Editor,
It is rather shocking to learn in recent days that what the Government announced on 1st April, 2026, through none other than the Hon’ble Chief Minister, is indeed what the deficit teachers are not supposed to get. May I remind the government that the deficit grant in aid institutions have contributed to the growth of education.
As I ponder over the recent announcement and the subsequent almost forcibly imposed notifications issued by the Education Department it is much clearer now that what the teachers are demanding is legitimate. Many wondered that when the Government gave them the pension “scheme 2026”, why would the teachers want that “scheme 2023”. But in the press briefing on 6th May, 2026 after the meeting, the Commissioner and Secretary admitted that the Department had prepared and submitted the draft of the scheme 2023. This proved that there was a scheme 2023.
This made us think and contemplate as to why the government is pushing the notified scheme of 2026 despite rejections by teachers. Something seems fishy, to say the least.
The Chief Minister should have known about the draft of the scheme 2023, which the teachers repeatedly stated exists and is framed after mutual deliberation and legally under the CPF Act, 1969. The stalling of the process of the implementation of Scheme 2023, by introducing a completely different pension scheme (that scheme 2026), implies that the officers in the Education Department have created a script for him, perhaps, to fulfil a certain agenda which is aimed at targeting the stakeholders of the education sector, a sector which the Hon’ble Chief Minister time and again states is of “priority” for his government.
This backtracking raises serious questions. After the implementation process of the CPF Act correctly has already started (there are evidences available to the public), a responsible government is duty-bound to do something as per law and as per the act to avoid legal complications later. As it is, the transfer of the money of the teachers from their individual accounts to a Centralized Provident Fund Account to which few have access took place. To leave that money unaccounted is not right. Many teachers find it hard to believe if their own money which has accumulated over a number of years is still there and if it is still theirs. The teachers due to non availability of a personal subscriber ID have questioned the transparency of accounting.
The situation is grave when one considers part of that money belongs to the retired teachers. These same retired teachers had hoped that that money would provide them relief and support. They are frustrated and depressed to say the least.
A little research tells us that the CPF pension (given as per the scheme 2023) is legally grounded. One does not need to have too extensive a knowledge to know that the challenged scheme of 2026 is full of contradictions – it contradicts itself and the act under which the government claims it is framed. The Government should at least try to explain why it has chosen to implement such a pension scheme that is totally contrary to the scheme 2023 which the government itself has offered. An indifferent attitude is very wrong at this juncture. Upsetting an already settled matter is the last thing that should happen. I also wonder who from the State Bank of India benefits from the change of fund managers; earlier it was under mutual funds now it has moved to annuity or insurance. Here something seems fishy, too.
If the Chief Minister really accords priority to education we hope he will keep the larger interest of education in Meghalaya, and give the educators what is rightfully due to them.
Wellborn Dkhar
Via e-mail
