BE ANGRY-There's reason to be!

The sense of betrayal among young teachers, due to the attitude of the MHRD, UGC and the DUTA/FEDCUTA Leadership is almost complete, it is necessary to take a closer look at certain figures understand the betrayal. The Figure1 shows a comparison of career gross pay for teachers in various stages of their career according to (a) the UGC Pay Review Committee (Chaddha Committee); (b) the MHRD notification; and (c) after a proportionate fixation of minimum Pay-in-Pay Band. Though (a) is part of an official document and (b) is an official notification.

At the initial stages of the Pay Review process, a few of the principal demands of the college teachers were:

1. A higher initial pay, i.e. higher in comparison to Grade ‘A’ Officers, as teaching is a late entry profession. Also, the fact that the IAS offers numerous perks and fast track increments, means that teaching remains an extremely unattractive profession in comparison.

2. Prevention of stagnation in the final years of service. This should be done through an assured third promotion to Professorship.

3. Academic Allowance.

These demands also formed the bulwark of the DUTA/FEDCUTA Charter to the UGC Pay Review Committee.

The report of the UGC Pay Review (3.10.2008) tried to address some of this issues by offering:

1. A higher initial pay through a Grade Pay of 6600 in PB3. (Grade ‘A’ beginning at GP 5400 in PB3)

2. Two Advance Increments for NET.

3. Third promotion in colleges in the form of Senior Associate Professor with GP 8700 in PB4.

4. Academic Allowance of Rs. 1500 per month for Assistant Professors and Rs. 1200 for Associate Professors.

The UGC PRC also recommended in its report several other proposals which would grant greater respectability to the teaching profession:

1. Return to the Old Pension Scheme

2. Research Grants of Rs. 2-5 lakhs.

3. Better Medical Insurance.

However, the Report of the UGC PRC had certain glaring drawbacks:

1. Proposal to introduce a system of students’ evaluation of teachers’ performance

2. Distinction between college and university teachers in terms of promotion to Professorship

3. Though it provided an almost uniform rise in salary throughout a teachers career (Fig.1), the percentage increase in salary from the existing scales (Fig.2) was lesser in comparison to the new entrants.

4. Though IAS officers were to enter into PB4 after 13 years of service, a college teacher (without M.Phil/Ph.D.) would do so after 17 years. (N.B.: The propaganda that it was only the MHRD Notification which granted PB4 to college teachers is a monumental lie!)

In sum, therefore, though the UGC PRC’s proposals were attractive to those in the early stages of their career and those yet to enter the profession, they were lesser attractive for those who were in the middle or mature years of their career. For the electoral interests of the DUTA Leadership this was suicidal, for it could not hope to win elections with votes from would-be-teachers. Also, the DUTA Leadership themselves being Associate Professors were not to enthused by the efforts to attract talent to teaching.

The UGC PRC was opposed for its “negative features” by all teachers. Everyone participated in the agitation for parity with the IAS in reaching PB4. After almost three months the MHRD notification was issued on the eve of the elections to the Academic and Executive Councils. Without any delay the

DUTA Leadership went on an overdrive to celebrate the ‘historic’ achievements. They celebrated the entry into PB4 for teachers after 12/13/14 years of service, i.e. a reduction of three years from the UGC PRC Report.

But the celebration glossed over:

1. the reduced Minimum Pay-in-Pay Band for Assistant Professors due to arbitrary fixation of Academic Grade Pay (AGP)

2. the pushing back of promotion to Associate Professorship by 3 years, from 9/10/11 years to 12/13/14 years.

3. No increments for NET.

4. No Academic Allowance

5. No Research Grant

6. Continuance of New Pension Scheme

7. a chimera of “Professorship” in colleges where a quota system would be followed.

The resulting document shows that the table were now turned overwhelmingly against Assistant Professors who were saddled with a far lesser percentage hike in their salaries in comparison to Associate Professors (Fig.2). Also, we can see a stark difference in scales at the 12th/13th/14th year of service. It seems after that stage teachers enter a different profession altogether!

In effect the MHRD Proposals lead to a reduction in salary of over Rs. 40 lakhs against what was proposed by the UGC-PRC. (See Loss Calculator and Mathematics of Betrayal)

A few illustrations:

	Old Scales	UGC PRC	MHRD Notification
Gross Pay After 8 years	26452	56873	47511
Basic Pay After 15 years	21150	44400	47800
Basic Pay After 24 years	26820	59300	64800

A comparison of Basic Pay in various stages of career over the last several Pay Reviews shows how skewed the current proposals are:

Designation	4th Pay Review	5th Pay Review	6th Pay Review (MHRD Notification)
Lecturer/ Assistant Professor	2200	8000	21600
Lecturer (Senior)/ Assistant Professor	3000	10000	25600
Lecturer Selection Grade/ Associate Professor (after 12/13/14 years)	4200	13680	46400

So much for getting PB4 after 12/13/14 years of service instead of 15/16/17 years. Many younger teachers may never see that date as by the time we reach there it would be time for the 7th Pay Commission.

How could the DUTA/FEDCUTA Leadership agree to such a proposal? What were their compulsions?

Why should our students choose teaching as a profession?

Why should we not quit teaching if we find better opportunities?