Pay commissions called for reforms in services, but little happened

With the government approving the setting up of the Eighth Central Pay Commission, reading the report of successive commissions shows there have been efforts to make the pay rise lead to improvement in the efficiency of the civil services.

 

Every commission since the Second has examined in detail whether government employees have a valid grouse that their pay trails that of the private sector, and has suggested ways to cut the multiple grades of pay in various departments and finally tried to link the pay revisions with some degree of performance appraisal.

 

While the larger issue of reforms in the civil services has hardly ever been acted upon, except the Sixth Pay Commission others have been prudent in offering wage growth. Since the government now follows a dynamic system of wage adjustment for all grades of its employees, the net impact of the Eighth Pay Commission could be the same or lower. 

 

The Pay Commission has played two roles. Under the terms of reference set for all of them, it gives a set of recommendations for revisions of pay scales. It also gives a set of recommendations under the same terms for improving the efficiency of government employees. 

 

The first one is almost immediately accepted by the government of the day. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s post on X on Thursday on the setting up of the Pay Commission also refers to only the former. “We are all proud of the efforts of all Government employees, who work to build a Viksit Bharat. The Cabinet’s decision on the 8th Pay Commission will improve (the) quality of life and give a boost to consumption.”

 

Sample these paragraphs.

 

The Third Pay Commission says: “It appears to us that comparisons sought to be made between the Government and the private sector ignore some basic differences. The motivation and personnel policies adopted in the two sectors are vastly different” …

 

The Seventh Pay Commission says: “… government service is not merely a contract service, it provides a status in society which cannot be monetised in terms of money value … The increase in pay structure cannot keep pace with the market forces, at the same time it should not be so unattractive that talent is not attracted to government service”…

 

The two reports, separated by over 40 years, make the same point.

 

The Sixth Pay Commission suggested “a system that primarily lays emphasis on delivery and end results …”

 

The Seventh Pay Commission “recommended introduction of the Performance Related Pay (PRP) for all categories of Central Government employees … The Commission has also recommended that the PRP should subsume the existing Bonus schemes”.

 

On lateral entry and doing away with the differences between all India services, on one side, and other central services, on the other, as early as in 1973 the Third Pay Commission suggested: “The progress of an officer of an established Class 1 Service among the grades within each level should be on the basis of proved performance. Promotions from the junior to the middle level and from the middle to the senior level should be (only) by selection.”

 

The Fourth Pay Commission, which gave its report in 1986, went further. “Some of these officers progress far enough to aspire for higher posts when they come within the range of eligibility. It may be that some of them may not have worked in what are commonly known as ‘generalist’ posts even though they may have a satisfactory background of ‘professionalism’ … a procedure may be devised for empaneIling the best officers without regard to the service to which they belong. This will ensure proper utilisation of the best personnel for higher post under the government.”

 

None of these suggestions has been implemented in any significant way. While the last advertisement for lateral entry into government service was rolled back last year, the space for the central services to hold secretary-level posts is now almost absent except in the Department of Posts and in the railways.

 

The Fifth Pay Commission, the first by a Pay Commission, asked the government to develop a pay policy. It was overshadowed by its dramatic assessment for a 30 per cent reduction in the number of employees over a 10-period. Suresh Tendulkar, member of the Fifth Pay Commission who agreed with the cuts, wrote a dissent note. “My friends within and outside the government maintain that even this may prove ambitious.” His prescription was to cut the numbers and only then offer a salary revision. It never happened.