Pay Commission: Why the IAS hang-up is a cop-out from good governance

By Shailesh Pathak Almost every ‘high level’ lunch or dinner in India discusses the need to do ‘something’ about the IAS (Indian Administrative Service). Many readers or their family members have attempted the Civil Services Examination or had interactions with IAS officers over the years, pleasant or otherwise. The 4400 strong IAS holds positions in districts, in state capitals and Delhi that are considered most significant.  In the thick report of the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) report, the only issue earning dissenting notes from all Members is the IAS in chapter 7.2. The arguments relate to a seeming IAS monopoly on all senior posts in Government of India, which is due to an ‘edge’ it enjoys, along with its diplomat cousins from the Indian Foreign Service (IFS). For good governance, the IAS would do well to encourage open competition from government officers from all services for all posts above Joint Secretary. Second, they should demand these posts have remuneration linked to private sector comparators instead of any pay commission recommendation. This may not fall within the remit of a Pay Commission, but for good governance, the IAS should take the lead on this. On opening up competition for senior level appointments, the previous, 6th CPC had recommended (para 6.1.8) that all senior posts be open to all Union government officers, while those requiring technical or specialized knowledge shall be open to those from inside or outside government. Para 7.3.37 from the 7th CPC is a welcome addition. The current system of senior appointments limits choice from a small group of eligible officers belonging to ‘empanelled batches’ in each service who are inching close to retirement. This yields top officials with brief tenures. In effect, it is not the IAS or any other service that is threatened by open competition, but senior most officials in each of these services who currently have a monopoly over top jobs. Many such seniors are outstanding and will be chosen in any open competition. Other seniors, alas, are not. In a competition open to all government officials with, say, over 14 years of experience, bright aspirants from all services would compete with seniors, including from their respective cadres. Inviting applications for all appointments above joint secretary level would enable long tenures to demonstrate leadership and impact in good governance. The best and brightest would be chosen as Mission Director for Smart Cities, Delhi Police Commissioner, Head of the National Tiger Conservation Authority or Member, Central Board of Direct Taxes. Outstanding mid-level IAS officers with rich district experience behind them would be the biggest gainers from such open competition. This would also lead to changing the cylinder-shape of most cadres to more of a pyramid, since there would be higher attrition and exits. The CPC report sets out pay and allowances for employees of the Union government. CPC Chairman AK Mathur declares in his foreword ‘The sole consideration with the Commission was to ensure that employees do not suffer economic hardship so that they can deliver and render the best possible service to the country and make the governance vibrant and effective.’ And yet. Making governance vibrant and effective is a worthy objective, but while ‘minimum government, maximum governance’ is mentioned (para 4.1.1) once in 889 pages, robust measures towards good governance are not evident. Instead, there is much comment on the ‘edge’ of the IAS compared to the other two All India Services , IPS (Indian Police Service) and IFoS (Indian Forest Service) or vis-a-vis all 49 Group A Central Services. Dissenting notes by Members Vivek Rae and Rathin Roy relate to three ‘edge’ aspects allowed to the IAS and IFS: a two-increment lead from entry level, a two year lead in empanelment for senior appointments, and non-functional upgrades. Strangely, the 7th CPC did not discuss this with the largest stakeholders in the three All India Services viz. Chief Ministers of 29 Indian states. One may well be skeptical about this services-rivalry in a country of 125 crore largely poor citizens, who need good governance above all. Leadership matters for good governance. Good leadership produces good outcomes; the converse is equally true. This is why chapter 7 should be read in its entirety. The CPC says there are several non-monetisable attributes that encourage government employees to work at lower salary levels compared to the private sector. It ignores this very statement for Group C jobs. Of the 33.02 lakhs employees outside Defence, Group A is ONLY 91,501, Group B is 2.8 lakhs and Group C is 29.29 lakhs. A large part of Group C is overpaid, while the tiny leadership Group A is underpaid. An IIMA study is quoted (4.2.12 & 4.2.13) saying ‘while at lower levels salaries are much lower in the private sector as compared to government jobs, at the highest echelons of governance, the compensation in government is nowhere comparable to their counterparts in the private/public sector.’ Private markets are paying Rs 8000-9500 for the lowest ranked government employee who is actually paid Rs 22579. Instead of reducing this to market comparable levels, CPC relies on formulae to fix this at Rs 18000 plus allowances. The exact opposite is seen at senior level appointments. The 15000 odd officers of the IAS, IFS, IPS, IFoS and Group A Central Services are all underpaid in comparison to salaries in public sector companies, let alone the private sector. Indeed, the IIMA report had C2G (Cost to Government) numbers for 40 job families compared to C2C (Cost to Company) for private sector; hope this report is made public soon. As tax-payers seeking good governance, our question should be ‘who are these tax-eaters?’ Why do we have to pay less productive employees at more than double their market salaries, and those in critical leadership roles a fraction of market salaries? India definitely needs to do ‘something’ about the IAS and other top civil services. This can be via open competition for top jobs, as well as no overpaying at lower levels and no underpaying at higher levels. Given Chairman Mathur’s foreword, perhaps the 7th CPC report (para 7.2.26) does not answer the IAS Association’s question ‘Is paying decent wages to the premier civil services of the world’s third largest economy too much of an ask?’ Shailesh Pathak is into cities, infrastructure, finance & public policy. Twitter @shypk.