Communist Party of India (CPI) national Secretary K. Narayana has appealed to the State government to find a mutually acceptable solution to the PRC agitation and cautioned it against stretching the issue further.
Mr. Narayana welcomed the employees’ decision to fight to get their due. “The illusions over the Jagan regime are gone now and the employees have clearly understood his intentions,” he remarked.
Expressing his support, he warned the negotiators on the government’s side not to escalate it to a point of no return. On the other hand, he flayed the employees for keeping political parties away, advising them to open their eyes to the reality and understand which political party had misused them and which parties had been fighting on their behalf.
Similarly, CPI(M)’s frontal organisation Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) is also supporting the agitation. It flayed the State government for making a ‘false claim’ that the pay had not reduced with the release of the Government Orders, but later taking refuge behind the State’s precarious financial situation.
“It is unethical on the State’s part to claim that the financial position had deteriorated from the day when the Interim Relief of 27% was issued. The employees’ fight for pay enhancement is justified but the government is not even assuring them pay protection,” criticised CITU’s Chittoor district secretary Kandarapu Murali. Condemning the ‘reverse PRC’, Congress leader P. Naveenkumar Reddy demanded that the State withdraw the ‘dark’ G.O.s intended to harm the interests of the employees, teachers and pensioners across the State.
The party would exert pressure on the Chief Minister to immediately act on the issue. Finding a deliberate attempt by the ruling party’s social media to paint the agitating mployees black in the eyes of the public, he said the government’s attitude smacked of ‘burning the bridge’ after crossing the river with the help of employees.
Citing the unions’ claim that the PRC announcement was ‘unilateral’, the Congress leader blamed the government of holding an ‘eyewash’ negotiation and later misleading the public that it had in fact held consultations.
