Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeColumnsRs. 25K Hit to Group C Employees During COVID DA Freeze Sparks...

Rs. 25K Hit to Group C Employees During COVID DA Freeze Sparks Fresh Debate Ahead of 8th Pay Commission

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

A renewed discussion around employee compensation has emerged after claims that a Central Government Group C Level 1 employee lost nearly ₹25,000 during the COVID-19 period due to the 18-month Dearness Allowance (DA) freeze. The issue is now being highlighted as a key consideration for the upcoming 8th Pay Commission’s fitment factor decisions.

During the pandemic, the government had frozen DA hikes from January 2020 to June 2021 as a fiscal measure to manage economic stress. While DA revisions resumed later, arrears for the frozen period were not paid—leading to cumulative financial losses for lakhs of employees.

According to a detailed breakup circulating online, even an entry-level Group C employee with a basic pay starting at ₹18,000 experienced a gradual increase in DA entitlement that was never disbursed during the freeze period. When calculated across 18 months, the total loss amounts to over ₹25,000 per employee.

Experts and employee representatives argue that, when multiplied across the workforce, this “silent contribution” significantly supported government finances during a crisis and should now be acknowledged in future pay revisions.

DA Break-up for Group C, Level 1 Employees (Frozen Period)

YearBasic Pay (₹)Dearness Allowance (DA) (₹)Transport Allowance (TPTA) (₹)DA on TPTA (₹)
2020 Jan18,00072090027
18,00072090027
18,00072090027
18,00072090027
18,00072090027
18,00072090027
2020 July18,0001,26090063
18,0001,26090063
18,0001,26090063
18,0001,26090063
18,0001,26090063
18,0001,26090063
2021 Jan18,5002,03590099
18,5002,03590099
18,5002,03590099
18,5002,03590099
18,5002,03590099
18,5002,03590099
Total—24,090—1,134
Grand Total Loss———₹25,224

Growing Demand for Compensation Consideration

Employee unions and observers are now urging policymakers to factor in these losses while determining the fitment factor under the 8th Pay Commission. Many argue that although the DA freeze was justified during an unprecedented crisis, the financial burden was disproportionately borne by salaried government staff.

With discussions around the 8th Pay Commission expected to gain momentum, this issue is likely to remain a focal point in negotiations between employee bodies and the government.

Read More: DGGI Hyderabad | No Custodial Interrogation Where Case Is Predominantly Based On Documentary Evidence: Telangana HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail in Rs. 97 Crore GST ITC Case

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

GSTR-2A Mismatch Alone Can’t Deny Old GST Credit, but Supplier’s Late Certificate Must Be Backed by Evidence: GSTAT

The Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has upheld a ₹1.42 lakh demand...

GST Demand Based on Witness Statements Without Cross-Examination Quashed: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has set aside a GST assessment order that relied heavily...

Income Tax Revision Quashed: Wrong Approval Authority Can’t Support Reassessment: ITAT

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed revision orders concerning loan transactions...

More like this

GSTR-2A Mismatch Alone Can’t Deny Old GST Credit, but Supplier’s Late Certificate Must Be Backed by Evidence: GSTAT

The Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has upheld a ₹1.42 lakh demand...

GST Demand Based on Witness Statements Without Cross-Examination Quashed: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has set aside a GST assessment order that relied heavily...