The Central Pay Commission (Part- VI )

The Central Pay Commission (Part- VI )

By Lokanath Mishra, The Chief Adviser, the all India pensioners association of CBIC and the all India CGHS beneficiaries association of CBIC

Should the 8th Pay Commission Mandate Statutory Representation from Pensioners’ Organisations?

1. The Case for Statutory Representation

Yes — the 8th Central Pay Commission must include statutory, structured, and enforceable representation from recognised pensioners’ organisations and retired employees’ federations. Pensioners are not peripheral stakeholders; they are direct beneficiaries of every CPC’s recommendations and custodians of institutional experience within government service.

Historically, pay commissions have been composed mainly of serving bureaucrats, economists, and finance experts, with limited or no representation from pensioner bodies. This has led to recurrent anomalies, post-implementation grievances, and large-scale litigation concerning pension fixation, parity, and benefits — outcomes that could have been mitigated through direct pensioner consultation.

2. Legal and Ethical Foundations

(a) Principle of Natural Justice

Under the well-established administrative law doctrine “audi alteram partem” (“hear the other side”), any statutory or quasi-judicial body making determinations affecting a class of citizens must consult or allow representation from that class.
Failure to do so can render recommendations procedurally unfair and open to legal challenge.

This principle has been recognised by the Supreme Court of India in:
• A.K. Kraipak vs Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262 — holding that quasi-judicial actions must be informed by fair participation and absence of bias.
• Union of India vs Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 — reaffirming that procedural fairness and participation of affected parties are essential in administrative decision-making.

As the Pay Commission directly determines pension rights and future social security entitlements, failure to hear pensioners’ bodies amounts to violation of natural justice.

(b) Parliamentary Committee Recommendations

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice (Report No. 102, 2017) on “Pensioners’ Grievances” explicitly recommended that:

“Future Pay Commissions should engage in structured consultations with recognised pensioners’ organisations before finalising recommendations affecting post-retirement benefits.”

Similarly, the Public Accounts Committee (Report No. 95, 2019) noted that lack of formal pensioner consultation has led to avoidable anomalies in pension parity and excess litigation.

(c) International Administrative Standards

The International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 102 and the UN Principles for Older Persons (1991) emphasize that pension systems must be designed “with the participation of representatives of the beneficiaries.”
India, as a signatory, is bound to uphold this principle of participatory pension policy.

3. Historical Gaps in Representation

Since the First Pay Commission (1946), not a single CPC has included a statutory member from the pensioners’ community, even though retired employees constitute over 60 lakh Central Government pensioners (as per the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, 2023 data).

Consultations have been mostly informal, limited to written memoranda or selective personal hearings, often restricted to federations of serving employees. This exclusion has resulted in major anomalies, including:
• **“Modified Parity” vs “Full Parity” debate post-5th CPC.
• Disparities in pension fixation formulas for pre-2006 retirees (resolved only after CAT and Supreme Court interventions in S.P.S. Vains vs UOI, 2008).
• Lack of representation in implementation committees, leading to selective adoption of recommendations.

Had pensioners’ organisations been given structured representation, many of these inequities could have been preempted.

4. Consequences of Non-Representation
   1. Persistent Anomalies
      • The One Rank One Pension (OROP) issue in defence services and pension parity cases for civilian retirees both reflect systemic underrepresentation of pensioners’ voices in decision-making.
   2. Litigation Burden
      • The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) 2022 Annual Report noted that over 35% of service-related cases filed by pensioners stem from pay commission anomalies and misinterpretation of orders—often avoidable with prior stakeholder consultation.
   3. Implementation Errors and Financial Losses
      • Arbitrary implementation of pension revisions (such as pre-2006 pension fixation errors) caused massive arrear payments after retrospective corrections, costing the exchequer thousands of crores.
      • The CAG Report No. 34 of 2020 attributed these avoidable fiscal burdens to “lack of upfront consultation with representative bodies during the policy design stage.”
   4. Erosion of Trust and Institutional Legitimacy
      • Excluding pensioners from deliberations damages the legitimacy of the Pay Commission itself, fostering distrust and alienation among senior citizens who served the nation for decades.

⸻

5. International and Comparative Experience

Several countries have institutionalised representation of retirees in their public pay and pension review systems:

United Kingdom
Public Sector Pensions Commission (HM Treasury)
Mandatory consultation with “Retired Civil Servants’ Association” before revisions.
Canada
National Joint Council (NJC)
Equal participation from active and retired employee unions in pay and pension reforms.
Australia
Remuneration Tribunal Act, 1973
Provides for advisory input from “Commonwealth Retired Officers Association.”
France
Conseil d’Orientation des Retraites (COR)

Remuneration Tribunal Act, 1973
Provides for advisory input from “Commonwealth Retired Officers Association.”
France
Conseil d’Orientation des Retraites (COR)
13-member statutory body includes representatives from retirees’ federations with full voting rights.
United States
Federal Employees Retirement System

In all these democracies, retirees are seen not as “past liabilities” but as partners in policy accountability.

India stands out as one of the few major civil services where retirees lack statutory or even consultative representation in pay and pension policymaking.

⸻

6. Recommended Framework for the 8th Pay Commission

To align with both constitutional fairness and global best practices, the following framework is proposed:
1. Statutory Representation Clause
• The Terms of Reference (ToR) of the 8th CPC should mandate representation from at least two national-level pensioners’ organisations (civilian and defence) as permanent invitees or associate members.
2. Mandatory Memoranda and Oral Hearings
• All recognised pensioners’ associations under DoP&PW should be invited to submit written memoranda.
• The Commission should schedule public hearings/oral evidence sessions region-wise, ensuring equitable geographic participation.
3. Formal Consultation Mechanism
• Constitute a “Pensioners’ Consultative Committee” under the 8th CPC with representatives from Railways, Defence, Postal, CBIC, and Civil Services retirees.
• The committee should have rights to access non-classified data, attend deliberations, and make minority recommendations.
4. Transparency and Record of Proceedings
• All submissions, hearings, and minutes of pensioner consultations should be published on the CPC’s official website, ensuring transparency.
5. Legal Backing and Accountability
• Amend the Resolution constituting the 8th CPC under Article 309 of the Constitution to include the phrase:
“The Commission shall consult with representative associations of Central Government pensioners before finalising its recommendations.”
• Non-compliance should be treated as procedural irregularity, reviewable under administrative law.

⸻

7. Conclusion

The absence of statutory representation for pensioners in previous Pay Commissions has been a fundamental democratic deficit in India’s public service compensation system.
Given the size, diversity, and economic significance of the pensioner community—over 70 lakh central government pensioners and 60 lakh family pensioners—their inclusion is not merely symbolic but essential for fairness, accuracy, and legitimacy.

Ensuring that pensioners’ associations can submit memoranda, present oral evidence, and participate in deliberations would:
• Reduce anomalies and post-implementation litigation;
• Improve policy design by integrating lived experiences;
• Uphold the constitutional principles of equality and participatory governance.

Therefore, the 8th Central Pay Commission must, as a matter of law and ethics, provide statutory, transparent, and structured representation to pensioners’ organisations — reaffirming that those who have served the nation continue to have a voice in shaping their rightful entitlements.
( to be continued)

The Central Pay Commission (Part- V )

The Central Pay Commission (Part III)

The Central Pay Commission (Part II)

8th Pay Commission: A Step Toward Economic Balance and Pensioner Welfare