& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Retirement age extension deprives those on PRL

Md. Ali Akbar
The ordinance is discriminatory in that it deprives those on PRL who are still below 59 years of age. Can one cite an example of any other polity that passes a law that is inherently discriminatory, benefiting a segment of the incumbents while leaving out of its purview another segment?***
AT the year-end came the presidential ordinance extending the government employees' retirement age. As it fulfilled a long standing demand, the step was welcomed by all in the service, though it was greeted with mixed reactions by the knowledgeable circles.
Some expressed concern that it would block public employees' promotion and fresh recruitment, at least in the short term, while others contended that given 67-year life expectancy and 30-year age limit for recruitment in public service, it was only in fitness of things that the government took the long overdue step. It is expected to generate momentum in the day-to-day functioning of the government.
Some others argue that the dispensation may not prove that much contributory to administrative dynamism as the aged civil servants have got used to a mode of operation, and cannot change gears all of a sudden. Instead, promotion at various tiers would have served the purpose better as it would expedite government functioning.
A temporary block in promotion which the move will inevitably result in may create frustration among the incumbents at various levels, experts say.
The government says it wants to utilise the experience of its senior employees for two more years for the larger interest of the country's administration. Notably, the prime minister's advisor for civil administration has termed the move a "new year’s gift" from the prime minister to the public servants.
On the flip side, nothing has come out in the print media. Hence, the need to bring to the notice of all concerned through this piece what is sadly being missed because of the silence.
The ordinance has nothing for those on post-retirement leave (PRL). The public servants who are on PRL are deprived of the opportunity to serve the 2 years' extended term beyond the previous 57-year age limit — i.e. up to 59 years of age. Nor have they been granted any benefit from the much-vaunted "new year's gift."
The government viewpoint is that those who are on PRL were first retired and then granted leave (PRL), hence they cannot be allowed to return to government service. This implies that PRL bars them from coming back to service. Then why couldn't the government change PRL to leave preparatory to retirement (LPR) just like it changed LPR to PRL only months back?
PRL is not different from LPR as in both cases the officials remain on government pay-roll. In the former case, "retirement" precedes the retiree's 1-year leave to be availed, and in the latter "retirement" follows the leave availed. As those on PRL continue to draw their pay and other benefits, like those on LPR, they cannot truly be treated as being out of service.
Also, it needs to be doubly underlined that those who are now on PRL were obliged to proceed on PRL on account of 57-year age bar as per the Public Servants' (Retirement) Act, 1974. Now that the age limit of 57 has been extended by amending the said Act through presidential ordinance, why couldn't one simple amendment replacing the term PRL by LPR be added / inserted?
To recall, PRL is the present government's own doing. It was introduced all of a sudden last year and enforced in place of LPR through an amendment to the retirement Act. The reason behind it, though not quite intelligible at that time, is now crystal clear as the affected officials allege that the government made the change to prevent the possible comeback of a section of officials for yet unknown reasons.
Supposedly, the government is not happy with some of those on PRL. It can well prosecute those who in its reckoning are disloyal and may act against it, but should not bracket officials on PRL who have no such offence on record as to disqualify them from continuing in service. The government has allegedly wronged a section of its senior-most employees through the stepmotherly treatment.
The ordinance in question, by keeping those on PRL out of its ambit, has cost them rather heavily in terms of lost benefits in promotion, foreign tours and training, financial gains and, above all, social status that they could otherwise have enjoyed/received during the 2-year extended term in office. Having served the republic for long, they have been ignored, maltreated and crestfallen at the end of their career.
The ordinance is discriminatory in that it deprives those on PRL who are still below 59 years of age. Can one cite an example of any other polity that passes a law that is inherently discriminatory, benefiting a segment of the incumbents while leaving out of its purview another segment?
The presidential promulgation has been partial, non-inclusive and discriminatory, lacking equity of distributive justice, and hence liable to amendment to benefit all government employees below 59 years of age. The government cam withdraw/cancel PRL if it really intends to spare those on PRL the heartache and ignominy of having to stay out of service while still below 59 and also mentally and physically sound to carry on with the job.
It is even discordant with a recent precedent in the country. Some two years back the government allowed the facility of two years’ extended service to the freedomfighter officials already on LPR. How could the benign government be so harsh against those on PRL this time around? Can the government shrug off the impression that it has resorted to double standards towards its own employees?
One cannot also help take the government's logic with a pinch of salt that its prime consideration behind extending retirement age to 59 was to utilise the experience of senior officials for two more years, because it would have served the cause feu more to utilise the experience of those on PRL too.
In the end, the democratic government is called upon to give the ordinance an all-inclusive, non-discriminatory dimension if only to do justice to all its employees alike by making amends for what it has done in rather unbelievable haste after 2 years of inexplicable dilly-dally. Let not the concerned officials stay unduly neglected and deprived of the opportunity to serve the republic up to 59 years of age like their colleagues in service are fortunate enough to do. The writer is a former Joint Secretary. (Now on PRL)