RECOMMENDATIONS CHALLENGED

Union of India had appointed Fifth Central Pay Commission consisting of the following members :

Chairman - Justice S. Ratnavel Pandian,
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India

Member - Prof. Suresh Tendulkar,
Prof. Of Economics, Delhi School of Economics

Member Secretary - Shri M. K. Kaw, a Member of Indian
Administrative Service
By Resolution dated 9th April, 1994.

The Central Government had also issued resolution dated 12/1/1995 and 17/7/1996 for giving interim relief to the employees. These two resolutions were issued for personnel of Union Territories and for payment of Productivity Linked Bonus.

The Fifth Central Pay Commission had submitted its report in the month of January-February 1997 before the Central Government and the Union of India had appointed a Committee of eleven Secretaries which had submitted its report. Prof. Suresh Tendulkar, Member of the Commission has given a note of dissent with majority report of the members with regard to retirement age, housing facilities, L.T.C., Income-tax exemption, Dearness Allowance, Promotion Policy, Financial Implications, Telephone attendants.

As per the Report of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, arrears to be given from 1st January 1996 and liability of arrears is estimated at Rs.11,000 crores in year 1997-98 as effect of recommendation is given from 1st January 1996. The Commission has also estimated additional financial implication for every year amounting to Rs.8800 crores per year which is mentioned in Vol.3 Chapter 170 para 170.4, which is reproduced hereunder :

"The additional financial implications of our recommendations pertaining to all Central Government employees including the UTs and the Armed Forces personnel would be Rs.8,800/- crore per annum as detailed under the following heads :

There was a lot of agitation and discontent amongst Armed Forces and Class III and IV employees versus IAS Officers grade and their allowances. The Central Government had appointed a Committee consisting of 11 Secretaries for solving the conflicts and for implementation of the Report. It was learnt that the Secretaries Report did not favour extending retirement age from 58 to 60 years which was recommended by the Commission.

At present the Central Government employees work for five days in a week and work only 193 days and can enjoy 172 holidays in a year. The Commission in Chapter "Improving productivity" (Chapter 11, para 11.5) had suggested 6 days a week working and also suggested only 3 Gazetted holidays instead of 17 but the Secretaries Committee has suggested only five days week working.

After receipt of the Report, the Central Government had declared to give Rs.13,500 crores for year 1997-98 but in view of conflicting claims the Central Government did not issue the Notification in 2nd Week of August 1997. Some of the Unions had given threats to go on strike from 24/9/1997.

The writer (petitioner) had raised objections against the report before the Finance Department and the Secretary, Finance Department on 27/3/1997 and had prayed for personal hearing and setting aside the report as unorganized labor will not be able to survive if recommendations for higher wages and allowances are implemented. The writer has not received any reply so far.

The writer has challenged the Report particularly on following grounds :

(a) Terms of reference para 2(c) (reproduced below) are violated and the Commission has not discussed and taken into account specific factors mentioned in para 2(c) namely :-

(b) "2(c). To make recommendations in each of the foregoing having regard among other relevant factors to the prevailing pay structure and retirement benefits under the State Government etc. economic conditions in the country. The resources of the Central Government and the demands such as these on account of economic and social development, defence, national security and requirements of sound fiscal management."

(c) The Commission has taken base year 1993-94 instead of year 1996-97 for purpose of Income and expenditure even though the report was given in January, 1997. The budget 1996-97 was passed and available to the Commission but 1996-97 was not taken as base year.

(d) The Commission has not taken Interest Payment Liability of the Government per year which is increased from Rs.26,000 crores per year to Rs.68,000 crores per year from 1991-92 to 1996-97. Gross Revenue is taken and net revenue after deducting interest payment liability is not taken.

(e) Two members of the Commission, Mr.Justice S. Ratnaval Pandian, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India (Pensioner) and Mr. M. K. Kaw, a member of the Indian Administrative Service were directly connected with recommendations of the report and so the report is given beyond terms of reference and beneficial to the members. Past pensioners case has not been referred specifically but the Commission has given the relief to past pensioners. The Commission has also given many benefits to I.A.S. Officers which are objected by Class III and IV Employees.

That for year 1997-98 the Central Government has estimated its income at Rs.1,52,843 crore. Out of that amount, Rs.68,000 crores are ear-marked for payment of only interest for the year 1997-98 and so there is net Rs.84,843 crores available for payment of pay and allowances for the year 1997-98 amounting to Rs.27,000 crores plus Rs.13,500 crores which Government intends to pay during the year 1997-98. The pay bill of the Government will be 45% of net revenue after deducting interest payment liability. The Central Government has to provide for Defence and subsidies and other expenses from revenue income. Every year additional liability is estimated at Rs.8,000 crore and Rs.8,000 per year respectively. India is to face debt trap if recommendations are accepted.

The Central Government, all the State Governments and all State Electricity Boards are run by incurring deficit financing and if Central Pay Commission recommendations are accepted by (State Governments), the State Governments will have to incur about Rs.20,000 crore per year for their employees.

The Writer had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.6111 of 1997 challenging the Report which was rejected by the Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice R. A. Mehta and Mr. Justice Mathur.

The Writer who was the petitioner had filed the above writ petition and the relevant paras challenging the Report are reproduced hereunder, which will give an idea that the Report was biased, interested and based on not relevant considerations. It appears that the Central Government employees work only for 193 days in a year and can enjoy 172 holidays in a year which is the lowest working period for Government employees in our country. The Commission, in its Chapter "Employee Productivity" - Chapter XI, para 11.5, had suggested 6 days week working and only 3 Gazatted holidays instead of 17 holidays, which were not implemented and the Committee of 11 Secretaries which was appointed after the Report, had recommended 5 days week working. The Commission had also recommended to reduce the overtime by 30% which has not been adopted. It is our national characteristics to accept the beneficial part of any Report and do not implement the recommendations which are subject to implementation of the beneficial part. The Central Government employees are enjoying even after four years of the Report, 193 days working, 172 days holidays and above obligations of employees were not implemented. After implementing the Central Pay Commission Report, number of States and Corporations have also adopted the Central Fifth Pay Commission Report which made the Central the State Governments, State Corporations and Electricity Boards are in red and are in deficit and development works have suffered.