More flaws than plus points in 7th Pay Commission Recommendations

The much-awaited 7th Pay Commission report was submitted to the government last Thursday. The 900-page long report was perused swiftly within a day or two and criticisms have already started coming.

The backward mindset of the recommendations of the Pay Commission have been a huge disappointment for the Central Government employees

The very next day of submitting the report, M. Krishnan, the Confederation Secretary, gave a scathing criticism. “No other Pay Commission had submitted such a worst report,” he said. At the very beginning of the press release, he had mentioned that the backward mindset of the recommendations of the Pay Commission have been a huge disappointment for the Central Government employees.

Contrary to all the wild speculations, a raise of only 14.29 percent was finally given to the Central Government employees. This increment is akin to two installments of the Dearness Allowance. He has strongly stated that more than 50 lakh Central Government employees and members of the armed forces have been cheated.

In order to clarify the doubts that arise about the 7th Pay Commission report, one has to refer to the 6th Pay Commission recommendations. But, it also highlights the stark difference in the quality of both the reports. While the 6th Pay Commission report had clearly stated its recommendations and justifications with explanations and examples, the 7th Pay Commission report is a lifeless play of words.

The 6th Pay Commission recommended 10 percent, 20 percent, and 30 percent House Rent Allowance for ten years starting from 01.01.2006. The intention behind reducing it to 24 percent, 16 percent and eight percent was not explained. Despite being very well aware of the fact that the recommendations will be in effect until 2026, the fact that the Pay Commission had tried to reduce the allocation has left the Central Government employees greatly disappointed.

MACP/ Promotions: Among the biggest disappointments of the 7th Pay Commission report is the fact that promotions, which are given once every ten years, so not earn any substantial benefits for the employees. They stand to gain only 3 percent hike. Another painful observation is the fact that the gap between Grade Pay 2800 and 4200 has been completely reduced.

The next big disappointment is the method of calculating the dearness allowance. This was one of the much-anticipated parts of the report. There is no clear explanation as to the reason why changes had to be made in the CPI IW BY 2001=100 method, or the 115.76 Factor.

On top of it all, the commission has introduced a new “Pay Matrix.” Our expectations of a detailed explanation about it were never fulfilled. 3 percent of the amount has been rounded off and given for each CELL.

In short, the 7th Pay Commission report is on the receiving end of lot of criticism. Central Government employees are now hoping that the Centre would intervene and do something positive for them.

Share This Page

Get Free Email Updates

Follow us on Telegram ChannelTwitter Facebook and Whatsapp Channel for all Latest News and Updates

1 thought on “More flaws than plus points in 7th Pay Commission Recommendations”

  1. The provision of relating the pension computation to the MINIMUM in the corresponding new pay matrix is DISCRIMINATORY against the pensioners in comparison to the pay fixation of the equivalent serving employees.

    I cite my own case of BP48080+BP10000 in PB IV of 6th CPC. There is no increment as up-gradation happened on 21-1-2015 and retirement on 31-1-2015. If I presume myself to be still in service, my new pay would be fixed as 153000 (index 3 in level 14 in Table 5 on page 75 of the 7th PC Report). However, for my pension calculation, the basis would be MINIMUM (index 1) of level 14 i.e. 144200 which is about 9000 less than my equivalent serving counterparts.

    I do not know whether this DISCRIMINATION between serving employees and equivalent earlier served (now retired) employees is by design or any oversight. This would be in case of all employees who did not earn enough annual increments in last years due to delayed promotions but BP is higher than the minimum of the last grade by virtue of their long tenures in earlier grades.

Leave a Reply

Scroll to Top