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

 

 

ସମୟ ବଦଳେ, ସଂଘର୍ଷ ନୁହେଁ

ଇତିହାସର ନଦୀ ବହୁଛି ଯୁଗ ଯୁଗ ଧରି, କେବଳ ତାହାର ତଟ ବଦଳୁଛି, ବଦଳୁଛନ୍ତି ତଟରେ ଠିଆ ହୋଇଥିବା ମଣିଷମାନେ। ହେଲେ ସଂଘର୍ଷର ସ୍ରୋତ କେବେ ଶୁଖିଯାଇନାହିଁ। ସବୁ ଯୁଗରେ ରହିଛନ୍ତି ଦୁଇଟି ପକ୍ଷ। ଗୋଟିଏ କ୍ଷମତାର ଅହଂକାରରେ ମତ୍ତ, ଅନ୍ୟଟି ବିବେକର ଦୀପଶିଖା ଧରି ଅନ୍ଧକାର ସହ ଲଢ଼ିବାକୁ ପ୍ରସ୍ତୁତ। ଯେଉଁଠି ହିରଣ୍ୟକଶିପୁ, ସେଇଠି ପ୍ରହଲ୍ଲାଦର ଅଟଳ ବିଶ୍ୱାସ; ଯେଉଁଠି ରାବଣର ଅହଂକାର, ସେଇଠି ଶ୍ରୀରାମଙ୍କ ଧର୍ମପଥ; ଯେଉଁଠି କଂସର ଅତ୍ୟାଚାର, ସେଇଠି ଶ୍ରୀକୃଷ୍ଣଙ୍କ ପ୍ରତିରୋଧର ବଂଶୀସ୍ୱର। ଅନ୍ୟାୟ ଯେତେବେଳେ ପାହାଡ଼ ହୋଇ ଠିଆ ହୁଏ, ପ୍ରତିବାଦ ସେତେବେଳେ ଝରଣା ହୋଇ ବାଟ କାଟେ। ଦମନ ଯେତେବେଳେ ଲୁହାର ପ୍ରାଚୀର ଗଢ଼େ, ସାହସ ସେତେବେଳେ ହାତୁଡ଼ି ହୋଇ ତାହାକୁ ଭାଙ୍ଗେ। ଶାସକ ଶାସନ କରିବେ, ଦମନର ଜାଲ ବୁଣିବେ। ସଂଗ୍ରାମୀ ମଣିଷ ସେହି ଜାଲ ଛିଣ୍ଡାଇବେ, ସତ୍ୟ ଓ ନ୍ୟାୟର ପଥରେ ଆଗେଇବେ, ପ୍ରୟୋଜନେ ରକ୍ତ ଦେବେ, ବଳିଦାନ ଦେବେ, ଆଉ ଦିନେ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନର ଇତିହାସ ଲେଖିବେ। ଏଇ ତ ସମୟର ଖେଳ, ଏଇ ତ ଇତିହାସର ଅନ୍ତର୍ନିହିତ ଦର୍ଶନ।

ସମୟ ବଦଳେ, ମୁହଁ ବଦଳେ, ପତାକା ବଦଳେ, ସିଂହାସନ ବଦଳେ; କିନ୍ତୁ ସତ୍ୟ ଓ ଅନ୍ୟାୟର ଦ୍ୱନ୍ଦ୍ୱ ଯୁଗରୁ ଯୁଗକୁ ନୂଆ ରୂପ ନେଇ ସେହି ଏକା ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ଉଠାଏ— ମଣିଷ କାହା ପାଖରେ ଠିଆ ହେବ? କ୍ଷମତା ପାଖରେ, ନା ବିବେକ ପାଖରେ? ଭୟ ପାଖରେ, ନା ସାହସ ପାଖରେ? ଅନ୍ୟାୟର ଛାୟାରେ, ନା ନ୍ୟାୟର ଆଲୋକରେ? ଶାସନ ଆସିବ, ଶାସନ ଯିବ; ଶାସକ ବଦଳିବେ, ସିଂହାସନ ଇତିହାସ ହେବ। କ୍ଷମତାର ମୁକୁଟ ଦିନେ ଧୂଳିରେ ମିଶିବ, ଅହଂକାରର ପ୍ରାସାଦ କାଳର କରାଳ ଗର୍ଭରେ ହଜିଯିବ। କାରଣ ସମୟ ହେଉଛି ସବୁଠାରୁ ନିର୍ମମ ବିଚାରକ, ଇତିହାସ ହେଉଛି ତାହାର ନିରବ ସାକ୍ଷୀ। ଆଜି ଯିଏ ଶାସନର ଶୀର୍ଷରେ, କାଲି ସେ ହୋଇପାରେ ଇତିହାସର ଗୋଟିଏ ପୃଷ୍ଠା; ଆଜି ଯିଏ ରାସ୍ତାରେ ଠିଆ ହୋଇ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ କରୁଛି, କାଲି ସେ ହୋଇପାରେ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନର ଏକ ନୂଆ ଅଧ୍ୟାୟ।

ତେଣୁ କ୍ଷମତାକୁ ନେଇ ଏତେ ଅହଂକାର କାହିଁକି? କ୍ଷମତା ତ ଜୁଆର ପରି। ଆଜି ଉଛୁଳି ଉଠେ, କାଲି ଭଟ୍ଟାରେ ହଜିଯାଏ। କିନ୍ତୁ ମଣିଷର କର୍ମ, ତାହାର ଆଦର୍ଶ, ତାହାର ସଂଘର୍ଷ ଓ ବଳିଦାନ ସମୟର ବାଲୁକାରାଶିରେ ଅଲିଭା ପଦଚିହ୍ନ ହୋଇ ରହିଯାଏ। କେହି କହିବେ—ଚୁପ୍ ରୁହ! କେହି କହିବେ—ଏହା ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ କରିବାର ସମୟ ନୁହେଁ! କେହି ଭୟ ଦେଖାଇବେ, କେହି ଉପହାସ କରିବେ, କେହି ସତ୍ୟର କଣ୍ଠରେ ନିରବତାର ଶିକୁଳି ପକାଇବେ। ହେଲେ ମନେ ରଖିବାକୁ ହେବ ଯେ ଯେଉଁଦିନ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ମରିଯାଏ, ସେଦିନ ଗଣତନ୍ତ୍ରର ଆତ୍ମା ଆହତ ହୁଏ। ଯେଉଁଦିନ ବିବେକ ନିରବ ହୁଏ, ସେଦିନ ଅନ୍ୟାୟର ସିଂହାସନ ଆହୁରି ମଜବୁତ ହୁଏ।

ତେଣୁ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ କରିବା, ସତ୍ୟ କହିବା, ଅନ୍ୟାୟର ଆଖିରେ ଆଖି ମିଶାଇ ପ୍ରତିବାଦ କରିବା ଜରୁରୀ। କିନ୍ତୁ ଘୃଣାର ଅଗ୍ନି ନୁହେଁ, ବିବେକର ଆଲୋକ ଧରି; ହିଂସାର ଖଡ଼୍ଗ ନୁହେଁ, ସାହସର ଢାଲ ଧରି; ମିଥ୍ୟାର କୁହୁଡ଼ି ନୁହେଁ, ତଥ୍ୟର ସୂର୍ଯ୍ୟ ଧରି। ପ୍ରହଲ୍ଲାଦଙ୍କ ପରି ବିଶ୍ୱାସରେ ଅଟଳ ରହି, ଶ୍ରୀରାମଙ୍କ ପରି ଧର୍ମପଥରେ ଅବିଚଳ ରହି, ଶ୍ରୀକୃଷ୍ଣଙ୍କ ପରି ପରିସ୍ଥିତିର ଜଟିଳତା ଭିତରେ ବୁଦ୍ଧି, କୌଶଳ ଓ ସତ୍ୟର ସନ୍ଧାନ କରି। କାରଣ ସଂଘର୍ଷ କେବଳ ଶକ୍ତିର ଲଢ଼େଇ ନୁହେଁ, ଏହା ବିବେକ ଓ ବିବେକହୀନତାର ଲଢ଼େଇ; କେବଳ ବିଜୟର ଆକାଂକ୍ଷା ନୁହେଁ, ଏହା ମଣିଷର ମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦା ରକ୍ଷାର ସଂକଳ୍ପ।

ଆଜି ଯେଉଁମାନେ ରାସ୍ତାରେ, ଯେଉଁମାନେ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନରେ, ଯେଉଁମାନେ ନିଜ ଅଧିକାର ପାଇଁ ଶାସନର ପ୍ରାଚୀର ଆଗରେ ସ୍ୱର ଉଠାଉଛନ୍ତି, ହୁଏତ ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ଉପହାସ କରାଯିବ, ସେମାନଙ୍କ ସ୍ୱପ୍ନକୁ ଅବାସ୍ତବ କୁହାଯିବ, ସେମାନଙ୍କ ସ୍ୱରକୁ ଭିଡ଼ର କୋଳାହଳ କହି ଅଣଦେଖା କରିଦିଆଯିବ। କିନ୍ତୁ ଇତିହାସ କହେ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନ କେବେ ନିରବ ଭିଡ଼ର ଗର୍ଭରୁ ଆପେ ଆପେ ଜନ୍ମ ନେଇନାହିଁ; ତାହାର ପ୍ରଥମ ଅଙ୍କୁର ଫୁଟିଛି କେତେକ ସାହସୀ ହୃଦୟରେ, ତାହାର ପ୍ରଥମ ସ୍ୱର ଉଠିଛି କେତେକ ନିର୍ଭୀକ କଣ୍ଠରେ। ବିପ୍ଳବର ବୀଜ ଯେତେବେଳେ ମାଟି ତଳେ ଶୋଇଥାଏ, ତାହାକୁ ଦେଖି କେହି ଭବିଷ୍ୟତର ବୃକ୍ଷକୁ ଚିହ୍ନିପାରେ ନାହିଁ। କିନ୍ତୁ ମାଟି ଫାଡ଼ି ଥରେ ଅଙ୍କୁର ବାହାରିଲେ, ଝଡ଼ ଓ ବର୍ଷା ମଧ୍ୟ ତାହାର ବୃଦ୍ଧିକୁ ସବୁଦିନ ପାଇଁ ଅଟକାଇ ପାରନ୍ତି ନାହିଁ।

ସେହିପରି ଇତିହାସ କେବଳ ସିଂହାସନରେ ବସିଥିବା ମଣିଷଙ୍କ କାହାଣୀ ନୁହେଁ; ଏହା ସିଂହାସନକୁ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ କରିଥିବା ସାହସୀ ମଣିଷଙ୍କ ଗାଥା ମଧ୍ୟ। ଇତିହାସ ମନେ ରଖେ ସେହି ମଣିଷକୁ, ଯିଏ କ୍ଷମତାର ଆଖିରେ ଆଖି ରଖି କହିଥିଲା ଯେ ସେ ଭୟ କରେନାହିଁ। ମନେ ରଖେ ସେହି ପାଦଚିହ୍ନକୁ, ଯାହା ଝଡ଼ର ଭୟରେ ପଛକୁ ଫେରିନଥିଲା; ସେହି କଣ୍ଠସ୍ୱରକୁ, ଯାହାକୁ ଚୁପ୍ କରିବାକୁ ଅନେକ ଅପଚେଷ୍ଟା ହୋଇଥିଲା, କିନ୍ତୁ ଯାହାର ପ୍ରତିଧ୍ୱନି ପିଢ଼ି ପରେ ପିଢ଼ି ଗୁଞ୍ଜରିତ ହୋଇଥିଲା। ତେଣୁ ସଂଘର୍ଷ ପଥରେ ଏକା ହୋଇଯିବା,  ପରାଜିତ ହେବା ନୁହେଁ। ତାଳି ନ ମିଳିଲେ ସତ୍ୟକୁ ନଛାଡ଼ି, ଭିଡ଼ ନ ମିଳିଲେ ବିବେକକୁ ବିକ୍ରି ନକରି, ପଥରେ କଣ୍ଟା ଥିଲେ ଲକ୍ଷ୍ୟପଥରୁ ବିଚ୍ୟୁତ  ନହୋଇ ଆଗକୁ ବଢ଼ିବାକୁ ହେବ। କାରଣ ଇତିହାସର ଅନେକ ବଡ଼ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନ ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଥିଲା ଏକାକୀ ମଣିଷର ସଂକଳ୍ପରୁ। ଯେମିତି ଗୋଟିଏ ଦୀପଶିଖା ଅନେକ ଦିନର ଅନ୍ଧକାରକୁ ଆହ୍ୱାନ କରେ, ସେମିତି ଗୋଟିଏ ନିର୍ଭୀକ ସ୍ୱର ହଜାର ହଜାର ଶୋଇଥିବା ବିବେକକୁ ଜାଗ୍ରତ କରିପାରେ।

ସବୁ ଲଢ଼େଇ ତୁରନ୍ତ ଜିତାଯାଏ ନାହିଁ, ସବୁ ସତ୍ୟ ତୁରନ୍ତ ସ୍ୱୀକୃତ ହୁଏ ନାହିଁ; କେତେକ ସତ୍ୟକୁ ସମୟର ଅଗ୍ନିପରୀକ୍ଷା ଦେବାକୁ ପଡ଼େ, କେତେକ ବିଜୟ ପାଇଁ ପିଢ଼ି ପରେ ପିଢ଼ି ସଂଘର୍ଷର ମଶାଲ ବହିବାକୁ ପଡ଼େ। ତଥାପି ମଣିଷର ମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦା ପାଇଁ ହୋଇଥିବା ଲଢ଼େଇ, ନ୍ୟାୟ ପାଇଁ ଉଠିଥିବା ସ୍ୱର, ଅନ୍ୟାୟ ବିରୋଧରେ ହୋଇଥିବା ପ୍ରତିବାଦ କେବେ ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ବୃଥା ଯାଏ ନାହିଁ। ହୁଏତ ତାହାର ଫଳ ତୁରନ୍ତ ମିଳେନାହିଁ, ହୁଏତ ତାହାର ଫୁଲ ଅନ୍ୟ କେହି ଦେଖେ; କିନ୍ତୁ ସଂଘର୍ଷରେ ବୁଣାଯାଇଥିବା ବୀଜ କୌଣସି ନା କୌଣସି ବସନ୍ତରେ ଅଙ୍କୁରିତ ହୁଏ। ଗନ୍ତବ୍ୟର ମହତ୍ତ୍ୱ, ପଥର ସହଜତାରେ ନୁହେଁ, ସଂକଳ୍ପର ଦୃଢ଼ତାରେ ନିହିତ। ଅନ୍ୟାୟକୁ ବିରୋଧ କରିବାର ମୂଲ୍ୟ ଅଛି, ସତ୍ୟ ପାଇଁ ଠିଆ ହେବାର ଯନ୍ତ୍ରଣା ଅଛି। ଯିଏ ଅତ୍ୟାଚାରୀକୁ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ କରେ, ସେ ଅପବାଦର ଶର ଓ ନିନ୍ଦାର ପଥର ସହେ। ଯିଏ ଅନ୍ୟାୟର ପ୍ରାଚୀର ଭାଙ୍ଗିବାକୁ ଯାଏ, ତାହାର ମୁଣ୍ଡରେ ଅଭିଯୋଗର ମୁକୁଟ ପିନ୍ଧାଯାଏ। ଶ୍ରୀରାମ ଓ ଶ୍ରୀକୃଷ୍ଣଙ୍କୁ ମଧ୍ୟ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନର ସାମ୍ନା କରିବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିଛି, ଗାନ୍ଧୀ ଓ ନେହେରୁ ମଧ୍ୟ ସମାଲୋଚନାରୁ ଊର୍ଦ୍ଧ୍ୱରେ ନଥିଲେ, ଏବେ ନାହାନ୍ତି ମଧ୍ୟ। ଏହା ହିଁ ପୁରାଣର ଶିକ୍ଷା, ଏହା ହିଁ ଇତିହାସର ଅନୁଭବ। କେହି ବ୍ୟକ୍ତି ଯୁଗର ବିଚାରରୁ ଊର୍ଦ୍ଧ୍ୱରେ ନୁହେଁ, କୌଣସି କ୍ଷମତା ସମୟର ବିଚାରରୁ ଊର୍ଦ୍ଧ୍ୱରେ ନୁହେଁ।

ପାଣିରେ ପାଦ ରଖିଲେ ଓଦା ହେବାକୁ ପଡ଼େ, ନିଆଁକୁ ସ୍ପର୍ଶ କଲେ ତାପ ସହିବାକୁ ପଡ଼େ; ସେମିତି ଅନ୍ୟାୟର ଅଗ୍ନିରେ ପ୍ରତିରୋଧର ମଶାଲ ଜାଳିଲେ ତାହାର ତାପ ମଧ୍ୟ ସହିବାକୁ ପଡ଼େ। ଏହାହିଁ ଜୀବନର କଠୋର ସତ୍ୟ, ଏହାହିଁ ସଂଘର୍ଷର ଅନିବାର୍ଯ୍ୟ ମୂଲ୍ୟ। କିନ୍ତୁ ରାତି ଯେତେ ଦୀର୍ଘ ହେଉ, ପୂର୍ବାକାଶରେ ପ୍ରଭାତର ସମ୍ଭାବନା ମରିଯାଏ ନାହିଁ। ଝଡ଼ ଯେତେ ପ୍ରବଳ ହେଉ, ଦିଗନ୍ତରେ ନୂଆ ସୂର୍ଯ୍ୟୋଦୟର ଆଶା ଲିଭିଯାଏ ନାହିଁ। କାରଣ ସମୟ ଭଳି ଇତିହାସ ଗୋଟିଏ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ଅଟକି ରହେନାହିଁ। ସମୟ କଡ଼ ଲେଉଟାଏ। ପୁରୁଣା ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥାର ଭଗ୍ନାବଶେଷ ଉପରେ ନୂଆ ସମ୍ଭାବନାର ଅଙ୍କୁର ଫୁଟେ। ଏହା ହିଁ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନର ନିୟମ। ଏହା ହିଁ ଇତିହାସର ଅମୋଘ ସଙ୍କେତ। ସମୟ ଚାଲିଯିବ, ଯୁଗ ବଦଳିଯିବ, ଶାସକ ବଦଳିବେ, ପତାକାର ରଙ୍ଗ ବଦଳିଯିବ, ଇତିହାସର ପୃଷ୍ଠାରେ ନୂଆ ନାମ ଲେଖାଯିବ। କିନ୍ତୁ ସଂଘର୍ଷର ଚିରନ୍ତନ ଧାରା କେବେ ଅଟକିବ ନାହିଁ। ଯେଉଁଠି ଅନ୍ୟାୟ, ସେଠି ପ୍ରତିରୋଧ; ଯେଉଁଠି ଦମନ, ସେଠି ପ୍ରତିବାଦ; ଯେଉଁଠି ଅସତ୍ୟ, ସେଠି ସତ୍ୟର ସନ୍ଧାନ; ଯେଉଁଠି ଭୟ, ସେଠି ସାହସର ଜନ୍ମ; ଯେଉଁଠି ମଣିଷର ମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦା ଲୁଣ୍ଠିତ, ସେଇଠି ମୁକ୍ତିର ଆକାଂକ୍ଷା ଜାଗ୍ରତ। କାରଣ ସଂଘର୍ଷ କୌଣସି ଗୋଟିଏ ଯୁଗର ସମ୍ପତ୍ତି ନୁହେଁ, କୌଣସି ଗୋଟିଏ ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିର ପରିଚୟ ନୁହେଁ। ଏହା ମଣିଷର ଆତ୍ମମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦାର ଅନ୍ୟ ନାମ। ଏହା ନ୍ୟାୟ ପାଇଁ ଧକ୍‌ଧକ୍‌ କରୁଥିବା ହୃଦୟର ସ୍ପନ୍ଦନ। କାରଣ, କେବେବି ସତ୍ୟର ଆହ୍ୱାନ ବଦଳେ ନାହିଁ,  ନ୍ୟାୟର ଆକାଂକ୍ଷା ମଉଳିଯାଏ ନାହିଁ କିମ୍ବା ସଂଘର୍ଷର ମଶାଲ ଲିଭିଯାଏ ନାହିଁ। ଯେପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଅନ୍ୟାୟ ରହିବ, ସେପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ପ୍ରତିରୋଧ ରହିବ। ଯେପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଦମନ ରହିବ, ସେପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ପ୍ରତିବାଦ ରହିବ। ଯେପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ମଣିଷର ବିବେକ ଜାଗ୍ରତ ରହିବ, ସେପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ସଂଘର୍ଷର ଇତିହାସ ଲେଖା ହେଉଥିବ। ସମୟ ବଦଳେ, ସଂଘର୍ଷ ନୁହେଁ ଏବଂ ଏହାହିଁ ମଣିଷ ସଭ୍ୟତାର ଚିରନ୍ତନ ସତ୍ୟ।

*****