RINL: Exclusive Investigation by www.indianpsu.com – One PSU, Two Rule Books? While Hundreds Continue to Face Perquisite Cuts, CMD and Director (Finance) Continue to Draw Full Perquisites
A few days ago, we had reported that RINL CMD M. N. V. S. Prabhakar and Director (Finance) Vinay Kumar were drawing full salaries despite the austerity measures applicable to other employee
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” — George Orwell, Animal Farm
George Orwell’s famous observation was intended as a warning against the selective application of rules by those in power. More than seven decades later, it continues to resonate wherever institutions expect sacrifice from many while appearing to exempt a privileged few.
First, it was salary, now it is perks – The Unending Saga of the CMD and Director (Finance)… “हम नहीं सुधरेंगे”!
An exclusive investigation by www.indianpsu.com has uncovered documents that raise serious questions over the implementation of austerity measures at Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL), the corporate entity of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant.
The documents in our possession indicate that while hundreds of executives continue to bear the burden of reduced perquisites well beyond the stipulated period of austerity, CMD M. N. V. S. Prabhakar and Director (Finance) Vinay Kumar continue to draw their full admissible perquisites.
A Temporary Measure That Never Ended – for Everyone
Facing an acute financial crisis, the RINL management issued an order in 2024 reducing the percentage of perquisites and allowances payable to Board-level executives, executives below the Board level and non-unionised supervisors up to the E-9 grade.
The order clearly stated that the reduction would remain in force only up to March 2025.
Employees accepted the decision despite the financial hardship because they believed it was a temporary and uniform measure aimed at helping the company navigate an exceptionally difficult period.
However, documents examined by www.indianpsu.com reveal that after March 2025, the reduced perquisites have continued for executives across the organisation.
At the same time, salary records in our possession show that the CMD and Director (Finance) have continued to receive their full admissible perquisites.
One Policy, Two Outcomes?
The obvious question is: How can the same policy produce two entirely different outcomes?
If the temporary austerity measure ceased to apply after March 2025, why have the perquisites of hundreds of executives not been restored?
If the top management is entitled to receive full admissible perquisites, on what basis have similarly placed executives continued to receive reduced benefits?
Was there a Board resolution authorising differential treatment?
Was the Ministry of Steel informed?
If such an exemption exists, why was it never communicated to the affected executives?
These are not merely administrative questions. They go to the heart of transparency and accountability in a Central Public Sector Enterprise.
Leadership Must Lead by Example
Every organisation expects its employees to make sacrifices during difficult times.
But leadership derives its moral authority from sharing those sacrifices—not from remaining insulated from them.
When employees are asked to tighten their belts while the leadership continues to enjoy full benefits, confidence in the system inevitably suffers.
The issue is no longer confined to perquisites. It becomes a question of fairness, credibility and corporate governance.
Ministry of Steel Must Examine the Matter
The facts emerging from the documents accessed by www.indianpsu.com warrant an immediate examination by the Ministry of Steel.
The Ministry should ascertain:
- Why the reduction in perquisites continued for executives after March 2025.
- Under what authority the CMD and Director (Finance) continued to draw full admissible perquisites.
- Whether the differential implementation of the policy had the approval of the competent authority.
- Whether all affected executives are entitled to restoration of their full perquisites with arrears from April 2025.
If the company’s own order limited the austerity measure to March 2025, there appears to be no justification for continuing the reduction for one section of employees while another receives full benefits.
The Questions That Demand Answers
The investigation leaves RINL management with several questions that deserve clear and transparent answers:
- Why did the temporary austerity measure continue beyond March 2025 for hundreds of executives?
- Why were the CMD and Director (Finance) paid full admissible perquisites during the same period?
- Who authorised this differential treatment?
- Why were affected executives not informed of the basis for such a distinction?
Public Sector Undertakings are built on principles of fairness, transparency and accountability. The rules framed by management must apply uniformly across the organisation. If sacrifices are necessary, they must be shared equally. If the austerity period has ended, relief must be extended equally.
Anything less creates the perception that there are two rule books within the same PSU—one for those at the top and another for everyone else.
Nothing destroys an institution faster than one set of rules for the powerful and another for everyone else.
Editor’s Note: This report is based on official orders, salary records and related documents examined by www.indianpsu.com. RINL, CMD M. N. V. S. Prabhakar, Director (Finance) Vinay Kumar and the Ministry of Steel are welcome to respond to the issues raised in this report. Their response will be published in full.
