8th Pay Commission News: Concerns among pensioners have resurfaced regarding the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the 8th Central Pay Commission. The Central Government Pensioners’ Welfare Association (CGPWA), Jammu has reportedly written to the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, alleging that existing pensioners and family pensioners have been excluded from the scope of the 8th Pay Commission.
CGPWA writes to govt over ToR concerns
The CGPWA has written to the Prime Minister, the Union Finance Minister, the Minister of State for Pensions, and the Chairperson of the Central Pay Commission, raising serious objections to the Terms of Reference of the 8th Central Pay Commission, according to a PTI report.
The association says that the notified ToR limits the scope of the 8th Pay Commission only to serving central government employees, automatically excluding existing pensioners and family pensioners.
Allegation of excluding pensioners from ToR
The CGPWA claims that after the release of the 8th Pay Commission’s ToR, the Finance Minister and other ministers made several statements assuring that the commission would also consider the interests of pensioners.
However, the association argues that these assurances are not clearly reflected in the ToR notified on November 3, 2025.
The association also pointed out that on December 2, 2025, the Ministry of Finance clarified in the Rajya Sabha that pensions have not been excluded from the scope of the 8th Pay Commission, but this is not reflected in the ToR.
Objections to Finance Bill 2025 and retrospective changes
CGPWA President and former DGP S.P. Khoda, in his letter, referred to the Finance Bill 2025 and stated that the amendments made to the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, with retrospective effect, legitimize discrimination among pensioners based on their date of retirement, the PTI report said.
He argues that such statutory changes render ineffective previous Supreme Court judgments and oral assurances given in Parliament, which can only be overturned by formal legislative amendments.
Questioning the term ‘Unfunded cost’
The CGPWA has also strongly objected to the term “unfunded cost of non-contributory pension schemes” used in the Terms of Reference (ToR).
The association states that this terminology is unprecedented and makes it appear as if pensions are being viewed as a financial burden rather than a constitutional right.
The letter points out that the pensions of MPs, judges, and defense personnel are also non-contributory and paid from the Consolidated Fund of India, but such language is not used for them.
Citing Supreme Court judgments
In its letter, the CGPWA cited several Supreme Court judgments which state that pension is a property right and deferred wage. Furthermore, pensioners constitute a single class and cannot be discriminated against based on their date of retirement.
The association warned that referring to pensions as “unfunded cost” is against constitutional principles and established law.
Issue of additional pension and commuted pension
The letter also raised the issue of additional pension received by senior citizen pensioners. The CGPWA, citing the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee (110th Report), demanded a reduction in the age limit for additional pension and the implementation of a tiered structure.
In addition, objection was raised to the rule regarding the restoration of commuted pension after 15 years. The association states that the government recovers the commuted amount within 12 years and then earns only interest by withholding the restoration.
Government’s stance: Pensions not excluded
The government maintains that pensions have not been excluded from the commission’s purview. This conflicting situation is fueling the controversy.
The government has clarified that pensions have not been excluded from the purview of the 8th Pay Commission. The Finance Ministry, in its reply to Parliament recently, stated that the commission will consider aspects related to pensions and gratuity, including both NPS and non-NPS employees.
Furthermore, the government argues that the wording in the Terms of Reference (ToR) was chosen keeping in mind financial stability, economic conditions, and future needs, and not to undermine pension rights.
Other concerns of employees and unions
Not only pensioners, but central government employees and trade unions have also raised objections regarding the ToR.
The main concerns include:
Lack of explicit mention of pension revision
Ambiguity regarding Dearness Allowance (DA) merger
Absence of mention of the traditional effective date of January 1, 2026
Neglect of contractual employees and trade union rights
Several Members of Parliament have raised questions on these issues in Parliament. Employee organizations have warned of a nationwide agitation if the ToR is not amended.