-Bruhaspati Samal-
The
story of India’s Central Government employees and pensioners today is
not one of privilege, but of patience betrayed and promises broken.
Their decades of service, which once formed the silent backbone of
India’s governance, now stand discounted in the name of fiscal caution.
Beneath the glittering slogans of economic might and trillion-dollar
dreams, a growing discontent brews — a moral protest against the slow
erosion of fairness. For when those who built the nation are made to
plead for their rightful due, the question arises — has the State
forgotten its own conscience? Yes, the Terms of Reference (ToR) of 8th
Central Pay Commission (CPC) now approved by the Cabinet on 28th October
2025 widely disclose that the Government’s words and deeds are
increasingly drifting apart.
A
closer reading of the ToR reveals how far the vision of the 8th CPC has
strayed from its predecessors. The Sixth and Seventh CPCs were grounded
in the belief that a motivated workforce is the lifeblood of public
administration. The 6th CPC spoke of transforming government
organisations into modern, citizen-friendly entities driven by
accountability and technological efficiency. The 7th CPC deepened this
vision, emphasising a framework that attracted talent, rewarded
responsibility, and ensured equity among all categories of employees and
pensioners. The 8th CPC, however through its ToR, marks a visible shift
— not towards progress, but prudence. Its first clause directs the
Commission to consider “the economic condition of the country and the
need for fiscal prudence.” The tone is defensive, almost suspicious of
its own employees, viewing them as financial burdens rather than the
very instruments of governance. The emphasis on “unfunded cost of
non-contributory pension schemes” and the “likely impact on State
finances” subtly redefines welfare as liability.
This
shift is not just semantic — it reflects a deeper political and moral
transformation. The Government that once acknowledged public servants as
partners in national development now seems to treat them as expenses to
be managed. Yet the record of official statements tells a different
story. In reply to Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 870 on 3rd
December 2024, when asked whether the Union’s fiscal position prevented
pay increases, the Government clearly stated that “the question does not
arise.” Thus, fiscal strain was not a barrier. In another reply —
Unstarred Question No. 223 on 22nd July 2025 — the Government admitted
that it had received ToR suggestions from the National Council (JCM).
The Council’s letter dated 18th June 2025 had requested that the ToR
explicitly affirm that all Central Government pensioners would benefit
from the 8th CPC, thereby dispelling confusion created by the Finance
Act 2025. That Act, by introducing ambiguous language regarding
“risk-based” and “fixed” pension returns, had already sown fears of
discrimination among retirees.
Despite
these formal representations and the clear moral logic behind them, the
ToR approved on 28th October 2025 ignored every one of these
recommendations. There was no assurance of parity, no mention of
protecting defined-benefit retirees, and no acknowledgement of the JCM’s
concerns. Instead, the ToR reasserted the familiar refrain — fiscal
prudence, economic conditions, and impact on State finances. The message
was unmistakable: the Government is prepared to dilute its commitment
to its own employees in the name of economic discipline.
The
invocation of fiscal prudence, however, is riddled with irony. India
today boasts of record tax revenues, massive capital outlays, and
ambitious infrastructure targets. The nation dreams of becoming a $5
trillion economy by 2028. If such growth projections can justify
corporate incentives, subsidies, and large-scale investments, why does
the argument of prudence appear only when it concerns salaries and
pensions? Every Pay Commission in India’s history has conclusively shown
that revisions in pay and pensions boost consumption, energize local
markets, and stimulate GDP growth. The 6th CPC alone, implemented in
2008–09, is widely acknowledged to have softened the blow of the global
financial crisis by increasing domestic demand. Thus, denying wage or
pension revision in the name of fiscal prudence is not economic wisdom —
it is economic hypocrisy.
The
timing of the 8th CPC developments also raises uncomfortable questions.
The announcement of its constitution on 16th January 2025 without any
official press release from the PMO, the Cabinet Secretariat, or the
Finance Ministry came just before the Delhi elections, and now the
release of its ToR in October 2025 coincides conveniently with the
upcoming Bihar assembly elections and other by-elections recently
announced by the Election Commission of India. It is difficult to
dismiss this as coincidence. When pay commissions become political props
rather than instruments of reform, the credibility of governance itself
erodes. Government employees and pensioners are among the most informed
sections of society; they see through the theatrics of timing. A
government that uses administrative gestures for electoral optics while
undermining their substance risks losing the moral right to demand
trust.
The
8th CPC ToR, by failing to restore clarity or parity, has deepened the
wound. Fiscal prudence, when selectively applied, becomes fiscal
injustice. If the Government truly believes in inclusive development, it
must urgently revisit the ToR. The spirit of the Pay Commission should
not be to calculate cost, but to recognise contribution. It must revive
the humane and progressive essence of the 6th and 7th CPCs, which
treated employees as partners in governance rather than entries in
expenditure columns. When the State preaches prudence but practises
discrimination, it loses its moral compass. When it promises welfare but
delivers restraint, it breeds resentment.
As
India marches towards its economic ambitions, it must not trample upon
the dignity of its own servants. The 8th CPC was expected to bridge the
trust deficit between the Government and its workforce, but its ToR now
threatens to widen it further. The employees and pensioners of this
country are not seeking favours; they seek justice. Fiscal prudence
cannot be a mask for fiscal cruelty. If the Government truly believes in
“Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas,” it must start by standing with those who
have served under its flag. The call today is not for confrontation, but
for conscience. A prosperous nation cannot rise on the unpaid debts of
its own people. Justice delayed for those who served the State is
justice denied to the Republic itself.
(The author is a Service Union Representative and a columnist.)
*****
0 Comments