National Council on 20th January, and 17th March, 2017.
1) Discrimination between pre and post 2004 officials-
2) While Govt. determines the quantum of pension subscription and makes it mandatory it refuses to guarantee a minimum return.
3) Atal Pension Yojana offers better and guaranteed benefit to the Subscribers.
4) The Government’s assurance that the employees under NPS will get annuity not less than the minimum pension under the defined benefit scheme and might even be more was made on wrong assumption in as much as -
5) Two officers at the level of the Secretary to GOI retiring on the same day in 2037( former recruited in 2003 and latter in 2004 )will have a huge differential in pension. The 2003 recruitee will have pension 3.25 times of the annuity of the 2004 recruitee. Over a period of next 10 years i.e in 2047,(due to cost indexation) the 2003 recruitee will have pension 7.4 times of what the 2004 NPS official receives as annuity.
6) In most of the countries where contributory pension scheme is in vogue, the Govt’s (employer) contribution is 25% of the salary while that of the employee is 10%
7) The NPS Contribution do not enjoy the Tax benefits like PPF, EPF, GPF etc.
The staff Side in their presentation made out inter alia the following points:
a) The number of employees covered under NPS in increasing day by day and in a decade’s time, they might become significant segment of the Government personnel.
b) All those who are covered by the scheme are extremely critical and resent that their savings are channelled into private hands to help the corporate bodies to make enormous profits.
c) There is no likelihood either now or in any time in future that NPS subscribers will be able to purchase an annuity equivalent to what the pensioners under the Defined Benefit Scheme is entitled. The Government must honour its commitment made to this effect to the staff side in the National Council, when the NPS was introduced.
d) The Committee in its report must at least bring it to the notice of Government that the Staff Side of the JCM is of the firm view that the cosmetic changes in the scheme will not bring about any tangible benefit to the subscribers and the Government must as an interim measure guarantee the pension to NPS subscribers equivalent to what is provided for the personnel covered under the defined benefit scheme.
e) The Staff Side opined that the committee will be well within its term of reference to suggest.