The Sixth Pay Commission has been targeted, unfairly, in my view, for not accomplishing objectives, such as reduction of corruption and improvement of administrative structure, which were not within the terms of reference of the Commission.
In public discussions, various participants, especially in the visual media, have concentrated their ire on the fact that the Pay Commission has increased salaries for the bulk of government servants without insisting on marked productivity improvement. There has also been criticism that higher pay alone will not necessarily reduce corruption. Some of these are obvious facts.
The Pay Commission has done its job of recommending a suitable structure of salaries for different categories of government servants, including those in the Armed Forces. Opinions may differ as to whether the recommendations are satisfactory with reference to the expectations of different categories.
Meeting expectations
But the fact remains that the Commission has done a meticulous job of rationalising relativities of salaries with special reference to the training and skills required. The general structure of pay scales recommended naturally builds on the existing scales but tries to correct anomalies where they exist. A Pay Commission cannot be expected to consider or recommend a complete reorganisation of administrative structure.
Criticisms voiced range from a total condemnation of non-response of the government servants to grudging acknowledgment of the fact that there are dedicated government servants who perform brilliantly in the given situation. Whether the structure of salaries recommended will attract the right type of people to join the civil services is, of course, a question to be decided in the field of competition.
If the private sector, especially in the new areas of IT, business process and consultancy, can afford to pay higher salaries to attract youngsters into their domain, there is very little that a Pay Commission can do, except to try to meet the expectations of professionals within the confines of the Government’s capacity to pay.
While the private sector, especially in the modern areas of IT-related services, employs a relatively smaller number of people, the Government has to engage a large number of employees to discharge its responsibilities. The criteria for consideration necessarily differ in the two spheres.
I have examined earlier, in these columns, whether the Government is employing too many people and spending too much on its essential services (In an article dated March 10, 2008). The latest Budget clearly shows that, rupee for rupee, government employees in, say, the Revenue Department, Postal Services and Railways give a respectable output and it is not clear whether the allegation of inefficiency can be sustained in those cases.
Performance appraisal, incentives
The argument is advanced that most government servants at lower levels do not perform their jobs and are paid too much for literally no work. The corrective for such complaints is obviously better supervision and oversight by civil society. Local NGOs should bring to light the lack of response by government servants at various levels to repeated complaints of lack of performance.
A system of ombudsman may perhaps be a useful device to correct the impression of sloth among government servants. But that is a matter for administrative reforms, not a Pay Commission.
The Pay Commission has recommended a performance-related incentive structure. But it is obvious that measurement of performance in public services is a difficult job. The quality of service rendered by government servants cannot be easily measured as in manufacturing organisations or profit-making enterprises.
The measurement of satisfaction in the public domain is a difficult task. So, the question of relating payment to performance necessarily falls back on individual appraisal of performance by supervisors of subordinates. This is liable to be subjective.
Having worked in international organisations as well as the private sector, I can make bold to say that they also have not been able to surmount this problem of assessment. Appraisal systems continue to be dominated by managers’ reviews of their subordinates. No objective measure of performance exists in many organisations, except where production or profit targets are specified. The Pay Commission cannot be faulted for failure to overcome this hurdle.
The question whether the Pay Commission has failed to provide adequate incentives to attract suitable candidates to join the Armed Forces is a difficult one to answer. Reportedly, the Armed Forces today suffer from lack of candidates for the Officer class.
On Armed Forces
There seems to be merit in the considerations the Armed Forces have put forward regarding the poor career prospects of even competent officers in the Armed Forces. These require to be addressed if the Armed Forces are to remain a source of strength and not a weakness for India.
There may well be a case for examining the remuneration or promotion structure of the Armed Forces independent of the general services. There may be a case for a separate Pay Commission for Armed Forces, whose conditions of work are far different from those of civilians.
The question whether the Pay Commission has been too liberal has been answered by the very fact that there have been a number of protests against these recommendations as not attractive enough. The total cost of implementation of the recommendations has been assessed at roughly Rs 12,561 crore for the year 2008-09.
Taking account of various measures suggested by it, the net financial implications of the recommendations are estimated at roughly Rs 7,975 crore for the year 2008-09. This is exclusive of the arrears, which cause a one-time burden of Rs 18,060 crore.
Considered against the background of a Budget that involves a salary expenditure of roughly Rs 30,000 crore, this cannot be considered to be too generous. This is, of course, excluding the effects on pensions and on State Governments.
Unfair charges
To sum up, the criticism of the Pay Commission as not having achieved a significant reduction in the prevalence of corruption is ill-conceived. Nor is it fair to say that the Commission has not addressed the issue of administrative reforms.
These are legitimately in the bailiwick of the Administrative Reforms Commission. Ultimately, the civil servants do the job their political masters command them to do.
Within the structure of the Constitution, it is not possible to expect a Pay Commission to do more than rectify anomalies and ensure adequate pay and allowances to attract persons with the skill and training necessary for the civil service.
It is not possible to ensure a corruption-free administration even by giving gold-plated salaries to government servants. If that were feasible, the Enron episode would not have happened. Cupidity is possible even in the most prestigious and highly paid jobs. Resisting temptation is a question of values and the fear of punishment if and when discovered.
The Government of Singapore provides an example of paying its civil servants well and punishing any deviation from virtue severely and in a deterrent fashion. This is a matter of administrative reforms and does not fall within the ambit of the Pay Commission.
In public discussions, various participants, especially in the visual media, have concentrated their ire on the fact that the Pay Commission has increased salaries for the bulk of government servants without insisting on marked productivity improvement. There has also been criticism that higher pay alone will not necessarily reduce corruption. Some of these are obvious facts.
The Pay Commission has done its job of recommending a suitable structure of salaries for different categories of government servants, including those in the Armed Forces. Opinions may differ as to whether the recommendations are satisfactory with reference to the expectations of different categories.
Meeting expectations
But the fact remains that the Commission has done a meticulous job of rationalising relativities of salaries with special reference to the training and skills required. The general structure of pay scales recommended naturally builds on the existing scales but tries to correct anomalies where they exist. A Pay Commission cannot be expected to consider or recommend a complete reorganisation of administrative structure.
Criticisms voiced range from a total condemnation of non-response of the government servants to grudging acknowledgment of the fact that there are dedicated government servants who perform brilliantly in the given situation. Whether the structure of salaries recommended will attract the right type of people to join the civil services is, of course, a question to be decided in the field of competition.
If the private sector, especially in the new areas of IT, business process and consultancy, can afford to pay higher salaries to attract youngsters into their domain, there is very little that a Pay Commission can do, except to try to meet the expectations of professionals within the confines of the Government’s capacity to pay.
While the private sector, especially in the modern areas of IT-related services, employs a relatively smaller number of people, the Government has to engage a large number of employees to discharge its responsibilities. The criteria for consideration necessarily differ in the two spheres.
I have examined earlier, in these columns, whether the Government is employing too many people and spending too much on its essential services (In an article dated March 10, 2008). The latest Budget clearly shows that, rupee for rupee, government employees in, say, the Revenue Department, Postal Services and Railways give a respectable output and it is not clear whether the allegation of inefficiency can be sustained in those cases.
Performance appraisal, incentives
The argument is advanced that most government servants at lower levels do not perform their jobs and are paid too much for literally no work. The corrective for such complaints is obviously better supervision and oversight by civil society. Local NGOs should bring to light the lack of response by government servants at various levels to repeated complaints of lack of performance.
A system of ombudsman may perhaps be a useful device to correct the impression of sloth among government servants. But that is a matter for administrative reforms, not a Pay Commission.
The Pay Commission has recommended a performance-related incentive structure. But it is obvious that measurement of performance in public services is a difficult job. The quality of service rendered by government servants cannot be easily measured as in manufacturing organisations or profit-making enterprises.
The measurement of satisfaction in the public domain is a difficult task. So, the question of relating payment to performance necessarily falls back on individual appraisal of performance by supervisors of subordinates. This is liable to be subjective.
Having worked in international organisations as well as the private sector, I can make bold to say that they also have not been able to surmount this problem of assessment. Appraisal systems continue to be dominated by managers’ reviews of their subordinates. No objective measure of performance exists in many organisations, except where production or profit targets are specified. The Pay Commission cannot be faulted for failure to overcome this hurdle.
The question whether the Pay Commission has failed to provide adequate incentives to attract suitable candidates to join the Armed Forces is a difficult one to answer. Reportedly, the Armed Forces today suffer from lack of candidates for the Officer class.
On Armed Forces
There seems to be merit in the considerations the Armed Forces have put forward regarding the poor career prospects of even competent officers in the Armed Forces. These require to be addressed if the Armed Forces are to remain a source of strength and not a weakness for India.
There may well be a case for examining the remuneration or promotion structure of the Armed Forces independent of the general services. There may be a case for a separate Pay Commission for Armed Forces, whose conditions of work are far different from those of civilians.
The question whether the Pay Commission has been too liberal has been answered by the very fact that there have been a number of protests against these recommendations as not attractive enough. The total cost of implementation of the recommendations has been assessed at roughly Rs 12,561 crore for the year 2008-09.
Taking account of various measures suggested by it, the net financial implications of the recommendations are estimated at roughly Rs 7,975 crore for the year 2008-09. This is exclusive of the arrears, which cause a one-time burden of Rs 18,060 crore.
Considered against the background of a Budget that involves a salary expenditure of roughly Rs 30,000 crore, this cannot be considered to be too generous. This is, of course, excluding the effects on pensions and on State Governments.
Unfair charges
To sum up, the criticism of the Pay Commission as not having achieved a significant reduction in the prevalence of corruption is ill-conceived. Nor is it fair to say that the Commission has not addressed the issue of administrative reforms.
These are legitimately in the bailiwick of the Administrative Reforms Commission. Ultimately, the civil servants do the job their political masters command them to do.
Within the structure of the Constitution, it is not possible to expect a Pay Commission to do more than rectify anomalies and ensure adequate pay and allowances to attract persons with the skill and training necessary for the civil service.
It is not possible to ensure a corruption-free administration even by giving gold-plated salaries to government servants. If that were feasible, the Enron episode would not have happened. Cupidity is possible even in the most prestigious and highly paid jobs. Resisting temptation is a question of values and the fear of punishment if and when discovered.
The Government of Singapore provides an example of paying its civil servants well and punishing any deviation from virtue severely and in a deterrent fashion. This is a matter of administrative reforms and does not fall within the ambit of the Pay Commission.
NICE BLOG!!! I'm happy to find numerous useful info here in the post. I would really like to come back again right here for likewise good articles or blog posts. Thanks for sharing. Get more info.
NDA coaching in Chandigarh
CDS coaching in Chandigarh
AFCAT coaching in Chandigarh
SSC coaching in Chandigarh