ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ଓ ବେକାରି: ପରିସଂଖ୍ୟାନ ବନାମ ବାସ୍ତବତା

-ବୃହସ୍ପତି ସାମଲ-

ଭାରତର ସାମ୍ପ୍ରତିକ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ଓ‌ ବେକାରି ପରିସ୍ଥିତି ଏକ ଅଦ୍ଭୁତ ବିଡ଼ମ୍ବନାକୁ ପ୍ରକାଶ କରୁଛି। ଗୋଟିଏ ପଟେ ସରକାରୀ ପରିସଂଖ୍ୟାନରେ ସାମଗ୍ରିକ ବେକାରି ହାରରେ ଉଲ୍ଲେଖନୀୟ ହ୍ରାସ ଏବଂ ଶ୍ରମଶକ୍ତିରେ ଅଂଶଗ୍ରହଣ ବୃଦ୍ଧି ପରିଲକ୍ଷିତ ହେଉଥିଲା ବେଳେ ଅନ୍ୟପଟେ, ଯୁବପିଢ଼ି, ସ୍ନାତକ, ମହିଳା ଓ ଶିକ୍ଷିତ ବର୍ଗଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ବେକାରି, ବ୍ୟାପକ ସ୍ୱ-ନିଯୁକ୍ତି, ଅନୌପଚାରିକ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ଏବଂ ଶିକ୍ଷା ଓ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ମଧ୍ୟରେ ଗଭୀର ଅସମନ୍ୱୟ ଏକ ଗୁରୁତର ସମସ୍ୟା ହୋଇ ରହିଛି। ତେଣୁ ପ୍ରକୃତ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ କେବଳ ବେକାରି ହାର କମିଛି କି ନାହିଁ ନୁହେଁ; ବରଂ ଭାରତ ତାହାର ବଢ଼ୁଥିବା କର୍ମକ୍ଷମ ଜନସଂଖ୍ୟା ପାଇଁ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟାପ୍ତ, ଉତ୍ପାଦନଶୀଳ, ସମ୍ମାନଜନକ, ଉଚିତ ଦରମା ଓ ସାମାଜିକ ସୁରକ୍ଷା ସହିତ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ସୃଷ୍ଟି କରିପାରୁଛି କି ନାହିଁ। ଏହି ପରିପ୍ରେକ୍ଷୀରେ ପରିସଂଖ୍ୟାନ ଓ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟକ୍ରମ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟାନ୍ୱୟନ ମନ୍ତ୍ରଣାଳୟ ପକ୍ଷରୁ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ସଦ୍ୟତମ ନିୟମିତ ଶ୍ରମଶକ୍ତି ସର୍ବେକ୍ଷଣ  ବାର୍ଷିକ ରିପୋର୍ଟ ୨୦୨୫ ଭାରତର ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପରିସ୍ଥିତିର ସବୁଠାରୁ ପ୍ରାମାଣିକ ଚିତ୍ର ପ୍ରଦାନ କରେ। ଏହି ରିପୋର୍ଟ ଅନୁସାରେ ୧୫ ବର୍ଷ ଓ ତଦୂର୍ଦ୍ଧ୍ୱ ବୟସର ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ବେକାରି ହାର ୨୦୨୪ର ୩.୨% ତୁଳନାରେ ୨୦୨୫ରେ ୩.୧% ଥିଲା। ସେହିଭଳି ୧୫ରୁ ୨୯ ବର୍ଷ ବୟସର ଯୁବକଯୁବତୀଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ବେକାରି ହାର ୧୦.୩%ରୁ ୯.୯%କୁ ହ୍ରାସ ପାଇଛି। କିନ୍ତୁ ସହରାଞ୍ଚଳର ଯୁବ ବେକାରି ହାର ଏବେ ବି ୧୩.୬% ରହିଛି। ଏଥିରୁ ବେକାରି ସମସ୍ୟାରେ କିଛି ଉନ୍ନତି ପରିଲକ୍ଷିତ ହେଉଥିଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ ଭାରତର ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ସମସ୍ୟା ସମାଧାନ ହୋଇଗଲା ବୋଲି କୁହାଯାଇପାରିବ ନାହିଁ।

ସର୍ବେକ୍ଷଣର ନିର୍ଦ୍ଧାରିତ ପରିଭାଷା ଅନୁସାରେ କେହି କିଛି ସମୟ କାମ କରିଥିଲେ ତାଙ୍କୁ ନିଯୁକ୍ତ ବୋଲି ଗଣନା କରାଯାଇପାରେ, ଯଦିଓ ସେହି କାମର ଦରମା ଅତ୍ୟନ୍ତ କମ୍, କାମ ଅନିୟମିତ, ତାଙ୍କ ଯୋଗ୍ୟତାଠାରୁ ଅନେକ ତଳେ କିମ୍ବା ସେହି କାମ ତାଙ୍କ ଜୀବନଯାପନ ପାଇଁ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟାପ୍ତ ନୁହେଁ। ୨୦୨୫ର ଶ୍ରମଶକ୍ତି ସର୍ବେକ୍ଷଣ ଅନୁସାରେ ୫୬.୨% କର୍ମଜୀବୀ ସ୍ୱ-ନିଯୁକ୍ତ ଥିଲେ ଯାହା ୨୦୨୪ର ୫୭.୫% ତୁଳନାରେ କମ୍। ନିୟମିତ ଦରମାଭୋଗୀ କିମ୍ବା ବେତନଭୋଗୀ ମୋଟ୍ ନିଯୁକ୍ତିର ୨୨.୪%ରୁ ବଢ଼ି ୨୩.୬%ରେ ପହଞ୍ଚି  ଥିଲେ ବି ଭାରତର ଏକ ବିଶାଳ ଶ୍ରମଶକ୍ତି ଏବେ ବି ନିୟମିତ ବେତନଭିତ୍ତିକ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ବା  ସମ୍ମାନଜନକ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ବାହାରେ ରହିଛି। ସଦ୍ୟତମ ଶ୍ରମଶକ୍ତି ସର୍ବେକ୍ଷଣ ଅନୁସାରେ ଯୁବ ବେକାରି ହାର ୯.୯%, ଯାହା ସାମଗ୍ରିକ ବେକାରି ହାରଠାରୁ ତିନିଗୁଣ ଅଧିକ। ସହରାଞ୍ଚଳରେ ଏହା ୧୩.୬%। ତା’ଠାରୁ ଅଧିକ ଗୁରୁତ୍ୱପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ କଥା ହେଉଛି ୨୦୨୫ରେ ୧୫ରୁ ୨୯ ବର୍ଷ ବୟସର ପ୍ରାୟ ୨୫% ଯୁବକଯୁବତୀ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି, ଶିକ୍ଷା କିମ୍ବା ପ୍ରଶିକ୍ଷଣରେ ନଥିଲେ। ୧୫ରୁ ୨୪ ବର୍ଷ ବୟସରେ ଏହି ଅନୁପାତ ୨୧% ଥିଲା। ଏହା ଦର୍ଶାଉଛି ଯେ ଭାରତର ଏକ ବଡ଼ ଯୁବ ଜନସଂଖ୍ୟା ନା ଶିକ୍ଷା ଗ୍ରହଣ କରୁଛି, ନା ପ୍ରଶିକ୍ଷଣ ନେଉଛି, ନା ଉତ୍ପାଦନଶୀଳ ଭାବେ ଶ୍ରମବଜାରରେ ଅଂଶଗ୍ରହଣ କରୁଛି। 

ଆନ୍ତର୍ଜାତୀୟ ଶ୍ରମ ସଂଗଠନ ମାନବ ବିକାଶ ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାନର ଭାରତ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ରିପୋର୍ଟ ୨୦୨୪ ଏହି ସମସ୍ୟାକୁ ଆହୁରି ଗଭୀର ଭାବେ ଉପସ୍ଥାପନ କରେ। ରିପୋର୍ଟ ଅନୁସାରେ ଭାରତର ବେକାରି ସମସ୍ୟା କ୍ରମଶଃ ଯୁବକ ଓ ଶିକ୍ଷିତ ବର୍ଗ ମଧ୍ୟରେ କେନ୍ଦ୍ରୀଭୂତ ହେଉଛି। ୨୦୨୨ରେ ମୋଟ ବେକାର ଲୋକଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରୁ ୮୨.୯% ଯୁବକଯୁବତୀ ଥିଲେ। ଏହା ସହିତ, ଶିକ୍ଷିତ ଯୁବକମାନେ ମୋଟ୍ ବେକାରଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରୁ ୬୫.୭% ଥିଲେ ଯାହା ୨୦୦୦ରେ ୫୪.୨% ଥିଲା। ତେଣୁ ଏବର ଶିକ୍ଷା, ନିଯୁକ୍ତିର ନିଶ୍ଚିତତା ଦେଇପାରୁନାହିଁ‌ ବୋଲି ଏହି ରିପୋର୍ଟ ସ୍ପଷ୍ଟ ‌କରେ। ବୈଷୟିକ ଓ ବୃତ୍ତିଗତ ଶିକ୍ଷାର ପରିସ୍ଥିତି ମଧ୍ୟ ଚିନ୍ତାଜନକ। ଉକ୍ତ ରିପୋର୍ଟ ଅନୁସାରେ ୨୦୨୨ରେ ସ୍ନାତକ ଡିପ୍ଲୋମାଧାରୀ ଯୁବକମାନଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ବେକାରି ହାର ୩୧.୧% ଥିଲାବେଳେ, ବୈଷୟିକ ପ୍ରଶିକ୍ଷଣ ଡିଗ୍ରୀଧାରୀଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ଏହା ୨୯.୪% ଥିଲା। ଏହା ଏକ ଗଭୀର ସଂରଚନାତ୍ମକ ବିରୋଧାଭାସକୁ ପ୍ରକାଶ କରେ। ଭାରତ ଉଚ୍ଚ ଓ ବୈଷୟିକ ଶିକ୍ଷାର ବିସ୍ତାର ପାଇଁ ବିପୁଳ ନିବେଶ କରି‌ ମଧ୍ୟ ବହୁ ସଂଖ୍ୟକ ଶିକ୍ଷିତ ଯୁବକଯୁବତୀ ଏବେ ବି ଉପଯୁକ୍ତ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପାଇପାରୁନାହାନ୍ତି। ତେଣୁ ସମସ୍ୟା କେବଳ ଦକ୍ଷତାର ଅଭାବ ନୁହେଁ; ଏହା ଉପଯୁକ୍ତ ନିଯୁକ୍ତିର ଅଭାବ ମଧ୍ୟ।

ନୀତି ଆୟୋଗର ସଦ୍ୟତମ “ବିକଶିତ ଭାରତ–୨୦୪୭ ପାଇଁ ଦକ୍ଷତା ବିକାଶର ପୁନଃକଳ୍ପନା” ରିପୋର୍ଟ ମଧ୍ୟ ଏହି ସମସ୍ୟାକୁ ସମର୍ଥନ କରେ। ରିପୋର୍ଟରେ ଆର୍ଥିକ ସର୍ବେକ୍ଷଣ ୨୦୨୪–୨୫କୁ ଉଦ୍ଧୃତ କରି କୁହାଯାଇଛି ଯେ କେବଳ ୮.୨୫% ସ୍ନାତକ ନିଜ ଯୋଗ୍ୟତା ସହ ସମ୍ପୃକ୍ତ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟରେ ନିଯୁକ୍ତ ଅଛନ୍ତି। ଏହା ସହିତ ନୀତି ଆୟୋଗ, ୨୦୨୩–୨୪ର ଶ୍ରମଶକ୍ତି ସର୍ବେକ୍ଷଣ ତଥ୍ୟକୁ ଉଦ୍ଧୃତ କରି କହିଛି ଯେ ଜାତୀୟ ବେକାରି ହାର ୩.୨% ଥିଲାବେଳେ,  ୧୩% ସ୍ନାତକ ଏବଂ ୨୦.୪% ସ୍ନାତକ ମହିଳା ବେକାର ଥିଲେ। ଏହା ଭାରତର ଶିକ୍ଷା–ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ଅସମନ୍ୱୟର ଏକ ସ୍ପଷ୍ଟ ପ୍ରମାଣ। ଶିକ୍ଷିତ ଯୁବମାନଙ୍କର ଏକ ବଡ଼ ଅଂଶ ନିଜ ଶିକ୍ଷା ଓ ଯୋଗ୍ୟତା ଅନୁଯାୟୀ କାମ ନପାଇଲେ ଦେଶ ତାହାର ଜନସାଂଖ୍ୟିକ ଲାଭକୁ ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଭାବେ ଉପଯୋଗ କରିପାରିବ ନାହିଁ। ନୀତି ଆୟୋଗର ୨୦୨୬ର ଅନ୍ୟ ଏକ ଅଧ୍ୟୟନରେ ସ୍ନାତକଙ୍କ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ଯୋଗ୍ୟତା ୨୦୧୯ର ୪୭.୩%ରୁ ୨୦୨୬ରେ ୫୬.୪%କୁ ବୃଦ୍ଧି ପାଇଥିବା ଦର୍ଶାଯାଇଛି। ଏହା ଏକ ସକାରାତ୍ମକ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନ। କିନ୍ତୁ ସାଧାରଣ ଡିଗ୍ରୀଧାରୀଙ୍କ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ଯୋଗ୍ୟତା ବହୁ ବୃତ୍ତିଗତ ପାଠ୍ୟକ୍ରମ ତୁଳନାରେ କମ୍ ରହିଛି। ଅର୍ଥାତ୍ ବର୍ଷ ବର୍ଷ ଧରି ଦକ୍ଷତା ବିକାଶ ଉପରେ ଗୁରୁତ୍ୱ ଦିଆଯାଇଥିଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ଯୋଗ୍ୟତା ଏବେ ବି ଏପରି ସ୍ତରରେ ରହିଛି ଯେଉଁଠାରେ ଅଧାରୁ ଅଧିକ ଯୁବକଯୁବତୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଉପଯୁକ୍ତ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ନିଶ୍ଚିତ ନୁହେଁ।

ଲିଙ୍ଗଗତ ବୈଷମ୍ୟ ଏହି ସମସ୍ୟାର ଆଉ ଏକ ଗୁରୁତର ଦିଗ। ୨୦୨୫ର ଶ୍ରମଶକ୍ତି ସର୍ବେକ୍ଷଣ ଅନୁସାରେ ସହରାଞ୍ଚଳର ମହିଳା ବେକାରି ହାର ୬.୭%ରୁ ୬.୪%କୁ ହ୍ରାସ ପାଇଥିବାବେଳେ ଗ୍ରାମାଞ୍ଚଳରେ ଏହା ୨.୧%। କିନ୍ତୁ ତୁଳନାମୂଳକ ଭାବେ କମ୍ ମହିଳା ବେକାରି ହାର ସହିତ ମହିଳାଙ୍କ ଶ୍ରମଶକ୍ତି ଅଂଶଗ୍ରହଣ ପୁରୁଷଙ୍କ ତୁଳନାରେ ଏବେ ବି ଯଥେଷ୍ଟ କମ୍। ନୀତି ଆୟୋଗ ତଥ୍ୟରେ ଶିକ୍ଷିତ ମହିଳାଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ଅତ୍ୟଧିକ ବେକାରି ଏହି ବିରୋଧାଭାସକୁ ଆହୁରି ସ୍ପଷ୍ଟ କରେ। ଏଠାରେ ଏକ ଗୁରୁତ୍ୱପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ସାଂଖ୍ୟିକ ପାର୍ଥକ୍ୟକୁ ବୁଝିବା ଆବଶ୍ୟକ। ଜଣେ ବ୍ୟକ୍ତି କାମ ଖୋଜୁନଥିଲେ ତାଙ୍କୁ ବେକାର ବୋଲି ଗଣନା କରାଯାଏ ନାହିଁ। ତେଣୁ ମହିଳା ବେକାରି ହାର କମ୍ ଥିବା ମାତ୍ରରୁ ମହିଳା ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପରିସ୍ଥିତି ସୁସ୍ଥ ବୋଲି କୁହାଯାଇପାରିବ ନାହିଁ। ମହିଳାଙ୍କ ଶ୍ରମଶକ୍ତିରେ ଅଂଶଗ୍ରହଣ ବୃଦ୍ଧି, ଉପଯୁକ୍ତ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟସ୍ଥଳ, ସୁରକ୍ଷିତ ପରିବେଶ, ଉଚିତ ଦରମା ଓ ସାମାଜିକ ସୁରକ୍ଷାସବୁକୁ ଏକାସାଙ୍ଗେ ବିଚାର କରିବା ଆବଶ୍ୟକ।

ଏହା ସହିତ ସେଣ୍ଟର ଫର ମନିଟରିଂ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆନ ଇକୋନୋମିର ଗୃହସ୍ଥ ପରିବାର ସର୍ବେକ୍ଷଣ ମଧ୍ୟ ଶ୍ରମବଜାରର ଏକ ସ୍ୱାଧୀନ ଚିତ୍ର ପ୍ରଦାନ କରେ। ଏହାର ଆର୍ଥିକ ଦୃଷ୍ଟିକୋଣ ଅନୁସାରେ ଜୁଲାଇ ୨୦୨୬ରେ ଭାରତର ବେକାରି ହାର ୬.୨% ଥିଲା, ଯାହା ୨୦୨୫ର ଶ୍ରମଶକ୍ତି ସର୍ବେକ୍ଷଣର ବାର୍ଷିକ ୩.୧% ତୁଳନାରେ ଯଥେଷ୍ଟ ଅଧିକ। ଏହି ଦୁଇ ତଥ୍ୟର ତଫାତକୁ ଆଧାର କରି କୌଣସି ଗୋଟିଏ ସଂସ୍ଥାକୁ ଭୁଲ୍ ବୋଲି କହିବା ଠିକ୍ ହେବ ନାହିଁ। ଉଭୟ ସର୍ବେକ୍ଷଣର ପଦ୍ଧତି, ନମୁନା, ସମୟସୀମା ଓ ପରିଭାଷାରେ ପାର୍ଥକ୍ୟ ରହିଛି। ବରଂ ଏହି ତଫାତ ଆମକୁ ଏକ ଗୁରୁତ୍ୱପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ କଥା ଶିଖାଏ ଯେ ଭାରତର ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପରିସ୍ଥିତିକୁ କେବଳ ଗୋଟିଏ ବେକାରି ହାର ଦ୍ୱାରା ମାପିବା ଠିକ୍ ନୁହେଁ। ଅଧିକନ୍ତୁ, ସର୍ବେକ୍ଷଣ ପଦ୍ଧତିରେ କିଛି ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନ ସହ ୨୦୨୫ ଜାନୁଆରୀରୁ ଜୁଲାଇ–ଜୁନ୍ ସର୍ବେକ୍ଷଣ ଚକ୍ର ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତେ ଜାନୁଆରୀ–ଡିସେମ୍ବର ସର୍ବେକ୍ଷଣ ଚକ୍ର ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଛି ସାଂଖ୍ୟିକୀ ମନ୍ତ୍ରଣାଳୟ ନିଜେ ନୂଆ ଓ ପୁରୁଣା ତଥ୍ୟ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ତୁଳନା କରିବା ସମୟରେ ସତର୍କ ହେବାକୁ କହିଛି। 

ସମସ୍ତ ପ୍ରାମାଣିକ ତଥ୍ୟକୁ ଏକାଠି କଲେ  ସ୍ପଷ୍ଟ  ଅନୁମେୟ ହୁଏ ଯେ ଭାରତ  ବେକାରି କମାଇବାରେ କିଛି ସଫଳତା ପାଇଥିଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ସଙ୍କଟର ଗଭୀର ସମସ୍ୟା ଏବେ ବି ସମାଧାନ ହୋଇନାହିଁ। ସମସ୍ୟାଟି କେବଳ “କାମ ନାହିଁ” ଠାରୁ ଧୀରେ ଧୀରେ “କେଉଁ କାମ, କାହା ପାଇଁ, କେତେ ଦରମାରେ ଏବଂ କେତେ ସୁରକ୍ଷିତ ଭାବେ?” ଦିଗକୁ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତିତ ହେଉଛି ଯେଉଁଠି ନିମ୍ନମାନର ସ୍ୱ-ନିଯୁକ୍ତି, ଅନିୟମିତ ରୋଜଗାର, ସ୍ୱଳ୍ପ ଆୟ, ଶିକ୍ଷା ଓ ନିଯୁକ୍ତିର ଅସମନ୍ୱୟ ଏବଂ ଯୁବ ବର୍ଗର ବହିଷ୍କାର ସହିତ ଏକ ନିମ୍ନ ବେକାରି ହାର ମଧ୍ୟ ସହାବସ୍ଥାନ କରେ। ଏହି ପରିସ୍ଥିତି ଭାରତର ଜନସାଂଖ୍ୟିକ ଲାଭ ପାଇଁ ମଧ୍ୟ ଏକ ବଡ଼ ପରୀକ୍ଷା। ଏକ ବିଶାଳ ଯୁବ ଜନସଂଖ୍ୟା ସେତେବେଳେ ହିଁ ଅର୍ଥନୈତିକ ଶକ୍ତିରେ ପରିଣତ ହୋଇପାରିବ, ଯେତେବେଳେ ଯୁବକମାନେ ଉତ୍ପାଦନଶୀଳ ଓ ସମ୍ମାନଜନକ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପାଇବେ। ଯଦି ଶିକ୍ଷିତ ଯୁବକମାନେ ବର୍ଷ ବର୍ଷ ଧରି ଅଳ୍ପ ସଂଖ୍ୟକ ସରକାରୀ ପଦ ପାଇଁ ପ୍ରତିଯୋଗିତା କରିବାରେ ବ୍ୟସ୍ତ ରହନ୍ତି, ବିପଦପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ କାମ ପାଇଁ ଦେଶାନ୍ତର ହୁଅନ୍ତି, ନିଜ ଯୋଗ୍ୟତା ସହ ସମ୍ପର୍କ ନଥିବା କାମ ଗ୍ରହଣ କରନ୍ତି କିମ୍ବା ନିଯୁକ୍ତି, ଶିକ୍ଷା ଓ ପ୍ରଶିକ୍ଷଣରୁ ବାହାରେ ରହନ୍ତି, ତେବେ ଜନସାଂଖ୍ୟିକ ଲାଭ ଏକ ଜନସାଂଖ୍ୟିକ ବୋଝରେ ପରିଣତ ହୋଇପାରେ।

ତେଣୁ ନୀତିଗତ ପଦକ୍ଷେପ କେବଳ ଅଧିକ ଦକ୍ଷତା ବିକାଶରେ ସୀମିତ ରହିଲେ ଚଳିବ ନାହିଁ। ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ବିନା ଦକ୍ଷତା ବିକାଶ ବେକାରିର ସମାଧାନ କରିପାରିବ ନାହିଁ। ଭାରତକୁ ଶ୍ରମ-ନିର୍ଭର ଉତ୍ପାଦନ, ନିର୍ମାଣ କ୍ଷେତ୍ର, କୃଷି ଓ କୃଷିଭିତ୍ତିକ ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟାକରଣ, କ୍ଷୁଦ୍ର, ଲଘୁ ଓ ମଧ୍ୟମ ଉଦ୍ୟୋଗ, ସେବା, ପର୍ଯ୍ୟଟନ, ପରିବହନ ଓ ଅନ୍ୟାନ୍ୟ ବହୁଳ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ସୃଷ୍ଟିକାରୀ କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ବ୍ୟାପକ ନିବେଶ କରିବା ଆବଶ୍ୟକ। ତା’ସହିତ ଶିକ୍ଷା, ଶିଳ୍ପ ଓ ପ୍ରଶିକ୍ଷଣ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥାକୁ ବାସ୍ତବ ଶ୍ରମବଜାରର ଚାହିଦା ସହିତ ଅଧିକ ଘନିଷ୍ଠ ଭାବେ ଯୋଡ଼ିବା ଦରକାର। ସବୁଠାରୁ ଗୁରୁତ୍ୱପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ କଥା ହେଉଛି ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ନୀତିର ସଫଳତାକୁ କେବଳ ବେକାରି ହାର ଦ୍ୱାରା ମାପିବା ଉଚିତ୍ ନୁହେଁ। ସରକାରଙ୍କୁ ନିୟମିତ ଭାବେ ଯୁବ ବେକାରି, ସ୍ନାତକ ବେକାରି, ନିଯୁକ୍ତି–ଶିକ୍ଷା–ପ୍ରଶିକ୍ଷଣରୁ ବାହାରେ ଥିବା ଯୁବସମାଜ, ମହିଳା ଶ୍ରମଶକ୍ତି ଅଂଶଗ୍ରହଣ, ନିୟମିତ ବେତନଭୋଗୀ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି, ବାସ୍ତବ ମଜୁରୀ, ଅଳ୍ପ-ନିଯୁକ୍ତି, ନିଯୁକ୍ତିର ଗୁଣବତ୍ତା, ସାମାଜିକ ସୁରକ୍ଷା ଏବଂ ଯୋଗ୍ୟତା–ପେଶା ଅସମନ୍ୱୟ ଭଳି ସୂଚକଗୁଡ଼ିକୁ ଏକାସାଙ୍ଗେ ଉପସ୍ଥାପନ କରିବା ଦରକାର।

୨୦୪୭ ସୁଦ୍ଧା ‘ବିକଶିତ ଭାରତ’ ଗଢ଼ିବାକୁ ଆଶାୟୀ ଏକ ଦେଶ ପାଇଁ ପ୍ରକୃତ ମାପଦଣ୍ଡ କେବଳ “କେତେ ଲୋକ ନିଯୁକ୍ତ ଅଛନ୍ତି?” ହୋଇପାରେ ନାହିଁ। ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ହେବା ଉଚିତ ଯେ “କେତେ ଭାରତୀୟଙ୍କ ପାଖରେ ଉତ୍ପାଦନଶୀଳ କାମ, ଉଚିତ ଦରମା, ସାମାଜିକ ସୁରକ୍ଷା, ସମ୍ମାନ ଏବଂ ନିଜ ଶିକ୍ଷା ଓ ଯୋଗ୍ୟତା ସହ ସମ୍ପୃକ୍ତ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ରହିଛି?” ଯେପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଏହି ପ୍ରଶ୍ନର ସନ୍ତୋଷଜନକ ଉତ୍ତର ମିଳିନାହିଁ, କେବଳ ବେକାରି ହାର କମିଛି ବୋଲି କହି ଭାରତର ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ସମସ୍ୟା ଶେଷ ହୋଇଗଲା ବୋଲି ଘୋଷଣା କରିବା ଅତ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଅପରିପକ୍ୱ ହେବ।

*****

ସଂଘର୍ଷ ନୁହେଁ, ସଂଳାପ ଜରୁରୀ

 

ସଂଘର୍ଷ ନୁହେଁ, ସଂଳାପ ଜରୁରୀ 

ରାଜଧାନୀ ନୂଆଦିଲ୍ଲୀରୁ ଦେଶର ଦୁର୍ଗମ କୋଣଅନୁକୋଣ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ, ବିଶ୍ୱବିଦ୍ୟାଳୟ ପରିସରଠାରୁ ଗାଁଗଣ୍ଡାର  ପ୍ରାଥମିକ ବିଦ୍ୟାଳୟ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ, ଘରୋଇ କଳକାରଖାନାର ଫାଟକଠାରୁ ସରକାରୀ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟାଳୟ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ, ସମଗ୍ର ଦେଶରେ ଆଜି ଲିଙ୍ଗଗତ‌ ତଥା ଜାତିଗତ ଭେଦଭାବରୁ ଉର୍ଦ୍ଧରେ ଛାତ୍ର, କର୍ମଚାରୀ, ଶ୍ରମିକ, କୃଷକ ଓ ସାଧାରଣ ଜନତା ନ୍ୟାୟ, ହକ୍, ସମ୍ମାନ  ଓ ମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦା ଆଶାରେ ଅହରହ ଅସାଧାରଣ ଜନଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ ଓ ପ୍ରତିବାଦର ସ୍ୱରକୁ ତୀବ୍ରତର କରିବା ପରିଲକ୍ଷିତ ହେଉଛି। କେଉଁଠି ଶିକ୍ଷା, ସ୍ୱାସ୍ଥ୍ୟ ଓ ଦରବୃଦ୍ଧି ତ କେଉଁଠି ଜଳ, ଜମି ଓ ଜଙ୍ଗଲର ସୁରକ୍ଷା ତ ଆଉ କେଉଁଠି ସର୍ବନିମ୍ନ ମଜୁରୀ ଓ ପେନସନର କଥା। ସେମାନଙ୍କର ସ୍ଲୋଗାନ୍ ଏବଂ ବ୍ୟାନର ଭିନ୍ନଭିନ୍ନ ହୋଇଥିଲେ  ବି ପ୍ରତ୍ୟେକ ପଦଯାତ୍ରା, ପ୍ରତ୍ୟେକ ଧାରଣା, ପ୍ରତ୍ୟେକ ଅନଶନ ଓ ପ୍ରତ୍ୟେକ ପ୍ରତିବାଦର ଅନ୍ତରାଳରେ ନେଡ଼ିଗୁଡ଼  କହୁଣୀକୁ ବୋହିଯିବା ପୂର୍ବରୁ ସମ୍ପୃକ୍ତ କର୍ତ୍ତୃପକ୍ଷ  ଓ ସରକାର ସେମାନଙ୍କ ଅଭାବ ଅସୁବିଧାକୁ ଗୁରୁତର ସହ ଶୁଣିବାର ଏକ ନିରବ ବ୍ୟାକୁଳତା ହିଁ ଲୁଚିରହିଛି। ଯେତେବେଳେ ସମାଜର ଏତେଗୁଡ଼ିଏ ବର୍ଗ ଓ ଗୋଷ୍ଠୀ ସଂସ୍ଥାଗତ ପଥ ଓ ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାନର ଦ୍ୱାର ଛାଡ଼ି ରାଜରାସ୍ତାକୁ ଆସିବାକୁ ବାଧ୍ୟ ହୁଅନ୍ତି, ସେତେବେଳେ ସମସ୍ୟା ଆଉ କେବଳ ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିଗତ ଅଭିଯୋଗ କିମ୍ବା ଦାବି ମଧ୍ୟରେ ସୀମିତ ନରହି, ଏକ ଗଣତାନ୍ତ୍ରିକ ଯୋଗାଯୋଗ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥାର ସ୍ୱାସ୍ଥ୍ୟ ଓ ସାର୍ଥକତା ସମ୍ପର୍କିତ ମୌଳିକ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନରେ ପରିଣତ ହୁଏ। ପ୍ରକୃତ ଚିନ୍ତାର ବିଷୟ କେବଳ ଏହା ନୁହେଁ ଯେ ଲୋକେ କାହିଁକି ପ୍ରତିବାଦ କରୁଛନ୍ତି, ବରଂ ଏହା ଯେ, କାହିଁକି ଏତେ ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ଲାଗୁଛି ଯେ ପ୍ରତିବାଦ ହିଁ ସେମାନଙ୍କ ପାଖରେ ନିଜ କଥା କହିବାର ଏକମାତ୍ର ଭାଷା ହୋଇ ରହିଯାଇଛି?

ଏକ ସଜୀବ ଓ ସ୍ପନ୍ଦନଶୀଳ ଗଣତନ୍ତ୍ର ଏହି କାରଣରୁ ବିପଦରେ ପଡ଼େ ନାହିଁ ଯେ ତାହାର ନାଗରିକମାନେ କ୍ଷମତାକୁ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ କରନ୍ତି; ବରଂ ସେତେବେଳେ ଏହା ବିପଦଗ୍ରସ୍ତ ହୁଏ, ଯେତେବେଳେ ରାଜ୍ୟ ଓ ତାହାର ଜନସାଧାରଣଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ସଂଳାପର ସେତୁ ଭାଙ୍ଗିବାକୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରେ। ସରକାର କେବଳ ଆଇନ ପ୍ରଣୟନ ଓ ପ୍ରୟୋଗ କରିବା ପାଇଁ ନିର୍ବାଚିତ ହୁଏ ନାହିଁ; ଜନସାଧାରଣଙ୍କ ଆକାଂକ୍ଷାକୁ ବୁଝିବା, ସେମାନଙ୍କ ଉଦ୍‌ବେଗର ପ୍ରତିକ୍ରିୟା ଦେବା ଏବଂ ସେମାନଙ୍କ ମନରେ ବିଶ୍ୱାସ ସୃଷ୍ଟି କରିବା ମଧ୍ୟ ତାହାର ଦାୟିତ୍ୱ। ଅନ୍ୟପକ୍ଷରେ, ନାଗରିକମାନଙ୍କୁ ସମ୍ବିଧାନ ଶାନ୍ତିପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଭାବରେ ନିଜର ଅସମ୍ମତି ଓ ପ୍ରତିବାଦ ପ୍ରକାଶ କରିବାର ଅଧିକାର ସହିତ ଦାୟିତ୍ୱ ମଧ୍ୟ ପ୍ରଦାନ କରିଛି। କିନ୍ତୁ ଯେତେବେଳେ ଯୋଗାଯୋଗ ବିଫଳ ହୁଏ, ସେତେବେଳେ ସୃଷ୍ଟି ହୋଇଥିବା ଶୂନ୍ୟସ୍ଥାନକୁ ସନ୍ଦେହ ପୂରଣ କରିଦିଏ। ସଂଳାପର ସ୍ଥାନ ନିଏ ସ୍ଲୋଗାନ, ଆଲୋଚନାର ସ୍ଥାନ ନିଏ ସଂଘର୍ଷ, ଏବଂ ବିଶ୍ୱାସର ସ୍ଥାନ ନିଏ ଅବିଶ୍ୱାସ। ଆଉ ଆଲୋଚନାର ଟେବୁଲ୍‌କୁ ବ୍ୟାରିକେଡ୍‌ ପ୍ରତିସ୍ଥାପିତ କଲାବେଳକୁ ଗଣତନ୍ତ୍ର ଏକ ନିରବ ପରାଜୟର ସମ୍ମୁଖୀନ ହୋଇସାରିଥାଏ।

ବାରମ୍ବାର ଦେଖାଯାଉଥିବା ଏହି ପ୍ରବୃତ୍ତି ଅତ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଚିନ୍ତାଜନକ। ଜନସାଧାରଣଙ୍କ ଅଭିଯୋଗ ଓ ଅସନ୍ତୋଷ ପ୍ରାୟତଃ ସେତେବେଳ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଅବହେଳିତ ହୋଇ ରହିଯାଏ, ଯେପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ପ୍ରତିବାଦ ଏକ ବଡ଼ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନର ରୂପ ନେଇନଥାଏ। ଏହାପରେ ପ୍ରଶାସନର ପ୍ରତିକ୍ରିୟା ଅନେକ ସମୟରେ ସମସ୍ୟାର ମୂଳ କାରଣ ସମାଧାନ କରିବା ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତେ ଭିଡ଼କୁ ନିୟନ୍ତ୍ରଣ କରିବା ଦିଗକୁ ମୁହଁ ଫେରାଇଥାଏ। ଅଭିଜ୍ଞତା ବାରମ୍ବାର ପ୍ରମାଣ କରିଛି ଯେ ପୁଲିସ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟାନୁଷ୍ଠାନ ଭିଡ଼କୁ ଛତ୍ରଭଙ୍ଗ କରିପାରେ, କିନ୍ତୁ ଅସନ୍ତୋଷକୁ ଛତ୍ରଭଙ୍ଗ କରିପାରେ ନାହିଁ। ରାସ୍ତା ଖାଲି କରାଯାଇପାରେ, କିନ୍ତୁ ମନରେ ଜମିଥିବା କ୍ଷୋଭକୁ ଦୂର କରାଯାଇପାରେ ନାହିଁ। ବଳ ପ୍ରୟୋଗ ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ସାମୟିକ ଭାବେ ନିୟନ୍ତ୍ରିତ ପରିସ୍ଥିତି କ୍ୱଚିତ୍‌ ସ୍ଥାୟୀ ସମାଧାନ ଆଣିପାରେ, କାରଣ ସମାଧାନ ହୋଇନଥିବା ଅଭିଯୋଗ ଓ ଅସନ୍ତୋଷ ଅବଶ୍ୟମ୍ଭାବୀ ଭାବରେ ଅନ୍ୟ କୌଣସି ରୂପରେ, ଅନ୍ୟ କୌଣସି ସ୍ଥାନରେ ଏବଂ ଅନ୍ୟ ଏକ ପିଢ଼ିରେ ପୁଣି ଫେରିଆସେ। ଠିକ୍ ସେହିପରି, ଯେଉଁ ପ୍ରତିବାଦକାରୀମାନେ ସାମ୍ବିଧାନିକ ଶୃଙ୍ଖଳା ଓ ଶାନ୍ତିପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦାକୁ ପରିତ୍ୟାଗ କରନ୍ତି, ସେମାନେ ମଧ୍ୟ ନିଜ ଦାବି ଓ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନର ନୈତିକ ଅଧିକାରକୁ ଦୁର୍ବଳ କରନ୍ତି। ଶେଷରେ କ୍ଷତି ହୁଏ ଉଭୟଙ୍କର, କିନ୍ତୁ ସବୁଠାରୁ ବଡ଼ କ୍ଷତିଗ୍ରସ୍ତ ହୁଏ ଜନସାଧାରଣଙ୍କ ବିଶ୍ୱାସ, ଯାହା ଗଣତାନ୍ତ୍ରିକ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥାର ମୂଳଦୁଆ। ଯଦିଓ ସରକାରୀ ଭାବେ ଦେଶର ସମସ୍ତ ରାଲି, ଧାରଣା, ଅନଶନ, ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ, କୃଷକ/ଛାତ୍ର ପ୍ରତିବାଦର ଏକତ୍ର ବାର୍ଷିକ ସଂଖ୍ୟା ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ହୁଏ ନାହିଁ, ତେବେ ଶ୍ରମ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ ପାଇଁ ଶ୍ରମ ମନ୍ତ୍ରଣାଳୟର ଅଧିକୃତ ତଥ୍ୟ ଅନୁଯାୟୀ ୨୦୨୩ରେ ଦେଶରେ ୫୦ଟି ଶିଳ୍ପ ବିବାଦ (୪୬ ଧର୍ମଘଟ ଓ ୪ ଲକ୍-ଆଉଟ୍) ହୋଇଥିଲା ଯେଉଁଥିରେ ୨୨,୮୬୧ ଶ୍ରମିକ ସାମିଲ ହୋଇ ୫,୯୦,୫୮୭ ମାନବ-ଦିନ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟହାନି ହୋଇଥିଲା। ସେହିପରି ୨୦୨୨ରେ ଶିଳ୍ପ ବିବାଦଜନିତ ୪୧ଟି କାର୍ଯ୍ୟବନ୍ଦରେ ୨,୯୮,୦୧୯ ଶ୍ରମିକ ଜଡ଼ିତ ହୋଇ ୧୦,୨୦,୭୨୨ ମାନବ-ଦିନ ହାନି ଘଟିଥିଲା। ଏହି ତଥ୍ୟ ଆଧାରରେ ପ୍ରତିବାଦର ମୋଟ ଆର୍ଥିକ କ୍ଷତି ବେଶ୍ ଅନୁମେୟ। 

ସମ୍ବିଧାନ ସରକାରଙ୍କ ଅଧିକାରକୁ ଯେପରି ସ୍ୱୀକୃତି ଦେଇଛି, ସେହିପରି ନାଗରିକଙ୍କ ଶାନ୍ତିପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ପ୍ରତିବାଦର ଅଧିକାରକୁ ମଧ୍ୟ ସମାନ ସମ୍ମାନ ଦେଇଛି। ଏହି ଦୁଇଟି ପରସ୍ପର ବିରୋଧୀ ନୁହେଁ; ବରଂ ଗଣରାଜ୍ୟର ଦୁଇଟି ପରିପୂରକ ସ୍ତମ୍ଭ। ଉତ୍ତରଦାୟିତ୍ୱ ବିହୀନ ଶାସନ ଯେପରି ସମ୍ବେଦନହୀନ ହୋଇପଡ଼େ, ସେହିପରି ଦାୟିତ୍ୱବୋଧ ବିହୀନ ପ୍ରତିବାଦ ଅରାଜକତାର ରୂପ ନେଇପାରେ। ତେଣୁ ସମ୍ବିଧାନର ମୂଳ ଆତ୍ମାକୁ ଅକ୍ଷୁଣ୍ଣ ରଖିବା ଆଜିର ସବୁଠାରୁ ବଡ଼ ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା। ଇତିହାସ ଆମକୁ ବାରମ୍ବାର ଏକ ଚିରନ୍ତନ ସତ୍ୟ ଶିଖାଇଛି। କୌଣସି ଗଣତନ୍ତ୍ର ଦୀର୍ଘସ୍ଥାୟୀ ସଂଘର୍ଷ ଦ୍ୱାରା ଶକ୍ତିଶାଳୀ ହୋଇନାହିଁ; ବରଂ ସଂଳାପ, ସହମତି ଏବଂ ପରସ୍ପର ବିଶ୍ୱାସ ଦ୍ୱାରା ନିଜକୁ ପୁନର୍ଗଠନ କରିଛି। ଯେତେବେଳେ ଶାସକମାନେ ବିରୋଧାଭାସକୁ ଗଣତନ୍ତ୍ରର ଅବିଚ୍ଛେଦ୍ୟ ଅଂଶ ବୋଲି ସ୍ୱୀକାର କରିଛନ୍ତି, ସେତେବେଳେ ବିଶ୍ୱରେ ଅନେକ ଐତିହାସିକ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନ ଘଟିଛି। ଭାରତର ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା ସଂଗ୍ରାମ ମଧ୍ୟ ଆମକୁ ସେହି ଶିକ୍ଷା ଦେଇଛି। ସତ୍ୟ, ଅହିଂସା, ଧୈର୍ଯ୍ୟ ଓ ନୈତିକ ସାହସର ଶକ୍ତି ଏକ ସାମ୍ରାଜ୍ୟକୁ ନତମସ୍ତକ କରିଥିଲା। ତେଣୁ ଆଜି ମଧ୍ୟ ଶକ୍ତିର ସର୍ବୋଚ୍ଚ ପ୍ରକାଶ ବଳପ୍ରୟୋଗରେ ନୁହେଁ; ମତଭେଦକୁ ସଂଳାପରେ ପରିଣତ କରିବାର ଦକ୍ଷତାରେ ରହିଛି। ସରକାର ଯେତେବେଳେ ଶୁଣିବାର ସାହସ ଦେଖାଏ, ସେତେବେଳେ ତାହାର ନୈତିକ ଉଚ୍ଚତା ବୃଦ୍ଧି ପାଏ। ଆଉ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ ଯେତେବେଳେ ଶାନ୍ତି, ଶୃଙ୍ଖଳା ଓ ସାମ୍ବିଧାନିକ ମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦାକୁ ଅକ୍ଷୁଣ୍ଣ ରଖେ, ସେତେବେଳେ ତାହା ଇତିହାସରେ ସମ୍ମାନର ସ୍ଥାନ ଅଧିକାର କରେ।

ଆଜି ଦେଶବ୍ୟାପୀ ଦେଖାଦେଇଥିବା ଏହି ପ୍ରତିବାଦର ଲହରୀକୁ କେବଳ ଏକ ପ୍ରଶାସନିକ ସମସ୍ୟା ଭାବରେ ଦେଖିଲେ ଚଳିବ ନାହିଁ। ଏହା ଗଣତନ୍ତ୍ରକୁ ଅଧିକ ପରିପକ୍ୱ କରିବାର ଏକ ସୁଯୋଗ ମଧ୍ୟ। ସରକାରଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଏହା ଆତ୍ମସମୀକ୍ଷାର ସମୟ—ଲୋକଙ୍କ ପାଖରେ ପହଞ୍ଚିବା, ସେମାନଙ୍କ କଥା ଧୈର୍ଯ୍ୟର ସହ ଶୁଣିବା, ସ୍ୱଚ୍ଛତାର ସହ ନିଷ୍ପତ୍ତି ଜଣାଇବା ଏବଂ ସମୟୋପଯୋଗୀ ଆଲୋଚନା ଆରମ୍ଭ କରିବା। ଏକ ଉତ୍ତରଦାୟୀ ସରକାର କେବେ ବି ଶୁଣିବାକୁ ଦୁର୍ବଳତା ବୋଲି ଭାବେନାହିଁ; ବରଂ ତାହାକୁ ନିଜର ସବୁଠାରୁ ବଡ଼ ଶକ୍ତିରେ ପରିଣତ କରେ। ସେହିପରି ପ୍ରତିବାଦକାରୀମାନଙ୍କୁ ମଧ୍ୟ ସ୍ମରଣ ରଖିବାକୁ ହେବ ଯେ, ସମ୍ବିଧାନ କେବଳ ପ୍ରତିବାଦର ଅଧିକାର ଦେଇନାହିଁ, ଶାନ୍ତି, ଜନସମ୍ପତ୍ତି ଓ ଆଇନର ଶାସନ ପ୍ରତି ସମାନ ଦାୟିତ୍ୱ ମଧ୍ୟ ଅର୍ପଣ କରିଛି। ସଂସଦ, ନ୍ୟାୟପାଳିକା, ଗଣମାଧ୍ୟମ, ବିଶ୍ୱବିଦ୍ୟାଳୟ, ଟ୍ରେଡ୍ ୟୁନିଅନ ଏବଂ ନାଗରିକ ସମାଜ ସମସ୍ତଙ୍କୁ ଏହି ସଂଳାପର ସେତୁ ନିର୍ମାଣରେ ନିଜ ନିଜ ଦାୟିତ୍ୱ ପାଳନ କରିବାକୁ ହେବ।

ଭାରତର ଗଣତାନ୍ତ୍ରିକ ଶକ୍ତିର ପରିଚୟ କେବେ ବି ପ୍ରତିବାଦର ଅନୁପସ୍ଥିତି ନୁହେଁ। ବରଂ ଏହାର ପ୍ରକୃତ ଶକ୍ତି ରହିଛି ମତଭେଦକୁ ସାମ୍ବିଧାନିକ ପଥରେ ସମାଧାନ କରିବାର କ୍ଷମତାରେ। ଦୁନିଆର ସର୍ବବୃହତ୍ ଗଣତନ୍ତ୍ର ଏପରି ଏକ ପରିସ୍ଥିତିକୁ ସାଧାରଣ ଘଟଣା ଭାବେ ଗ୍ରହଣ କରିପାରିବ ନାହିଁ, ଯେଉଁଠାରେ ପ୍ରତ୍ୟେକ ଅଭିଯୋଗ ଶେଷରେ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନରେ ପରିଣତ ହେବ ଏବଂ ପ୍ରତ୍ୟେକ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ ସଂଘର୍ଷରେ। ଏହି ପ୍ରବୃତ୍ତି କେବଳ ଅନୁଷ୍ଠାନଗୁଡ଼ିକୁ ଦୁର୍ବଳ କରେନାହିଁ; ସମାଜକୁ ବିଭକ୍ତ କରେ, ପରସ୍ପର ଅବିଶ୍ୱାସକୁ ବଢ଼ାଏ ଏବଂ ଜାତୀୟ ଶକ୍ତିକୁ ବିକାଶ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତେ ବିବାଦରେ ନିୟୋଜିତ କରିଦିଏ। ଏକଶହ ଚାଳିଶି କୋଟି ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଏହି ଗଣରାଜ୍ୟ କେବଳ ଶାସନର ଶକ୍ତିରେ ଚାଲିପାରିବ ନାହିଁ; ଏହାକୁ ଚଳାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଆବଶ୍ୟକ ବିଶ୍ୱାସ, ସହଯୋଗ ଓ ନିରନ୍ତର ସଂଳାପ।

ସାମ୍ପ୍ରତିକ ସମୟର ଆହ୍ୱାନ ଅତି ସ୍ପଷ୍ଟ। ସରକାରଙ୍କୁ ବୁଝିବାକୁ ହେବ ଯେ, ଲୋକଙ୍କ କଥା ଶୁଣିବା କୌଣସି ରାଜନୈତିକ ଦୁର୍ବଳତା ନୁହେଁ; ଏହା ଏକ ସାମ୍ବିଧାନିକ କର୍ତ୍ତବ୍ୟ। ସେହିପରି ନାଗରିକମାନଙ୍କୁ ମଧ୍ୟ ଉପଲବ୍ଧି କରିବାକୁ ହେବ ଯେ, ଶାନ୍ତିପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ, ଶୃଙ୍ଖଳିତ ଓ ସାମ୍ବିଧାନିକ ପ୍ରତିବାଦ ହିଁ ଯେକୌଣସି ଜନଆନ୍ଦୋଳନର ସବୁଠାରୁ ବଡ଼ ଶକ୍ତି। ସମ୍ବିଧାନ କେବଳ ଶାସକଙ୍କର ନୁହେଁ, କେବଳ ପ୍ରତିବାଦକାରୀଙ୍କର ମଧ୍ୟ ନୁହେଁ; ଏହା ପ୍ରତ୍ୟେକ ଭାରତୀୟଙ୍କର ସାମୂହିକ ଅଙ୍ଗୀକାର। ଆଗାମୀ ପିଢ଼ି ପାଇଁ ଯଦି ଆମେ ଏକ ସଶକ୍ତ, ସମ୍ବେଦନଶୀଳ ଏବଂ ଜୀବନ୍ତ ଗଣତନ୍ତ୍ର ଛାଡ଼ିଯିବାକୁ ଚାହୁଁ, ତେବେ ଶାସକ ଓ ଶାସିତଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ଥିବା ଦୂରତାକୁ ଲାଠି, ବ୍ୟାରିକେଡ୍ କିମ୍ବା ବଳପ୍ରୟୋଗରେ ନୁହେଁ, ବରଂ ଖୋଲାମନର ସଂଳାପ, ପରସ୍ପର ସମ୍ମାନ ଓ ବିଶ୍ୱାସରେ ଦୂର କରିବାକୁ ହେବ। କାରଣ, ଗଣତନ୍ତ୍ରର ପ୍ରକୃତ ବିଜୟ କାହାର ପରାଜୟରେ ନୁହେଁ, ବରଂ ପରସ୍ପରକୁ ବୁଝିବାରେ ନିହିତ। ଜାତିର ଭବିଷ୍ୟତ ଅଧିକ ବ୍ୟାରିକେଡ୍‌ରେ ନୁହେଁ, ଅଧିକ ସଂଳାପରେ ସୁରକ୍ଷିତ ହେବ। କାରଣ ସଂଳାପ ହିଁ ଗଣତନ୍ତ୍ରର ସର୍ବୋଚ୍ଚ ଅଭିବ୍ୟକ୍ତି, ଆଉ ସଂଘର୍ଷ ହେଉଛି ତାହାର ସବୁଠାରୁ ବଡ଼ ବିଫଳତା।

*****

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