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