OFFICIAL ANOUNCEMENT OF 8TH CPC

Briefing to media persons, Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said, the union Cbinet has approved to constitute the 8th Central Pay Commission.

Briefing to media persons, Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said, “Prime Minister has approved the 8th Central Pay Commission for all employees of Central Government."

The names for the head and members of the 8th Pay panel will be announced soon, the minister added.

While Central Govt employees have been waiting to hear this good news from Modi govt in 2024 budget, as the Central govt employee union has demanded setting up of 8th Pay commission during 2024 budget discussion meeting with FM Nirmal Sitharaman, the FM didn’t announce the same in her budgest speech.

With Delhi elections due in Feb, the announcement of setting up of 8th Pay Commission will have a profound impact on the upcoming Delhi polls as they form a sizeable chunk in certain constituencies.

Moreover, as the implementation year will be Jan 1 , 2026, when the two significant polls – West Bengal Assembly elections in June 2026 and UP assembly polls in April 2027 are due– the 8th Pay commission may play a key role in the poll outcomes.

CENTRAL GOVT EMPLOYEE SIZE

As on date, the size of central govt employee and pensioners nationally stood at 3.5million and 5.2mn respectively, as stated in the Budget 2024-25..

WHY 8th PAY COMMISSION KEY TO POLLS? 

The main reason for the pay commission assuming a big role in polls lies in the significant hike in minimum salary of Central Govt employees, which will cast a cascading effect on the state government employees in all states, as they will also see salary hikes in accordance with 8th Pay Commission pay matrix. A State govt can deny 8th pay commission benefits to its employees on its own peril only.

WHAT WILL BE MINIMUM SALARY UNDER 8th PAY COMMISSION?

As per a Central Govt employee Union, the minimum pay scale under 8th Pay Commision will rise to a whopping Rs 41,000 vis-à-vis Rs 18,000 under 7th pay commission. 

They have presented the following calculation to arrive at the minimum salary in 8th pay commission. The CGEU report says the following. It elaborates:

• 7th Pay Commission has described how it arrived Minimum Pay
• To estimate the minimum pay in the government,
• the VI CPC used the norms set by the 15th Indian Labor Conference (ILC) in 1957 to determine the need-based minimum wage for a single industrial worker.

The norms set by the ILC are as below:

• A need-based minimum wage for a single worker should cover all the needs of a worker’s family.
• The normative family is taken to consist of a spouse and two children below the age of 14.
• With the husband assigned 1 unit, wife, 0.8 unit and two children, 0.6 units each,
• the minimum wage needs to address 3 consumption units
• The specifications were derived from the recommendations of Dr. Wallace Aykroyd, the noted nutritionist, which stated that an average Indian adult engaged in moderate activity should, on a daily basis, consume 2,700 calories comprising 65 grams of protein and around 45-60 grams of fat.
• Dr Aykroyd had further pointed out that animal proteins, such as milk, eggs, fish, liver and meat, are biologically more efficient than vegetable proteins and suggested that they should form at least one-fifth of the total protein intake
• The clothing requirements should be based on per capita consumption of 18 yards per annum, which gives 72 yards per annum (5.5 meters per month) for the average worker’s family.
• For housing, the rent corresponding to the minimum area provided under the government’s industrial housing schemes is to be taken. 
• The 15th ILC kept it at 7.5 percent of the total minimum wage
• Fuel, lighting and other items of expenditure should constitute an additional 20 percent of the total minimum wage

After considering all relevant factors the Commission has recommended for keeping the minimum pay in government at Rs 18,000 per month, w.e.f. 01.01.2016.

As per their calculations, based on current inflation rate, the minimum salary of a central govt employee comes out at Rs 40,798.

The CGEU report predicts, “Based on the current inflation rates and consumer price index, the 8th CPC Minimum Pay will be set at Rs.41000. And for pensioners, the minum pension will be approximately around Rs 18000. Consequently, this will lead to a Fitment factor of 2.28."

The 7th Pay Commission had a fitment factor of 2.57.

WHAT IS FITMENT FACTOR: This is term first used by the 7th Pay Commission. It means a multiplication value that when multiplied with the basic pay of 6th Pay Commission will result into a new basic pay.

DESW SEEMS TO BE DIGGING UNDER THEIR OWN FEET.

DESW takes the stand in AFT that 7th CPC Recomendation is applicable only to those who were in service  on or after 01/01/2016 & by stating so MOD is digging under their own feet since X Group Pay of Rs 3600 & 6200 is recomended by 7th CPC from the rate of Rs 1400 in 6th CPC. They can not take different stand on both recomendation of 7th CPC as per their will & wish thus making it mockery of law & justice. Hence they have no uniforfm stand on Recomendations of 7TH CPC, Another Important matter is that 7th CPC recomendations itself is not an Anothority for MOD to sate. It is the Cbninet resolution accepeting the recomendations of 7th CPC by the union cabinet after addition/ deletion/ modification is the only Authority for MOD to implement with necessary Administrative Circulars/ Implementation orders without contravening the cabinet resolution which is a satutory docuent.It is shocking & heartbreaking to watch that AFT'S are dancing to the tune of MOD.

ATTENTION ADVOCATES REPRESENTING ARMY X GROUP PAY CASES IN AFT

WAKE UP CALL FOR ADVOCATES PRESENTING ARMY X GROUP PAY CASES IN DIFFERENT AFTs

It has been observed that advocates have largely refrained from challenging the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) assertion that the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommended an X Pay of ₹6200 exclusively for personnel who joined after 2016. Consequently, many Army X Pay cases have been dismissed by the Armed Forces Tribunals (AFTs) on this basis. This raises an important question: why have advocates not actively contested this claim by requesting the production of statutory rules or official documentation from the MOD to substantiate such an assertion? The failure to bring this issue to the attention of the courts is concerning, as it is a fundamental legal principle that courts only consider the matters presented to them. The absence of such advocacy warrants deeper scrutiny, raising concerns about the legal grounds for this approach and its potential implications for affected personnel.

Additionally, Army petitioners have failed to highlight the Cabinet Resolution dated 05/09/2016, which bifurcates the X Pay into two categories—₹6200 and ₹3600—based solely on qualification and not the alleged cut-off date of 01/01/2016, as claimed by the MOD. Both X Pay rates are duly authorized and applicable to trades, irrespective of retirement dates. The Cabinet Resolution, which accepts the recommendations of the 7th CPC, is a statutory rule that cannot be amended or modified by an administrative instruction from the MOD. The 7th CPC recommendations themselves are not statutory rules until accepted by the Cabinet, with or without modifications. Therefore, the MOD’s assertion that ₹6200 X Pay applies only to post-2016 retirees is misleading and unsupported by any statutory rules. This claim seems to be ultra vires to the statutory rules enacted by the Union Cabinet and the MOD has failed to substantiate its argument with any legal backing.

It also appears that the AFTs may not be fully aware of the legal context of this matter and are, unfortunately, aligning with the Union of India’s (UOI) position without demanding the relevant documents that would substantiate the UOI’s argument. The AFTs must not overlook & adhere the Supreme Court’s judgments in the cases of D.S. Nakara vs UOI, Col. B J Akkara vs UOI, and UOI vs. Balbir Singh Turn, as these rulings must be adopted as a guide lines for similar cases and cannot be ignored in an attempt to appease the MOD.

Furthermore, the MOD has cited the judgment in the One Rank One Pension (OROP) case (WP (C) 419/2016) to suit its convenience but has conveniently overlooked that the OROP case pertains to personnel of the same rank and length of service. The issues raised in the OROP case are not relevant to the X Pay matter, which concerns the X Group Pay that applies uniformly to all ranks of eligible trades, as notified by the competent authority.

In addition, the 7th CPC notably increased the Military Service Pay (MSP) from ₹2000 under the 6th CPC to ₹5200 under the 7th CPC, effective from 01/01/2016. This increase was applied uniformly to all Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR), irrespective of their rank, group, length of service, or retirement date thus complying with statutory requirement. 

However, the MOD has adopted a different and questionable approach with regard to Pre-2016 X Group retirees. The X Group, which is a homogeneous group under both the 6th and 7th CPCs, has been treated differently, with the MOD using the effective date of payment as a cut-off date, making Pre-2016 X Group retirees ineligible for the ₹6200 X Pay. Despite the 7th CPC recommending the X Pay increase to ₹6200, approved by the Union Cabinet with effect from 01/01/2016, the MOD has applied this revision only to post-2016 retirees without any legal or statutory backing, creating an inequitable application of the benefits.

This inconsistency raises significant concerns regarding the fairness and transparency of the MOD's approach, particularly within the context of military pay revisions. Legally, the effective date of a recommendation, such as the revised MSP, is typically tied to the payment of benefits and cannot be interpreted as excluding retirees prior to that date unless explicitly stated. In the absence of any specific exclusion for Pre-2016 retirees, the revised X Pay of ₹6200, like the MSP, should be interpreted as applicable to all eligible personnel, irrespective of their retirement date. Such an interpretation would align with fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination, ensuring that all service members—whether they retired before or after 2016—are entitled to the benefits outlined in the revised pay structure.

The failure to explicitly include statutory exclusions for retirees prior to 2016 in the Cabinet Resolution, a statutory document, undermines the Ministry of Defence's (MOD) ability to implement a cut-off date that unjustly discriminates against pre-2016 retirees. This unauthorised  action with out any legal backing is ultra vires the Cabinet Resolution and, as such, must be struck down by the court. The MOD should also be issued with a stern reprimand for this ill-conceived ulterior motive.The disparity in treatment between retirees requires immediate re-evaluation to ensure that all personnel are afforded the fair and equitable compensation to which they are justly entitled under the revised pay scales

The selection of homogeneous X Group trades as the basis for differentiating between Pre- and Post-2016 personnel, relying on frivolous contentions and invisible rules, appears malafide, arbitrary, and discriminatory. This approach should be legally contested, as it lacks a legitimate basis.

In conclusion, the MOD’s position on X Pay for post-2016 personnel is unsupported by statutory rules. The AFTs should critically examine the statutory framework and relevant Supreme Court judgments before rendering a judgment. The issue demands a thorough legal review to ensure the rights of personnel are upheld in accordance with the established rules and the constitutional principles of fairness and equality.

AIR HQ TAKES FIRM STAND ON THE ELIGIBILITY OF PRE-2016 X GROUP VETERANS FOR X PAY OF RS. 6200

STATUS OF X GROUP PAY CASE IN AFT PB DELHI FILED BY VETERAN SR. N0. 292911 SGT S V SUNDARESAN

LIFE CERTIFICATE SUBMISSION THROUGH JEEVAN PRAMAN MOBILE APP:- HINTS AND FULL EXPLANATION WITH PICTORAL PRESENTATION

FULL PROCEEDURE WITH PICTORAL PRESENTATION