ISRO: No commercialization at the cost of institutional expertise

Link:https://orissatodaynews.in/epaper/m/99357/6aa379aed9a04

ISRO: No commercialization at the cost of institutional expertise 

-Bruhaspati Samal-

India’s space programme is not merely a story of rockets, satellites and technological achievements; it is a story of national aspiration, public investment and the dedication of generations of scientists, engineers, technicians and other employees. From modest beginnings, ISRO has grown into one of India’s most respected institutions and a symbol of scientific self-reliance. Therefore, any major restructuring of its activities, particularly the increasing involvement of private entities deserves a careful national debate. The concern expressed by all nine ISRO employees’ associations is significant in this context. Their apprehension should neither be dismissed as opposition to reform nor accepted uncritically as proof of impending privatisation. It deserves to be examined objectively, keeping employees’ interests and the nation’s strategic interests together at the centre of the debate.

The nine employee associations have reportedly sought clarity from the ISRO leadership over the proposed transfer of manufacturing and operational activities to private companies and public-sector undertakings. Their concerns reportedly include the future of launch vehicles such as SSLV, PSLV and LVM3, satellite production, launch infrastructure, recruitment, promotions and the role of existing employees. Their position is particularly important because they have not necessarily opposed private participation as such. Rather, their fundamental concern appears to be whether the growing role of private industry will supplement ISRO’s capabilities or gradually result in the erosion of its in-house expertise and functions. This is a reasonable question. Reform and modernisation are welcome, but reform should not inadvertently weaken the institution that created India’s space capabilities in the first place.

At the heart of this controversy lies the question of human resources. ISRO’s greatest asset is not its buildings, laboratories or launch pads but its scientists and technical personnel. Space technology is an accumulation of knowledge acquired through years of experimentation, failures, corrections, testing and successful missions. Such institutional memory cannot be transferred overnight to a private company through a contract or technology-transfer agreement. If important manufacturing, testing and operational activities are progressively moved outside ISRO, the immediate concern is not merely about the number of posts that may disappear. The deeper concern is whether scientists and engineers will continue to get opportunities to work directly on complex technologies and whether future generations will acquire the practical experience necessary to sustain India’s space programme.

This concern becomes more serious in the backdrop of reports about scientists and engineers leaving ISRO. Reports have highlighted resignations and voluntary retirements among experienced personnel, while the ISRO leadership has also placed the numbers in a broader perspective, pointing out that employees have been leaving the organisation every year for various reasons. These figures should not be sensationalised or automatically attributed to privatisation. Scientists may leave because of personal circumstances, retirement, better remuneration, career opportunities or the emergence of an expanding private space sector. Yet the trend deserves serious examination. When experienced scientists leave a strategic institution, the country loses not simply employees but accumulated knowledge, mentorship and institutional memory. If resignations coincide with declining in-house activities and fewer opportunities for recruitment and career progression, the problem could become much more serious.

There is therefore a legitimate danger in confusing commercial efficiency with institutional efficiency. A private company may be able to manufacture a proven product faster or at lower cost. That can be beneficial to the national space ecosystem. But ISRO must continue to possess the capability to understand, design, test, modify and, when necessary, independently reproduce critical technologies. A country cannot claim complete technological self-reliance if its premier space institution gradually loses the capacity to perform essential functions and becomes dependent on external entities for technologies that it once mastered internally. The experience of past missions demonstrates the value of having an institution capable of learning from failures and immediately applying those lessons to subsequent missions. That capability must not be allowed to wither.

The crucial question, however, is where the boundary should be drawn. Mature technologies may certainly be transferred to industry for large-scale production, provided that ISRO retains adequate design, testing, quality-control and technological capabilities. Commercialisation should not mean the disappearance of institutional expertise. Critical strategic technologies, sensitive infrastructure, launch capabilities and essential knowledge must remain securely anchored within the public system. Equally important, employees whose skills and experience have built these capabilities should not be treated as an incidental factor in restructuring. They must be recognised as stakeholders. Any major transition should therefore be accompanied by a transparent policy on employment security, recruitment, promotions, training, redeployment and preservation of technical expertise.

The latest clarification from ISRO that the organisation will neither be privatised nor diminished in importance is certainly reassuring. The leadership has also emphasised that critical and strategic space capabilities will remain under government ownership and control. Such assurances are important, but the concerns raised by the nine employee associations cannot be settled by assurances alone. They deserve a structured dialogue and clear written answers. If there is no intention to dilute ISRO’s role, the government and the Department of Space should have no difficulty explaining precisely which functions will remain with ISRO, which activities may be transferred to industry, how institutional capabilities will be protected and what safeguards will exist for the employees who currently perform those functions.

Ultimately, this is not simply an industrial-relations issue between an employer and its employees. It is a question of India’s scientific sovereignty and national interest. The employees’ associations have a legitimate responsibility to protect the interests of scientists, engineers and other personnel whose careers are directly affected by structural changes. At the same time, the government has an equally legitimate responsibility to expand India’s space economy and ensure that public institutions evolve with changing technological and economic realities. These two interests need not conflict. Indeed, a reform that protects employees, strengthens ISRO and simultaneously enables private industry to grow would be far more sustainable than one that treats them as competing objectives.

India needs a bigger and more dynamic space ecosystem, but it does not need a weaker ISRO. Private enterprise should be encouraged, but public scientific capability must be protected. Technology may be commercialised, but institutional knowledge must not be allowed to disappear. Experienced scientists must be retained and young talent must continue to see ISRO as a place where they can build challenging and meaningful careers. The real test of space-sector reform is not how much work can be shifted out of ISRO, but how much stronger India’s overall space capability becomes without weakening its foundational institution. The nine associations have raised questions that deserve answers, not apprehension. And the resignations of experienced scientists, whatever their individual causes, should serve as a warning that human expertise must remain at the heart of India’s space ambitions. Reform ISRO, if necessary; expand wherever beneficial, but never reform away the strength that made ISRO a national institution in the first place.

(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)

*****

Revision of ceiling rate and guidelines for reimbursement of expenses on purchase of Standard Digital Programmable and Rechargeable Hearing Aid under C S (MA) Rules, 1944 and CGHS

 

Odisha State CoC writes to Hon'ble MP (Rajya Sabha) Shri Subhasis Khuntia to take up the issues related to C G employees and pensioners in the Parliament.

An Assurance Must Lead to Action

Dear Comrades,

Heartfelt gratitude to Shri Subhasis Khuntia, Hon’ble Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), for his gracious presence at the 39th All India Conference of All India RMS & MMS Employees Union, Mail Guard & MTS, held at Puri on 6th–7th September 2026.

At the conference, he gave a clear and firm assurance to raise the genuine concerns of employees and pensioners in Parliament, particularly the demand for restoration of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS). 🏛️✊

We have placed our memorandum and expectations before him. Now, that assurance carries with it the responsibility of follow-through.

We sincerely hope to see our issues raised in Parliament and pursued with the same commitment with which the assurance was given.🙏

An assurance creates hope. Action establishes accountability.✊🇮🇳

-B SAMAL-

General Secretary 

Holidays to be observed in Central Govt Offices during the year 2027

 

Confederation Odisha State CoC requests Hon'ble MP (Lok Sabha) Smt. Aparajita Sarangi to intervene for restoration of effective CGHS administration, filling of critical vacancies and redressal of long pending issues of CGHS beneficiaries in Odisha

 

Meeting of NCJCM (Staff Side) with Secretary DoP&T on 3 September 2026 on some of the outstanding issues of Central Govt Employees

Strong GDP, Weak Household Relief

Source :https://odishapostepaper.com/edition/5876/orissapost/page/6

Strong GDP, Weak Household Relief

-Bruhaspati Samal-

India is once again celebrating an impressive economic headline. The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) has reported real GDP growth of 7.8% in the first quarter of 2026–27, covering April–June 2026. Nominal GDP grew by 10.3%, while real Gross Value Added (GVA) increased by 8.2%. Investment grew by 11.9%, domestic consumption by 7.1% and exports by 12%. These figures are certainly significant and indicate considerable economic activity. The Government has rightly presented them as evidence of resilience and growth. Yet, beyond these impressive numbers lies another India of unemployed youth, informal workers, migrant labourers and families struggling to maintain their standard of living. The question confronting ordinary citizens is simple: if GDP is growing so rapidly, why is economic relief not reaching households with equal speed?

The debate over the 7.8% figure has become politically charged, but it deserves a serious economic examination. Former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan has questioned why such strong GDP growth is not accompanied by equally convincing evidence of employment generation, investment and other economic indicators. Former Finance Secretary Subhash Chandra Garg has gone further, arguing that when the latest numbers are viewed against the previous statistical framework, the underlying growth could appear much lower, around 2.6%. Congress has used these criticisms to attack the Government's economic claims. The Government and MoSPI, however, reject such comparisons, pointing out that India has introduced a new GDP series with 2022–23 as the base year, replacing 2011–12, incorporating new administrative data and methodological changes, including double deflation in manufacturing. Therefore, neither declaring 7.8% “false” nor treating it as an unquestionable measure of prosperity is justified. 

There is, however, a more fundamental problem. GDP measures production, not the distribution of prosperity. A highly automated factory can increase output without creating proportionately more jobs. Digital, financial and technology enterprises can generate enormous economic value with comparatively few employees. Thus, GDP growth and employment growth are not synonymous. An economy may expand rapidly while millions continue to struggle for secure and adequately paid work. The meaningful test of development must therefore go beyond the national output figure to examine jobs, wages, purchasing power, social security and economic dignity.

In this context, the latest Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) Annual Report 2025 is worth discussing which provides another headline and relates to the above statement of former RBI Governor. As reported, the unemployment rate for persons aged 15 years and above declined from 3.2% in 2024 to 3.1% in 2025. Youth unemployment among those aged 15–29 declined from 10.3% to 9.9%, while urban youth unemployment remained considerably higher at 13.6%. Among educated persons aged 15 years and above, unemployment stood at 6.5%. But 3.1% unemployment does not mean that only 3.1% of India's working-age population is without an adequate livelihood. The unemployment rate measures unemployed people as a proportion of the labour force. More importantly, employment itself varies enormously in quality. According to PLFS 2025, 56.2% of workers were self-employed, while regular wage or salaried workers accounted for 23.6% and casual labour 20.2%. Self-employment can represent successful entrepreneurship, but it can also mean survival through petty trade, own-account work or unpaid family activity when secure employment is unavailable. Likewise, casual employment may provide work without providing stability, adequate wages or social protection. Having work and having a decent livelihood are not necessarily the same thing.

This explains why the reality of labour migration cannot simply be ignored. Government data recorded more than 41 million interstate migrant workers in the 2011 Census, while the 2020–21 Migration Survey reported an overall migration rate of 28.9%, with employment among the important reasons for migration. Migration itself is not necessarily evidence of economic failure; workers naturally move towards better opportunities. But seasonal migration, repeated movement between villages and cities, and dependence on insecure informal employment raise a fundamental question about the geographical distribution of jobs. An economy that grows strongly should progressively create productive and dignified employment closer to where people live, rather than merely moving workers from one insecure livelihood to another.

The contradiction is particularly stark among the young. The official youth unemployment rate of 9.9% is more than three times the overall rate of 3.1%, while urban youth unemployment at 13.6% remains deeply concerning. Behind these statistics are graduates preparing repeatedly for competitive examinations, educated young people accepting jobs below their qualifications, workers entering insecure gig activities and families sending their children to distant cities because suitable employment is unavailable locally. Therefore, the employment question cannot end with “How many are unemployed?” It must also ask: “How many are adequately employed, adequately paid and securely employed?”

The common citizen has no quarrel with GDP. He has a quarrel with hunger. The farmer wants a remunerative price for his crop. The labourer wants work tomorrow. The graduate wants a job matching his education. The migrant worker wants to earn without being separated from his family. The small trader wants customers. The salaried worker wants wages capable of keeping pace with the cost of living. The mother wants enough money for food, education and healthcare. None of them can consume a percentage point of GDP. They need income, employment and dignity. Their inability to feel the benefits of headline economic growth cannot simply be dismissed as a failure to understand statistics. It is a legitimate question about the distribution and quality of growth. India therefore needs to move beyond the sterile political argument of 7.8% versus 2.6%. GDP must be read alongside employment, wages, household consumption, inequality, migration and social security. Employment statistics, too, must increasingly distinguish between mere participation in economic activity and secure, productive and adequately remunerated work.

The ultimate test of an economy is not how high its statistical graph climbs, but how many empty plates disappear from the table. If GDP rises while young people remain desperate for jobs, workers migrate because local livelihoods are inadequate, and millions survive through insecure and poorly paid work, India must ask three uncomfortable questions: Growth for whom? Employment of what quality? Development for whose dignity? Statistics can describe an economy. Only livelihoods can prove that the economy is truly working.

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

Relaxation in age and marital status criteria for dependent sons and brothers suffering from critical / terminal illness under CGHS / CCS (MA) Rules 1944

 

Decentralisation of approval procedure for selected STC-related cases under CGHS

 

Justice cannot be denied for administrative delay

Source:https://orissatodaynews.in/epaper/edition/1965/orissa-today-daily-english-newspaper/page/4

Justice cannot be denied for administrative delay

-Bruhaspati Samal-

Compassionate appointment is not an ordinary route to government employment; it is a lifeline extended by the State to a family suddenly pushed into uncertainty and distress. When the sole earning member of a family dies in harness or becomes permanently incapacitated, the family does not merely lose an employee, it loses its source of livelihood, security and hope for the future. At such a moment, compassionate appointment is intended to provide not privilege, but relief; not favour, but rehabilitation; not charity, but a measure of social justice. For many such families, the application for compassionate appointment is submitted with the hope that the State will stand beside them during their darkest hour. They wait patiently while their cases pass through scrutiny, verification, committee consideration, availability of posts and other administrative formalities. The applicant has no control over how long these processes may take. Yet, when the appointment order finally arrives after the pension cut-off date, the same family may suddenly discover that the consequences of administrative delay will follow the appointee throughout his or her entire working life and into retirement. A delay in extending a helping hand should never become a lifelong punishment for the person who waited for that hand. If the applicant had approached the Government within the prescribed period and before the introduction of the National Pension System (NPS), it would be deeply inequitable to allow the subsequent administrative delay to deprive that person of the pension protection that existed when the claim was made. This is where compassion must meet justice, and where administrative rules must be interpreted with a human face.

The introduction of the NPS fundamentally altered the retirement security of government employees. But what happens when an employee had already entered the process of government appointment before the NPS cut-off date, and yet received the appointment order after that date solely because the administration took time to complete its own procedures? This is not merely a technical pension issue; it is an issue of justice, equity and protection of employees from consequences arising out of administrative delay. The Government of Odisha introduced NPS with effect from 1 January 2005. Consequently, employees appointed on or after that date were generally brought under the new pension regime. However, a special and deserving category requires immediate attention—those compassionate appointment applicants who had submitted their applications on or before 31 December 2004, but whose appointments were made only after 1 January 2005 because their cases remained under administrative processing.

These applicants had already approached the Government before the introduction of NPS. They had invoked the provisions of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, at a time when the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) continued to operate. They did everything that was required of them. The subsequent delay in scrutiny, verification, availability of posts, approval and issuance of appointment orders was entirely within the administrative domain. Why should an employee suffer a lifelong pensionary disadvantage for a delay that was never within his or her control? This question has acquired renewed significance following the decision of the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare (DoPPW), Government of India, through O.M. No. 57/05/2021-P&PW(B)/Compassionate/10593 dated 22 June 2026. The Union Government has recognised the peculiar hardship of compassionate appointees whose applications were made before the introduction of NPS but whose appointments took place subsequently for reasons beyond their control.

The principle underlying this decision is both simple and profound: where an applicant had already submitted an application for compassionate appointment before the pension cut-off date, the mere fact that the appointment order was issued later should not, in appropriate cases, automatically deprive the person of the pension protection applicable when the claim was originally made. Odisha now faces a compelling question: Will the State Government extend the same principle of justice to similarly situated employees in Odisha? The factual framework is remarkably similar. The Union Government introduced NPS from 1 January 2004, while Odisha introduced it from 1 January 2005. Therefore, where a compassionate appointment application was submitted on or before 31 December 2004 and appointment followed after 1 January 2005 solely because of administrative processing, the State Government can examine such cases on the same principle, subject of course to the prescribed conditions and verification.

This demand should not be viewed as a demand for an undue concession. Nor is it a demand to retrospectively alter the date of appointment. It is a demand that an employee should not be penalised for an administrative delay. Compassionate appointment is itself an exceptional humanitarian mechanism. It exists because a government employee's family has suffered the death or permanent incapacitation of its earning member and has consequently fallen into financial distress. Such families often wait for months or years while their cases move through different levels of administration. To subsequently tell a compassionate appointee that the delay in appointment has permanently placed him or her under a less favourable pension regime would appear fundamentally inconsistent with the humanitarian purpose of the scheme.

The issue also raises the broader principle of legitimate expectation and administrative fairness. When a citizen approaches the State within the prescribed period and fulfills the requirements applicable at that time, the State must ensure that its own procedural delay does not become a source of irreversible prejudice. The Government of Odisha therefore has an opportunity to demonstrate that good governance means not merely applying rules mechanically, but applying them with justice, equity and compassion. A State-wide policy or appropriate Government order should be issued without further delay, laying down clear eligibility criteria for compassionate appointees who submitted their applications on or before 31 December 2004, were otherwise eligible for consideration under the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, were appointed after 1 January 2005, and suffered the change in pension coverage solely because their appointment was delayed for administrative or procedural reasons beyond their control.

Each case can be scrutinised individually against the prescribed conditions. Genuine cases can then be shifted from NPS to the applicable OPS framework, with consequential adjustments in pension records, contributions and other benefits in accordance with the rules. Justice delayed in appointment should not become injustice multiplied in retirement. Thousands of employees and their families may be anxiously awaiting such a policy decision. For them, pension is not merely an accounting entry or a fiscal liability. It represents social security earned through years of public service and the assurance of dignity in old age.

The Union Government has shown the way. Odisha need not reinvent the wheel. It can examine the Central Government's decision, identify the corresponding category in the State, prescribe appropriate safeguards and issue a reasoned order. What is required now is not another round of representations and correspondence, but a clear, compassionate and time-bound policy decision. The Government of Odisha should therefore act immediately and extend justice to all genuinely eligible compassionate appointees who had applied before the introduction of NPS but were appointed later due to administrative delay.

The date of appointment may have been delayed by the State machinery. Their right to justice must not be delayed any further. Let Odisha follow the principle of the Union Government—and ensure that no employee pays a lifelong pensionary price for an administrative delay that was never his or her fault.

(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)

*****

OPS Justice for Compassionate Appointees: A Timely Union Intervention

🚩 OPS Justice for Compassionate Appointees: A Timely Union Intervention

Dear Comrades,

A few days ago, when some of our colleagues approached me regarding the Government’s decision to treat the date of application for compassionate appointment as the crucial date for coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, I came across the Department of Pension & PW’s Office Memorandum dated 22 June 2026.

I learnt that the decision had already been circulated by the Railway, but there was uncertainty whether the Department of Posts had issued the corresponding departmental instructions. I therefore contacted Com. R. P. Sarang, General Secretary, NFPE P-IV CHQ, and requested him to ascertain the position and, if necessary, take up the matter with the Postal Directorate.

Responding promptly, Com. Sarang addressed the Director General (Posts) on 27 August 2026, requesting immediate action for circulation of the instructions in the Department of Posts. This is a highly appreciable and timely intervention. 🙏✊

The issue is of immense importance to many compassionate appointees who had submitted their applications on or before 31.12.2003 but were appointed subsequently. If the instructions are implemented in the Postal Department, eligible officials can receive the long-awaited benefit of coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), instead of NPS—a matter involving their lifelong social security and pensionary dignity. 🚩

I sincerely thank Com. R. P. Sarang for taking up this important issue without delay. This is what effective trade-union intervention means—identifying the problem, pursuing it at the appropriate level and fighting for justice until the benefit reaches the affected employees. ✊🚩

I appeal to the Chief Executives of all affiliates of NFPE / Confederation  to kindly pursue this matter with the Postal / respective Directorate and the concerned authorities at their respective levels and ensure that the instructions are circulated and implemented in all the Departments including the Department of Posts at the earliest, without any further delay.

A compassionate appointment may have come late, but justice in pension must not come late.
Those who applied before 31.12.2003 deserve OPS—not NPS! ✊🔥

Unity • Intervention • Justice • Social Security 🚩

=B SAMAL=

General Secretary

Confederation Odisha State CoC

Bhubaneswar

#OPSForCompassionateAppointees #CompassionateAppointment #OldPensionScheme #NPSvsOPS #NFPE #NFPEStruggle #ROSarang #PensionJustice #SocialSecurity #PostalEmployees #WorkersUnity #JusticeForEmployees #NoMoreDelay

National Council JCM (Staff Side) writes to the Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India regarding revision of Bonus payable ceiling to C G employees from ₹7000 to ₹21000

 

Happy Raksha Bandhan

 

8th Central Pay Commission Must Submit Its Report Within the Stipulated Time

 

8th Central Pay Commission Must Submit Its Report Within the Stipulated Time ⏳🇮🇳

Dear Comrades,

The extension granted to the 7th Central Pay Commission in 2015 provides an important precedent in the present context of the 8th Central Pay Commission.

The 7th CPC was constituted on 28 February 2014 with a mandate to submit its recommendations within 18 months, i.e. by 27 August 2015. However, on the request of the Commission citing its volume of work and intensive stakeholder consultations, the Union Cabinet approved a four-month extension up to 31 December 2015. (PIB Release dated 26 August 2015)

That was 2015—a decade ago. The circumstances today are fundamentally different. India has moved much further into the era of Digital India 💻📱, with unprecedented access to digital records, online communication, virtual consultations, data analytics and technological tools. The administrative and technological constraints of 2015 cannot, therefore, be mechanically cited to justify any further extension.

The 8th Central Pay Commission was constituted on 3 November 2025 with an 18-month timeframe for submission of its recommendations. Its report is accordingly expected within the stipulated period. Yet, unlike the situation preceding the 7th CPC, the financial consequences of the present delay are already being felt by Central Government employees and pensioners because the revised pay structure is due from 1 January 2026.

The implementation has already been delayed by eight months. Any further extension would inevitably prolong this uncertainty and postpone the legitimate financial benefits of millions of employees and pensioners. ⚠️👨‍💼👩‍💼👴👵

The Government should therefore ensure that the 8th CPC completes its task within the prescribed 18-month period without any further extension. The Commission must be provided with every necessary administrative, technical and institutional support so that its recommendations can be submitted on time. 📑⏰

Eighteen months was considered adequate for the 8th CPC. Let it remain eighteen months.

The employees and pensioners have already waited long enough. No further delay—no further extension. The 8th CPC must deliver its report within time, paving the way for early implementation of the revised pay and pension structure from 1 January 2026. ✊🇮🇳

🙏💐🙏

= Brihaspati Samal =

General Secretary 

#8thCPC #NoFurtherExtension #SubmitReportOnTime #PayCommission #CentralGovernmentEmployees #CentralGovernmentPensioners #PayRevision #PensionRevision #JusticeForEmployees #JusticeForPensioners #DigitalIndia #EarlyImplementation #PMOIndia #MinistryOfFinance #DepartmentOfExpenditure #GovernmentOfIndia #CentralGovernment

@PMO India | @Ministry of Finance, Government of India | @Department of Expenditure | @8th Central Pay Commission

Restoration of commuted portion of pension from 15years to 10.8 years.

 

Dear Comrades, 

Pension Justice Cannot Wait! ✊

The Government says restoration of commuted pension before 15 years is not legally or administratively feasible. But the 10.8-year restoration demand is based on today’s life expectancy, interest rates and actuarial realities—not the conditions of 1987!

If the commuted value has already been recovered much earlier, why should pensioners continue to lose their rightful pension for another four years?

15 years was fixed decades ago. Justice demands its review today.

👉 Restore the commuted portion of pension after 10.8 years.

👉 Let pensioners receive what is rightfully theirs.

10.8 Years—Not 15!

Pensioners Demand Justice! ✊🔥

= B SAMAL =

General Secretary 

Confederation Odisha State CoC

#RestoreCommutation #10Point8Years #PensionJustice #PensionersRights #JusticeForPensioners #CommutedPension #CentralGovernment #PensionersUnity