrained to give fewer promotions and when such senior officers are good worker, they must be entitled to get at least annual increment.

I feel pity for such senior officers because they are not getting annual increment after they reach last stage of their scale even when they are shouldering responsibility of large branches successfully. On the contrary non performing clerks as well as officers get annual increment only because they are junior.

Obviously the word stagnation is deceptive and a curse for senior officers. In olden days when officer was not found fit for promotion due to inefficiency he was to face stagnation as mild dose of punishment. This used to happen when promotion based on seniority used to take place and management used to give promotion even if there were not adequate vacancies in that scale.

In most of the central government department there is provision for time bound promotion and hence question of stagnation in particular scale does not arise. It is perhaps only in banks that even after completing twenty or thirty years of service in a particular scale promotion is not given to an employee. Now-a-days Interview is a killer injection in the almirah of management which can be injected to any good or bad performer in promotion process as pe whims and fancies of the interviewer.

In brief there is no justification for stopping increment for two three years to a senior officer in the name of stagnation. If management feels that there is no scope for promoting officers in a particular scale to upper scale in lack of adequate vacancy , they must keep the scale long enough to accommodate senior officers and ensure that they continue to get increment every year until there is report of any misconduct or inefficiency.

When leaders and bank management can give relief to retired employees, why can’t they agree for continuous annual income to those who have reached last stage of their scale?

Here I would like to add that when management finds an officer guilty of minor misconduct they penalize him by stopping his one annual increment for one year without cumulative effect. It means disallowing an officer for increment for two three years in the name of stagnation, or for the reason that he has reached the last stage of his pay scale is tantamount to penalizing him with more greater penalty for none of his fault.

If management finds an officer unfit for promotion and unfit for release of annual increment in the name of increment they are not justified in entrusting such stagnated senior officer with higher responsibility such as Branch Manager of large branch, rather they should prefer junior officer to should responsibility of bigger branch. It is undeniably ridiculous that most of senior middle management officers and most of the executives in Scale IV to scale VII are not getting annual increment even though they are sitting t top and the hold the most responsible post.

Similarly when a clerk even reaching last stage of his scale is found unfit for promotion to officer cadre it is the weakness and inefficiency of the management that they fail to train, irrigate and convert the inefficient senior clerk to efficient clerk suitably enough to be promoted as officer. It is enough to prove inefficacy of Human Resource Development Department and ineffectiveness of entire training system.

After all what else they give to experienced officers other than stagnation losses for none of their fault. I have no doubt in my conviction that it is not only management but also the union leaders who failed completely to erase the word stagnation from pay scale of bank employees.

There are numerous examples in banks that an officer promoted by the management to scale III but given the posting of branch Manager where a scale I or scale II officer is supposed to work and vice versa. It is enough to substantiate the fact that large scale whimsical promotions are taking place in banks forcing ban management to post unpromted officers to shoulder the responsibility of bigger branches and specially critical and sensitive branches. Such type of anomalies occurs happens only because unchallengeable power is given to interviewer to make or mar career of an officer in the promotion processes.

If anyone do not agree with my views expressed above I request them to please justify the continuance of stagnation in pay scale under changed scenario in the banking industry.