Understanding "Stoppage of 03 Increments with Cumulative Effect" – What Does It Really Mean?

Dear Seniors, could you please guide me on the meaning of "Punishment - Stoppage Of 03 Increment with cumulative effect"? In the above statement, what is the meaning of "With Cumulative Effect"?

Thanks in advance.

Can you mention the context of this statement? The word "Cumulative" doesn’t really fit in this general context of stoppage of increments since 'cumulative' means 'together/accumulative/collective/accruing/increasing, etc.' Unless there were some increments that were already announced/deserved but not paid/implemented in the situation you have at hand. Usually, the phrases used/associated in such a context are: 'retrospective effect' or 'immediate effect' or 'w.e.f........(date)'.

Please do wait for others to respond.

Regards,
TS

Dear friend Tajsateesh, the phrase "with cumulative effect" in the context of awarding punishment is generally and very widely used in Government and Public Sector Undertakings. It has a very specific meaning. But before elaborating on it, let us wait for the additional information sought, viz. "Can you mention the context of this statement?"

Warm regards.

Dear Prashant, the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect means that he will not draw the next annual increment for a period of three years, and at the end of three years, he will draw the next increment. Let us assume a case where the punished employee was in the grade of Rs. 5000-100-6000 and was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 5500, with the increment due on 15th September every year. As the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is imposed, his basic pay will remain static at Rs. 5500 on 15th September 2011, 15th September 2012, 15th September 2013, and up to 14th September 2014. On 15th September 2014, he will draw the next increment, and his basic pay would go up to Rs. 5600. Had it been without cumulative effect, his pay would be fixed at the stage where he would have been had he not been punished, i.e., he would be straight drawing Rs. 5900 on 15th September 2014 without going through the stages of Rs. 5600 to Rs. 5800. Thus, where the punishment is the stoppage of increments with a cumulative effect, the loss is enduring or lifelong, whereas where the punishment of stoppage of increments is without cumulative effect, the loss is short-term and does not make a difference in the long run.

Hope this clarifies.

Regards, KK

Dear Prashant, I think I have already replied to your question at the following link on Lawyers Club India: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/expe...ct--226116.asp. If you have any doubts about that, please specify for further clarification. However, Mr. K.K. Nair's reply should also satisfy you fully, as I am in total agreement with his response.

Dear Tajsateesh, Prashant, and other friends,

I fully endorse the opinion given by kknair. He has clearly explained the meaning of the phrase "with cumulative effect."

In the case of 'with cumulative effect,' the increments for those years are lost forever. Whereas if it is "without cumulative effect," the employee is placed at the same increment level (which they would have earned had they not been awarded the punishment) at the end/expiry of the punishment period. I hope the example and explanations given herein clear any doubt regarding "with or without cumulative effect" as used while awarding punishment.

I expect more of such queries and explanations from members so that it helps the HR fraternity and especially CiteHR members in enriching their knowledge and expertise.

Warm regards.

Clarification on Promotion During Punishment Period

Please clarify for me what the next promotion that can be given to an employee during a punishment period is. After an inquiry into a theft case, management arbitrarily imposed punishment on an employee by stopping one increment with a cumulative effect. The letter of punishment was issued on 10 Jan 2012, the annual increment date was May 2012, and the employee was eligible and qualified for promotion in March 2013. Currently, management is stating that promotion will be considered after May 2013. With the cumulative effect, he lost his increments for a lifetime. Not receiving the promotion is seen as another form of punishment. Please provide suggestions on this issue.

Regards,
[Name Removed For Privacy Reasons]
[Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]
[Email Removed For Privacy Reasons]

I think yours is a good employer-friendly company. Once the punishment period is over, the employee is eligible for promotion and increment. He cannot be denied future promotions or increments. Of course, do bear in mind that since the punishment is with cumulative effect, it means he will not get the increment that was due during the punishment period but will receive the next increment after the punishment period is over—i.e., on the Date of the Next Increment due.

Warm regards.

The elaborate reply given by Mr. K.K. Nair is highly appreciable because he has clearly distinguished the term 'cumulative effect' in reference to the stoppage of increment as a measure of punishment with an illustrative example. I would like to add that the stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, apart from causing pecuniary loss to the incumbent for the specified period, will also act as a barrier to his promotion during its currency and affect his terminal benefits like gratuity, pension, etc.

In response to Mr. Badal Moharana's query, first, I would say, based on the ratio decidendi of the Honorable Supreme Court in Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India [1993 (I) LLJ 887], that no employee has a right to promotion but only has a right to be considered for promotion according to rules. Chances of promotion are not conditions of service, and as such, any claim in this regard is not maintainable. Mr. Badal has raised the question based on the principle of double jeopardy, i.e., a person cannot be punished twice for the same offense. While the rule of law cannot permit the application of the principle of double jeopardy, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that the doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply to the issue of denial of promotion during the currency of punishment [State of Tamil Nadu v. K.S. Murugesan - 1996 III LLJ (Suppl) 333 (SC)]. Unless the period of punishment has expired by the passage of time, the claim for consideration cannot be taken up.