Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat
A government employee spends the best years of his life serving the people and fulfilling his official responsibilities. During this period, he works hard to support his family, educate his children and contribute to society. But a question continues to trouble thousands of employees: what will happen when they retire and their regular salary stops?
For an employee, pension is not an additional luxury. It is the only dependable source of income in old age for many retired employees. When physical strength declines, medical expenses increase and opportunities to earn become limited, a regular pension becomes essential for a respectable life.
It is unfortunate that employees who have dedicated decades to public service are still worried about their financial future after retirement. This uncertainty has become one of the major concerns among government employees, particularly those covered under the National Pension System (NPS).
The Old Pension Scheme (OPS) provided eligible employees with a defined pension based on their last drawn salary and qualifying service. It gave them a sense of security that, after retirement, they would not be left entirely uncertain about their monthly income. NPS, on the other hand, is a contributory system in which retirement benefits depend on accumulated contributions, investment returns and the applicable withdrawal and annuity rules. This difference has created genuine apprehensions among employees about whether their retirement income will be sufficient to meet their needs.
The demand for restoring OPS is not about seeking any special favour from the government. Employees are asking for a secure future after spending their entire working lives serving public institutions. They want to meet their household expenses, pay for medicines and live with dignity without depending on their children or other family members.
The matter deserves particular attention in the education sector. A teacher may spend thirty years or more educating children, working in remote areas and carrying responsibilities that extend well beyond the classroom. After retirement, that teacher deserves peace of mind, not the constant worry of managing daily expenses with an uncertain income.
The government must also understand that financial security after retirement has a direct bearing on the morale of serving employees. An employee who remains worried about his future cannot be expected to remain free from anxiety throughout his working life. A fair pension policy can strengthen employees’ confidence in the system and help them serve with greater satisfaction.
It is often argued that restoring the Old Pension Scheme may place an additional burden on government finances. Financial considerations cannot be ignored, but the issue should not be reduced to a calculation of expenditure alone. The welfare of employees who have devoted their lives to public service must also form an important part of the government’s priorities. A balanced and sustainable solution can be discussed, but the genuine concerns of employees should not be brushed aside.
In Jammu and Kashmir, the government should give serious consideration to the demand raised by employee organisations for the restoration of OPS. It should also address the concerns of Rehbar-e-Taleem teachers, contractual employees and others who were appointed before 2010 but regularised after the introduction of NPS, subject to the applicable rules and the need for a fair and equitable policy.
The government needs to sit across the table with employee representatives and find a solution that provides real retirement security. Mere assurances cannot remove the anxiety of employees who are approaching retirement or those who have many years of service ahead of them.
The question is simple: after serving the government and the people for decades, should an employee have to worry about how he will survive after retirement?
The government should scrap NPS and restore the Old Pension Scheme for eligible employees. Employees are not asking for a reward beyond their rights; they are asking for protection during the most vulnerable stage of their lives.
A government employee may retire from service, but his needs do not retire with him. His responsibilities continue, his family still depends on him, and his medical and household expenses remain. A secure pension can make the difference between a life of dignity and a life of constant financial struggle.
The government must recognise this reality. Restoring OPS would be a meaningful step towards rebuilding employees’ confidence and ensuring that years of dedicated service are followed by a peaceful and dignified retirement.
Pension is not charity. It is a matter of security, dignity and justice for those who have devoted their lives to public service.
(The author is an educator and Trade Union Leader. He can be reached at [email protected])
