When Justice Judges Itself, It Collapses: A Lesson from ‘Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa’

When Justice Judges Itself, It Collapses: A Lesson from ‘Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa’

-Bruhaspati Samal-

There are moments in public life when the silent suffering of an individual transforms into a powerful indictment of the system itself. This is not merely the story of a government employee caught in disciplinary proceedings—it is the story of how authority, when exercised without restraint, can push a human being and his family into years of uncertainty, humiliation, and hardship. For more than eight long years since 2018, a career was derailed, dignity was questioned, and a family was forced to live under the shadow of allegations and instability. This is not just injustice—it is prolonged institutional suffering.

At the heart of this struggle lies one of the most fundamental principles of natural justice—nemo debet esse judex in propria causa—no one should be a judge in their own cause. This principle is not merely a legal abstraction; it is the moral boundary that separates fairness from arbitrariness. Once this boundary is crossed, the very idea of justice begins to erode. Equally compelling is the doctrine of sublato fundamento cadit opus—if the foundation is removed, the entire structure collapses. When the beginning of a process is tainted with bias or illegality, every subsequent action, no matter how procedurally correct it may appear, becomes unsustainable. These principles formed the backbone of a historic judgment delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 260/00162 of 2022, a case that stands today as a stark reminder of the consequences of violating natural justice.

The case originated from allegations of misconduct within a postal division. A supervisory officer alleged misbehavior, manhandling, and assault, and accordingly initiated criminal proceedings by lodging a complaint with the police. This set the criminal law in motion. However, what followed thereafter raises serious concerns about fairness and administrative propriety.

The disciplinary authority of the division, who was actively involved in reporting and pursuing the allegations, proceeded to initiate departmental proceedings against the employee. The employee was placed under suspension. A charge sheet was issued on 01.03.2018. Despite the employee submitting his defense, the authority examined the same and decided to proceed with a formal inquiry by appointing an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The disciplinary machinery moved forward with full force. Although the final order of dismissal, dated 28.10.2019, was passed later by another officer due to a change in incumbency, the foundation of the entire proceeding—initiation, framing of charges, and decision to conduct the inquiry—remained rooted in the actions of an authority who was not a neutral adjudicator but an interested party in the allegations. This overlap between the roles of complainant and disciplinary authority was not a minor procedural irregularity. It was a fundamental violation of natural justice. It created a reasonable apprehension of bias, which is sufficient in law to vitiate the entire proceeding.

The Tribunal, while examining the matter, relied upon a series of landmark judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Mohd. Yunus Khan vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Civil Appeal No. 8339 of 2010), the Apex Court had categorically held that when an authority acts both as a witness and an adjudicator, the entire disciplinary proceeding stands vitiated. Similarly, in Ashok Kumar Yadav vs State of Haryana (1985) and A.U. Kureshi vs High Court of Gujarat (2009), it was held that even a reasonable likelihood of bias is sufficient to invalidate a decision. The principle was further reinforced in S. Parthasarthy vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1973), where the Court emphasized that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. The Tribunal also drew support from its own earlier decision in O.A. No. 523/2023, where disciplinary proceedings were quashed on similar grounds of violation of natural justice.

Applying these well-established principles, the Tribunal came to a clear and unequivocal conclusion: when an authority, who has a personal stake or prior involvement in the allegations, initiates disciplinary proceedings, the process is inherently biased and legally unsustainable. It is not necessary to establish actual bias; the mere existence of circumstances that give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias is enough to invalidate the entire proceeding. Once this foundational defect was identified, the legal consequence was inevitable. Invoking the doctrine of sublato fundamento cadit opus, the Tribunal held that if the initial action itself is illegal, all subsequent actions must fall. Accordingly, the charge sheet dated 01.03.2018 was quashed. The inquiry report, the dismissal order dated 28.10.2019, and the appellate and revisional orders dated 30.04.2021 and 20.12.2021 were all set aside. The employee was deemed to have continued in service with all consequential benefits, except back wages.

While this decision restored the legal position of the employee, it also raises a profound and uncomfortable question: can justice delivered after eight long years truly compensate for what was lost? The answer is complex, and perhaps unsettling. Dismissal from service is not merely a professional setback. It is a social and economic catastrophe. It strips an individual of livelihood, dignity, and identity. For eight years, the employee lived under the burden of allegations, facing social stigma and financial hardship. His family, too, bore the consequences—uncertainty, deprivation, and emotional distress became a part of daily life. These are losses that no judicial order can fully repair. This case, therefore, is not just about legal principles. It is about the human cost of administrative actions taken without due regard to fairness and objectivity.

It also compels us to examine a deeper and more troubling issue: whether disciplinary mechanisms are sometimes used not as instruments of justice, but as tools of control. When employees, especially those associated with collective representation or union activities, raise their voices or challenge authority, do they receive a fair hearing, or do they face disproportionate retaliation? When the system begins to respond to dissent with punitive action, when procedural safeguards are ignored, and when authority is exercised with a sense of vindictiveness, it begins to resemble what can only be described as trade union victimization. This is not merely an allegation—it is a pattern that demands serious introspection.

The Tribunal’s judgment, therefore, carries a message far beyond the confines of a single case. It is a reminder to the entire administrative machinery that power must be exercised with responsibility, restraint, and fairness. Disciplinary proceedings are not weapons to silence dissent; they are mechanisms to ensure accountability, and they must be conducted with utmost impartiality. No authority can be allowed to act as complainant, prosecutor, and judge at the same time. Such concentration of power is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of natural justice. It undermines trust, erodes credibility, and ultimately weakens the institution itself.

The lesson from this case is clear. Administrative decisions must be guided not by personal emotions or institutional ego, but by objective reasoning and adherence to established principles of law. Every authority must remember that behind every file is a human life, a family, and a future. The consequences of their decisions extend far beyond the office—they shape lives. Eight years of suffering cannot be dismissed as a mere procedural lapse. It is a reflection of systemic failure.

This case must serve as a turning point. It must compel authorities to revisit their approach and ensure that such violations do not recur. Mechanisms must be strengthened to prevent bias, ensure transparency, and uphold the principles of natural justice at every stage of disciplinary proceedings. Let this be a warning, and a call for reform. Let no employee in the future be subjected to such prolonged hardship because of avoidable bias or misuse of authority. Let the system evolve into one where justice is not only delivered, but delivered in time, and delivered fairly. Because when justice begins to judge itself, it does not merely collapse—it destroys lives along with it.

(The author is a Service Union Representative and a Columnist, presently working as the General Secretary, Confederation of Central Govt Employees and Workers and President, Forum of Civil Pensioners' Association / National Coordination Committee of Pensioners' Association, Odisha State Committee)

*****

Is Progress Abandoning People?

 

Is Progress Abandoning People?

-Bruhaspati Samal-

There was a time when the dawn of technology was celebrated as a sunrise of hope—machines that would assist, not replace; systems that would empower, not erase. Today, however, beneath the glittering sky of Artificial Intelligence and the so-called “cloud revolution,” a silent storm is gathering. It does not roar like thunder—it whispers through termination emails, vanishes livelihoods overnight, and leaves behind a haunting question: Is progress abandoning people?

The unfolding reality across the global technology sector gives this question a disturbing urgency. Leading corporations such as Oracle Corporation have reportedly eliminated thousands of jobs—figures reaching nearly 30,000 globally, with around 10,000 employees affected in India alone—as the company reallocates massive investments into Artificial Intelligence infrastructure. Similarly, Amazon has cut approximately 16,000 jobs in the early months of 2026 as part of its AI-driven restructuring. The pattern is not confined to a few firms; across the industry, an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 technology jobs have already disappeared within a short span of time this year. Even companies like Meta Platforms are expected to follow similar paths, with projections indicating potential workforce reductions of up to 20 percent.

These are not isolated corporate decisions; they represent a structural transformation of the global economy. The so-called “cloud economy,” once celebrated as a democratizing force, is revealing its centralizing character. Far from distributing opportunity, it is concentrating power within a handful of corporations that control data, infrastructure, and digital ecosystems. The cloud, often romanticized as an invisible and inclusive space, is in reality a highly capital-intensive domain where machines are replacing human labour at an unprecedented pace. What was promised as technological empowerment is increasingly manifesting as technological displacement.

Academic and industry studies deepen this concern. Research indicates that Artificial Intelligence can enhance productivity by 20 to 60 percent, but this efficiency often comes at the cost of reduced demand for routine and entry-level jobs. Even before the widespread adoption of advanced AI tools, employment trends showed a steady decline in roles that are easily automated. Young job seekers are among the worst affected, as traditional entry points into the workforce are rapidly shrinking. The emerging labour market places disproportionate emphasis on high-end skills, making continuous reskilling a necessity rather than an option—yet access to such opportunities remains unequal.

Case studies from within the industry further highlight the contradiction. While companies justify layoffs as necessary for AI investment, several analyses suggest that only a limited portion of these investments have translated into immediate financial returns. This raises an uncomfortable possibility: that Artificial Intelligence is sometimes being used not only as a tool for innovation but also as a convenient rationale for workforce reduction. The human cost, in such cases, is neither incidental nor temporary—it is systemic.

If this trajectory continues unchecked, the future points toward a deeply divided society. On one side will stand a small, powerful elite controlling AI systems and cloud infrastructure; on the other, a vast population grappling with job insecurity, underemployment, or complete exclusion from the economic mainstream. This is not merely an economic shift; it is a transformation of social structures. Work has always been more than a means of livelihood—it is a source of dignity, identity, and social participation. Its erosion threatens the very fabric of society.

The psychological and emotional consequences of this disruption are equally profound. Job loss is not just a financial setback; it is a personal crisis that affects families, communities, and future generations. The replacement of human judgment with algorithmic decision-making further deepens this alienation, reducing individuals to data points in systems that lack empathy or accountability.

It must be acknowledged that Artificial Intelligence itself is not the adversary. It is a creation of human ingenuity with immense potential to improve lives. However, when deployed within a framework driven solely by profit maximization, without ethical oversight or social responsibility, it becomes an instrument of exclusion. The current wave of layoffs suggests that the balance between innovation and inclusion is being dangerously tilted.

At this decisive moment, the responsibility of all stakeholders becomes paramount. Governments cannot afford to remain passive observers; they must intervene with strong regulatory frameworks, social security measures, and policies that ensure a just transition for affected workers. Corporations must recognize that their long-term sustainability is inseparable from the well-being of their workforce. Investment in Artificial Intelligence must be accompanied by meaningful investment in human capital, including retraining, redeployment, and dignified exit mechanisms.

Workers and their collective organizations must rise with renewed awareness and unity. The transformation underway is not merely technological—it is political and economic. The rights of labour, hard-won over decades, cannot be allowed to erode silently under the weight of automation. The youth, standing at the threshold of this uncertain future, must not only acquire skills but also cultivate the courage to question and shape the direction of technological change.

Progress, if it is to retain its moral legitimacy, must remain anchored in humanity. A future where machines thrive while millions struggle for survival cannot be celebrated as advancement. The cloud may store limitless data, and Artificial Intelligence may process infinite possibilities, but neither can replace the human spirit, resilience, and aspiration.

The time has come to reclaim the meaning of progress. It must not be a journey that leaves people behind but one that carries humanity forward with dignity and justice. The question that echoes through this moment of transformation is not merely rhetorical—it is a call to action: Will we allow progress to abandon people, or will we ensure that it serves the collective future of humanity?

(The author is a Service Union Representative and a Columnist)

*****

A powerful verdict dated 07.04.2026 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 260/00162 of 2022🔥 When “Nemo Debet Esse Judex” Is Broken, Justice Strikes Back!🔥

In a powerful verdict dated 07.04.2026, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 260/00162 of 2022 has sent a loud and clear message—justice cannot be hijacked by authority.⚖️

Eight years of pain, stigma, and struggle—only because those in power forgot the sacred principle: “nemo debet esse judex in propria causa”—no one can be a judge in their own cause.

The Tribunal struck down the entire proceeding, reminding all that once the foundation is illegal, “sublato fundamento cadit opus”💥—the whole structure collapses.

And what is done against law? “quod contra legem fit, pro infecto habetur”—it is treated as if it never existed.

This is not just a verdict—it is a revolution against misuse of power and victimization.

✊ No more intimidation in the name of discipline

✊ No more bias in administrative action

✊ No more injustice hidden behind procedure

🚨 A clear warning to the system: Act fairly, or your actions will fall legally.

Because when justice is denied, resistance rises… and when truth stands firm, power must bow. 🔥💪

-Bruhaspati Samal- 

General Secretary 

Confederation of Central Govt Employees and Workers 

Odisha State CoC, Bhubaneswar 

Confederation Odisha State CoC writes to DG, CGHS on several CGHS issues in Odisha

 

Revision of interest rates for Small Savings Scheme

 

National Council (Staff Side) Joint Consultative Machinery writes to the Member Secretary, 8th cpc

 

Withdraw Wage Codes, Restore Justice to Workers

 Withdraw Wage Codes, Restore Justice to Workers 

-Bruhaspati Samal-

The notification issued by the Government of Odisha on 11 February 2026, under the Labour and ESI Department, marks yet another decisive step in implementing the controversial labour codes framed by the Union Government, particularly the Code on Wages, 2019. While the notification appears administrative in nature—repealing the long-standing Odisha Payment of Wages Rules, 1936 and Odisha Minimum Wages Rules, 1954—it symbolises a deeper structural shift in India’s labour regime. This shift has triggered intense resistance from Central Trade Unions and independent federations, culminating in the nationwide general strike on 12 February 2026. At the heart of this agitation lies a fundamental concern: the systematic dilution of statutory protections that workers had secured through decades of struggle under laws like the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The new Odisha Code on Wages Rules, 2026, though framed under the umbrella of “simplification” and “uniformity,” effectively weaken the enforceability, universality, and adequacy of wages.

The Code on Wages, 2019 was projected as a progressive reform, aiming to ensure a universal minimum wage and timely payment of wages. However, its implementation reveals a different reality. The Code replaces the statutory concept of “minimum wages” with a vague “floor wage” to be fixed by the Central Government. This floor wage is non-binding in practical terms, allowing states to fix wages at levels barely above subsistence. According to labour economists, India’s statutory minimum wages currently vary widely—from less than Rs. 200 per day in some states to about Rs. 500 in others—while the Indian Labour Conference’s 15th session recommended a need-based minimum wage that today would exceed Rs. 750 per day for a family of four.

The Odisha Rules, 2026 follow this diluted framework. While they prescribe criteria such as calorie intake, clothing, and housing, they do not mandate adherence to the historically accepted norms laid down by the Indian Labour Conference or Supreme Court judgments. Instead, wage fixation is left to executive discretion, guided by fiscal considerations rather than workers’ survival needs. This effectively undermines the very spirit of the Minimum Wages Act, which treated minimum wages as a non-negotiable right linked to human dignity. Another major concern arises from the categorisation of labour. The Odisha Rules empower a Technical Committee to revise skill classifications. While this appears administrative, trade unions fear that arbitrary reclassification can push workers into lower wage brackets. In sectors such as construction, textiles, and informal services—where over 90% of India’s workforce is employed—such reclassification can directly reduce wages. According to Periodic Labour Force Survey data, nearly 77% of Indian workers are in informal employment, making them particularly vulnerable to such policy changes.

Equally alarming is the provision under Chapter III of the Odisha Rules, which allows deductions up to 50% of wages, to be recovered in instalments. Under earlier laws, deductions were tightly regulated to protect take-home pay. In a country where the average monthly earnings of casual workers hover around Rs. 8,000–Rs. 10,000, such deductions can push families into debt traps. The requirement for employers to merely “notify” deductions to an Inspector-cum-Facilitator further weakens enforcement, replacing strict compliance with a facilitative regime that prioritises ease of doing business over workers’ rights. The transformation of the labour inspection system into an “Inspector-cum-Facilitator” model is another contentious feature. While intended to reduce harassment of employers, it has effectively diluted the punitive power of inspections. Labour law enforcement in India was already weak, with less than one inspector per 20,000 workers in many states. The new framework further reduces deterrence against violations, increasing the likelihood of wage theft and non-compliance.

The constitution of a State Advisory Board, as envisaged in the Odisha Rules, also raises questions. Though it includes representatives of employers and employees, the government retains decisive control. Historically, tripartite bodies under labour laws functioned as consultative forums, but their recommendations were often non-binding. Trade unions argue that without statutory backing for their decisions, such boards become symbolic rather than effective. Perhaps the most regressive provision lies in the handling of undisbursed wages. The requirement to deposit unpaid dues with the Divisional Labour Commissioner after six months, coupled with bureaucratic claim procedures, may delay or deny rightful payments to workers’ families. In a system already plagued by delays, such provisions risk institutionalising injustice rather than resolving it.

The larger critique of the labour codes extends beyond wages. The consolidation of 29 labour laws into four codes—including the Code on Wages, the Industrial Relations Code, the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, and the Social Security Code—has been perceived by trade unions as a rollback of hard-won rights. For instance, the threshold for requiring government permission for layoffs has been increased from 100 to 300 workers, effectively allowing easier retrenchment. Fixed-term employment provisions enable hire-and-fire practices, undermining job security. 

From a constitutional perspective, the dilution of wage protections raises concerns under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life with dignity. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that non-payment of minimum wages amounts to forced labour. By weakening the enforceability of minimum wages, the new regime may undermine this constitutional safeguard.

The way forward requires a balanced approach that reconciles economic growth with social justice. First, the concept of a statutory national minimum wage, based on the Indian Labour Conference norms, must be reinstated with legal enforceability. Second, wage fixation should be indexed to inflation, ensuring automatic revisions linked to the Consumer Price Index. Third, the labour inspection system must be strengthened rather than diluted, with digital transparency but robust enforcement powers. Fourth, tripartite bodies like Advisory Boards should be given binding authority in wage determination. Finally, any labour reform must be preceded by meaningful consultation with trade unions, ensuring democratic participation in policy-making.

The Government of Odisha, as well as the Union Government, must recognise that labour is not merely a factor of production but the backbone of the economy. Sustainable growth cannot be built on precarious employment and suppressed wages. As Mahatma Gandhi reminded us, “Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man… and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him.” The labour codes, in their present form, fail this test. The demand raised by millions of workers across the country is not merely for higher wages but for dignity, security, and justice. Ignoring this call may deepen social unrest. Listening to it, however, offers an opportunity to build a more equitable and humane economic order.

(The author is a Service Union Representative and a columnist who is currently working as the General Secretary, Confederation of Central Govt. Employees and Workers, Odisha State CoC and also as the President, Forum of Civil Pensioners’ Association, Odisha State Committee, Bhubaneswar. eMail: samalbruhaspati@gmail.com) 

*******

Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 4851 on 8th CPC answered on 23 March 2026

 

ଉପେକ୍ଷିତ ବୃଦ୍ଧାବସ୍ଥା

 

ଉପେକ୍ଷିତ ବୃଦ୍ଧାବସ୍ଥା

ବୃହସ୍ପତି ସାମଲ

ସାଧାରଣ ସମ୍ପାଦକ 

କେନ୍ଦ୍ର ସରକାରୀ କର୍ମଚାରୀ ଓ ଶ୍ରମିକ ପରିସଂଘ

ଓଡ଼ିଶା ରାଜ୍ୟ ସମନ୍ୱୟ ସମିତି, ଭୁବନେଶ୍ଵର 

“ବାହାରେ ହସେ ମୁଁ ଭିତରେ କାନ୍ଦେ, ଏହି ମୋର ପରିଚୟ, ମରିସାରିକି ମୁଁ ତଥାପି କରିବି ବଞ୍ଚିବାର ଅଭିନୟ” - ଏହା କେଉଁ ନାଟକ ଅଥବା ଚଳଚ୍ଚିତ୍ରର ସଂଳାପ ନୁହେଁ, ବରଂ ଥରଥର ଗଳାରେ, ଛଳଛଳ ଆଖିରେ, କୋହଭରା ହୃଦୟରେ ନିଜ ପରିବାର ଓ ସନ୍ତାନସନ୍ତତିଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ବୟସର ସାୟାହ୍ନରେ ଅଲୋଡ଼ା ହୋଇ ବୃଦ୍ଧାଶ୍ରମରେ କାଳ କାଟୁଥିବା ଜଣେ ବୟସ୍କ ବାପାର ଅବଶୋଷ ଓ କରୁଣ ଅଭିବ୍ୟକ୍ତି ଯାହା ଏବେ ସାମାଜିକ ଗଣମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ବେଶ୍ ଭାଇରାଲ। ଲେଖକ ନିଜେ ଏଇ ନିକଟରେ ଏକ ଘରୋଇ ଡାକ୍ତରଖାନାରେ ନିଜ ବନ୍ଧୁଙ୍କୁ ଚିକିତ୍ସା ସହାୟତା ଯୋଗାଇ ଦେବା ଅବସରରେ ମଧ୍ୟ କିଛି ତିକ୍ତ ଅନୁଭୂତି ସାଉଁଟିଛନ୍ତି। ଆଇସିୟୁ ବେଡରେ ମୃତ୍ୟୁ ସହ ଅହରହ ସଂଗ୍ରାମ କରୁଥିବା ବୁଢାବାପାଟି ପାଖରେ ନା ପୁଅଝିଅ ନା ସେଇ ଲୋକମାନେ ଯାହାଙ୍କ ମଙ୍ଗଳ‌ ପାଇଁ ଏ ବନ୍ଧୁ ତାଙ୍କ ଜୀବନକୁ ନିଃସ୍ୱାର୍ଥପର ଭାବେ ଉତ୍ସର୍ଗୀକୃତ କରିଥିଲେ, କେହି ନଥିଲେ। ଇଏ କେବଳ‌ ଏଇ ଗୋଟିଏ ଦୁଇଟି ଘଟଣା ନୁହେଁ। ବୃଦ୍ଧ ମାତାପିତା ଓ ବୟସ୍କ ଗୁରୁଜନମାନେ ଘୋର‌ ଅବହେଳା ଓ ନିର୍ଯାତନାର ଶିକାର ହେଉଥିବା ଏବେ ଗଣମାଧ୍ୟମର ପ୍ରମୁଖ ଖବର‌ ପ୍ରାୟ। ଏ ବିଡ଼ମ୍ବନା କାହିଁକି? ସାମ୍ପ୍ରତିକ ପରିସ୍ଥିତିରେ ବୟସ୍କ ନାଗରିକମାନେ ଅବହେଳିତ ଓ ଉପେକ୍ଷିତ କାହିଁକି? ସମାଜ, ନା ସରକାର ନା ସନ୍ତାନସନ୍ତତି, କିଏ ଏଥିପାଇଁ ଦାୟୀ।? ଏଭଳି ‌ଅନେକ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନର ଉତ୍ତର ଖୋଜିବା ପୂର୍ବରୁ ଟିକିଏ ତଥ୍ୟ ଉପରେ ଆଖି ପକେଇଦେବା ଉଚିତ। 

  ଅନ୍ତଃରାଷ୍ଟ୍ରୀୟ ଜନସଂଖ୍ୟା ବିଜ୍ଞାନ ସଂସ୍ଥାନ ଓ ଜାତିସଂଘ ଜନସଂଖ୍ୟା କୋଷ (ଆଇଆଇପିଏସ୍ ଓ ୟୁଏନପିଏଫ୍) ତରଫରୁ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆ ଏଜିଂ ରିପୋର୍ଟ ୨୦୨୩ରେ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ତଥ୍ୟ ଅନୁଯାୟୀ ଭାରତରେ ବୟସ୍କ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସଂଖ୍ୟା ଅତ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଦ୍ରୁତ ଗତିରେ ବଢ଼ିଚାଲିଛି। ୨୦୨୨ରେ ଯାହା (୬୦ ବର୍ଷରୁ ଅଧିକ) ୧୪.୯ କୋଟି ଥିଲା (ମୋଟ ଜନସଂଖ୍ୟର ୧୦.୫%), ଉପରୋକ୍ତ ରିପୋର୍ଟ ଅନୁଯାୟୀ ତାହା ୨୦୩୬ ସୁଦ୍ଧା ୧୫%, ୨୦୫୦ ସୁଦ୍ଧା ୨୦.୮% (୩୪.୭ କୋଟି) ଓ ୨୧୦୦ ସୁଦ୍ଧା ୩୬% ବୃଦ୍ଧି ପାଇ ୫୫ କୋଟିରେ ପହଞ୍ଚିବାର ଯଥେଷ୍ଟ ସମ୍ଭାବନା ରହିଛି। ୨୦୨୨ରୁ ୨୦୫୦ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ୮୦ ବର୍ଷରୁ ଅଧିକ ବୟସ୍କଙ୍କ ସଂଖ୍ୟାରେ ୨୭୯% ବୃଦ୍ଧି ଘଟିବ ଯାହାର‌ ଏକ ବୃହତ ଅଂଶ ବିଧବା ଓ ଅତ୍ୟନ୍ତ ନିର୍ଭରଶୀଳ ମହିଳାମାନେ ହେବେ। ୬୦ ବର୍ଷ ଅତିକ୍ରାନ୍ତ କରିଥିବା ପୁରୁଷଟିଏ ଆହୁରି ୧୮.୩ ବର୍ଷ ଓ ମହିଳାଟିଏ ୧୯ ବର୍ଷ ଅଧିକ ବଞ୍ଚିବ ବୋଲି ରିପୋର୍ଟରେ କୁହାଯାଇଛି। ତଥ୍ୟ ଅନୁଯାୟୀ, ଭାରତରେ ୧୮.୭% ବୟସ୍କଙ୍କ କୌଣସି ରୋଜଗାର ନଥିବା ବେଳେ, ୪୦%ଙ୍କ ରୋଜଗାର ଅତି ନଗଣ୍ୟ। ୪୭% ବୟସ୍କ, ପରିବାର ଉପରେ ନିର୍ଭରଶୀଳ ରହୁଥିବା ବେଳେ, ୩୪% ପେନସନ୍ ଉପରେ ନିର୍ଭର କରି ଜୀବନ ଅତିବାହିତ କରନ୍ତି। ୨୩% ବୟସ୍କ ଏକାଧିକ ସ୍ଥାୟୀ ରୋଗରେ ପୀଡିତ ଥିବା ବେଳେ, ୨୪% ସ୍ୱାଧୀନ ଭାବେ ନିଜର ଦୈନନ୍ଦିନ ନିତ୍ୟକର୍ମ କରିବାକୁ ଅକ୍ଷମ। ଦାରିଦ୍ର୍ୟ, ସ୍ୱାସ୍ଥ୍ୟଗତ ସମସ୍ୟା ଓ ନିଃସଙ୍ଗ ଜୀବନକୁ ନେଇ ୩୦%ରୁ ୫୦% ବୟସ୍କ ମାନସିକ ଅବସାଦଗ୍ରସ୍ତ ଥିବାର ପରିଲକ୍ଷିତ ହୁଏ। ସବୁଠାରୁ କ୍ଷୋଭ ଓ ପରିତାପର‌ କଥା ହେଉଛି ୨୫% ବୟସ୍କ ନିଜ ପରିବାର‌ ଲୋକ ଓ ସମ୍ପର୍କୀୟଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ନିର୍ଯାତନାର ଶୀକାର‌ ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତି। ତଥ୍ୟାନୁଯାୟୀ, ୪୩.୮% ଘଟଣାରେ ପୁଅମାନେ, ୨୭.୮% ଘଟଣାରେ ବୋହୂମାନେ ଏବଂ ୧୪.୨% ଘଟଣାରେ ଝିଅମାନେ ନିଜ ନିଜର ବୟସ୍କ ମାତାପିତା କି ଶାଶୁଶଶୁରଙ୍କୁ ନିର୍ଯାତନା ଦେଇଥାନ୍ତି। ୧୬% ବୟସ୍କ ମହିଳା ନିର୍ଯ୍ୟାତନାର ଶୀକାର ହେଉଥିବାବେଳେ, ୩୩% ଘଟଣାରେ ନିଜ ପୁଅ ମୂଖ୍ୟ ଖଳନାୟକ ସାଜିଥାଏ। ୪୫.୬% ଘଟଣାରେ ବୟସ୍କମାନେ ଅପମାନିତ ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତି, ୨୩.୧% ଘଟଣାରେ ମାଡଗାଳି ସହ ଶାରୀରିକ ନିର୍ଯାତନାର ଶିକାର ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତି, ୫୧% ଘଟଣାରେ ବୟସ୍କ ମହିଳାମାନେ ଅବହେଳିତ ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତି ଓ ୨୫% ଘଟଣାରେ ଆର୍ଥିକ ନିର୍ଯାତନାର ଶିକାର ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତି। ଏଇଥିପାଇଁ ଏବେ ଭାରତ ସରକାରଙ୍କ ଅଟଳ ବୟୋ ଅଭ୍ୟୁଦୟ ଯୋଜନା ଅଧୀନରେ ୬୯୬ଟି ବୃଦ୍ଧାଶ୍ରମ ସହ ସମଗ୍ର ଦେଶରେ ଘରୋଇ ଓ ଏନଜିଓମାନଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ପରିଚାଳିତ ଅନ୍ୟୁନ ୫୮୪୯ଟି (ଓଡ଼ିଶାରେ ୨୦୭) ବୃଦ୍ଧାଶ୍ରମ ଲକ୍ଷାଧିକ ଅନ୍ତେବାସୀଙ୍କୁ ନେଇ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟକ୍ଷମ। 

ଅବଶ୍ୟ ଏକଥା ସତ ଯେ ସବୁ ପୁଅବୋହୂ, ଝିଅଜ୍ୱାଇଁ କିମ୍ବା ବନ୍ଧୁ ପରିବାର ଏକାଭଳି ନୁହଁନ୍ତି। ଅନେକେ ନିଜ ମାତାପିତାଙ୍କୁ ଯଥାଯୋଗ୍ୟ ସମ୍ମାନ ଓ ଭକ୍ତି ପ୍ରଦର୍ଶନ କରୁଛନ୍ତି। ଉପରୋକ୍ତ ଘଟଣାରେ, ବନ୍ଧୁଙ୍କ ପୁଅଝିଅ ସିନା ନଥିଲେ, ହେଲେ ବୋହୂଟି ଯଥାସମ୍ଭବ ନିଜ ଶ୍ୱଶୁର ‌ପ୍ରତି ତା’ର‌ କର୍ତ୍ତବ୍ୟ ନିଭେଇବାର‌ ନିଷ୍ଠା ନିଜେ ଲେଖକ ଅନୁଭବ କରିଥିଲେ। ଏହି‌ ପରିପ୍ରେକ୍ଷୀରେ ତେଲେଙ୍ଗାନା ସରକାରଙ୍କ ନିକଟରେ ଘୋଷିତ ପଦକ୍ଷେପ ବିଚାରଯୋଗ୍ୟ। ମୁଖ୍ୟମନ୍ତ୍ରୀ ଏ. ରେଭନ୍ଥ ରେଡ୍ଡି ସୂଚନା ଦେଇଛନ୍ତି ଯେ, ରାଜ୍ୟ ସରକାର ଏକ ଏମିତି ଆଇନ ଆଣିବା ବିଷୟରେ ବିଚାର କରୁଛନ୍ତି, ଯାହା ଦ୍ୱାରା ନିଜ ବୃଦ୍ଧ ମାତାପିତାଙ୍କୁ ଅବହେଳା କରୁଥିବା ସରକାରୀ କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ ବେତନରୁ ୧୦ ପ୍ରତିଶତ ରାଶି କାଟି ସେହି ଟଙ୍କାକୁ ସିଧାସଳଖ ମାତାପିତାଙ୍କ ବ୍ୟାଙ୍କ ଖାତାକୁ ପଠାଯିବ। ହେଲେ ଯେଉଁ ପୁଅଝିଅମାନେ ସରକାରୀ ଚାକିରୀ କରିନଥିବେ, ସେମାନଙ୍କ ‌ମାତାପିତାଙ୍କୁ ସରକାର କେମିତି ନ୍ୟାୟ ‌ପ୍ରଦାନ‌ କରିବେ? ଠିକ୍ ଅଛି, ଚାକିରୀଆ ପୁଅଝିଅଙ୍କ କଥା ଏବେ ବିଚାରକୁ ନିଆଯାଉ। କିନ୍ତୁ ତା ପୂର୍ବରୁ ସରକାରଙ୍କୁ ‌ଏଇଠି ଗୋଟିଏ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ - ମାତାପିତାଙ୍କୁ ଅବହେଳା କଲେ ଯଦି ବେତନ କାଟ ହେବ, ତେବେ କର୍ମଚାରୀର ସର୍ବନିମ୍ନ ବେତନ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଧାରଣ ବେଳେ ପରିବାରର ସଂଜ୍ଞା ନିରୂପଣରୁ ସରକାର ମାତାପିତାଙ୍କୁ ବାଦ ଦେଇଛନ୍ତି କେମିତି? 

ସର୍ବନିମ୍ନ ମଜୁରୀ ଆଇନ ୧୯୪୮ରେ (ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନ ମଜୁରୀ ସଂହିତା ୨୦୧୯) ବେତନର ପରିମାଣ ନିର୍ଣ୍ଣୟ ପାଇଁ ସ୍ପଷ୍ଟ ଆଇନଗତ ମାନଦଣ୍ଡ ନଥିବାରୁ ଜୁଲାଇ ୧୯୫୭ରେ ଅନୁଷ୍ଠିତ ୧୫ତମ ଭାରତୀୟ ଶ୍ରମ ସମ୍ମେଳନ ଭାରତରେ ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା ଆଧାରିତ ସର୍ବନିମ୍ନ ବେତନର ମୌଳିକ ଢାଞ୍ଚା ନିର୍ଦ୍ଧାରଣ କରି ପୁରୁଷ କର୍ମଚାରୀକୁ ୧, ପତ୍ନୀକୁ ୦.୮ ଏବଂ ସେମାନଙ୍କର ଦୁଇ ସନ୍ତାନକୁ ପ୍ରତ୍ୟେକ ୦.୬ ଏକକ ଭାବେ ଗଣନା କରି ଗୋଟିଏ ସାଧାରଣ ପରିବାର ସଂଜ୍ଞା ତିନୋଟି ଉପଭୋକ୍ତା ଏକକରେ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଧାରଣ କରିବା ପାଇଁ ମତାମତ ରଖିବା ସହ ପାଞ୍ଚଟି ମାନଦଣ୍ଡ ପ୍ରସ୍ତୁତ କରିଥିଲା। ଏହି ଗଣନାରୁ ବେତନ ଉପାର୍ଜନକାରୀଙ୍କ ମାତାପିତା ସ୍ପଷ୍ଟ ଉପେକ୍ଷିତ ରହିଲେ ଯାହା ଦଶକ ଦଶକ ଧରି ଅବିଚଳିତ ରହିଲା। ୧୯୯୨ରେ ଭାରତର ସର୍ବୋଚ୍ଚ ନ୍ୟାୟାଳୟ ବେତନ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଧାରଣ ପ୍ରଣାଳୀକୁ ଅଧିକ ମାନବୀୟ କରିବାକୁ ଚେଷ୍ଟା କରି ଶିଶୁମାନଙ୍କ ଶିକ୍ଷା, ଚିକିତ୍ସା ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା, ପର୍ବପର୍ବାଣୀ ଓ ଅନୁଷ୍ଠାନ ସହିତ ନ୍ୟୁନତମ ମନୋରଞ୍ଜନ, ଏବଂ ବୃଦ୍ଧାବସ୍ଥା ଓ ବିବାହ ଭଳି ଆପାତକାଳୀନ ଖର୍ଚ୍ଚ ସମୂହକୁ ମୋଟ ସର୍ବନିମ୍ନ ବେତନର ୨୫% ହିସାବରେ ଅତିରିକ୍ତ ଉପାଦାନ ଭାବେ ସମ୍ମିଳିତ କରିବାକୁ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଦେଶ ଦେଇଥିଲେ ହେଁ ଏସବୁକୁ କେବଳ ବେତନ ଉପାର୍ଜନକାରୀଙ୍କ ଏକକ ପରିବାର ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ସୀମିତ ରଖି ମାତାପିତାଙ୍କୁ ଔପଚାରିକ ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା ଗଣନାରୁ ବାହାରେ ରଖିଲେ। ଗୁରୁତ୍ୱପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଭାବେ, ଏହି ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗଟି ଏବେ ଜାତୀୟ ସ୍ତରରେ ଆଲୋଚିତ ହେଉଛି। ୩ ଫେବୃଆରୀ ୨୦୨୫ରେ ଲିଖିତ ଭାବେ ଏବଂ ୧୦ ଫେବୃଆରୀ ୨୦୨୫ରେ ଅଷ୍ଟମ କେନ୍ଦ୍ରୀୟ ବେତନ ଆୟୋଗର ସର୍ତ୍ତାବଳୀ ସମ୍ପର୍କିତ ଆଲୋଚନା ସମୟରେ, କର୍ମଚାରୀ ପକ୍ଷ ଜାତୀୟ ପରିଷଦ ତରଫରୁ ଔପଚାରିକ ଭାବେ ମାତା ଓ ପିତା ଉଭୟଙ୍କୁ ଗୋଟିଏ ଗୋଟିଏ ଉପଭୋକ୍ତା ଏକକ ଭାବେ ବିଚାର କରିବା ସହ କର୍ମଚାରୀର ପରିବାରକୁ ପୁରୁଣା ତିନି ଉପଭୋକ୍ତା ଏକକ ବଦଳରେ ପାଞ୍ଚ ଉପଭୋକ୍ତା ଏକକ ଢଞ୍ଚାରେ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନ କରି ସର୍ବନିମ୍ନ ବେତନ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଧାରଣ ସୂତ୍ରକୁ ସଂଶୋଧନ କରିବା ପାଇଁ ଦାବି ଉଠିଛି। ଯଦି ମାତାପିତାଙ୍କୁ ଆଇନଗତ, ନୀତିଗତ ଓ ସାମାଜିକ ଭାବେ ନିର୍ଭରଶୀଳ ଭାବେ ସ୍ୱୀକାର କରାଯାଏ, ତେବେ ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ଅର୍ଥନୈତିକ ଭାବେ ମଧ୍ୟ ସ୍ୱୀକାର କରିବାର ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା ରହିଛି।

ଅଧିକନ୍ତୁ, ସରକାରୀ ଚାକିରୀଆମାନଙ୍କ ଅବସ୍ଥା ଏବେ ବେଶ୍ ସଙ୍କଟାପନ୍ନ। ବିଗତ ଦୁଇ ଦଶନ୍ଧି ଧରି ପେନସନ ଉପରେ ଘନଘନ ଆକ୍ରମଣ। ପୁରୁଣା ପେନସନ ଯୋଜନାରେ ଶେଷ ଦରମାର‌ ୫୦% ପେନସନ ପାଇଁ ନିଜେ ଭଲରେ ବଞ୍ଚିବା ସହ ନିଜ ବୟସ୍କ ମାତାପିତାଙ୍କୁ ଭଲରେ ‌ରଖିବାକୁ ସକ୍ଷମ ଥିବା ସରକାରୀ କର୍ମଚାରୀର ପେନସନକୁ ସରକାର ଜାତୀୟ ପେନସନ ଯୋଜନା ନାଁରେ ୨୦୦୪ରୁ ବନ୍ଦ କଲେ। ପୁନଶ୍ଚ ବିତ୍ତ ବିଧେୟକ ୨୦୨୫ ଜରିଆରେ ବୟସ୍କ ପେନସନଭୋଗୀଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ଏକ ପାତରଅନ୍ତର ସୃଷ୍ଟି କରି କେନ୍ଦ୍ରୀୟ ବେତନ ଆୟୋଗ ସୁପାରିଶ ଲାଗୁ କରିବାର ତାରିଖ ଏବଂ ସେଇ ତାରିଖ ପୂର୍ବରୁ ଅବସର ଗ୍ରହଣ କରିଥିବା କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ ପେନସନ୍ ସଂଶୋଧନର ଅଧିକାର ନିଜ ହାତକୁ ନେଇଛନ୍ତି। ଅର୍ଥାତ ନୂଆ ବିତ୍ତ ବିଧେୟକ ୨୦୨୫ ଅନୁସାରେ ବେତନ ଆୟୋଗଙ୍କ ସୁପାରିଶ ଲାଗୁ ହେବା ପୂର୍ବରୁ ଅବସର ନେଇଥିବା କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ ପେନସନ୍ ସଂଶୋଧିତ ହେବାର ସମ୍ଭାବନା କମ୍। ମୋଟ୍ ୬୧% ପେନସନଭୋଗୀ ନିଜ ନାତିନାତୁଣୀଙ୍କ ଦାୟିତ୍ଵ ସମ୍ଭାଳୁଥିବା ଏବଂ ୩୩%ରୁ ଅଧିକ ପେନସନଭୋଗୀ ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ପରିବାରର ବୋଝ ଉଠାଉଥିବା ବେଳେ, ସରକାରଙ୍କର ଏ ପାତରଅନ୍ତର ନୀତି ସମ୍ବିଧାନର ଧାରା ୧୪ ପ୍ରତି ଏକ କ୍ରୁର ଅଟହାସ୍ୟ ତଥା ବୟସ୍କ ପେନସନଭୋଗୀଙ୍କ ପ୍ରତି ଚରମ ଅବହେଳା। ଅଧିକାଂଶ ବୃଦ୍ଧ ପେନସନଭୋଗୀ ମାତାପିତାମାନେ ଅବହେଳିତ ହେଉଥିବା ବେଳେ, ପେନସନ ନରହିଲେ ସେମାନଙ୍କ ଅବସ୍ଥା ଯାହା‌ହେବ ତାହା ସହଜରେ ଅନୁମେୟ। ଅଧିକନ୍ତୁ, ନଭେମ୍ବର ୨୦୨୫ରେ ଅଷ୍ଟମ କେନ୍ଦ୍ରୀୟ ବେତନ ଆୟୋଗ ସର୍ତ୍ତାବଳୀର ରାଜପତ୍ର ବିଜ୍ଞପ୍ତି ପ୍ରକାଶ ପାଇବା ପରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ସର୍ବନିମ୍ନ ବେତନ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଧାରଣ ସୂତ୍ରର ସଂଶୋଧନ ଦାବିକୁ କର୍ମଚାରୀ ପକ୍ଷ ଦୋହରାଇଛନ୍ତି। ମୌଳିକ ବେତନ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଧାରଣ ସୂତ୍ରକୁ ସଂଶୋଧନ ନକରି, ତେଲେଙ୍ଗାନା ସରକାରଙ୍କ ଦଣ୍ଡାତ୍ମକ ଦରମାକାଟ ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟା ଆଇନଗତ ଆହ୍ୱାନର ସମ୍ମୁଖୀନ ହେବାର ଯଥେଷ୍ଟ ସମ୍ଭାବନା ରହିଛି। ଏହା ଉପରେ କେନ୍ଦ୍ର ସରକାର, ବେତନ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଧାରଣ କର୍ତ୍ତୃପକ୍ଷ ଓ ସାମ୍ବିଧାନିକ ସଂସ୍ଥାମାନେ ଏକତ୍ରିତ ଭାବେ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟ କରିବା ଆବଶ୍ୟକ। ଯେହେତୁ ରାଜ୍ୟ ସରକାରମାନେ ପାରମ୍ପରିକ ଭାବେ କେନ୍ଦ୍ରୀୟ ବେତନ ଆୟୋଗ ସୁପାରିଶକୁ ଅନୁସରଣ କରନ୍ତି, ଏହି ସମୟରେ ନିଆଯାଉଥିବା ସିଦ୍ଧାନ୍ତଗୁଡ଼ିକ ଆସନ୍ତା ଦଶକ ପାଇଁ ଲକ୍ଷାଧିକ ପରିବାରର ବୃଦ୍ଧ ମାତାପିତାଙ୍କ ଆର୍ଥିକ ମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦାକୁ ନିଶ୍ଚୟ ସାକାର କରିବ। 

 ଏହା କେବଳ ସଂଖ୍ୟା, ପ୍ରତିଶତ କିମ୍ବା ବେତନ ମାପଦଣ୍ଡର କଥା ନୁହେଁ। ଏହା ବୟସର ସାୟାହ୍ନରେ ଅନେକ ରୋଗର ଘର ସାଜିଥିବା ବୃଦ୍ଧ ମାତାପିତାଙ୍କ ଅବଶ ଶରୀରର ସେହି ଚାଲିପାରୁନଥିବା ପାଦ, ନଇଁ ପଡ଼ିଥିବା ଅଣ୍ଟା, ଥରୁଥିବା ହାତ, ଝାପସା ଦିଶୁଥିବା ଆଖି, ଠିକ୍ ଶୁଣୁନଥିବା କାନ ଯାହାସବୁ ଦିନେ ନିଜ ପରିବାର‌ ସହ ଦେଶ ଓ ଦଶର ଉନ୍ନତି ପାଇଁ ଉତ୍ସର୍ଗୀକୃତ ଥିଲା, ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ତାଙ୍କ ଯଥାଯଥ ସମ୍ମାନ ଫେରାଇଦେବାର କଥା। ବୃଦ୍ଧାବସ୍ଥା ସନ୍ତାନକୁ ପାଳିଥିବାର ଏକ ଶାସ୍ତି ଭାବେ ପରିଣତ ନ ହେଉ। ଯେଉଁ ସମାଜ ନିଜ ବୃଦ୍ଧ ମାତାପିତାଙ୍କୁ ମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦା ପାଇଁ ଭିକ୍ଷା ମାଗିବାକୁ ବାଧ୍ୟ କରେ, ସେ ସମାଜ ନିଜର ନୀତିଗତ ଦିଗଦର୍ଶନ ହରାଏ। ଏବେ ସମୟ ଆସିଛି ସରକାର ପ୍ରତୀକାତ୍ମକ କଲ୍ୟାଣରୁ ଆଗକୁ ବଢ଼ି ବୃଦ୍ଧ ମାତାପିତାଙ୍କ ଅବହେଳାର ଗଠନାତ୍ମକ ମୂଳକାରଣକୁ ଠିକ୍‌ କରନ୍ତୁ। ବେତନ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଧାରଣ ସୂତ୍ରର ପୁନଃସଂଶୋଧନ, ଭରଣପୋଷଣ ଆଇନର କଠୋର କାର୍ଯ୍ୟାନୁଷ୍ଠାନ, ଏବଂ ଅର୍ଥନୈତିକ ନୀତିରେ “ପରିବାର” ସଂଜ୍ଞାର ପୁନଃନିର୍ଦ୍ଧାରଣ ସମୟର ଜରୁରୀ ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା। ବୃଦ୍ଧ ମାତାପିତା କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ ନୈତିକ ଓ ଆଇନଗତ ଦାୟିତ୍ୱ ଭିତରେ ପ୍ରତିବିମ୍ବିତ ହେଇ ମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦାର ସହ ବୃଦ୍ଧାବସ୍ଥା ଅତିବାହିତ କରନ୍ତୁ। 

*****

Demand, Dignity and Decision

Demand, Dignity and Decision

-Bruhaspati Samal-

The story of every Pay Commission in India is, in truth, the story of millions who serve quietly and expect little—but hope for fairness. From clerks handling endless files to pensioners counting every rupee in retirement, the announcement of a Central Pay Commission has always symbolised correction, dignity, and renewal. Yet, the journey towards the 8th Central Pay Commission has been marked by an unsettling delay that has tested patience and deepened uncertainty. When the Terms of Reference (ToR) were finally notified, they did not bring reassurance; instead, they triggered a wave of concern across employees’ unions and pensioners’ forums. The explicit emphasis on “financial prudence” and the reference to the “cost of the non-contributory pension scheme” have already been strongly opposed by the Staff Side, who see in these phrases an attempt to precondition the Commission’s approach. Rather than beginning with justice and equity, the framework appears to begin with limitations. For a workforce that has waited years for a fair revision, this has raised a fundamental question—will the Commission act as a protector of rights or an instrument of restraint? It is in response to this climate of apprehension that the Confederation of Central Government Employees and Workers has submitted its detailed replies to the 18-point questionnaire, presenting a comprehensive charter of expectations grounded in experience, fairness, and national interest.

The Confederation’s central argument is both simple and profound: government employees are not an economic burden but a national asset. Their salaries are not dead expenditure but active investment in governance, productivity, and economic circulation. At a time when India stands among the world’s fastest-growing major economies, with expanding revenues and controlled fiscal deficits, the plea for equitable pay is not unrealistic—it is justified. The Confederation urges that the Commission must ensure that real wages are protected from inflation and that the benefits of economic growth reach those who sustain the administrative machinery. A strong line is drawn against the repeated comparison between government and private sector compensation. The Confederation points out that public service is fundamentally different in character. Government employees operate within a rigid framework of constitutional accountability, audit scrutiny, vigilance oversight, and restrictions under conduct rules. Their responsibilities are often broader, more complex, and directly tied to public welfare. Whether it is railway workers maintaining national lifelines or defence personnel engaged in hazardous production and operations, their roles cannot be equated with profit-driven private employment. The disparity becomes more glaring when certain public sector undertakings offer significantly better pay than central government services, raising serious concerns about internal inequity.

The replies also highlight the imbalance within the current compensation structure itself. Lower and middle-level employees, who face the highest burden of living costs, often receive disproportionately lower benefits. Housing expenses, transportation costs, and daily necessities consume a major share of their income, yet allowances fail to adequately compensate for these realities. The Confederation demands a restructuring that restores fairness—through higher fitment factors, realistic family norms, and assured career progression with at least five promotions over a service span. Without such measures, stagnation and dissatisfaction will continue to erode efficiency. In a rapidly evolving administrative environment, the Confederation argues that compensation must keep pace with expectations. Employees today are required to adapt to new technologies, upgrade skills, and deliver results under increasing public scrutiny. In this context, the proposal to raise annual increments from 3% to 6% is presented as a necessary correction. Simultaneously, it firmly opposes any move towards flexible or cafeteria-style allowances, asserting that uniform and guaranteed benefits are essential to maintain equity, particularly for those working in difficult terrains and challenging conditions.

The question of pensions stands at the moral centre of the entire debate. The Confederation reminds that pension is not generosity—it is earned through decades of service and protected as a right by the Supreme Court. However, recent developments, particularly the provisions introduced through the Finance Act 2025, are viewed as regressive steps that weaken pension security and contradict established judicial principles. These changes, coupled with the shift to the contributory pension system, have created a situation where many retirees struggle to meet even basic expenses. The demand for restoration of the Old Pension Scheme is therefore not merely financial; it is a demand to restore dignity and uphold constitutional values.

Inflation protection through Dearness Allowance is another area of serious concern. The existing index used for calculation does not reflect real market conditions, as it is based on subsidized pricing structures. The Confederation calls for a more realistic index that captures actual consumer expenditure patterns. Without such reform, employees and pensioners will continue to experience a steady erosion of purchasing power, undermining the very purpose of periodic pay revisions.

The voices of those in high-risk and critical sectors echo strongly in the submission. Railway employees, who keep the nation moving day and night, often at the cost of their lives; defence civilians, who work in dangerous environments; and armed forces personnel, who stand guard under extreme conditions—all demand recognition that goes beyond symbolic appreciation. The Confederation advocates enhanced compensation, better allowances, and policies that truly reflect the risks and sacrifices involved. It also underscores the need to support scientists with globally competitive pay, ensuring that India retains its intellectual capital in strategic sectors.

Equally important is the Confederation’s warning against the growing trend of outsourcing and contractual employment. Governance, it argues, cannot be sustained on temporary arrangements. Core functions of the state require continuity, accountability, and institutional memory—qualities that only a stable and permanent workforce can ensure. Excessive reliance on contractual models not only undermines service quality but also erodes employee morale and public trust. The same concern extends to lateral entry practices that limit career progression for existing employees. The Confederation also calls for a fair and rational approach to bonus payments, removal of outdated ceilings, and guaranteed minimum benefits that reflect actual earnings. These measures, though often overlooked, play a significant role in maintaining morale and recognizing collective effort within government machinery.

As the 8th Central Pay Commission deliberates on its recommendations, it carries a responsibility that goes far beyond numbers and formulas. It must decide whether to uphold the principles of justice and equity or to be guided by constraints that overlook human realities. This is not merely an economic exercise—it is a test of intent. A nation that aspires to global leadership cannot afford to neglect those who run its administration. A government that speaks of inclusive growth must ensure that its own employees and pensioners are not excluded from that promise. The Confederation’s submission is not a list of demands—it is a reflection of lived experiences, accumulated grievances, and enduring hope. The moment calls for courage. It calls for a decision that restores faith, not one that deepens disillusionment. If the Commission chooses fairness, it will strengthen the foundations of governance and honour the silent service of millions. But if it allows caution to overshadow justice, it risks igniting a collective voice that will no longer remain confined to memorandums and representations. For when dignity is denied too long, it does not fade—it rises.

(The author is a Service Union Representative and a columnist who is currently working as the General Secretary, Confederation of Central Govt. Employees and Workers, Odisha State CoC and also as the President, Forum of Civil Pensioners’ Association, Odisha State Committee, Bhubaneswar. eMail: samalbruhaspati@gmail.com) 

Confederation CHQ's Answers to 18 Questions of 8th CPC

 Answering the 18 questions of 8th CPC  

Primary step : Register in my gov 

https://auth.mygov.in/user/register?destination=oauth2/register/mygovweb

Steps1 https://www.mygov.in/mygov-survey/8th-central-pay-commission-questionnaire/

Step 2 : Login with your mobile number and email 

Step 3 : You will get the OTP

Fill up your details first , Name , Department , etc

Answers the questions by copy and paste it 

Submit it 

Answer 1: The guiding Philosophy of the CPC should be equity, transparency and fairness. Government Employees are the backbone of the Public Service delivery. The objective should be to provide a level of Financial Comfort to employees and their families commensurate with the needs and requirement of modern life. When the Pay and the Welfare of the employees are prioritized, the entire Nation benefits through better governance, motivated service and social stability. Employees should not be seen as a burden, but as partners in Nation Building and to achieve “People first, Nation always”. Pay hikes of the employees are not mere expenses for the Government, but investment in human capital which drive consumption, savings and economic growth. 

  India today is the 4th Largest Economy and the world’s fastest growing economy and sufficient resources are available for our developmental and strategical needs. India is projected to become the World’s 3RD Largest Economy by 2027 with GDP expected to surpass US $ 5 Trillion. The fiscal deficit remains contained at around 4.3% of GDP. Revenue collections have more than doubled since 2016, Therefore, we urge upon the CPC to ensure that any recommendations should not result in eroding of the real income of employees. 

Answer 2: Comparison between Government and Private Sector compensation is difficult and not viable as the objectives of the two services are inherently different. Public service is not to earn profit whereas the Private sector aim is to maximize profit. The CCS Conduct Rules prohibits the Government Employees from various activities including to work after the office hours in any Industry / Office. Moreover, Central Government Employees are primarily engaged in Public Service delivery, Policy Implementation and Regulatory Functions, apart from the role of Industrial Employees of Railways and Defence who are involved in Production and Operational Activities which involves lot of risk and hazard. Their roles demand broader Administrative competence, policy understanding, coordinated planning and execution. The nature of their responsibilities is often more compacts and nationally significant which cannot be compared with others. The 8th CPC may also take a note that in certain PSU’s like Coal India, ONGC etc., employees are getting much higher Pay Structures and other benefits when compared to Central Government Employees. Therefore, considering the sovereign responsibilities, Nationwide accountability, transferable service conditions, Conduct Rules etc. the Central Government employees deserve much superior Pay Scales and Allowances. Government should ensure decent work environment in the Country. 

Answer 3: CPC should not adopt sector specific benchmarking of Central Government functions with Private sector. The duties, Accountability and service conditions of Central Government employees are fundamentally distinct. Central Government Employees function under strict constitutional, Administrative and Financial Rules. All their functions and decisions are subject to Audit, Parliamentary Scrutiny, Vigilance Oversight, RTI Provisions apart from Conduct Rules. PSU’s and Private Sector operates within different performance metrics, commercial objectives including earning profit. In contrast Central Government Employees implement National Policies, Manage Public Funds and ensure governance across the Country. Large section of the Central Government Employees as already mentioned are Industrial Workers who are involved in the Operation of Railways, and in the Production of Locomotive engines, wagons, high Speed Coaches etc. in Defence Arms, Ammunition, Weapon etc., Therefore, pay determination should not be linked to sector specific benchmarking, instead uniform horizontal relativity across all Government Departments must be preserved. The principle for horizontal and vertical relativity should be that common and similarly placed categories of posts must have same pay and maintenance of vertical relativity. Compensation for Central Government Employees should be accordingly fixed. The CPC should ensure fair and equitable Pay and Allowances consistent with the above principles. 

Answer 4: Government perks are not mere add – ons. They are the pillars of employee’s security and dignity. Security of Tenure, Medical Coverage, Housing and Predictable Increments are what make Government Service attractive, especially for those who dedicate to Public Service. These perks compensate for the lack of rapid promotions, periodical cadre restructuring for ensured promotions etc., and for the flexibility found in the Private sector. Therefore, these facilities should not be used for cross sector comparisons. As a model employer, the Government must ensure that its employees and pensioners receive facilities and benefits that reflect the dignity, stability and public accountability associated with Government service. What is observed today is that the present allowance structure has resulted in inverted equity. Employees in lower pay scales, who often incur proportionately higher commuting costs and pay a large share of their income towards House Rent, thus receiving the lowest quantum of allowances. This imbalance weakens the principles of fairness and equity in public compensation. Therefore, the annual increments, job security, medical care and retirement benefits must remain strong by linking all the allowances index to the cost of living and consumer price index. 

Answer 5: Generally, Government entry level pay sets a modal benchmark for the Country. While it may not directly impact the informal or gig sector, it signals what society considers a fair and living wage for honest work. When the pay of Government employees rises, it encourages the other sectors to improve their standards even if in a phased manner. Government as a model and ideal employer must offer a respectable and competitive pay structure to attract and retain talent recruited through rigorous, merit-based processes. Any direct comparison with private sector salaries will be misleading as the compensation of Private sectors varies widely across industries and is linked to their commercial profitability. Government pay is based on principles of public accountability, uniformity, equity and fiscal responsibility. Therefore, the 8th CPC should determine the wage hike and other compensation which reflects the sovereign responsibilities and the unique nature of public service. We believe that the pay of Government employees should be high enough to ensure dignity for all the employees, with employees serving until retirement. We support reasonable increases tied to skill development, productivity and of course the decent and dignified living of the employees so that Government remains a role model. 

Answer 6: Various allowances are paid to Government employees and Dearness relief to pensioners to offset the impact of inflation and rising living costs. These elements are not privileges, but compensatory in nature intended to preserve real income and ensure financial stability in changing economic conditions. It is to be mentioned here that in many Government department regular promotions for Group C and B employees are delayed or not granted in a timely manner. This deprives employees of legitimate career progression and proper wage revision despite their having acquired the required skills, experiences and after completion of prescribed residency period. To ensure this the is demanding assured 5 minimum guaranteed Promotion in a service span of 30 years in the Promotional Hierarchy in a time bound manner. We support a Fitment factor that delivers a meaningful improvement in take home pay especially for lower and middle ranks by keeping family units as 5 instead of 3. All the allowances should be linked to the Consumer Price Index. Employees expect to see their hard work reflects in their pay not just in Annual Increments. The Fitment factor will be given in detail in our memorandum.

Answer 7: The incumbent of the Apex Level post discharges function of immense responsibilities, involving inputs for the evaluation and enunciation of National Policies and its successful execution. The incumbent is subject to a high degree of accountability while exercising fiduciary responsibility and maintaining political neutrality. Government service is well-structured, with duties codified and monitored through audits, vigilance, and parliamentary oversight. Unlike commercial organizations, there is no objective or uniform criterion to measure individual or group performance. Therefore, we propose that the salary of a secretary should not be more than 10 times of the Entry pay / Minimum pay. 

Answer 8: Considering the facts that today’s young professionals compare Government Jobs with lucrative private offers, and if Entry pay is too low, the Government loses out on talent. We strongly support front-loading pay – making entry salaries attractive so that bright graduates and professionals feel valued and motivated from day one. At the same time there must be clear, fair progression for those who stayed and perform in the Government. Mid-career and senior pay should reward loyalty, experience and merit but not at the cost of neglecting new entrants. There should be a balanced approach by the 8th CPC, by recommending high entry pay, regular increments and time scale promotions. This ensures both attraction and retention while maintaining fiscal prudence. Group A Service officers continue to attract talent due to the authority, privileges, and unparalleled job security associated with these posts. However, the widening gap between Government pay and private sector compensation must be recognized as a factor that undermines recruitment and retention. While parity with private sector pay is neither feasible nor desirable, the Commission must ensure that this disparity is addressed to maintain the attractiveness of Government service.

Answer 9: The frequency of increments should be Annual. The present Annual Increment rate of 3% requires revision to 6% considering the fact that today the Government employees are required to continuously upgrade their skills adopt latest technology and best practices Benchmark gain experience and enhance their efficiency over a period. A higher increment rate would better reflect improved competence, productivity and contribution to public Administration. We propose for 6% Annual Increment since a system where increments are higher at entry and junior levels, helping young employees build their life and families. Promotional pathways must be protected and strengthened to maintain morale and efficiency. A fair increment system, clear promotions, and continuous professional development will significantly enhance motivation, efficiency, and governance outcomes.

ALLOWANCES

Answer 10: Cafeteria approach is followed in Central Public Sector Enterprises. The same is not a viable option for Central Government service since traditional allowances ensure equity and protect employees posted in Risk and Hazardous nature of job, hard stations, High altitudes or facing unique hardships. In the present system all allowances like Housing, Travelling, Risk and Hardship allowances, Night Duty Allowance, Nursing Allowance, Patient Care Allowance, Leave Travelling and Medical Facilities are guaranteed and that should continue. 

It is submitted that the existing allowances must be retained and improved. These allowances are specific in nature, vary over time, and should remain distinct from the basic salary structure. Their rates should be increased threefold and paid net of taxes to preserve their identity and purpose.

PENSIONS

Answer 11: Pensions are lifeline for retired employees and their families. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that “Pension is not a bounty payable at the whim’s of the employer, but a deferred portion of compensation for long and devoted service”. It has further emphasized that retiral benefits form part of the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the constitution of India. Nonpayment or inadequate protection of pensionary benefits therefore raises serious constitutional concerns. Pension is a social welfare measure intended to ensure dignity and financial security in old age. Pensioners after decades of Public service must be able to lead a decent, and secured life post-retirement. The defined pension under CCS Pension Rules 1972 was discontinued for Civilian Employees since 01.01.2004. Employees recruited on or after 01.01.2004, have started retiring with a very nominal pension which nowhere meets the cost of living. Social structure, the senior citizens are forced to stay away sometimes from their children forces them to meet their needs at their own. Expenditure on pension is estimated at the around 4% of total revenue expenditure and hence pension liabilities will remain manageable. Restoration of the Old Pension Scheme to be considered by the CPC. 

DEARNESS ALLOWANCE

Answer 12: Dearness Allowance is a life line for employees, protecting their real income to some extent from inflation. The AICPI (Industrial Workers) currently used for DA Calculation does not accurately reflect the real inflation faced by Central Government Employees and Pensioners. Many items in the CPI basket are valued at subsidized or ration (Public Distribution System) rates, whereas employees and pensioners purchase goods in the open retail market at significantly higher prices. Therefore, a more realistic index should be based on prevailing retail market prices or rates in Government Cooperative Consumer Stores. After Covid-19 pandemic inflation has risen sharply particularly in housing, transportation and medical expenses. The fourth and sixth Central Pay Commission had recommended for creating a separate consumer price index reflecting the consumption pattern of Government employees. We oppose any hybrid indexation approach since the same may dilute inflation protection. We propose that the 8th CPC should recommend for a distinct Consumer Price Index for Central Government Employees and Pensioner for protection of real wages and prevent income erosion. 

RAILWAYS, CAPF & DEFENCE

Answer 13: The Uniformed Personnel and Civilian Employees of Defence, the Railway employees and the Central Armed Police Forces face unique risks, hardships and responsibilities. Their Pay and Allowances should reflect these realities. The Indian Armed Forces (Army, Navy & Airforce) and also the CAPF play a very important role in the Security of our Country. The Civilian Employees in Defence work side by side with the Soldiers for the defence of our Country. Railway employees are working 24 / 7, to maintain uninterrupted supply chain of the essential commodities throughout the Country, beside transporting 20 million passengers per day. Railways in particular and the Central Government Employees in general played a very crucial role during the Covid-19 pandemic when the entire nation was on lockdown for running the Government Machinery without any standstill. That apart from this around 400 to 500 Railway employees sacrifice their life every year while performing their duty in keeping the Indian Railways Operational uninterrupted. Similarly, in Defence also every year especially in the Ordnance Factories etc. Defence Civilian employees are sacrificing their life while performing their duty due to explosion etc. Therefore, they deserve better treatment in Pay and Allowances and Pension from the 8th CPC. 

SCIENTISTS

Answer 14: Scientists are the Nations innovators. Their pay must match in commensurate with their unique contributions to the Country. They are required to conduct research and also to develop technologies that have application in Industry and the economy at large for overall developments of the country to complete with the developed nations across the globe. They are required to keep themselves updated for which they receive an allowance. We insist that the Scientist pay should be competitive, transparent and supportive of lifelong learning. This ensures India retains and attracts world class talent for its Space, Atomic, and Defence R&D, Water Resources , Meteorology , Geological , Agricultural mission etc. Given the importance of their work, their pay package must be sufficiently attractive and globally competitive to draw the best scientific talent in the country, including Non-Resident Indian (NRI) professionals and researchers working abroad. Competitive compensation is essential not only to attract high-calibre individuals but also to retain experienced scientists within the public research ecosystem.

ARMED FORCES

Answer 15: Armed Forces Personnel deserve pay that reflects their risk, readiness, alertness and sacrifices, we support replacing the static Military service pay with a dynamic Risk and Readiness premium which should be at least 25% above CAPF / Police and Civilian Entry Levels. The Fixed Term Employment in the Armed Forces in the name of Agniveer should be dispensed with and all those who are selected and appointed as Agniveer should all be regularized. Their entry pay must be attractive with clear progression and strong non- monetary benefits such as Housing, Rations etc., The CONFEDERATION urges the Government to ensure that Soldiers, Sailors and Airforce personnel are never left behind and their compensation should always honour their service. The CRPF Personnel’s do need to get proper benefits as of military personnel on border duties and they also deserve better wages / Allowances being responsible for internal and external security and law and order in the country 

Answer 16: Defence Personnel have given their youth and health for the Nation. Any reform should be to honour their sacrifice and ensure their post-retirement dignity. The CONFEDERATION support gradual humane changes such as phased increase in retirement age, voluntarily retirement with fair compensation and improved reemployment opportunities for the veterans. The defined Non-Contributory Old Pension Scheme should continue for the Armed forces. The Nation’s Security depends on motivated, respected personnel. Cost savings should never undermine this trust. 

For the Financial Year 2025–26, Defence Pension has been allocated ₹1,60,795 crore, constituting approximately 23.60% of the total defence budget of ₹6,81,210.27 crore. This allocation reflects the nation’s commitment to those who have served in safeguarding its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Defence personnel make extraordinary sacrifices, often risking and, in many cases, laying down their lives in the line of duty to protect the nation’s borders. Financial constraints or perceived paucity of funds should never undermine the country’s obligation toward its armed forces personnel and veterans. Pension is not merely an expenditure; it is a solemn commitment in recognition of their service and sacrifice.

BONUS

Answer 17: In Government Machinery any concept of Bonus on Individual performance is not possible. It is a collective work of all the employees whether it is Industrial Establishments like Railways or Defence Production and other Units. Employees Bonus are additional Payments beyond the regular salary intended to reward performance, enhance morale and improve productivity. Even though the Payment of Bonus Act 1965 is not applicable to the Central Government Employees, the Bonus for Central Government Employees was derived from the principles laid down in the Bonus Act. At present Productivity Linked Bonus is granted to Railways Employees, Postal Employees and Defence Civilian Employees in Ordnance Factories, Navy, Airforce, Army and DGQA & DGAQA. Others are governed under the Adhoc Bonus Scheme. The Bonus is calculated on Monthly emoluments capped at Rs.7,000/- for 30 Days. Moreover, in the PLB Schemes of Defence there is no provision of minimum 30 days Bonus if the Productivity index falls below certain level. This is not due to employees mistakes but due to lack of Workload. Therefore, in PLB Scheme there should be a minimum Guaranteed Bonus of 30 days wages. Bonus should be paid on the actual Basic Pay + DA of the employees.  

REFORMS IN STAFFING

Answer 18:   We are is of the firm view that work of a permanent, perennial and core nature in Government Departments should not be outsourced, contractorised etc., Fixed Term Employment also is not good in Government Departments, since all these mode of appointments are exploitative in nature. Functions that are continuous, sovereign, which requires skill and experience etc., must remain within the direct Administrative control of the Government to ensure accountability, transparency, and institutional continuity. Contractual and Fixed Term Employment etc., adversely affect employee morale, job security, safety and quality of public service delivery. Governance functions, particularly in essential and regulatory sectors, require trained personnel who are fully accountable under constitutional, administrative and financial rules. 

The policy of indiscriminate corporatization and privatization of core service sectors should therefore be revisited. A stable and permanent work force in Government is essential to establish a robust system of governance, maintain public trust and ensure consistent delivery of services in the larger national interest. 

Excessive reliance on contractual arrangements often Lateral Entry at any higher-level leads to instability in service delivery, dilution of responsibility, and erosion of public trust. Lateral entry at higher levels restricts career progression for existing staff.

****

Pay Revision Reality

Pay Revision Reality 

-Bruhaspati Samal-

For millions of central government employees and pensioners across India, the constitution of a Pay Commission is never a routine administrative exercise. It represents a rare opportunity when the economic realities of public servants are reassessed after years of rising prices, changing responsibilities and evolving administrative demands. The proposed Eighth Central Pay Commission (8th CPC) has therefore generated renewed hope among crores of serving employees and retired pensioners who look forward to fair wages, dignified pensions and improved service conditions. As part of its consultative exercise, the Commission has circulated an 18-point questionnaire inviting suggestions from stakeholders. The questions cover a wide range of policy issues including pay structure, the fitment factor for salary revision, allowances, pension reforms, inflation compensation, bonus schemes and staffing patterns. The questionnaire also seeks views on the specific challenges faced by departments such as defence services, railways, central armed police forces and scientific institutions. The responses received will form the basis on which the Commission will prepare its recommendations.

Responding to this questionnaire is therefore a significant responsibility for employees’ representatives. The National Council (Staff Side) of the Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM) has taken the initiative to coordinate responses from various federations and associations representing central government employees. At the heart of the Staff Side’s response lies a fundamental principle: government pay structures must be based on equity, transparency and fairness. Public servants constitute the backbone of the administrative system, implementing policies that affect millions of citizens. Their salaries should therefore reflect not only economic realities but also the dignity and responsibilities associated with public service. One of the central concepts emphasised by employees’ representatives is the principle of pay relativity. According to this approach, the pay structure should maintain a balanced relationship across different posts and departments. Employees performing similar duties in different ministries should receive comparable remuneration so that horizontal parity is maintained. At the same time, vertical relativity between hierarchical levels must also be preserved so that higher responsibilities are accompanied by proportionately higher salaries. Such balance is essential for maintaining discipline and motivation within government institutions.

Another major issue concerns the fitment factor, which determines how existing salaries are revised when a new pay commission’s recommendations are implemented. The Staff Side believes that the fitment factor must ensure meaningful improvement in employees’ incomes, particularly for those at the lower levels of the pay structure. Persistent inflation over the years has steadily eroded the real value of salaries, and employees therefore expect that the forthcoming revision will restore their purchasing power. In this context, the Staff Side has also suggested maintaining a reasonable ratio between the highest and lowest levels of government pay. it believes, would help maintain fairness within the administrative hierarchy and prevent excessive disparities. The Commission has also raised the possibility of linking salaries to performance indicators. On this issue, the Staff Side has expressed reservations. A rigid performance-based pay system, employees’ representatives argue, may create distortions and administrative complications rather than improving efficiency.

Allowances form another significant component of government compensation. Employees posted in different regions and working under diverse conditions receive allowances such as house rent allowance, travel allowance, hardship allowance and risk allowance. The Staff Side has strongly argued that these allowances should not be merged with basic pay because they serve specific functional purposes. Instead, they should remain separate and be substantially enhanced. In some cases, it has suggested that allowances may be increased up to three times their existing levels and revised periodically in line with inflation.

Pension policy remains perhaps the most sensitive issue in the entire discussion. For millions of retired employees, pension represents financial security and dignity in old age. The Staff Side has pointed out that pension expenditure currently accounts for roughly four percent of the government’s total revenue, which it considers manageable within the broader fiscal framework. Reflecting widespread concerns among employees regarding retirement security, the Staff Side has urged the Commission to examine the possibility of restoring the Old Pension Scheme. Another important issue relates to the calculation of Dearness Allowance (DA). The Staff Side believes that the existing Consumer Price Index used for determining DA does not fully reflect the consumption patterns of employees and pensioners. It has therefore recommended the creation of a separate price index specifically designed for them so that inflation compensation becomes more accurate and transparent.

The questionnaire has also invited views on sector-specific challenges in departments such as defence services, railways, central armed police forces and scientific institutions. Employees working in these sectors often face demanding conditions involving risk, mobility and specialised responsibilities. The Staff Side has emphasised that their pay and allowances must adequately reflect these realities. For scientific and technical personnel in particular, competitive compensation is necessary to prevent the migration of talent from public institutions to private or international organisations. The Commission has also sought suggestions regarding bonus schemes. At present, many government employees receive productivity-linked or ad hoc bonuses based on collective performance. The Staff Side has opposed attempts to introduce individual performance-based bonus systems, arguing that government work is largely collaborative in nature. Instead, it has recommended retaining the existing framework while ensuring a guaranteed minimum bonus equivalent to thirty days’ wages.

Another concern highlighted by employees’ representatives is the growing reliance on contractual employment and outsourcing in government departments. Excessive dependence on such arrangements, they argue, may weaken institutional continuity and accountability. Public administration requires trained and experienced personnel who understand the functioning of government institutions. For this reason, permanent employment structures must remain the cornerstone of an efficient administrative system.

Taken together, the responses submitted by the Staff Side present a comprehensive perspective on the future of government employment in India. They emphasise fair pay structures, adequate allowances, protection against inflation and secure retirement benefits for both employees and pensioners. The responsibility now rests with the Eighth Central Pay Commission to carefully evaluate these proposals with balance and foresight. Its recommendations will influence the lives of crores of employees and pensioners who have dedicated their careers to public service. If the Commission responds with fairness and vision, the 8th CPC could become an important milestone in strengthening both the dignity of public servants and the credibility of India’s administrative system.

(The author is a Service Union Representative and a Columnist, eMail: samalbruhaspati@gmail.com)

*****