Coal Pensioners’ Demand for Dearness Relief Rejected; CMPFO Cites ₹48,000 Crore Deficit

The Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation (CMPFO) has declined to grant Dearness Relief (DR) to retired coal employees, citing the financial condition of the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, and a substantial deficit in its pension fund.

In a communication dated August 31, 2026, the Office of the Commissioner, CMPFO, informed complainant Dandamraj Ramchander Rao that his grievance seeking enhancement of pensions and the addition of Dearness Relief to existing pensions had been examined by the organisation’s Policy Division.

The letter stated that the matter had already been referred to the Policy Division at CMPFO headquarters in Dhanbad for examination and a necessary decision. However, the response from the Policy Division indicated that the demand could not be accepted under the existing financial circumstances.

CMPFO Cites ₹48,000 Crore Pension Fund Deficit

An internal office note dated August 19, 2026, provides the financial reasoning behind the rejection. Referring to six grievances received through the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS), the note examined the demand for Dearness Relief from January 1, 2027, to mitigate the impact of inflation on pensioners.

According to the note, the latest actuarial valuation report indicated that the Coal Mines Pension Fund was facing a deficit of approximately ₹48,000 crore as of 2022.

The Policy Division further observed that the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, did not contain a provision for granting Dearness Relief to pensioners.

Taking these factors into account, the division concluded that the demand for additional pension benefits could not be accepted in view of the fund’s financial position and the provisions of the existing pension scheme.

Pensioners Seek Relief Against Inflation

The grievance sought enhancement of pensions for retired coal employees by introducing Dearness Relief for all existing pensioners to help them cope with inflation.

Dearness Relief is intended to protect pensioners’ purchasing power against rising prices. However, CMPFO’s response indicates that extending such relief under the existing Coal Mines Pension Scheme would require consideration of the scheme’s provisions and the fund’s financial sustainability.

The correspondence does not indicate that any alternative arrangement or timeline for reconsidering the demand has been announced.

CMPFO Invokes Government Guidelines on Grievance Disposal

In its August 31 communication, CMPFO also referred to an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances on December 10, 2014.

The memorandum stipulates that public grievances should ordinarily be redressed within a maximum period of two months. Where a final decision is expected to take longer, an interim reply should be sent within that period. If a request cannot be accepted, a reasoned response may be issued to the complainant.

The guidelines also provide that grievances involving policy decisions, statutory amendments or matters connected with court proceedings may be closed after informing the complainant of the factual position. Such matters may be revisited if subsequent developments warrant reconsideration.

CMPFO stated that the grievance fell primarily within the domain of policy and outside its administrative jurisdiction, and accordingly disposed of the complaint under the cited memorandum.

Key Question: Who Will Protect Coal Pensioners Against Inflation?

The rejection highlights the financial constraints confronting the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, and the challenge of providing inflation protection to retired coal employees.

While CMPFO has cited the pension fund’s deficit and the absence of a provision for Dearness Relief under the existing scheme, the correspondence does not indicate whether the government is examining any broader reform or alternative mechanism to improve pensioners’ incomes.

For coal pensioners seeking relief from rising living costs, the immediate question remains whether any policy intervention will be considered to address their demand.

The article is based on the three-page correspondence issued by CMPFO and the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances.