8th CPC MyGov Survey: What the 18 Questions Reveal About Pay Reform

More Than a Formality

None of these questions imply pre-decided outcomes. A Pay Commission’s final recommendations depend on macroeconomic conditions, fiscal space, and political decisions closer to implementation. However, the framing of questions does indicate which issues are genuinely under consideration — and which are not.

Public consultations by Pay Commissions are not new. But the 8th CPC’s questionnaire is notable for its specificity. Rather than vague open-ended prompts, the Commission has asked pointed, structured questions that signal the issues it considers genuinely unsettled — and where it wants informed input before forming a view. That makes each question worth reading on its own terms.

The 18 questions span seven broad themes: the guiding philosophy of pay revision, the pay structure itself, allowances, pension, dearness allowance indexation, sector-specific considerations for Railways, Defence and CAPF, and finally, broader service reforms. Here is what each cluster is really asking.

Pay Philosophy: Framing the Whole Exercise (Q1–Q5)

The first five questions establish the conceptual framework the Commission will work within, and they are more open than they appear.

Q1 asks what the “guiding philosophy” of the 8th CPC should be. This is an invitation for stakeholders to frame whether the Commission should prioritise fiscal prudence, real wage growth, or alignment with constitutional principles of fair compensation for public service. The framing of your answer here can shape how the Commission weighs competing demands later.

Q2–Q3 together address one of the thorniest questions in pay revision: how should government salaries relate to private sector pay? Q2 asks how that comparison should even be made — noting that government jobs come with perquisites like housing, medical, and job security that private sector roles rarely offer. Q3 goes further: should there be a single benchmark across all government cadres, or should different sectors (Railways, Defence, scientific bodies) be benchmarked separately? A move toward sector-specific benchmarking would be a significant departure from the uniform pay matrix approach of the 7th CPC.

Q4 makes the perquisites question concrete: how should housing, medical cover, and tenure security be valued and incorporated into the total compensation calculation? If these are assigned a high monetary value, they could moderate the headline pay hike. If treated as separate entitlements not to be offset, the case for a higher fitment factor strengthens.

Q5 is perhaps the most unconventional question in the set: it asks about the influence of entry-level government pay on the informal and gig economy. The Commission appears to be conscious that a very high minimum pay in government service can distort labour markets more broadly — or alternatively, that it can set a floor that benefits workers outside government too. Either way, the question shows the Commission is thinking beyond its traditional boundaries.

The Pay Structure: The Numbers Everyone Is Watching (Q6–Q9)

This is the cluster that most directly affects what lands in employees’ bank accounts.

Q6 is the fitment factor question, and it is phrased very deliberately. It does not ask “what should the fitment factor be?” — it asks what the fitment factor should “principally aim for and represent.” This is an invitation to argue for what the multiplier is for: full inflation neutralisation since 2016? Real wage growth on top of inflation? Pay parity with the private sector? The answer employees and unions give here could directly influence whether the Commission recommends a modest multiplier closer to past inflation-neutralisation levels, or a more expansionary revision that reflects genuine real wage growth.

Q7 addresses the top of the pay structure — how Secretary-level pay and variable pay components should be determined. The mention of variable pay is significant; it suggests the Commission is at least considering a performance-linked element at senior levels, which would be a structural change from the current slab-based approach.

Q8 focuses specifically on Group A pay scales and how to make government service attractive enough to draw candidates of the right calibre. With lateral entry and competition from the private sector, this is a live concern. The Commission may be looking at whether the current pay matrix adequately compensates those at the officer level relative to what they could earn elsewhere.

Q9 addresses the rate and frequency of annual increments — currently 3% per annum across all levels. The question opens the door to differentiated increment rates across pay scales, or changes in increment frequency, both of which could have significant compounding effects over a career.

Allowances: The Cafeteria Question (Q10)

Q10 is one of the most structurally significant questions in the entire survey. It asks whether the traditional system of fixed, inflation-indexed allowances should be replaced — wholly or partly — by a “Cafeteria Approach” of the kind followed by Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs).

Under a cafeteria model, employees receive a consolidated allowance budget and choose which allowances to draw from a menu, based on their personal circumstances. Someone with a company-provided house might opt out of HRA and redirect the allocation elsewhere. A younger employee might prioritise LTC over medical top-ups. The model offers flexibility but also means the government is no longer guaranteeing specific entitlements. Whether employees would benefit or lose out would depend heavily on how the budget is set and what the menu includes. This question deserves a considered response from every stakeholder.

Pension: Balancing Expectations and Fiscal Reality (Q11)

Q11 asks how the Commission should “satisfy reasonable expectations of pensioners within fiscal limits” — a phrase that acknowledges the tension explicitly. With approximately 65 lakh pensioners, the fiscal implications of pension revision are enormous. The question invites views on methodology: should pension revision use the same fitment factor as pay? Should there be parity between past and present retirees? Should pension be linked to the last pay drawn or to an independent benchmark?

For many pensioners, this is not merely a fiscal issue but one of dignity, parity, and protection against the erosion of real income in advanced age. The framing “within fiscal limits” is a signal that the Commission will not ignore budgetary cost — making it all the more important for pensioners to articulate why their expectations are both reasonable and justified.

Could DA Itself Change? (Q12)

Q12 asks whether a hybrid indexation approach — one that combines inflation adjustment with wage growth — should be explored for Dearness Allowance. Currently, DA is linked purely to the Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers (CPI-IW). A hybrid model would mean that if wages across the economy grow faster than inflation, DA would rise correspondingly, keeping government pay from falling behind in real terms between pay commission cycles. This would be a meaningful structural reform, potentially reducing the pressure on each successive Pay Commission to deliver a large one-time catch-up. It is worth taking seriously in responses.

Sector-Specific Pay: Railways, Defence, CAPF, and Scientists (Q13–Q16)

Four questions address specific sectors, which in itself is notable. The 7th CPC applied a uniform pay matrix across all central government employees, with limited sector-specific adjustments. The fact that the 8th CPC is asking separately about Railways, CAPF, Defence, Space, and Atomic Energy suggests it is open to revisiting that uniformity.

Q13 asks about monetary and non-monetary considerations for Railways, CAPF, and Defence — the three services with the most demanding and often hazardous working conditions. The inclusion of “non-monetary” considerations opens the door to discussions about housing, insurance, medical cover, and service conditions beyond just pay.

Q14 asks about appropriate benchmarks for specialised streams like Space and Atomic Energy, where the government competes for talent with global research institutions and the private technology sector. The current pay structure is widely considered inadequate at attracting and retaining top scientific talent.

Q15 asks how Military Service Pay (MSP) should be determined and how it should relate to CAPF and police pay — a question that has generated significant tension between the armed forces and paramilitary services over many years. Any movement here will be closely watched.

Q16 raises the sustainability of defence manpower costs and the growing pension bill for ex-servicemen. This is among the most fiscally sensitive questions in the set, given that defence pensions alone account for a very large share of the government’s pension outgo.

Bonus and Staffing Reforms (Q17–Q18)

Q17 asks how the bonus structure — currently the Productivity Linked Bonus and ad-hoc bonus schemes — should be reimagined to actually reward excellence and productivity. The implication is that the current structure is not effectively doing so. There may be scope here for recommendations that link bonus payments more directly to measurable performance, or that create new categories of recognition.

Q18 is the most forward-looking question: should lateral entry, part-time work, and flexi-time be expanded in government service? This question sits at the intersection of pay policy and broader civil service reform. Lateral entry has been a contested topic; part-time and flexi-time arrangements are virtually absent in the current framework. A Pay Commission recommendation on these fronts would carry significant weight.