8th Pay Commission: Fitment factor of 2.92-4.38 for Levels 1-18; why a staff body wants it

The Indian Railways Technical Supervisors' Association (IRTSA) has proposed that the 8th CPC should abandon the currently applicable single fitment factor, and instead grade it by pay level, starting from 2.92 at Level 1 to 4.38 at Level 18.

Reason? IRTSA argued in its memorandum to the 8th CPC that one uniform multiplier cannot reflect how sharply duties and responsibilities differ across the pay matrix. Alongside the graded fitment factor, the association has also sought an annual increment of 5% of basic pay in place of the present 3%.

The proposal stems from IRTSA's minimum pay calculation in its memorandum to the 8th CPC.

“Dr. Wallace Aykroyd's formula followed by 7th CPC and constant relative income approach followed by 5th CPC should be considered". It has also said that consumption units per family should be taken as 4.6 instead of 3, and new household costs should also be counted in.

“Consumption expenses towards bottled drinking water, internet charges, premium towards health insurance should be made part of calculation for fitment factor. Consumption units per family should be taken as 4.6 instead of 3 including responsibility parents and children," IRTSA said.

When rounded off to nearest hundred minimum pay will be Rs. 52,600, which 2.92 times of 7th CPC minimum pay. However, 2.92 is only the starting point. The memorandum's central argument is that the factor must climb with the level, because the work does.

“Pay structure for Technical Supervisors should adequately reflect the substantial difference in duties and responsibilities of various posts. Hence, Multiple fitment factors have to be adopted for different level,” it said.

For safety-category posts in the Railways, it wanted a higher indexing from Level 6 onward, saying, “Fitment factor for level-1 post is arrived as 2.92, fitment factor for posts level-6,7&8 should be ‘2.92X1.2=3.50’. For mid position posts in pay level-9 to 12 fitment factor of ‘2.92X1.3=3.80’ should be adopted.”

The association has carried that logic through a full table, titled “Pay matrix proposed for 8th CPC". It sets a fitment factor against each of the eighteen levels as below:

• Levels 1 to 3: 2.92

• Levels 4 to 8: 3.50

• Levels 9 to 13: 3.80

• Levels 14 to 16: 4.09

• Levels 17 and 18: 4.38

The same table also carries the 7th CPC entry pay of each level as its index: ₹18,000 at Level 1, ₹35,400 at Level 6, ₹51,100 at Level 9, ₹77,800 at Level 12, ₹1,18,500 at Level 13 and ₹2,25,000 at Level 18 and works out the annual increments on those bases for each level.

On the demand for a bigger annual increment, IRTSA said, “Annual increment should be equal 5% of Basic Pay. Promotional increment should be equal to two annual increments.”

Why should fitment rise with the level?

The memorandum's answer is that the pay matrix has never been built on a proper assessment of what each post actually does.

“Job evaluation has not been done by previous pay commissions. Safety & Technical posts are equated with non-technical & non-safety posts. No compensation given for Hazards / Job requirements, additional working hours,” it said, adding that technical posts in the field work 48 hours a week against 45 for office-based supporting posts.

There are two more points in the memorandum that support the demand for graded fitment factor.

First, the association argued that the erosion is structural. “Revision of pay after a gap of 10 years has eroded real value of the salary.”

Second, it wanted the ceiling loosened, saying, “Apex scale should not be limited to the ratio between minimum pay and maximum pay.”

Read together, the proposal is less about a number than about a principle that a Level 18 post and a Level 1 post cannot be revised by the same multiplier if the pay matrix is meant to reward responsibility.