ଆଗୁଆ ଅବସର ଓ ବେକାରୀ ସମସ୍ୟା

 

ଆଗୁଆ ଅବସର ଓ ବେକାରୀ ସମସ୍ୟା

-ବୃହସ୍ପତି ସାମଲ-

ବେକାରୀ କେବଳ ଏକ ଅର୍ଥନୈତିକ ସମସ୍ୟା ନୁହେଁ; ଏହା ଲକ୍ଷ ଲକ୍ଷ ଯୁବକଯୁବତୀଙ୍କ ସ୍ୱପ୍ନ, ଆତ୍ମସମ୍ମାନ ଓ ଭବିଷ୍ୟତ ସହ ଜଡ଼ିତ ଏକ ଗଭୀର ସାମାଜିକ ଯନ୍ତ୍ରଣା। ଯେଉଁ ବୟସରେ ଜଣେ ଯୁବକ ନିଜ ପାଦରେ ଠିଆ ହେବା, ପରିବାରର ଦାୟିତ୍ୱ ନେବା ଓ ଦେଶ ଗଠନରେ ଭାଗୀଦାର ହେବାର ସ୍ୱପ୍ନ ଦେଖେ, ସେହି ସମୟରେ ନିଯୁକ୍ତିର ଅଭାବ ତା’ର ଆଶାକୁ ଭାଙ୍ଗିଦିଏ। ଏହି ଯନ୍ତ୍ରଣାର ସମାଧାନ ଖୋଜିବା ରାଷ୍ଟ୍ରର କର୍ତ୍ତବ୍ୟ। କିନ୍ତୁ ସମାଧାନ ନାଁରେ ଯେଉଁମାନେ ବର୍ଷ ବର୍ଷ ଧରି ନିଜର ଶ୍ରମ, ଅଭିଜ୍ଞତା ଓ ଜୀବନର ସର୍ବୋତ୍ତମ ସମୟ ରାଷ୍ଟ୍ରସେବାରେ ଉତ୍ସର୍ଗ କରିଛନ୍ତି, ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ଅକାଳରେ ସେବାରୁ ବିଦାୟ ନେବାକୁ କହିବା କ’ଣ ନ୍ୟାୟସଙ୍ଗତ? ଜଣଙ୍କର ଜୀବିକା ଓ ଭବିଷ୍ୟତକୁ ଅନିଶ୍ଚିତତାରେ ଠେଲି ଅନ୍ୟ ଜଣଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଚାକିରିର ସୁଯୋଗ ସୃଷ୍ଟି କରିବା କ’ଣ ପ୍ରକୃତ ସାମାଜିକ ନ୍ୟାୟ? ଏହି ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ଆଜି ଦେଶର ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ନୀତି ଓ ଶାସନ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥାର ବିବେକକୁ ଆହ୍ୱାନ କରୁଛି। ନିକଟରେ କେନ୍ଦ୍ରମନ୍ତ୍ରୀ ଏଚ୍‌. ଡି. କୁମାରସ୍ୱାମୀଙ୍କ ପକ୍ଷରୁ ସରକାରୀ କର୍ମଚାରୀମାନେ ୧୦ରୁ ୧୫ ବର୍ଷ ସେବା ପରେ ଅବସର ନେବା ଅଥବା ସେବାକାଳକୁ ୧୫ରୁ ୨୦ ବର୍ଷ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ସୀମିତ କରି ଅଧିକ ଯୁବକଙ୍କୁ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ଦେବା ସମ୍ପର୍କରେ ଦିଆଯାଇଥିବା ବୟାନ ଏବେ ବିତର୍କ ବଳୟରେ। ବେକାରୀ ସମସ୍ୟାର ଗମ୍ଭୀରତାକୁ ଅସ୍ୱୀକାର କରିବାର ଅବକାଶ ନାହିଁ। କିନ୍ତୁ ଏହାର ସମାଧାନ ପାଇଁ ସରକାରୀ କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ ସେବାକାଳକୁ କମାଇଦେବା ହିଁ କ’ଣ ଏକମାତ୍ର ବାଟ? ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ସୃଷ୍ଟି କରିବାର ଦାୟିତ୍ୱ ସରକାରଙ୍କର; ଏହାର ଭାର କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ କାନ୍ଧରେ ଲଦିଦେବା କୌଣସି ଦୂରଦର୍ଶୀ ନୀତି ହୋଇପାରେ ନାହିଁ।

ଭାରତରେ ସରକାରୀ କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ ବେତନ, ସେବା ସର୍ତ୍ତାବଳୀ ଓ ଅବସର ସୁବିଧାସୁଯୋଗ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଧାରଣ ପାଇଁ ସମୟ ସମୟରେ ବେତନ ଆୟୋଗ ଗଠନ କରାଯାଇଛି। ପ୍ରଥମ ବେତନ ଆୟୋଗଠାରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ସପ୍ତମ ବେତନ ଆୟୋଗ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ପ୍ରତ୍ୟେକ ଆୟୋଗ ଏ ସମ୍ପର୍କରେ ବିଚାର କରିଆସିଛନ୍ତି।  ଏବେ ଅଷ୍ଟମ ବେତନ ଆୟୋଗ ତାଙ୍କର ନିର୍ଦ୍ଧାରିତ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟକ୍ରମ ଜାରି ରଖିଥିବା ବେଳେ, କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ ସେବାକାଳକୁ ଅକାଳରେ କମେଇଦେବାକୁ ନେଇ  ଜଣେ ଦାୟିତ୍ୱବାନ କେନ୍ଦ୍ରମନ୍ତ୍ରୀଙ୍କର ବୟାନ ଦଶନ୍ଧି ଦଶନ୍ଧି ଧରି ଚାଲିଆସୁଥିବା ସେବା ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥାର ଆର୍ଥିକ, ସାମାଜିକ ଓ ପ୍ରଶାସନିକ ମୂଳାଧାର ଉପରେ ଏକ ଗୁରୁତର ନୀତିଗତ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନବାଚୀ ସୃଷ୍ଟି କରିବା ସ୍ୱାଭାବିକ। ସରକାରୀ ଚାକିରିରେ ନିଯୁକ୍ତିର ସୁଯୋଗ କମିବାର ପ୍ରକୃତ କାରଣ ମଧ୍ୟ  ଆଉ ଏକ ମୌଳିକ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ। ଦେଶର ବିଭିନ୍ନ ସରକାରୀ ବିଭାଗରେ ହଜାର ହଜାର ପଦବୀ ଖାଲି ପଡ଼ିଛି। ଅନେକ ବିଭାଗରେ ନୂତନ ପଦବୀ ସୃଷ୍ଟି ହେଉନାହିଁ, ଅବସର ପରେ ଖାଲି ହେଉଥିବା ପଦବୀ ପୂରଣ କରାଯାଉନାହିଁ, ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟା ବର୍ଷ ବର୍ଷ ଧରି ଅଟକି ରହୁଛି। ଅନେକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ସ୍ଥାୟୀ ପଦବୀର କାର୍ଯ୍ୟ ଠିକା, ଆଉଟ୍‌ସୋର୍ସିଂ ଓ ଅସ୍ଥାୟୀ କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା କରାଯାଉଛି। ଯଦି ଖାଲି ପଦବୀ ପୂରଣ କରାଯାଏ, ନୂତନ ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା ଅନୁସାରେ ପଦବୀ ସୃଷ୍ଟି ହୁଏ ଏବଂ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟା ସ୍ୱଚ୍ଛ ଓ ସମୟବଦ୍ଧ ହୁଏ, ତେବେ ଅନେକ ଯୁବକଯୁବତୀଙ୍କୁ ଚାକିରି ମିଳିପାରିବ। ତେଣୁ ଖାଲି ପଦବୀ ପୂରଣ ନକରି କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ ସେବାକାଳ କମାଇବା ଝିଣ୍ଟିକା ମାରି ବଣି ପୋଷିବା ସଦୃଶ।

ଏହି ପ୍ରସ୍ତାବର ଆଉ ଏକ ଅବହେଳିତ ପାର୍ଶ୍ୱ ହେଉଛି ଅବସର ପରବର୍ତ୍ତୀ ଜୀବନ। ଜଣେ କର୍ମଚାରୀ ୧୦ରୁ ୧୫ ବର୍ଷ ସେବା ପରେ ଅବସର ନେଲେ ତାଙ୍କୁ କେଉଁ ପ୍ରକାରର ପେନ୍‌ସନ୍‌ ମିଳିବ? ଚାରିବର୍ଷ ପରେ ଅବସର ନେବାକୁଥିବା ଅଗ୍ନିବୀରମାନଙ୍କ କଥା ଏବେ ଦେଶସାରା ଚର୍ଚ୍ଚା। ପେନସନ ଉପରେ ଘନଘନ ଆକ୍ରମଣ ଯୋଗୁଁ ଦୀର୍ଘକାଳୀନ ସେବା ପରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ଅନେକ କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ ଜାତୀୟ ପେନସନ ଯୋଜନା (ଏନପିଏସ୍) ଓ ଏକୀକୃତ ପେନସନ ଯୋଜନା (ୟୁପିଏସ୍) ଜୀବନର ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା ପୂରଣ କରିବାରେ ଅସମର୍ଥ ହେଉଥିବା ବେଳେ,  ମାତ୍ର ୧୦ କିମ୍ବା ୧୫ ବର୍ଷର ସେବା ପରେ ଅବସର ନେଇଥିବା କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କୁ କେଉଁ ନିରାପତ୍ତା ଦିଆଯିବ? ଆଜିର ମହଙ୍ଗା ଯୁଗରେ ଏହାକୁ କ’ଣ ସମ୍ମାନଜନକ ଜୀବନ କୁହାଯାଇପାରିବ? କେବଳ ଅବସର ଦେବାର ନିଷ୍ପତ୍ତି ନୁହେଁ, ଅବସର ପରେ ଜୀବନର ମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦା ଓ ଆର୍ଥିକ ସୁରକ୍ଷା ନିଶ୍ଚିତ କରିବା ମଧ୍ୟ ରାଷ୍ଟ୍ରର ସାମ୍ବିଧାନିକ ଦାୟିତ୍ୱ। ଅନୁଚ୍ଛେଦ ୧୪ ଆଇନ ଆଗରେ ସମାନତାର ଅଧିକାର ସୁନିଶ୍ଚିତ କରେ ଏବଂ ଅନୁଚ୍ଛେଦ ୧୬ ସରକାରୀ ନିଯୁକ୍ତିରେ ସମାନ ସୁଯୋଗର ଗ୍ୟାରେଣ୍ଟି ଦିଏ। ଅନୁଚ୍ଛେଦ ୩୦୯, ୩୧୦ ଓ ୩୧୧ ସରକାରୀ ସେବାର ନିଯୁକ୍ତି, ସେବା ସର୍ତ୍ତ ଓ କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ ସୁରକ୍ଷା ସହ ଜଡ଼ିତ। ଏହି ସାମ୍ବିଧାନିକ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥାଗୁଡ଼ିକୁ ଅଣଦେଖା କରି କେବଳ ବେକାରୀ ହ୍ରାସର ଯୁକ୍ତି ଦେଖାଇ ସେବାକାଳକୁ ହଠାତ୍‌ କମାଇଦେବା ପାଇଁ ବୟାନବାଜି କରିବା ନ୍ୟାୟ, ସମାନତା ଓ ସେବା ସୁରକ୍ଷାର ମୂଳ ନୀତି ସହ କେତେଦୂର ସମନ୍ୱିତ, ତାହା ଗଭୀର ଆଇନଗତ ବିଚାର ଦାବି କରେ।

ବାସ୍ତବରେ, ବେକାରୀର ସମାଧାନ ପାଇଁ ଆବଶ୍ୟକ ହେଉଛି ଏକ ବ୍ୟାପକ ଓ ଦୂରଦର୍ଶୀ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ନୀତି। ସରକାରୀ ବିଭାଗରେ ଖାଲି ପଦବୀ ପୂରଣ, ନୂତନ ପଦବୀ ସୃଷ୍ଟି, ଶିଳ୍ପ ଓ କ୍ଷୁଦ୍ର ଉଦ୍ୟୋଗର ବିକାଶ, କୃଷିଭିତ୍ତିକ ଶିଳ୍ପକୁ ପ୍ରୋତ୍ସାହନ, ଯୁବକଯୁବତୀଙ୍କ ଦକ୍ଷତା ବିକାଶ ଏବଂ ସ୍ଥାୟୀ ଓ ସମ୍ମାନଜନକ ନିଯୁକ୍ତିର ସୁଯୋଗ ବୃଦ୍ଧି ଉପରେ ଗୁରୁତ୍ୱ ଦେବା ଦରକାର। ଠିକା ଓ ଆଉଟ୍‌ସୋର୍ସିଂ ନିଯୁକ୍ତିକୁ ସ୍ଥାୟୀ ଚାକିରିର ବିକଳ୍ପ ଭାବେ ଉପସ୍ଥାପନ କରିବା ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତେ ଶ୍ରମିକ ଓ କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କୁ ଯଥୋଚିତ ମଜୁରି, ସାମାଜିକ ସୁରକ୍ଷା ଓ ଚାକିରିର ନିରାପତ୍ତା ଦେବା ଆବଶ୍ୟକ। ଅଧିକ ନିଯୁକ୍ତିର ଅର୍ଥ କେବଳ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ କୌଣସି ପଦବୀରେ ବସାଇବା ନୁହେଁ; ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦାପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଜୀବନ ଯାପନ କରିବାର ସୁଯୋଗ ଦେବା। ଶାସନ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥାରେ ମିତବ୍ୟୟିତା ଓ ଉତ୍ତରଦାୟିତ୍ୱ ନିଶ୍ଚିତ କରିବାକୁ ହେଲେ ତାହାର ଆରମ୍ଭ ଶୀର୍ଷ ସ୍ତରରୁ ହେବା ଉଚିତ୍‌। ପ୍ରଶାସନିକ ଅପଚୟ, ଅନାବଶ୍ୟକ ଖର୍ଚ୍ଚ, ନୀତିଗତ ଅପାରଦର୍ଶିତା ଓ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟାର ବିଳମ୍ବକୁ ଦୂର କରିବା ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତେ ସାଧାରଣ କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ ସେବାକାଳ କମାଇବା ଏକ ସହଜ ରାଜନୈତିକ ରାସ୍ତା ହୋଇପାରେ, କିନ୍ତୁ ଏହା ନ୍ୟାୟସଙ୍ଗତ ସମାଧାନ ନୁହେଁ। ଯେଉଁ କର୍ମଚାରୀମାନେ ଦେଶର ଡାକ, ରେଳ, ପ୍ରତିରକ୍ଷା, ଶିକ୍ଷା, ସ୍ୱାସ୍ଥ୍ୟ, ରାଜସ୍ୱ ଓ ଅନ୍ୟାନ୍ୟ ଜନସେବାମୂଳକ ବିଭାଗରେ ଦିନରାତି କାର୍ଯ୍ୟ କରି ରାଷ୍ଟ୍ରକୁ ଗତିଶୀଳ ରଖୁଛନ୍ତି, ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ଅଭିଜ୍ଞତାର ସର୍ବୋତ୍ତମ ସମୟରେ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥାରୁ ବାହାର କରିଦେବା ଦ୍ୱାରା ପ୍ରଶାସନର ଗୁଣବତ୍ତା ମଧ୍ୟ ପ୍ରଭାବିତ ହୋଇପାରେ। ଅଭିଜ୍ଞତା ଓ ନୂତନ ଯୁବଶକ୍ତି ପରସ୍ପରର ପ୍ରତିଦ୍ୱନ୍ଦ୍ୱୀ ନୁହନ୍ତି; ଦେଶର ବିକାଶ ପାଇଁ ଉଭୟଙ୍କର ସମନ୍ୱୟ ଆବଶ୍ୟକ।

ସରକାରଙ୍କୁ ଏହା ମଧ୍ୟ ବୁଝିବାକୁ ହେବ ଯେ ଜଣେ କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କୁ ଅକାଳରେ ଅବସର ଦେଇ ତାଙ୍କ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ଆଉ ଜଣେ ଯୁବକଙ୍କୁ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ଦେଲେ ବେକାରୀର ମୂଳ ସମସ୍ୟା ଦୂର ହୋଇଯାଏ ନାହିଁ। ଏହା କେବଳ ଚାକିରିର ସୁଯୋଗକୁ ଗୋଟିଏ ହାତରୁ ଅନ୍ୟ ହାତକୁ ସ୍ଥାନାନ୍ତର କରିବା। ନୂତନ ନିଯୁକ୍ତିର ସୁଯୋଗ ବଢ଼ାଇବା ନିଶ୍ଚିତ ଭାବେ ଆବଶ୍ୟକ, କିନ୍ତୁ ତାହା କାହାର ଅଧିକାର ଛଡ଼ାଇ ନେଇ ନୁହେଁ; ବରଂ ଅର୍ଥନୀତି ଓ ସରକାରୀ ସେବାର ପରିସରକୁ ବିସ୍ତାର କରି। ଜଣେ ଯୁବକଙ୍କ ଆଖିରେ ନିଯୁକ୍ତିର ସ୍ୱପ୍ନ ଜାଗ୍ରତ କରିବା ପାଇଁ ଅନ୍ୟ ଜଣେ କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ ଆଖିରୁ ଜୀବନର ନିରାପତ୍ତା ଛଡ଼ାଇ ନେବା କୌଣସି ସୁସ୍ଥ ସମାଜର ଆଦର୍ଶ ହୋଇପାରେ ନାହିଁ। ରାଷ୍ଟ୍ରର ଦାୟିତ୍ୱ ହେଉଛି ନୂତନ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ସୃଷ୍ଟି କରିବା, ପୁରୁଣା କର୍ମଚାରୀଙ୍କ ଅଧିକାର ଛଡ଼ାଇ ନେବା ନୁହେଁ। ଯେଉଁ ନୀତି ଯୁବକଙ୍କୁ ଆଶା ଦେବା ନାମରେ ଅନ୍ୟ ଏକ ପରିବାରକୁ ଅନିଶ୍ଚିତତା ଓ ଅସହାୟତା ମଧ୍ୟକୁ ଠେଲିଦିଏ, ତାହାକୁ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ସଂସ୍କାର କୁହାଯାଇପାରିବ ନାହିଁ।

*****

Revised ceiling rates and guidelines for cochlear implantation and rehabilitation under CGHS and CS(MA) Rules, 1944

 

Happy and Prosperous Diwali to All! - Let's Light the Lamp of a Just and Equal Society!

 

 

Protest Beyond the Barricade

-Bruhaspati Samal-

Those who once wielded lathis, fired tear gas shells and confronted protesters with force at Jantar Mantar are now themselves taking to the streets to voice their grievances. The irony is striking. The very police personnel who were deployed to suppress public protests have apparently begun recognising the importance of peaceful collective protest in securing justice and dignity. Perhaps this is an important realisation: a grievance does not disappear merely because the person raising it wears a uniform.

The protesters are police personnel. Those against whom their grievances are directed are also police officers. And those attempting to mediate the confrontation are, once again, police officers. This extraordinary situation in Delhi presents a disturbing paradox: the institution entrusted with maintaining public peace is struggling to maintain peace within its own ranks. The recent protest following the transfer of two police officers after a confrontation with lawyers has exposed uncomfortable questions about working conditions, administrative culture and institutional accountability within the Indian police force. It cannot be dismissed merely as indiscipline or a disagreement over transfers. It demands a deeper examination of the human conditions under which our police function. Those who protect citizens' rights must also have the opportunity to seek justice, dignity and fairness within their own organisation.

The Status of Policing in India Report 2019, published by Common Cause and Lokniti–Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), provides disturbing insights into the working conditions of police personnel. Based on interviews with approximately 12,000 police personnel across 21 states and 10,595 family members, the report highlighted excessive working hours, inadequate weekly rest, insufficient resources and external pressures. Society expects the police to remain available round the clock, but the institutional arrangements required to sustain such availability remain inadequate. A police constable may regulate traffic in the morning, manage a crowd in the afternoon and attend an emergency at midnight. What should be exceptional has gradually become routine. Lower-ranking personnel bear the greatest burden, often sacrificing sleep, family time and personal commitments. An institution cannot indefinitely compensate for inadequate manpower by exhausting the personnel already in service.

The Ministry of Home Affairs' advisory dated July 6, 2021, on police working conditions further underlined the seriousness of occupational stress. Referring to a study of police personnel, it reported that approximately 42 per cent of investigating officers and 45 per cent of constables experienced work-related stress. Workload and difficulties in balancing professional and family responsibilities were major concerns among investigating officers, while long working hours were an important source of stress among constables. The advisory also highlighted the absence of weekly holidays and referred to a pilot initiative in Rajasthan involving weekly rest and duty rosters. These findings establish that reasonable working hours and weekly rest are not unrealistic demands. They require adequate recruitment, better workforce management and administrative sensitivity. Discipline is indispensable to policing, but it cannot become a licence to deny personnel their basic human needs. An exhausted police officer cannot always be expected to display the patience, restraint and sound judgment that effective policing requires.

The Delhi episode also brings the question of administrative authority into sharp focus. Transfers, suspensions, deployment orders and disciplinary proceedings are legitimate instruments of administration. A police force cannot function if lawful orders are routinely disobeyed. Equally, it cannot command genuine respect if authority is exercised arbitrarily. Superiors must exercise power responsibly, while subordinates must obey lawful instructions without surrendering their right to seek justice. Discipline must be reciprocal in spirit, even when administrative responsibilities are unequal. A transparent mechanism for hearing grievances, reviewing disputed decisions and providing reasoned responses could prevent dissatisfaction from escalating into public confrontation. No police officer should feel compelled to choose between unquestioning submission and an open protest merely to make a legitimate grievance heard.

Behind every uniform stands a family that silently shares the burden of public service. An officer may be physically present at home but mentally occupied with an investigation, an impending deployment or an unexpected telephone call. Children's school functions, family celebrations and personal commitments frequently become casualties of unpredictable duty schedules. The families of police personnel also contribute to public service, although their sacrifices rarely receive recognition. Women police personnel often face additional challenges in balancing professional responsibilities with family obligations. Gender-sensitive duty arrangements, maternity support, predictable leave and adequate childcare facilities must therefore become integral to police welfare policies. Public service may demand sacrifice, but it should not demand the continuous neglect of family life.

Equally disturbing are the psychological consequences of prolonged occupational stress. Police personnel are expected to demonstrate courage, confidence and emotional control, often under extremely difficult circumstances. Yet the expectation that they must remain strong at all times can discourage them from speaking about fatigue, anxiety and emotional distress. Confidential counselling, professional mental-health support and a workplace culture that encourages personnel to seek assistance are essential. Mental distress must never be treated as professional weakness. A healthy police force is not merely one that possesses physical strength and operational capability; it is one whose members enjoy psychological security and institutional support.

The Delhi confrontation must also be viewed in the wider context of police-public relations. It is indeed ironic that personnel who, in the past, used lathis, tear gas and other coercive methods against protesters at Jantar Mantar are now discovering the power of peaceful collective expression themselves. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of every form of police protest or a justification for abandoning official responsibilities. Police personnel, like all public servants, must respect the law and maintain institutional discipline. But their present experience should also deepen their understanding of the struggles of ordinary citizens, workers and employees who take to the streets when their voices remain unheard. Perhaps experiencing protest from the other side of the barricade will strengthen their appreciation of democratic dissent, restraint and the right to peaceful expression.

Those who once stood behind barricades to prevent others from protesting must now understand why people raise their voices when justice appears inaccessible. And those who command the force must understand that suppressing discontent is not the same as resolving it. A peaceful protest by police personnel may be an uncomfortable sight, but the grievances that give rise to it deserve serious attention. The police are expected to guard society, but who guards the guardians against injustice, exhaustion and administrative insensitivity? The answer cannot be another baton, another transfer or another disciplinary order. It must be a fair and humane institution that listens before discontent turns into confrontation. After all, a police force that cannot secure dignity and justice for its own personnel will find it increasingly difficult to inspire confidence among the people it is entrusted to protect. Peace in society must begin with justice within the police force.

(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)

*****

Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus

-Bruhaspati Samal-

India’s democracy is witnessing recurring demonstrations by opposition parties, students, lawyers and civil society organisations against alleged examination paper leaks, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and questions concerning the conduct of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). Reports of protesters being detained, taken to undisclosed locations and allegedly denied access to lawyers or family members have raised serious concerns about constitutional freedoms. The fundamental question is whether the police can deprive citizens of liberty merely because they participate in demonstrations against the government or question the functioning of constitutional institutions. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, peaceful dissent cannot be treated as a crime, and police authority cannot override constitutional guarantees.

The Constitution guarantees the right to express disagreement and organise peaceful protests. Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. These rights are subject to reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(3), including restrictions justified by public order. However, such restrictions must satisfy constitutional requirements and cannot be imposed arbitrarily. Maintaining public order is a legitimate responsibility; suppressing dissent is not.

Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Article 22(1) requires that an arrested person be informed, as soon as possible, of the grounds of arrest and not be denied the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of their choice. Article 22(2) requires production before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding necessary journey time, and prohibits detention beyond that period without the magistrate’s authority. These are substantive constitutional safeguards, not administrative formalities. Taking protesters into custody without explaining the grounds, concealing their whereabouts or obstructing access to legal counsel raises grave questions about compliance with these provisions. Neither political affiliation nor participation in a demonstration diminishes an individual’s constitutional rights.

Preventive action is sometimes necessary to avert imminent offences, but it cannot become a convenient instrument for silencing opposition. Section 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 permits preventive arrest in specified circumstances where an officer knows of a design to commit a cognizable offence and the offence cannot otherwise be prevented. Detention under this provision cannot exceed 24 hours unless further detention is authorised under another applicable legal provision. Section 126 BNSS provides for proceedings requiring a person to show cause why a bond for keeping the peace should not be ordered. Section 163 BNSS empowers authorities to issue urgent preventive orders where the statutory conditions are satisfied. Section 43(5) BNSS provides that, save in exceptional circumstances, a woman should not be arrested after sunset and before sunrise. In exceptional circumstances, a woman police officer must submit a written report and obtain the prior permission of the Judicial Magistrate First Class within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed or the arrest is to be made. These provisions do not justify indiscriminate arrests based merely on apprehension, political criticism or peaceful mobilisation. Preventive custody must prevent a legally identifiable threat, not punish citizens for exercising democratic rights.

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court laid down safeguards against custodial abuse, including identification of arresting officers, preparation of an arrest memo, notification of a friend or relative, recording of relevant details and medical examination. These safeguards seek to prevent custodial violence and ensure accountability. Their importance becomes particularly evident when a detainee is allegedly taken to an undisclosed location. A distinction must be maintained between detention and enforced disappearance. Detention is a deprivation of liberty that must be legally justified and remain subject to judicial scrutiny. Enforced disappearance, in its established international-law sense, involves deprivation of liberty attributable to the State, followed by refusal to acknowledge the detention or concealment of the person’s fate or whereabouts, placing that person outside the protection of law. 

When liberty is unlawfully taken away, Habeas Corpus is one of the most powerful constitutional remedies available. The Latin expression means “produce the body.” The writ enables a court to require the authority concerned to produce a detained person and justify the legality of the detention. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights; under Article 226, High Courts possess broader writ jurisdiction for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and other legal purposes. A detainee, relative, friend or appropriate public-spirited person may approach the competent court. Where a person’s whereabouts are concealed, a Habeas Corpus petition can seek disclosure of the place of custody, production before the court and appropriate relief if the detention is unlawful. The remedy is especially important when ordinary channels fail to establish whether a person has been arrested, where the person is being held or under what authority.

The Supreme Court has also affirmed that unlawful deprivation of liberty may attract remedies beyond release. In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983), the Court awarded compensation for imprisonment that continued for years after the petitioner’s acquittal. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), it recognised public-law compensation for a violation of Article 21 arising from custodial death. These judgments demonstrate that constitutional courts can provide meaningful relief for serious violations of personal liberty. Compensation and accountability depend on the facts and applicable law, but the State cannot claim immunity merely because the violation occurred through official action.

Ultimately, a constitutional democracy must protect both public order and individual liberty. The police are empowered to prevent violence and enforce the law, but they must act within its boundaries. Protesters, in turn, must exercise their rights peacefully and respect the rights of others. Allegations of unlawful detention must be assessed on evidence, arrest records and applicable legal safeguards, not political convenience. Where custody is lawful, the authorities should be able to establish its basis transparently; where it is unlawful, courts must provide effective remedies and accountability must follow. The right to protest is not a government concession; it is a constitutional guarantee. Habeas Corpus stands as a vital safeguard against secret detention and arbitrary State power. No citizen should have to disappear from public view simply for raising a voice against injustice. In a democracy, dissent must be answered with reason and accountability, never with unlawful detention.

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

*****

Release of additional installment of Dearness Relief (DR) to Central Government Pensioners / Family Pensioners - Revised rate with effect from 1st July 2026

 

Can unemployment be solved by forcing government employees to leave service early?

 

Can unemployment be solved by forcing government employees to leave service early?

-Bruhaspati Samal-

Is unemployment to be fought by shortening the working lives of government employees, while the tenure, privileges and pensions of those who govern remain untouched? This is the fundamental question, Union Minister H. D. Kumaraswamy must answer after suggesting that government employees should leave service after 10–15 years, or within a shortened tenure of 15–20 years, so that more people can obtain government jobs. Reports published on 16–17 October 2026 describe his proposal as a way to address unemployment and provide at least one government job to every family. He has indicated that he would pursue the idea if given the opportunity to implement it in Karnataka. It is a proposal for public discussion, not an approved policy of the Union Government. Yet, coming from a Union Minister, it deserves serious scrutiny rather than being dismissed as a passing remark.

The first question is whether any Central Pay Commission has recommended such a sweeping measure. The historical record requires a clear distinction. The Sixth Central Pay Commission did recommend contractual appointments for selected government posts requiring high professional skills, including opportunities to induct specialists from outside government. It also contemplated contractual arrangements for certain existing employees who voluntarily opted for them after leaving their regular service. These were limited arrangements intended to attract specialised talent, not a recommendation that every regular government employee should be compelled to retire after 15 years. The Seventh CPC examined pay structures, efficiency, recruitment and retirement benefits without recommending a universal 15-year service ceiling. The published Terms of Reference of the Eighth CPC similarly contain no such mandate. 

The argument that shorter service automatically creates more jobs is equally questionable. India’s unemployment crisis cannot be solved merely by forcing existing employees out of service earlier. If a department has 100 sanctioned posts and all are occupied, creating vacancies through premature retirement may provide recruitment opportunities, but it does not necessarily create additional posts or expand public services. If the objective is to provide employment to unemployed youth, why not fill the enormous number of existing vacancies, establish transparent annual recruitment calendars and strengthen departments suffering from staff shortages? The immediate priority should be to recruit eligible candidates against vacant sanctioned posts, not to shorten the careers of those already serving.

A government job is not merely a temporary opportunity to earn a salary. It is a career entered through prescribed qualifications, competitive examinations and lawful recruitment, accompanied by responsibilities, transfers, promotions and expectations of retirement security under applicable service rules. Employees plan their children’s education, housing, family obligations and old age around the conditions of service under which they were recruited. A compulsory 15-year ceiling would disrupt these expectations, weaken institutional experience and potentially discourage qualified candidates from joining public service. It could also adversely affect continuity in education, healthcare, postal services, administration, defence support and other essential sectors. The promise of a monthly pension of ₹8,000–₹10,000, as reported in connection with the proposal, raises another question: can such an amount provide dignified retirement security amid inflation, medical expenses and rising living costs? A pension figure cannot be judged in isolation from the employee’s contributions, service conditions, family responsibilities and the prevailing cost of living.

The constitutional dimension cannot be ignored. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 16 protects equality of opportunity in public employment. Article 309 provides the framework for regulating recruitment and conditions of service, and Articles 310 and 311 govern tenure and safeguards relating to dismissal, removal and reduction in rank. These provisions do not automatically prohibit every fixed-term appointment or every change in retirement policy. Nevertheless, a blanket measure affecting existing regular employees would require clear legal authority, constitutional scrutiny, appropriate transitional arrangements and consideration of legitimate service expectations. A policy cannot be justified merely by invoking unemployment. Nor can one assume that a rule designed for contractual appointments in specialised posts provides legal authority to impose compulsory early retirement across the entire Central Government workforce.

Now comes the question that makes this debate unavoidable: if government employees must surrender decades of service to create opportunities for others, why should the people’s representatives who formulate such policies remain outside the same test of sacrifice? Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies occupy positions of public trust. Their tenure, remuneration and pension arrangements arise under separate constitutional and statutory frameworks, not the ordinary service rules applicable to government employees. That distinction must be acknowledged. Nevertheless, if the governing principle is that public employment should be distributed widely and no individual should occupy a public position for too long, why should that principle be discussed only in relation to employees? Should there not also be a serious debate on limiting elected representatives to a single tenure, subject to constitutional and electoral requirements, and restricting pension entitlement to a single pension rather than benefits linked to repeated terms? Any such reform would require separate legislative consideration, particularly because MPs’ pensions are governed by the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954, while MLAs’ entitlements depend on the relevant state laws. The question is not whether the two categories are legally identical; it is whether public accountability should operate in both directions.

The issue becomes even more compelling when pension inequality is considered. Central Government employees appointed on or after 1 January 2004 were brought under the contributory National Pension System, while subsequent changes introduced the Unified Pension Scheme as an option for eligible central employees. The arrangements for elected representatives are governed separately by law. If financial sustainability and wider distribution of public resources are the arguments for cutting employees’ careers short, elected representatives should be prepared to explain why comparable scrutiny of their own tenure, pension entitlements and public expenditure should not be undertaken. A demand for a single pension for representatives, regardless of the number of terms served, can be debated as a proposal for public accountability; it should not be misrepresented as an existing constitutional requirement. Fairness requires transparent comparison of the applicable rules, costs and public responsibilities, rather than selective austerity imposed on one section alone.

The minister should therefore ask himself a fundamental question before advancing such a far-reaching proposal: is the purpose of government employment to provide a short-lived benefit to one family or to build a competent, experienced and accountable public service for the entire nation? A policy promising one government job to every household may sound attractive, but employment cannot be distributed fairly by an arithmetic formula that ignores qualifications, administrative requirements, fiscal consequences and the rights of existing employees. There is also no guarantee that one vacancy created by early retirement will translate into one appointment, or that the resulting recruitment will reach the poorest and most disadvantaged households. If corruption, delayed recruitment and irregularities in selection are among the causes of public frustration, as reported during the discussion that prompted Kumaraswamy’s remarks, the remedy must include transparent examinations, timely appointments, accountability and adequate staffing—not merely a reduction in service tenure.

Public service must not become a sacrifice demanded only from public servants. The country needs more employment, stronger public institutions and dignified retirement—not a contest in which one citizen’s security is sacrificed in the name of another citizen’s opportunity. Before asking government employees to surrender the prospect of a full career, those who exercise political power must answer the question that democracy places before every public representative: why should the burden of reform fall upon the governed while the privileges of the governing remain beyond question?

(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)

*****

Inclusion and reinstatement of eligible divorced and widowed daughters in CGHS Cards of Family Pensioners

 

Counting of past service on reinstatement under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules 2021 (Rule 25)

 

Contribution by the subscriber to the Unified Pension Scheme and contribution by the Government during the period of suspension

 

DoP&PW Order on contribution by the subscriber and Government during the period of absence from duty under Unified Pension Scheme

 

Workers and Employees are not Slaves

 Workers and Employees are not Slaves 

-Bruhaspati Samal-

India’s corporate establishment appears increasingly obsessed with a disturbing question: how many hours can a worker be made to work in the name of national development? Few months back, Infosys founder Narayana Murthy advocated a 70-hour working week, while Larsen & Toubro Chairman S. N. Subrahmanyan triggered widespread outrage by advocating a 90-hour working week and questioning the need for Sundays off. Now, Union Commerce and Industry Minister’s remarks, portraying Indian workers as people who would not remind their employers that it was five o’clock or that the weekend had arrived, have reopened the debate over the glorification of an inhuman work culture. The Karnataka State IT/ITeS Employees Union (KITU) has rightly objected to this mindset. Though expressed in different contexts, these statements reveal a common and deeply troubling tendency: to celebrate an employee’s willingness to sacrifice personal life as a virtue while overlooking the fundamental distinction between dedication and exploitation. Is India aspiring to become a developed nation, or is it preparing to become a nation where workers are expected to surrender their lives to corporate profit? A country cannot build a humane future by normalising the inhuman treatment of those who create its wealth.

Indian workers do not need lessons in hard work from corporate boardrooms. From farmers in the fields and workers in factories to postal employees, railway workers, sanitation workers, construction labourers, nurses, teachers and millions of employees in public and private establishments, working people have carried the nation on their shoulders. Their sweat has built infrastructure, sustained essential services, generated industrial output and enriched enterprises. Yet, when workers demand reasonable hours, adequate rest, fair wages and time for their families, their legitimate expectations are sometimes portrayed as signs of indiscipline or insufficient commitment. This is nothing less than an attempt to redefine exploitation as excellence. Workers are human beings, not machines; their bodies need rest, their minds need recreation and their families deserve their presence. A weekly holiday is not a favour bestowed by an employer, nor is leaving the workplace after completing prescribed duty a betrayal of professional responsibility. If an organisation cannot achieve its objectives without routinely stretching employees to the limits of physical and mental endurance, the failure may lie in its management, staffing or planning rather than in the workers’ work ethic.

The controversy becomes even more serious when viewed against the changing landscape of Indian labour legislation. The government has consolidated 29 central labour laws into four Labour Codes covering wages, industrial relations, social security, and occupational safety, health and working conditions. The stated objectives include simplifying compliance, modernising labour regulation and facilitating economic activity. However, trade unions have repeatedly warned that provisions concerning industrial disputes, union activities, strikes, retrenchment, employment conditions and regulatory enforcement could weaken workers’ bargaining power and shift the balance towards employers. Any reform that makes it easier to employ workers but harder for them to defend their rights risks converting labour flexibility into managerial domination. Labour reform without workers’ participation and effective protection can become little more than an employer-friendly restructuring of industrial relations.

Another uncomfortable question is that  when a 70-hour or 90-hour working week is proposed, is the expectation equally binding on the chairman, managing director and senior executives, or is the burden principally intended for employees who have little bargaining power and cannot risk losing their jobs? A worker who fears dismissal, an adverse performance review or loss of promotion may comply with unreasonable demands even when no explicit order is issued. Such compliance cannot automatically be interpreted as enthusiasm. It may reflect economic insecurity and unequal power. The problem becomes particularly acute when overtime is unpaid, leave is discouraged, targets are unrealistic and digital devices keep employees connected long after office hours. Women workers face an additional burden because prolonged working hours collide with unequal domestic responsibilities and unpaid caregiving. An employment system that demands unlimited availability while ignoring these realities does not reward merit; it entrenches inequality. No employee should have to choose between protecting a livelihood and preserving personal dignity. Nor should employers be allowed to confuse the power to command with the moral right to demand unlimited sacrifice.

The economic argument for extreme working hours is equally questionable. Longer hours do not automatically produce greater productivity. Beyond a point, fatigue undermines concentration, increases the risk of errors and accidents, damages mental well-being and diminishes creativity. A worker who is exhausted may remain physically present but cannot necessarily deliver the best possible performance. Modern economies require technical competence, innovation, efficient systems, good leadership and motivated employees—not merely longer attendance registers. India should compete internationally through research, skill development, automation, better infrastructure, professional management and fair remuneration. It must not seek a competitive advantage by making its workforce cheaper, more insecure or more exhausted. Economic growth should translate into better living standards, improved health, greater educational opportunities and more time for family and community life. If rising national income is accompanied by deteriorating working conditions and declining quality of life, the country must question the purpose of that growth. The ultimate objective of development is human welfare, not the endless expansion of corporate profits at the expense of human freedom.

The Constitution of India provides a moral and legal foundation for a more just approach. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, while Article 23 prohibits forced labour. Articles 39, 41, 42 and 43 of the Directive Principles of State Policy address, among other matters, adequate livelihood, humane conditions of work, maternity relief and a living wage. These provisions do not mean that every demand for overtime automatically amounts to a constitutional violation; their significance lies in the broader commitment to a society where economic activity respects human dignity. Governments must ensure that statutory working-hour limits, weekly rest provisions, overtime compensation and occupational safety requirements are effectively enforced. Labour inspection must be meaningful, trade union activity must be protected, and employees must have accessible mechanisms to report exploitation without fear of retaliation. The right to disconnect from work communications outside working hours also deserves serious consideration as digital technology increasingly blurs the boundary between professional and private life. Employers, for their part, must build workplaces where performance is recognised, leave is respected and overtime is genuinely exceptional rather than an unwritten condition of continued employment. Investment promotion must never become a justification for neglecting the people whose labour attracts and sustains that investment.

At this critical juncture, trade unions must rise above organisational divisions, political differences and sectoral boundaries to defend the common interests of working people. The rights enjoyed by today’s employees were not gifts from benevolent employers; they were secured through historic struggles, collective resistance, sacrifice and solidarity. The eight-hour working day itself stands as a powerful reminder that working time is a matter of justice, not merely managerial preference. The fight is not against honest enterprise or genuine economic development. It is against a model of development that treats labour as an expendable input and profit as the only measure of success. A strong economy and strong workers’ rights are not contradictory objectives; they must advance together.

The employees and workers are not slaves of corporate ambition, and their lives do not belong to their employers. No nation becomes great by glorifying exhaustion, silencing dissent or weakening the safeguards that protect its workforce. Patriotism cannot be measured by the number of weekends surrendered, just as professional commitment cannot be measured by the willingness to remain permanently available. India must reject the dangerous notion that an employee who asks for rest is less committed than one who silently accepts exploitation. The demand for dignity is not indiscipline; the defence of labour rights is not anti-development; and collective resistance to injustice is not an obstacle to progress. Let the nation compete through knowledge, innovation, productivity, fair wages and social justice—not through the exhaustion of its people. Let governments remember that labour laws exist to protect workers, and let corporate leaders remember that every balance sheet rests upon human effort. The real measure of a developed India will not be how many hours its workers can be made to toil, but how fairly they are paid, how securely they live, how much dignity they enjoy and how much freedom remains in their lives. 

(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 rates of Dearness Allowance to Central Government employees effective from 01.07.2026 - Order issued today by Ministry of Finance

 

Clarification on pay fixation with one increment on grant of Non-Functional Scale to GP Rs.5400 (PB-2) / Level-9 in term of FR-22 (I)(a)(1) - reg.

 

Cabinet approves Dearness Allowance to Central Government employees and Dearness Relief to Pensioners