news details |
|
|
| Employ some “elder” experienced on Contract rather than raising retirement age for ALL GOI Employees | | |
By *Daya Sagar
Every time the Centre announces an increase or concession on pay packages, both public-sector units and state governments follow suit. States see employee strikes and then center bears their cost also. So where goes the economic benefit that the Union Finance Ministers quote while implementing retirement age increase or the pay commissions. Why not adopt a uniform policy for all employees?
These days the pay commission recommendations get applicable to even pensioners simultaneously every ten years. So the affect of increase in service years has cost affect for many years ahead. More over the reports of recent Pay Commissions too have got influenced more by silent gestures of the bureaucrats and the employee unions. The working information and the support staff to Pay Commissions / committees also comes from amongst the government employees. In evaluation and acceptance process of reports again the government employees are involved. So performance related needs could be deferred or pushed under the carpet. It has happened with VIth Pay Commission recommendation.
A number of Union Ministries had written to the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) favourably on retirement age increase ( 60yrs to 62 yrs / wage increases. Even the pay commissions ask top bureaucrats to make presentations. Senior bureaucrats gave presentations to pay commission in support of increasing the service benefits. Central Government employees are pressurizing for increasing retirement age to 62 Yrs where as in states like J&K it has yet to be increased to 60Yrs.
Blanket increase in retirement age for all may cause more loss to the state exchequer than would there be any benefit from the services of a few (some ) experienced and dedicated government servants.
Some are promoting a logic in the name of PM Man Mohan Singh that the PM wants to tap the valuable human resources that lie in senior bureaucrats ( IAS / IAAS /Others ). In case this logic is received , still the questions is why raise the age for all including the peons and clerks. Let it be for “extraordinary” personnel only. More so there has already been a practice of some civil servants at the top getting either extension or post retirement full-time assignments..At occasions even some useful lower level employees too are given extension or are reappointed. We have many examples like 1972 batch Bihar cadre IAS M N Prasad continued contract basis in PMO office. More so there is already a provision that union Cabinet, Home and Defence Secretaries would get minimum t two-year fixed tenure and hence they could work beyond 60 years even under normal rules. K M Chandrasekhar 1970 batch IAS completed his two-year tenure as Cabinet Secretary in June, 2009, but got one year’s extension. MK Naryanan 1958 batch IPS was National security adviser and TKS Nair 1963 Batch IAS was. Principal Secretary to Prime Minister . So the proposals for a further blanket increase in retirement age of the government employees in Central Services from 60 Yrs to 62 years are only give personal benefits to government employees. Many inefficient, not of much useful and those who had at occasions faced administrative actions too get benefitted with blanket increase in retirement age. So the logic of benefit of expertise does not stand.
Why not increase retirement age for civil servants also when university teachers and judges have superannuation age beyond.60 years. Yes may be there are some professions where generalization would not have that much social and financial implications. But it has to be kept in mind that the public service jobs are need based and not simply for feeding the family of those employed. In the universities there does exist some system for promotions based on research work and other academic achievements. Where as in civil service I have not found any such regular conditional system. The politicians have to pass test every 5 years but no such requirement is prescribed for bureaucrats. More over all the services are not of the same nature. At some places job requirements do ask for physical fitness and vigour, like in armed forces. In armed forces at lower levels the retirement age is even 40 years. But I doubt the way the political interests are eating upon the national interests one day demands may come up for keeping uniform retirement age for armed forces as well. Similarly all in civil police too can not be uniformly given the superannuation age of 6O plus. Now since such questions are being raised it is time for evaluation and critical analysis of such like issues.
Inview of large unemployed educated being there and the common thinking that majority of the government employees are not that yielding otherwise suggestions have also come for reducing the retirement age from regular employment to 55 yrs or below. It is being wisely suggested that instead a provision should be kept for re employment on contract basis any employee ( officer or lower level) whose experience & services are still assessed as of special need to the State .
Most of the Senior / Secretary officers level officers are often posted in Commissions, tribunals and committees after retirement . But even these commissions enjoy very less confidence of common man. Commonman today believes that most of government servants have failed to uphold Rule of Law, More than 10 Indian states are the worst sufferers of mismanagement of development programmes and funds, lost common confidence in local law and machinery. The bad state of even the basic health and education infrastructure of the Government institutions is no secret. Even the educated urban people have shed all hopes for possible retrieval, what to talk of the rural, distantly placed and the less educated..
Other reasons being pushed in support for increasing retirement age to 62 years are (i) the expectancy in India has gone up beyond 64 years ( Unicef 2007 ) and (ii) when a civil servant retires at 60 he / she is like an institution of Government policy and programmes. No such reason is given for lower level employees. Then where is the case for blanket increase of retirement age for central government employees to 62 Yrs inview national interest. More over still in many States employees are agitating for increasing the retirement age from 58 Yrs to 60 yrs.
Pension provision has been discontinued for Central Government employees appointed after from Jan2004 and J&K Government has also announced the same for those appointed wef 1 Jan 2010. Since it did not affect those senior officers who were already in service and the in service union leaders no representations were made nor any advice for not discontinuing pension was given to political bosses even by the most distinguished service cadres ( IAS) . Where as considering the social responsibility that the government servant has to carry and share , the provision of pension for government employees should not have been withdrawn. A government employee has to keep a check on the criminals, law breakers and economic offenders. He has to collect the state revenue and see that the expenditure made by government is neither misused or is corrupted. So the Government should better still reconsider restoring the provision of pension for new appointees. And instead retirement age could be reduced from 58 yrs to 55 yrs. Where ever it is felt that a Government employee has sound health, useful experience , commendable service record and his service experience would be of benefit inspite of reduced agility , he could be appointed on yearly contract basis or given extension.
* Daya Sagar is a Sr coloumnist of Kashmir affairs and a social activist [email protected])
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
