Mr. Prasad, who has held significant portfolios, including law, questioned Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, asking, "Has his government implemented the Old Pension Scheme as promised in Himachal Pradesh?" His inquiry reflects the BJP's stance that the Congress has been slow to act on its commitments, especially those made during elections.
The BJP leader went on to criticize the Congress for what he described as a lack of sincerity in their governance. He claimed that the party is aware of the empty promises it makes, particularly regarding the pension scheme, and as a result, did not even include it in their manifesto for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. According to Mr. Prasad, this avoidance highlights the party's fear of being exposed for not delivering on its promises.
The Unified Pension Scheme (UPS), which is set to take effect in April 2025, retains many elements of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) that was in place before 2004. Under the OPS, government employees were assured a lifelong monthly pension amounting to 50 percent of their last drawn basic pay. However, this scheme did not require employees to contribute to their pension funds, a feature that many employee organizations continue to advocate for.
In contrast, the New Pension Scheme (NPS), introduced by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government in 2004, linked pension payouts to the contributions made by both the government and the employee. This shift was opposed by most Opposition-led states at the time, with five states opting to continue with the OPS instead of switching to the NPS.
The UPS, which has been criticized by the BJP, is a contributory scheme where employees are expected to pay 10 percent of their salary towards the pension fund, while the government will contribute 18.5 percent, a figure that may be increased.
Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge, in a recent post on X (formerly Twitter), mocked the BJP, suggesting that the "U" in UPS stands for "U-turn," reflecting what he sees as a pattern in the BJP-led government's third term. Mr. Kharge listed several instances where the government had to roll back decisions, including on long-term capital gains, the Waqf Bill, the Broadcast Bill, and lateral entry into government services. He asserted that the Congress would continue to hold the government accountable and protect the interests of 140 crore Indians from what he described as a despotic regime.
This ongoing political tug-of-war highlights the contentious nature of pension reforms and the broader debate over government accountability and the fulfillment of electoral promises.
0 Comments