7th CPC recommendation and govt decision to raise benchmark from good to very good is not heartening but ridiculous.
An ACR grading is not a measurement of performance but of flattery, crimination and incompetency of HoOs
ACR is a conventional practice. It has brought no positive change. Hence, it must be done away with.
7th central pay commission recommendation to make ‘Very Good’ grading a benchmark for MACP or promotion cannot be justified for various reasons. There is nothing inspiring about it except prolonging the existing harrowing experience of poor subordinates. The govt decision to implement it without any rider is ridiculous. It will push for a tougher competition among employees to devise newer plans to please their HoS and relegate their duty.
Gradings in the ACRs of employees speak volumes about the discriminatory and arbitrary attitude of the head and less about employees’ performance. Even those with 100% result have been awarded average/negative or below benchmark grading on umpteen occasions while those with considerably low result and no contributions whatsoever to their credit get ‘Outstanding’ grading in their ACRs.
Grading is based not on performance but on the whims of the Head and flattery of the subordinate. The trend is in vogue since the very beginning and there seems to be no end to it. The supremacy of the head under every condition has been vindicated whereas the burden of sincere, hardworking and result oriented staffers has been multiplied. Now the latter will have to be concerned as much about their prime duty as about pleasing their boss.
The Heads of Institutes have no scruples or knowledge about evaluating their subordinates. Majority of them are incompetent and corrupt. Rather than promoting any work ethic they promote flattery, corruption and nihilism.
The higher ups adamantly believe that there are very few limited number of employees in every institution with outstanding performance in a session. They take a great pride in lowering grades but never in upgrading ones .
An inflated bill on expenditures is highly desirable and thus always welcome but ACRs with too may ‘outstanding’ grades are bad taste in the mouth of a reviewing officer. Anything that fetches a handsome commission is soothing to the sore eyes.
How many are aware of the fact that many Heads, unscrupulous, devoid of any knowledge and common sense, don’t know any abc of computer, English and ACR. They have to depend largely upon one of subordinates for their own ACR. The same subordinate awards grading to his colleagues at the behest of the head.
So an employee’s relationship will have to pass double filters of his boss and the chosen colleague. It is an uphill task to please ones’ two mother in laws at the same time.
By overrating the shirker but flatterer and under rating a workaholic but sincere subordinates the head sends a signal that he is not bound by any law or conscience.
The HoS have never used this power of theirs in a right spirit. It has always been used to promote inefficiency and flattery and to settle score with those who refuse to serve their whims.
With this power vested in him an HoS behaves more like an arrogant and whimsical mother-in-law and less like the head of an institute.
The whole idea to give a damn care to this archaic and conventional recommendation will be unholy. Rather the idea of ACR should be dispensed with as it serves no purpose as the recommendation will encourage corruption too as no subordinate will dare to check their corrupt seniors.