JOIN USThe new rules notified by the central government for compulsory retirement of errant staff are apparently intended to improve efficiency and reduce corruption and other kinds of misconduct. They will enable the government to retire those who complete 30 years of service or cross 50-55 years of age if they fail performance reviews. A detailed procedure has been laid down for central government establishments to send monthly reports of how many employees were reviewed and how many were recommended for premature retirement. From the way it is designed, the plan seems to be not just an initiative to weed out errant staff. It may also be intended to cut down the number of staff as such. There is a general impression that government departments and undertakings are overstaffed and need to be downsized. Pay commissions have also called for this. The proposal is often cited as necessary to achieve the motto of minimum government and maximum governance.
This is not the first time that the Modi government is implementing such a plan. There was a similar plan in 2014 also and it has been used for forced retirement of a number of staff. Last year, over 60 tax officials were issued retirement orders on grounds of corruption and misconduct. Governments have been trying to prune staff strength for many years. They have gone slow on recruitments, and many jobs and tasks are now done by contract employees. Employees’ unions have naturally opposed the plan and described it as a move to privatise a large part of the government sector. The problem actually is about how well the performance assessment of staff is carried out. Ministries have been told to ensure that the prescribed procedure for retirement is strictly adhered to and the decision is not arbitrary and based on collateral grounds. Detailed guidelines for this have been formulated on the basis of some Supreme Court orders and observations.
But there are apprehensions that the initiative will be selective and vindictive, and efficiency, good conduct and integrity may not always be the yardsticks for performance assessment. Considerations relating to religion, caste and community, parochial sentiments, gender-related discrimination, politics specific to offices, personal animosities and jealousies and many other issues can vitiate performance assessment if there is no strict monitoring and supervision of the process. The methods, efficacy and quality of the process will have to be under scrutiny. There are also fears that the initiative may be used against those who hold political views different from those of the ruling party and against certain sections and groups of people. It should not lead to a political or any other kind of purge of the official set-up.