8th Pay Commission: Concerns over the scope of the 8th Central Pay Commission have intensified, with pensioners’ bodies saying that existing pensioners and family pensioners have been left out of its Terms
of Reference (ToR), even as the government maintains that pensions remain within the commission’s mandate.
The Central Government Pensioners’ Welfare Association, Jammu, has written to the prime minister, raising serious concerns over the terms of reference of the 8th central pay commission and recent amendments related to pension laws. The letter has been also sent to the Union finance minister, minister of state for pensions and the chairperson of the central pay commission (CPC). In his representation, Khoda said the notified (terms of reference) ToR of the 8th pay commission explicitly restrict its mandate to central government employees, effectively excluding existing pensioners and family pensioners from its scope, according to news agency PTI.
Pensioners flag mismatch between assurances and ToR
The CGPWA has pointed out that after the ToR were notified on November 3, 2025, senior ministers, including the finance minister, made public statements assuring that the interests of pensioners would also be taken into account. However, the association contends that these assurances are not explicitly reflected in the wording of the ToR.
The group has also referred to a clarification given by the Ministry of Finance in the Rajya Sabha on December 2, 2025, which stated that pensions had not been excluded from the scope of the 8th Pay Commission. According to the CGPWA, this parliamentary assurance contrasts with the language used in the ToR, creating ambiguity and uncertainty among pensioners.
Objections to retrospective pension rule changes
In his letter, CGPWA President and former DGP S P Khoda raised concerns over amendments introduced through the Finance Bill 2025. He argued that changes made to the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules with retrospective effect legitimise differential treatment of pensioners based on their date of retirement.
According to the association, such statutory changes dilute the effect of earlier Supreme Court judgments and assurances given in Parliament, which, it argues, can only be overturned through clear and explicit legislative action.
Dispute over ‘unfunded cost’ wording
A major point of contention is the use of the phrase “unfunded cost of non-contributory pension schemes” in the ToR. The CGPWA has objected strongly to this terminology, saying it portrays pensions as a fiscal burden rather than a constitutional entitlement.
The association noted that pensions for MPs, judges and defence personnel are also non-contributory and paid from the Consolidated Fund of India, yet are not described using similar language. It warned that such phrasing runs contrary to established constitutional principles.
Citing multiple Supreme Court rulings, the CGPWA reiterated that pension is a property right and a form of deferred wages, and that pensioners form a single class that cannot be discriminated against based on the date of retirement.
Additional pension and commutation issues raised
The letter also flagged long-pending demands related to additional pension for senior citizens. Referring to the 110th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee, the CGPWA sought a reduction in the age threshold for additional pension and the introduction of a graded, tier-based structure.
It further objected to the existing rule on restoration of commuted pension after 15 years, arguing that the government typically recovers the commuted amount within about 12 years and continues to earn interest during the remaining period.
Government maintains pensions are included
The government, however, has rejected claims of exclusion. The Finance Ministry has reiterated in Parliament that pensions and gratuity fall within the purview of the 8th Pay Commission, covering both NPS and non-NPS employees. According to the government, the wording of the ToR reflects considerations of fiscal sustainability, economic conditions and future requirements, and is not intended to undermine pensioners’ rights.
Wider concerns among employees and unions
The controversy is not limited to pensioners alone. Central government employees and trade unions have also expressed reservations about the ToR, pointing to the absence of an explicit reference to pension revision, lack of clarity on the merger of Dearness Allowance, and the omission of the traditional effective date of January 1, 2026.
Employee bodies have also raised concerns over the treatment of contractual workers and the lack of emphasis on trade union rights. Several Members of Parliament have taken up these issues in both Houses, while employee organisations have warned of nationwide protests if the Terms of Reference are not revisited.
As the debate sharpens, the 8th Pay Commission’s ToR have become a flashpoint, underscoring the broader tension between fiscal prudence and long-standing expectations of employees and pensioners alike.
