New Delhi: The introduction of the Unified Pension Scheme (UPS) by the central government has sparked a significant debate among public employees, raising questions about its efficacy and true nature. Despite claims that UPS is akin to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) with assured benefits, a closer look reveals fundamental contradictions in the new scheme.
The UPS vs. OPS Comparison
The government asserts that the UPS offers benefits similar to those of the OPS, which was a defined benefit scheme where the entire employee contribution was returned with compound interest tax-free, and the monthly pension was funded by the government based on half of the last drawn basic pay plus dearness allowance (DA). In contrast, the UPS is described as a contributory scheme, which means both the employee and the government contribute annually, and these contributions are invested in assets with uncertain risk profiles.
Details of the Unified Pension Scheme
Under the UPS, retirees are promised two main types of benefits:
Lump Sum Benefit: An amount equivalent to approximately six days of basic pay and DA for each year of completed service. For instance, a 25-year employee would receive benefits equivalent to five months of basic pay and DA. It is unclear whether this amount will be tax-free, and it is significantly less than the amount employees would receive under OPS, where their contributions were returned tax-free with interest.
Guaranteed Pension: A pension equal to 50% of the last drawn basic pay, supplemented by dearness relief linked to the All India Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers. However, concerns remain about whether this relief adjustment will occur with the same frequency as the DA adjustments under OPS.
Unlike OPS, where full pension benefits were available after 20 years of service, UPS requires 25 years, potentially disadvantaging employees who joined the service later due to delays in recruitment.
Financial Risks and Challenges
The UPS faces several financial challenges:
Increased Contributions: If the annual pension liabilities exceed the interest earned on the corpus, employees might need to contribute more.
Corpus Depletion: The pension fund could be depleted to cover current liabilities, affecting future pensions.
Risky Investments: The corpus might be invested in riskier assets, potentially leading to losses.
Delayed Payments: There could be delays in pension and dearness relief payments to retirees.
State Governments and Financial Constraints
Currently, UPS is applicable only to central government employees and excludes teachers and staff in autonomous public organizations. Moreover, state governments are encouraged to implement UPS with their own funds, despite facing financial constraints imposed by the central government since 2014.
The Case for Returning to OPS
Critics argue that OPS remains the most viable alternative to the New Pension Scheme (NPS). They contend that OPS would not only maintain fiscal balance but also enhance economic activity through increased consumer spending by retirees. The government’s resistance to reintroducing OPS and its focus on UPS are seen as tactics to avoid a broader debate on wealth taxation and to garner political support in upcoming elections.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding the UPS and its supposed alignment with OPS highlights ongoing challenges and concerns among public employees. Unions and employees are urged to unite in advocating for the reinstatement of OPS and the establishment of the eighth pay commission to address these issues effectively.
××××××××××××××
Telegram Link :
For latest news, first Hand written articles & trending news join Saachibaat telegram group
https://t.me/joinchat/llGA9DGZF9xmMDc1
