PRB 2026: An Urgent Injunction Requested Against the Option Form

On March 18, thousands of civil servants will have to sign a form agreeing to a staggered salary increase or forgo it. To challenge what they call an "impossible choice," two union representatives are urgently requesting the suspension of this deadline in the Supreme Court.

In just three days, on March 18, the public service will face a significant dilemma. Sign the government-mandated Option Form for the implementation of the 2026 Pay Research Bureau (PRB) report — and unconditionally accept a salary increase paid in two installments while relinquishing any future recourse. Or refuse to sign — and lose out on a salary enhancement they are entitled to.

To contest this alternative, Rishiraj Persand, president of the State and Other Employees Federation (SEF), and Amarjeet Seetohul, president of the Ministry of Health Employees Union, have filed a constitutional complaint in the Supreme Court. They are seeking a freeze on the process until the court rules on the matter.

The crux of the issue lies in specific lines of the form itself: any acceptance with a reservation or condition is automatically treated as a refusal. In other words, a civil servant who signs while contesting the staggered implementation would be deprived of their salary increase. According to the complaint, this mechanism resembles "economic coercion."

The plaintiffs argue that the system is deliberately designed to stifle any dissent. Yet, this dissent is deemed legitimate by the unions. The government unilaterally decided to apply only 50% of the new salary scales in January 2026, postponing the remainder to January 2027. This decision is seen as contrary to the very spirit of the PRB report, which states that its recommendations form an inseparable "package" that should be applied from January 1, 2026. An additional argument from the plaintiffs: since no arrears are due, the justification of an "economic context" presented by the state appears unfounded.

Toxic Environment and Pressures

Beyond the purely legal aspect, the complaint mentions a toxic climate within the administration. The plaintiffs report direct pressures exerted by certain department heads and senior officials to coerce employees. In several ministries, agents have allegedly been summoned individually to be told that any delay in signing the Option Form would be interpreted as an act of rebellion or ingratitude towards the state.

These "maneuvers" have not gone unnoticed: on January 16, during a meeting with the President of the Republic, these practices were formally denounced. Union representatives lament a strategy of intimidation aimed at isolating civil servants from their representatives. By threatening exclusion from the new salary scales, the administration places employees in an extremely vulnerable situation, pushing them to sign a document that forfeits their future rights to contest.

What exacerbates the situation, they argue, is the lack of genuine negotiation. The Employment Relations Act obliges the public employer to engage in collective negotiations with recognized unions before any revision of service conditions. This obligation has allegedly never been respected.

The two union leaders recount events from January 27: while the supervising minister assured union representatives that the issue would be submitted to the Cabinet, a permanent committee had already reached its conclusions, which had been approved by the government. The unions only learned of this the following day through a circular.

Finally, the complaint takes on a political dimension: the electoral manifesto of the Alliance of Change promised to "strengthen union rights and facilitate collective negotiations." The plaintiffs now ask the Supreme Court to declare null and void Circular Note No. 30 of 2025, Circular Letter No. 3 of 2026, and the Option Form.

The countdown, however, continues.

Timeline of Events

• Dec 19, 2025: Publication of Circular No. 30 announcing PRB payment in two phases (50% in 2026, 100% in 2027).
• Dec 30, 2025: Formal objection from SEF addressed to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).
• Jan 16, 2026: Meeting with the President of the Republic to denounce pressures on civil servants.
• Jan 24, 2026: "Urgent Appeal" sent to the Prime Minister demanding social dialogue.
• Jan 27, 2026: Meeting with the Minister of Public Service, who assures that the issue will be submitted to the Cabinet – without revealing that a permanent committee has already made its conclusions.
• Jan 28, 2026: The Prime Minister's office informs unions that their request "was not acceded."
• March 2026: Filing of the constitutional complaint in the Supreme Court.
• March 18, 2026: Deadline for signing the Option Form.

Erosion of PRB Independence

The Pay Research Bureau (PRB) was established to serve as a technical safeguard against political arbitrariness. Its role is to define, independently, a fair salary structure based on the evolution of the cost of living and the responsibilities of each grade. However, the constitutional complaint highlights a concerning drift that the unions find alarming: by unilaterally changing the payment terms recommended by the Bureau, the government interferes with the autonomy of this institution.

The 2026 PRB report is designed as a "package deal": its salary recommendations are inseparable from their application dates. By splitting the payment into two for budgetary reasons, the Executive would dilute the technical recommendation's substance. This precedent risks, according to the plaintiffs, permanently undermining the authority of the PRB: if the government can decide when and how to pay, the independence of the agency would no longer be guaranteed, opening the door to political management of the public service at the expense of technical rigor.

The Right to Pension, a Threatened Property

The complaint filed by Rishiraj Persand and Amarjeet Seetohul goes beyond the issue of monthly salary. It raises a major constitutional legal point: the protection of property. According to Article 8 of the Constitution, the right to a pension is considered a property right.

By delaying the full implementation of the PRB report, the state directly harms civil servants who will retire during 2026. Indeed, the calculation of the "gratuity" — the lump sum paid at departure — and the monthly pension is based on the last salary received. With a capped increase of 50%, these future retirees would suffer irreversible financial harm: they would never recover the lost earnings on a pension calculated on a truncated basis. For the plaintiffs, this constitutes a deprivation of property without compensation, formally prohibited by the country’s supreme law.