By recommending parity among all Services, the Seventh Pay Commission has provided an opportunity to reform India's administrative culture. All eyes are now on how the Union Government responds
The Seventh Pay Commission submitted its report to Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on November 19. The commission, in its foreward, lamented on “the steep decline of administrative machinery”, and added that “it needs to be resuscitated by infusing the norms of righteousness”. What it brings home is the need for a righteous bureaucracy which can provide leadership for development and happiness. The commission had submitted its recommendations keeping this philosophy in mind.
One of the key recommendations relates to dispensing with the constitution of Pay Commissions in the future by preparing a salary matrix and abolishing pay bands and grade pay. The commission argues that the matrix may be reviewed periodically without waiting for the 10 longs years. This can be done on the basis of a formula which takes into consideration the changes in prices of commodities that constitute a common man’s basket, which the labour Bureau at Shimla reviews periodically.
The commission has recommended Rs18,000 as minimum pay and Rs2,50,000 as maximum pay. The apex scale has been suggested at Rs2,25,000. The commission had also recommended one rank one pension for all. It has also provided a stick to the Government for stopping the annual increase of non-performers. The annual burden will be more than a lakh crore rupees. Many lower ranking unions have shown dismay at the poor minimum salary structure.
But what set the media agog is the crucial but fractured recommendation on the demands of non-Indian Administrative Service officers about removing the initial disparity of allowing two increments for the IAS. Chairman Justice AK Mathur has argued that the basis for remuneration for any position should be based on the complexity and difficulty of duties and responsibility of the job in question. The criticality of functions at the district administration level holds good equally for the IAS, the Indian Police Service as well as the Indian Forest Service. Therefore, the edge presently accorded to the Indian Administrative Service at three grades may continue in the form of two additional increments in the proposed pay matrix. The same is recommended for the IPS and the IFS.
The Indian Foreign Service, however, shall continue to get this edge. This recommendation was opposed by member Vivek Rae who belonged to the IAS. In his dissenting note, he opposed granting parity and termed it untenable and tried to protect the interests of his Service. Mr Rathin Roy in his note recommended removal of the financial edge to the IAS.
This recommendation has not gone down well with the other 36 Central Services who had urged the Pay Commission to end the edge as well as dominance of the IAS. They had pitched for uniform pay structure and merit-based posting of officers in the Central Secretariat.
In a landmark recommendation, the chairman and Mr Roy have suggested that the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission should head the empanelment process for posting in the Central Secretariat as also for uniform criteria of 17 years of service for empanelment as Joint Secretary. Mr Rae disagreed with this recommendation and has argued that the IAS should continue to get the two years edge.
The Pay Commission has erred in denying the Indian Forest Service’s demand of up-grading the apex scale of the Director-General of the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education. That post is already in the apex scale and equivalent to that of a Secretary. The demand was for creation of the Department of Forestry Research within the Ministry of Environment & Forests with DG ICFRE as Secretary. This was promised when the Council was converted into autonomous body in 1991. However, after Mr TN Seshan retired, others did not allow the change, due to their
vested interests.
The Pay Commission has also criticised the poor performance of the Civil Services. The value system in the administration has taken a knock, both in the character of the bureaucracy as well as its efficiency; transparency has given way to crony capitalism, impartiality is a thing of the past; honesty is considered a disqualification in the socio-political environment, and domain knowledge is the biggest casualty. This writer, under the Right to Information Act, had asked the Department of Personnel and Training the basis of equating various posts under the Union Government to different levels as an academic exercise. The DoPT passed the buck to the Department of Expenditure which after two months said that there was no information available.
A review of the civil services of the UK, Canada, Australia and Singapore reveals that these countries change with the times, promote merit, specialisation and equal opportunity. India has not changed. Today, India needs innovative, diversified and specialised civil servants, with equal status, who have one vision but are diverse in their approach and knowledge. One important reasons for poor governance is the division in the bureaucracy due to inter- and intra-Services rivalry.
The Government, therefore, should accord full parity among all Services, both in terms of pay and promotions, for ensuring equal opportunities to all the services. No service should be provided any edge. This will foster better camaraderie and promote innovations. The domination of a single Service is a vestige of the colonial era and need to be discarded to promote a vibrant and efficient administrative set up under the Union and State Governments.
This Pay Commission has given an opportunity to reform India’s administrative culture through the Civil Services. All eyes are now on the Government’s reaction.
(The writer is the chairman of Foundation for Integrated Resources Management. He is a former Principal Secretary, Government of Tripura and Director General of Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education)