Performance Management System: The Indian Case

Abstract: 
The present paper is divided into 4 sections. Section 1 provides the introduction to Performance Management System (PMS), its evolution and status in India, performance monitoring and evaluation system (PMES), result based documents (RFD) at central and states and responsibility centers. Section 2 deals with international scenarios of PMS. It highlights the success stories of the countries such as Kenya, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Canada where the system has shown positive impact on the government performance. Section 3 discusses the evaluation methodology through a case study of the Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India. Section 4 provides the future outlook.
AttachmentSize
4_performance_management.pdf192.32 KB
Main Article: 

Section 1: Introduction to Performance Management System in India
This section deals with the performance management system in India, govern-ment performance management, performance management and evaluation and result framework document
India is one among the fast growing economies in the world. The global challenges including economic recession, increasing gap between haves and have-nots, inclusive growth and development, rising expectations of the middle class, migration from deprived regions to prosperous areas, rise in vociferous social and political groups, etc. Traditionally, the governance structure in India is characterized by rule-based approach focusing more on process-regulations resulting in the lost governance goals in the maze of bureaucratic structures. However, in view of the changing global scenario, competition from other economies and increasing access and application of technology in all the domains of governance, the focus of the Government of India shifted from input-output orientation to measuring the impact of government policies and programs. The introduction of the New Public Management (NPM) as a part of the administrative reforms emphasizing ‘result or performance’ to improve the efficiency and measure the effectiveness of through enhance quality service delivery. The NPM movement began during the 1980s. The first glimpse of this was found in the United Kingdom during the tenure of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. During the same period, the United States also suffered economic recession and tax revolt. The governments of New Zealand and Australia joined the movement. During 1992, Osborne and Gaebler’s ‘Reinventing Government’ also discussed the revolutionary changes in conventional wisdom by words such as ‘re-engineering’, entrepreneurial man-agement, empowerment and privatization. Later, NPM administrative reforms were also included in the agendas of most OECD countries and other nations as well (OECD, 1995).
The Performance Management System (PMS) is a broad concept involving all the levels of organization and their stakeholders. The PMS involves deeper understanding of performance issues with respect to employees, employers, departments, shareholders, etc. for promoting better service delivery. The PMS is all the more complex given its application in government agencies and departments, which hitherto gave least respect for the evaluation of their programs. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 2008 defined performance management as “the systematic process by which the organization involves its employees, as individuals and members of a group, in improving organizational effectiveness in the accomplishment of organizational mission and goals”. The PMS tracks the compliance mechanisms through the use of input, output procedures for measuring the productivity, efficiency and effectiveness in the Government.
The Performance Management System is an ongoing systematic approach for improving the results though evidence based decisions, ensuring continuous organizational learning, and focusing on accountability for performance (National Performance Management Advisory Commission, 2009).
Government Performance Management (GPM)
The Government Performance Management (GPM) is a process that helps the governments to optimize their performance. The GPM provides broad frame-work for organizing, automating, and analyzing business methodologies, metrics, processes and systems that drive business performance. The GPM includes planning, monitoring, capacity building, performance rating and rewarding mechanisms for those who performance better. Given the nature and dimension of the tasks of the government, the performance management in government agencies is nothing but a complex phenomenon. However, given the increasing emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness, given the focus on better deployment and utilization of resources, the government performance management has assumed importance in the 21st century.
Osborne and Gaebler (1992) in their book “Reinventing Government”, discussed the evolution of the concept of performance management as a new Human Resource Management model that reflects change and emphasizes that employees’ goals and objectives are derived from their departments, which in turn support the mission and goals of the organization. These searches for results made the governments rethink on the approach to entrepreneurial government by motivating to enhance their performance. Shamim, et.al, (2014) emphasizes the need for 360-degree performance review of ministers and departments. The paper proposes the performance appraisal of ministers through the implementation of PMES to evaluate the direct quantitative progress by the departments / ministers. Accountability makes an individual answerable towards the stakeholders. Many factors contribute to lack of public trust in politics including the growing costs of political competitions, the rising role of the leader in decision making, centralization of power, etc. (Shukla, 2006).
Box 1: Why a Performance Management System
• What gets measured gets done
• If you don’t measure results, you can’t tell success from failure
• If you can’t see success, you can’t reward it
• If you can’t reward success you are probably rewarding failure
• If you can’t recognize failure, you can’t correct it
• If you can’t demonstrate results, you can’t win public support
Source: Osborne and Gaebler, 1992
Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System (PMES)
The Prime Minister outlined the “Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System (PMES) for Government Departments” during 2009. Since then, for all the government ministries and the departments it was mandated that a Result Framework Document (RFD) has to be prepared. The RFD is an agreement of understanding between the ministry and the representative from the department or enterprise. The RFD provides a link between the targeted results to be achieved by the minister/department in a financial year. PMES takes a comprehensive view of departmental performance by measuring performance of all schemes and projects (iconic and non-iconic) and all relevant aspects of expected departmental deliverables such as: financial, physical, quantitative, qualitative, static efficiency (short run) and dynamic efficiency (long run). PMES divides the financial year into three quarters. Fig 1 depicts the division of the financial year for the implementation of the PMES for various departments and the state governments.
Fig 1: Timeframe of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System (PMES)

As a part of the PMES, all the departments are required to report to multiple administrative ministries who often have multiple varied objectives that are not always consistent with each other. The public enterprises have to report to the Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation on important projects and also to the Department of Public Enterprises, which act as the parent department and also to the Department of Expenditure on performance in relation to Outcome Budgets, to Planning Commission on plan targets; CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General) regarding the procedures, processes, and even performance; Cabinet Secretariat on cross cutting issues and issues of national importance; Minister in-charge on his priorities; Standing Committee of the Parliament on its annual report and other political issues; etc. PMES is designed to overcome the over-lapping situations.
Fig 2 depicts the PME system with three major components. These include performance information results framework management system, performance agreement results framework document and performance related incentive system.
Fig 2 Performance Management and Evaluation System

Result Framework Document (RFD):
In this process of PMES, every department is required to prepare a Results-Framework Document (RFD). RFD is the summary of important results that a Department/Ministry are to achieve during the financial year. The RFD docu-ment has two main objectives: (a) move the focus of the department from process-orientation to result-orientation, and (b) provide an objective and fair basis to evaluate department’s overall performance at the end of the year. The sections in RFD are included in Box 2.
Box 2: Result Framework Document Format
• Section 1: Vision and Mission, Objectives and function
• Section 2: Inter se Priorities among Key Objectives, success indicators and targets
• Section 3: Trend value and Success Indicators
• Section 4: Description and definition of Success indicator
• Section 5: Specific Performance Requirements
• Section 6: Outcome / impact on ministry
Source: www.performance.gov.in
Result Framework Management System
Result Framework Management System (RFMS) is an online tool that enables the departments to enter the required information sought for the preparation of the performance agreements. The RFMS is made accessible to the department's members with a login. The RFMS home page content includes six tabs. They are home, prepare RFD, input achievements, evaluate performance, graphs, background docs and print RFD. The web portal is very user friendly with an online help tool.
Performance Management in Central Government
During 2009-10, 59 ministries and departments prepared their RFDs (2009-10). To review the performance in the central government, a high power committee has been constituted. The committee would comprise a chairman and five members. The committee Chairman’s rank would be that of the Cabinet Secretary. The committee is responsible to vet the draft RFDs, conduct reviews every six months, submit half-yearly reports and scrutinize the results. All the ministries are classified into six syndicates. Syndicate one includes all the departments and ministries, which deal in the agriculture and rural development. The second syndicate includes 13 ministries and departments in the purview of human development. Whereas syndicate three and four deal with resource management, trade, industry and service sectors comprising of 24 departments/ministries. The last two syndicates i.e. five and six deal with infrastructure management and social welfare having 25 ministries/ departments. Annexure 1 shows the syndicate-wise list of ministries/departments.
Performance Evaluation System in Public sector
Public sector reforms have become a common phenomenon around the globe. The key priority of the government is to implement and institutionalize public sector reforms that would deliver efficient, effective and ethical delivery of services to its citizens. The first phase of reforms were initiated during 1991, as a part of the liberalization, privatization and globalization. The reforms initiatives include: de-licensing in the key sectors, opening import market, board reforms, more competition, technology access, increase in share of private investments, etc. To meet the global competition, the second phase has focused on issues such as removal of most import controls, resurgence of key industries, internationalization of public sector, outsourcing and information technology, etc. These initiatives have been linked with the concept of memorandum of understanding (MoU). MoU is treated as one of the major instruments of performance management system in the Public sector enterprises. MoU is essentially a negotiated performance agreement between the government and the management of the public sector enterprises specifying the expectations and responsibilities of both the parties.
Performance Incentive System
Performance incentive system is a new initiative introduced in the public sector. The system has not been adapted completely. As per the system, any department/ ministry in its second year of RFD preparation, which scores 70 per cent are eligible for an incentive. The departments/ministries have to allocate 15 per cent of their savings for the implementation of performance agreements as incentives to the employees. The components in the incentive would vary from cadre to cadre in the department/ministry. The VI Pay Revision Committee suggested a model that would link the employee performance with a performance incentive system including the provision of an annual bonus. The major components of performance incentive system include performance linked incentive schemes, productivity incentive scheme, employee stock option scheme and enterprise specific incentives. The non-inclusion of incentives or disincentives for performance is one of the major draw-backs in civil services. The civil service performance mechanism is a path-breaking accountability tool to improve the quality of service delivery by the civil servants in the society. The present promotion system in civil services is based on the time-scale and is coupled by its security of tenure. These elements in our civil services are making our dynamic civil servants com-placent and many of the promotions are based upon patronage system (Satish, 2004).
Performance Evaluation System in State governments
The government has considered the evaluationof the state government’s perfor-mance. During 2010, the PMD started supporting the states to prepare the RFDs through the PMES. 13 state governments have adopted the RFD policy. The states which implemented the system include: Maharashtra, Punjab, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Assam, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Tripura, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Mizoram. States such as Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and Puducheery are also finalizing the RFDs during the current year. The RFD guidelines for the states are slightly different from that of the central government. The state Government of Punjab is the first state, which tried to evaluate the districts’ performances by setting targets and measuring the deliverables.
Citizens’ / Clients’ Charter (CCCs)
The Citizens’/Clients’ Charter (CCC) is a written declaration by a Government Department highlighting the high quality service delivery. In other words, these are the set of commitments about the service that it delivers to the citizens. Though not enforceable in a court of law, the CCC is intended to empower citizens and clients so that they can demand committed standards of service and avail remedies in case of non-compliance by service provider organizations. This exercise, if appropriately conceived and carried out can enthuse and enable organizations to tune their planning, policy and performance to the needs and concerns of the citizens/ stakeholders/users/clients. The CCC enables the departments to focus on better performance, which in turn will lead to overall improvement of governance parameters. This will help the government in measuring the performing agencies at all levels – central and state. The ministries and departments at the center and state levels have formulated about 107 citizen charters and about 629 citizen charters have been introduced.
Section 2: International scenarios of PMS
This section highlights the international best practices in the implementation of PMS. The section looks into the different approaches adapted by Kenya, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Canada.
Table 2 depicts the country-wise highlights of the performance management system. The similarity that exists in all the systems in various countries have been targeting on results to align with the policy outcomes and develop an integrated system to achieve better results.
Performance Contract System in Kenya:
The Performance Contract System is similar to the PMS in India wherein the contract is entered between the government and the public agency setting targets as per the standards. The primary objective of the program was to deliver better results and services to the citizens of Kenya. This system is called Result Based Management (RBM). The program ‘Results for Kenyans’ focused on the shift towards effective management of key parts of the economy for the fulfillment of the government commitments. All of such measures created a vibrant and viable environment for professing the culture of performance and delivery within the government agencies and departments.
Performance Management System in Australia:
Performance Management in Australia defines the system as an interrelated strategy to improve the performance of individual, team and organization. There are three main components that support these initiatives. They are: alignment with the policy outcomes sought by the government; credibility of the system to support and strengthen the internal management; and integration with the external framework with overall accountability. The Department of Finance, and the Public Service Board, announced the principles focusing on the efficiency and effectiveness of government programs – through sound management practices, the collection of performance information, and the regular conduct of program evaluation.
Table 2: Country and Performance Management System
Country System Highlights
Kenya Performance Contract System rapid results initiatives, performance contracting, performance appraisal system, service /citizen charters, program-based budgeting and ISO certification
Australia Performance Management System alignment with the policy outcomes; support and strengthen the internal management system;
integration with the external framework
New Zealand Performance Agreements physical and verifiable details of the work; assessing by a third party
Malaysia Integrated Results Based Management System integrated development planning component, integrated result based budgeting component and integrated result based personnel performance management system
Canada Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) System supports in monitoring, evaluating and assisting the government to achieve good governance practices
Performance Contracts in New Zealand:
Performance agreement is the most common accountability mechanism in many countries that have reformed their public administration systems. At the core of such agreements are the objectives to be achieved, the resources provided to achieve them, the accountability and control measures, and the autonomy and flexibilities that the civil servants will be given. The performance agreements are signed between the departmental Minister and the Secretary of the Ministry and between the departmental Minister and heads of Department, well before the financial year. The annual performance agreement should provide physical and verifiable details of the work to be done by the Secretary / Head of the Department during the financial year. The performance of the Secretary/Head of the Department should be assessed by a third party, the Central Public Services Authority with reference to the annual performance agreement. The details of the annual performance agreements and the results of the assessment by the third party should be provided to the legislature as a part of the Performance Budget/Outcome Budget.
Performance Management System in Malaysia:
The Government of Malaysia has revamped the national development planning and implementation system with the national development planning system during 2009. The Integrated Results Based Management System (IRBM) was one of the key initiatives of national development planning and implementation system. The IRBM system was the key initiative, which appeared in the 10th Malaysian Plan document. The important component of the IRBM system was assigned to the key implementing entities in the government including the integrated development planning component, integrated result based budgeting component and integrated result based personnel performance management system. The IBRM system was expected to deliver the results to enhance the public sector performance by focusing on the outcomes. The system also highlighted the need for an integrated budgeting system along with a systematic performance monitoring system to strengthen the performance reporting mechanism.
Performance Management System in Canada:
The Canadian concept of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system is similar to the performance management system. The Canadian M&E system has focused on both evaluation and performance monitoring system as a key tool to support accountability and results-based management. This system intends to provide results that would serve a variety of needs and meet the users at different levels including the departments, government and legislatives. The system supports monitoring, evaluating and assisting the government to achieve good governance practices. In a very short time, the M&E system has reached all the departments including the government level and also the legislative level. The M&E system has created special incentives to promote and help the system to settle in the government set up.
Section 3: PMS in Evaluation Methodology through a case study
The present section deals with a case study on the RFD in the Department of Public Enterprises
The Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises comprises two depart-ments. They are the Department of Heavy Industry and the Department of Public Enterprises. The main function of the department is to promote the growth of capital goods, automobile, power equipment, core manufacturing, heavy engineering, etc. in the country by framing policy guidelines for the central public sector enterprises and to their respective administrative ministries. The strategic plan (GoI) document of the DPE highlighted generating the Industrial Management Pool, policy issues affecting the public sector enterprises, improving the memorandum of understanding, counseling and retraining initiatives for the employees of the public sector, etc. The RFD tries to interlink the targets based on the strategic plan document. The RFD provides a summary of the most important results that the ministry expects to achieve during the financial year. The Result Framework Document has got six sessions. Section one of the document highlights the vision and mission of the department.
Box 3: Vision and Mission of the Department of Public Enterprises
• Vision: To evolve policies, reform programs, guidelines and mechanisms towards the establishment of a strong and effective public sector.
• Mission: To continuously improve the management of public sector enterprises by professionalizing management, goal setting and reviewing performance, developing a comprehensive Management Information System (MIS), evolving guidelines for corporate governance and social responsibility and strengthening institutional mechanisms for revival of sick units.
(Source: RFD, DPE, 2012-13)
The RFD of the Department of Public Enterprises has provided 11 core objec-tives for evaluation purposes. The core objectives include professionalization of boards by enhancing corporate governance, improving efficiency of MoU system, implantation of CSR policy, assessing growth in CPSEs, etc. Section two highlights the priorities among key objectives, success indicators and targets. Section three tries to link the success indicators with the objectives by providing the weightages and also setting the target values in a likert scale i.e. excellent, very good, good, fair and poor. The unit of measurement for fixing the targets could be ranging from date, percentage, number etc. The trend values of the indicators have been compared with the actual values that are achieved by the department. To ease the process of understanding, the definitions and descriptions of the indicators are explained in section four. Section five depicts the specific performance requirements from departments. Section six depicts the outcome and impact of the department.
Table 3 depicts the draft RFD for the year 2013-14. Section 2 contains the objective, weightages, action points, success indicators, unit and target values are discussed at length. The first objective of the DPE is to facilitate growth. This main objective is allotted ten per cent weightage. The weighted raw scores are obtained by multiplying the raw score with that of its relative weights. The composite scores are achieved by adding the weighted raw scores. To achieve the objective, the following action points were identified: improving gross margin, improving turnover and facilitating increased capital expenditure. For every action point there are success indicator i.e. increase registered in respect of MoU singing public enterprises and other enterprises. To achieve the target of improving turnover and facilitating increasing capital expenditure the success indicators that are identified includes increase in capital expenditure and MoU signing to increase productivity.
Table 3: DPE Key Objectives, Success indicators and Target
Objectives: Facilitating growth in CPSEs
Weight: 10.00
Action Success indicators Weights Targets
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
1.1 Improving gross margin 1.1.1 Improving gross margin 2.00 4 3 2 1 -
1.1.2 Increasing registered in respect to other CPSEs 2.00 1.25 1 0.75 0.50 0.25
1.2 Improving gross margin 1.2.1 Increasing registered in respect of MoU signing CPSEs 2.00 7 6 5 4 3
1.2.2 Increasing registered in respect to the other CPSEs 2.00 3 2.5 2 1.5 1
1.3 Facilitating increased capital expenditure 1.3.1 Increasing in capital expenditure in MoU signing CPSEs 1.00 4 3 2 1 -
1.32 Increasing in capital expenditure in other CPSEs 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 -
Objectives: Facilitating growth in CPSEs
Weight: 4.00
Action Success indicators Weights Targets
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
2.1 Assessment of CPSEs on the basis of their compliance with guidelines on CG 2.1.1 Grading the CPSEs for the year 2012-13 1.00 29/11/2013 10/12/2013 17/12/2013 24/12/2013 31/12/2013
2.1.2 Grading the CPSEs for the year 2012-13 3.00 10 9 8 7 6
Source : RFD 2013-14, Department of Public Enterprise, GoI
Table 4 depicts the actual value of the trend that are projected by the DPE to achieve the targets as committed in the RFD document. These actual trends have been represented in Section 3. The table tries to compare the actual value of the past two years with that of the target value for the current year and what the projected targets for the next two year are.
Table 4: Trend Values and Success Indicators
Weight: 10
Action Success indicators Target Values for FY 13/14 Projected value for FY 14/15 Projected value for FY 15/16
1.1 Improving gross margin 1.1.1 Improving gross margin 3% 3% 3%
1.1.2 Increasing registered in respect to other CPSEs 1% 1% 1%
1.2 Improving gross margin 1.2.1 Increasing registered in respect of MoU signing CPSEs 6% 6% 6%
1.2.2 Increasing registered in respect to the other CPSEs 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
1.3 Facilitating increased capital expenditure 1.3.1 Increasing in capital expenditure in MoU signing CPSEs 3% 3% 3%
1.32 Increasing in capital expenditure in other CPSEs 0.60% 0.60% 0.60%
Weight: 4
Action Success indicators Actual Values for FY 12/13 Target Values for FY 13/14 Projected value for FY 14/15 Projected value for FY 15/16
2.1 Assessment of CPSEs on the basis of their compliance with guidelines on CG 2.1.1 Grading the CPSEs for the year 2012-13 20/02/
2013 10/12/
2013 31/12/
2014 31/12/
2015
2.1.2 Grading the CPSEs for the year 2012-13 - 9% 9% 9%
Source : RFD 2013-14, Department of Public Enterprise, GoI
Section 4 and Section 5 contain acronyms and descriptions and definitions of success indicators that have been introduced in Section 2 and Section 3. Section 6 consists of the outcomes of the departments. These outcomes basically target variables that impact the department in achieving the objectives. It further links with the other responsibility centers that are involved in achieving the objectives. This section further contains the values of the two previous financial years along with the current value and also the targeted values of the next two financial years. This would help the department to understand the trend of the outcomes over the specific period.
Section 4: Future outlook
This section provides conclusions and future outlook of performance manage-ment in the government
The Government’s performance directly influences its citizens. Hence, it is essential to evaluate the performance and also identify the challenges faced by the government for improving better quality of service to its stakeholders. The World Bank identified good governance as freedom of association and participation by various groups in the process of governance and bureaucratic accountability ensuring a system to monitor and control the performance of government. In this connection, the current system of performance management which was initiated during 2009 aimed to measure performance of government through its departments with specific objectives. The earlier system focused on the performance appraisal reports, annual reports, outcome budgets, performance audit, etc. Whereas, the current system focuses on objectives, action points, success indicators and outcomes. Firstly, the department/ministries core objectives including the vision and mission statements were identified. A framework is designed to achieve them by identifying the various success indicators through proper action points. The system insists that all the departments/ministries are to report with the RFDs as per the pre-fixed time schedules. The key challenge for the depart-ments/ministries is to have control over the objectives and also the success indicators. With the introduction of the PMES, the government started focusing on specific targets. The implementation of the PMES ensures transparency and visibility of the various initiatives undertaken by the departments to enable quality performance by creating impact at all the levels of the departments. While preparing the RFD documents, the various levels of people in the departments are involved as this is a joint exercise which meets organizational challenges. Although performance management serves as an administrative tool to measure the implementation of various programs and services, it has many limitations. These include wrong assumptions, shifting the costs, displaying goals, unachieved targets, untimely project deliveries, cost and time overrun etc.
References
Government of India (2008), Refurbishing of Personnel Administration : Scaling New Heights, X Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 2005 , India, Government of India.
National Performance Management Advisory Commission (2009), “ A Perfor-mance Management Framework for State and Local Government : From Meas-urement and Reporting to management and improving” Public Review Draft, July 2009.
Osborne, D., &Gaebler, T. (1992), Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming government, Adison Wesley Public Comp: Reading Mass
Satish. M., (2004) Civil Service Reforms, Hyderabad, Centre for Good Governance.
Shamim, Akhtar.,Manjit, Nath., Pranjal, Kalita. (2014), Towards 360 Degree Performance Review of Ministers.ASCI Journal of Management 43 (2), 18-28.
Shukla, S. (2006), Citizen action and governance, (in Participatory Citizenship: Identity, Exclusion, Inclusion, ed. By RajitaMohanty and Rajesh Tandon, Sage. pp 94-5, 97.
World Bank (1994), Governance: The World Bank’s Experience, New York, World Bank.

Annexure 1: Syndicate-wise list of Departments / Ministries
Syndicate No. Sector Department / Ministry
Syndicate 1 Agriculture and rural development D/o Agriculture & Cooperation
D/o Agricultural Research & Education
D/o Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries
M/o Food Processing Industries
D/o Rural Development
M/o Panchayati Raj
M/o Environment & Forests
D/o Land Resources
M/o Drinking Water & Sanitation
M/o Earth Sciences
D/o Official Language
Syndicate 2 Human development D/o Health & Family Welfare
D/o AYUSH
D/o Health Research
D/o AIDS Control
D/o School Education & Literacy
D/o Higher Education
M/o Women & Child Development
D/o Sports
D/o Youth Affairs
M/o Statistics &Programme Implementation
D/o Justice
D/o Legal Affairs
Legislative Department
Syndicate 3 Resource Management D/o Chemicals and Petrochemicals
D/o Fertilizers
D/o Pharmaceuticals
M/o Coal
M/o Mines
M/o New & Renewable Energy
M/o Petroleum & Natural Gas
M/o Power
M/o Steel
M/o Water Resources
D/o Disinvestment
Syndicate 4 Trade, Industry & Services D/o Commerce
M/o Textiles
D/o Industrial Policy & Promotion
M/o Corporate Affairs
D/o Heavy Industries
D/o Public Enterprises
M/o Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises
M/o Tourism
M/o Culture
M/o Information & Broadcasting
D/o Personnel & Training
D/o Defense Production
D/o Defense Research & Development
Syndicate 5 Infrastructure Management M/o Civil Aviation
D/o Telecommunications
D/o Posts
D/o Information & Technology
M/o Dev. of North-Eastern Region
M/o Road Transport & Highways
M/o Shipping
D/o Science & Technology
D/o Scientific & Industrial Research
D/o Bio-Tech
D/o Space
M/o Railways
Syndicate 6 Social Welfare D/o Food & Public Distribution
D/o Consumer Affairs
M/o Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation
M/o Labor & Employment
M/o Minority Affairs
M/o Overseas Indian Affairs
M/o Social Justice & Empowerment
M/o Tribal Affairs
M/o Urban Development
D/o Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances
D/o Pension & Pensioners Welfare
D/o Ex-Servicemen Welfare
D/o Disability Affairs
Source: www.performance.gov.in