Release of additional installment of Dearness Relief (DR) to Central Govt Pensioners / Family Pensioners with effect from 1st January 2026

 

Pay Reform is an Investment, Not a Burden

Pay Reform is an Investment, Not a Burden 

-Bruhaspati Samal-

The submission of the final memorandum by the Staff Side of the National Council (JCM) to the 8th Central Pay Commission on 14 April 2026 is not merely a charter of demands—it is a carefully reasoned economic and social argument for restoring dignity, fairness, and rationality to the pay structure of Central Government employees and pensioners. Grounded in empirical data, legal principles, and macroeconomic realities, the memorandum makes a compelling case that fair pay is not an expenditure burden but an investment in nation-building.

At the heart of the submission lies a fundamental assertion: Central Government employees are the backbone of governance. From revenue collection to defence, from railways to scientific innovation and administrative execution, their contribution is both foundational and indispensable. Yet, despite this centrality, the current pay structure fails to ensure a decent standard of living. The National Council argues that “pay is the foundation of dignity, motivation and efficiency in public service,” and therefore must be designed not for subsistence, but for a life of dignity.

A key criticism of the existing framework is the outdated methodology used to determine minimum pay. The present system assumes a three-unit family, which the JCM rightly calls unrealistic and unjust. Instead, it proposes a scientifically grounded five-unit family model—comprising the employee, spouse (one consumption unit each without gender discrimination, i.e., 2CUs), two children and dependent parents (0.8 unit each, i.e., 3.2 CUs) — total amounting to 5.2 units (rounded to 5). This aligns with statutory obligations under laws mandating care for senior citizens and reflects contemporary social realities, including provisions under the Social Security Code, 2020.

Equally significant is the revision of food and nutrition norms. The earlier benchmark of 2700 Kcal is deemed inadequate, with the memorandum advocating adoption of the Indian Council of Medical Research recommendation of approximately 3490 Kcal, especially for physically demanding work. A balanced food basket must include adequate protein sources such as milk, eggs, meat, and fish; monthly dairy consumption of 30–35 litres for a five-unit family; fruits and vegetables; and essential items like spices and beverages. Nutrition, the document emphasizes, must ensure “health, productivity, and dignity—not mere survival.”

Using these revised norms and factoring in realistic expenditure heads—7.5% for housing, 20% for fuel and utilities, 25% for skill development, 25% for social and cultural needs, and 5% for technological expenses—the Staff Side has computed a minimum pay of ₹69,000 per month for a five-unit family. This leads to a proposed fitment factor of 3.833 for existing employees and pensioners. The current annual increment rate of 3% is also flagged as inadequate, with a demand to increase it to 6% to keep pace with rising costs and expectations.

The memorandum further proposes a rational restructuring of the pay matrix. It recommends merging Levels 2 and 3 into Level 3, Levels 4 and 5 into Level 5, Levels 7 and 8 into Level 8, and Levels 9 and 10 into Level 10, along with a one-time upgradation of Level 5 employees to Level 6. The revised pay scales, based on the 3.833 fitment factor, would begin at ₹69,000 for Pay Scale 1 and extend up to ₹2,15,100 for Pay Scale 6. Higher levels from 11 to 17 may be renumbered while retaining the same fitment logic. Importantly, the ratio between minimum and maximum pay is proposed to be capped at 1:12 to reduce inequality and maintain structural balance.

Addressing concerns about fiscal burden, the JCM presents a robust economic counterargument. Currently, the Central Government spends about 13% of its revenue expenditure on salaries, allowances, and pensions. Even with the implementation of the 8th Pay Commission, this is projected to rise only moderately. However, the memorandum urges policymakers to view this not as a liability but as a growth stimulus. Higher salaries increase purchasing power, boost consumption, and ultimately enhance tax revenues—creating a virtuous economic cycle.

India’s macroeconomic indicators strongly support this position. The country is now the fourth-largest economy globally (2025), with a GDP of approximately $4.3 trillion and a growth rate of around 6.5%. Projections indicate that India will become the third-largest economy by 2027, crossing the $5 trillion mark, with growth rates of 6.2% in 2025 and 6.3% in 2026—well above global averages. Between FY 2014-15 and FY 2025-26, GDP at current prices surged from ₹1,24,67,959 crore to ₹3,30,68,145 crore, marking a growth of 165.23%. During the same period, combined tax revenues rose from ₹12,41,681 crore to ₹37,92,250 crore—a remarkable increase of 205.41%.

These figures demonstrate not only economic expansion but also enhanced fiscal capacity. As the memorandum rightly argues, such sustained growth establishes that the Government is well-positioned to absorb the financial implications of a meaningful wage revision.

The document also highlights structural and ethical dimensions of public employment. Citing the 7th Pay Commission and judicial observations, it reiterates that government service is not merely contractual but carries an expectation of fairness, dignity, and trust. The State, as a model employer, must ensure that legitimate aspirations of employees are not frustrated. This principle gains further weight when one considers that only about 1.6% of India’s population is employed in government service—one of the lowest ratios globally—underscoring the immense responsibility borne by this workforce.

In addition to pay revision, the JCM has recommended extending revised pay structures to pensioners who retired before 1 January 2026, to autonomous bodies and institutions, and to categories such as Gramin Dak Sevaks, BSNL, and DoT pensioners. It has also proposed exemption of Central Government employees from Professional Tax, noting that they are already subject to Income Tax and GST, making the additional burden inequitable.

The conclusion of the memorandum is both pragmatic and visionary. It calls for a “fair, transparent, and dynamic pay structure,” supported by a permanent pay review mechanism, ideally with revisions every five years. Such a system would ensure that compensation remains aligned with economic realities, attracts talent, and sustains administrative efficiency.

In essence, the National Council (JCM) has presented a case that goes beyond numbers. It is a call to recognize that those who drive governance must not be left struggling for dignity. Fair pay is not charity—it is justice. And in delivering that justice, the 8th Central Pay Commission has an opportunity to strengthen not just the workforce, but the very foundations of the Indian State.

(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)

*****

🔥 United Resolve, Renewed Struggle 🔥

Dear Comrades,

On behalf of the Confederation of Central Government Employees and Workers, Odisha State CoC, I extend revolutionary greetings and heartfelt thanks to the President and Secretary of the Bhubaneswar Coordination Committee of Unions and Associations (BCCUA) for organizing such a purposeful and energizing meeting today at LIC Union Office, Suryanagar under the presidentship of Com. Pravash Ku. Sandha.

Guided by the sharp insight and fighting spirit of senior leader Com. Dusmant Kumar Das, the meeting rose above routine formalities and became a platform of determination, unity, and action ✊. At a time when the rights of workers are under constant pressure, such collective initiatives rekindle hope and strengthen resistance.

The discussions culminated in the following bold and action-oriented decisions:

1. 🚩 May Day Call to Action: BCCUA will celebrate May Day with flag hoisting at 7 AM, followed by powerful participation in the mass rally from Raj Mahal to Master Canteen Square in the evening along with Central Trade Unions—asserting the unbreakable unity and fighting spirit of the working class.

2. 🔁 Continuous Mobilisation: Regular monthly meetings will be organised without fail, with each session hosted by a different organization—ensuring shared responsibility, continuity, and collective leadership.

3. 🌍 Ideological Awakening: One burning national or international issue will be taken up in every meeting for in-depth discussion, accompanied by leaflet campaigns—transforming awareness into organised consciousness.

4. 🚶‍♂️Expansion & Strengthening: Dedicated teams of leaders will fan out across Bhubaneswar to reach unions, associations, and federations—mobilising, motivating, and uniting them under the banner of BCCUA. Every effort will be made to build a stronger, broader platform.

5. 🤝Collective Participation: All organisations will be urged to invite leadership from across unions and federations to their meetings, seminars, workshops, and trade union classes—breaking barriers and fostering a culture of solidarity and shared struggle.

These decisions are not mere resolutions—they are a roadmap for resistance, unity, and resurgence 💪. The enthusiastic participation of leaders from AIIEA, BEFI, AOBEF, OSRU, OSGECC and other organisations reflects the growing determination to stand together against all challenges.

Once again, sincere thanks to the President and Secretary, BCCUA, for their visionary leadership and commitment. The Confederation stands shoulder to shoulder in translating these decisions into action on the ground.

✊ Long live workers’ unity!

🔥 Long live collective struggle! 🚩

= B SAMAL =

General Secretary 

Confederation Odisha State CoC 

Revision of Dearness Allowance to Central Govt Employees effective from 01.01.2026

 

Grant of Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) to Pensioners / Family Pensioners covered under NPS

 

National Council (Staff Side) JCM requests the Member Secretary , 8th COC to rectify the Technical Problems in the Memorandum Portal

Appointment of Ms. Ambica Anand, (ISS-2009) as Director, 8th CPC

 

Union Cabinet approved an additional installment of DA/DR effective from 01.01.2026

Massive Protest Demonstration in front of Cuttack GPO with demand to declare the pending DA/DR due from 01.01.2026

 Dear Comrades,

The scorching heat of Cuttack could not silence the voice of justice today. In a powerful and determined show of unity, a massive Protest Demonstration was held in front of Cuttack GPO from 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM, sending a clear and uncompromising message to the Government — declare the pending DA/DR due from 01.01.2026 immediately, without further delay. ✊🔥

This spirited movement was led from the front by Com. R. N. Dhal, President, Confederation of Central Govt Employees and Workers, Convenor, NCCPA, Odisha State Committee and State General Secretary, AIPRPA, Odisha Circle and whose unwavering commitment and fighting spirit ignited the gathering with purpose and resolve. Under his leadership, the protest became a symbol of resistance against delay and injustice. 💪

He was strongly supported by committed leaders of the Pensioners’ movement — Com. Bishnu Das, Com. Bimal Prasan Das, Com. K. C. Natia, Com. Shiba Ch. Sinha, Com. S. K. Behera, Com. K. C. Shill, Com. S. N. Mohanty, and many others from AIPRPA who stood united in this struggle. Com. R. N. Mallik from AOLICPA also extended his solidarity, strengthening the collective voice. 🤝

The participation of serving employees alongside pensioners was truly inspiring, proving that Employees–Pensioners Unity is not just a slogan, but a living force. Together, they braved the extreme summer heat of Cuttack with determination and courage, making the programme a grand success. 🌞🔥

Similar programmes have also been conducted in front of Bhubaneswar GPO and Rourkela HO.

I sincerely express my regret that, despite being the General Secretary, Confederation of Central Government Employees & Workers and President, NCCPA, Odisha State Committee, I could not be physically present in this important programme due to reasons beyond my control. However, my spirit, solidarity, and full support remain firmly with all the comrades who carried forward this historic demonstration. 🙏✊

This was not merely a protest — it was a collective assertion of rights and dignity. The Government must act without further delay. Denial of DA/DR is denial of justice.

We demand — Declare DA/DR immediately! No more delay! No more excuses! ⚖️🔥

Inquilab Zindabad! ✊

Confederation of CG Employees & Workers Zindabad! ✊

NCCPA / AIPRPA Zindabad! ✊

Pensioners Unity Zindabad! ✊

Employees–Pensioners Unity Zindabad! ✊

= B SAMAL =

State General Secretary 

Confederation Odisha State CoC

Deepest revolutionary salutations to the architect of modern India—Babasaheb Dr. B R Ambedkar

On this historic occasion of the birth anniversary of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, we offer our deepest revolutionary salutations to the architect of modern India—Babasaheb, who ignited the flame of justice, equality, and human dignity. 🔥📜

Recalling his thunderous warning on Bhakti (blind devotion), he declared: “Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul, but in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”⚠️

These are not mere words—they are a battle cry for every conscious citizen today. 🚩 At a time when democratic values face challenges, Babasaheb’s message pierces through like a guiding light—question authority, reject blind obedience, and defend institutions. ⚖️

This is not just a day of tribute—it is a day of awakening. ✊

The Constitution is not a document to be worshipped silently, but a weapon to be defended courageously. 📖🛡️

To the youth of this nation—rise with awareness, stand with courage, and protect the soul of democracy. 🧠🔥 Break the chains of fear, resist injustice, and ensure that equality is not reduced to a slogan but lived as a reality. ⛓️➡️🕊️

Let this Jayanti become a pledge:

We will not allow democracy to be weakened.

We will not allow the Constitution to be compromised.

We will not surrender our rights to blind devotion. ✋⚡

The revolution of thought must continue.💙✊

- Bruhaspati Samal -

General Secretary 

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

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

-Bruhaspati Samal-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

Is Progress Abandoning People?

 

Is Progress Abandoning People?

-Bruhaspati Samal-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

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

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

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

✊ No more intimidation in the name of discipline

✊ No more bias in administrative action

✊ No more injustice hidden behind procedure

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

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

-Bruhaspati Samal- 

General Secretary 

Confederation of Central Govt Employees and Workers 

Odisha State CoC, Bhubaneswar 

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

 

Revision of interest rates for Small Savings Scheme

 

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

 

Withdraw Wage Codes, Restore Justice to Workers

 Withdraw Wage Codes, Restore Justice to Workers 

-Bruhaspati Samal-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*******

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

 

ଉପେକ୍ଷିତ ବୃଦ୍ଧାବସ୍ଥା

 

ଉପେକ୍ଷିତ ବୃଦ୍ଧାବସ୍ଥା

ବୃହସ୍ପତି ସାମଲ

ସାଧାରଣ ସମ୍ପାଦକ 

କେନ୍ଦ୍ର ସରକାରୀ କର୍ମଚାରୀ ଓ ଶ୍ରମିକ ପରିସଂଘ

ଓଡ଼ିଶା ରାଜ୍ୟ ସମନ୍ୱୟ ସମିତି, ଭୁବନେଶ୍ଵର 

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

Demand, Dignity and Decision

Demand, Dignity and Decision

-Bruhaspati Samal-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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