PREMATURE RETIREMENT

sports-joint-secretary-prematurely-repatriated

Sports: Joint Secretary prematurely repatriated

Inder Dhamija (IFS:1985:TN), Joint Secretary, Department of Sports, prematurely repatriates (w.e.f. 24.08.2020) to his parent cadre on the grounds of availing promotion in the cadre.

18 Aug 2020
retirement-age-galore:-indianmandarins’-reports-proved-accurate

Retirement age galore: Indianmandarins’ reports proved accurate

Lowering the retirement age of the Central Govt employees had been the most discussed issue in past few months. Several such versions were floating across media claiming each of them to be authentic one but it was Indianmandarins which relied on its own top sources and its successive news reports denying any such move of lowering the retirement age from 60 yrs to 58 yrs.  

Indianmandarins questioned (21.09.2019) the growing uncertainty over retirement age issue and made an effort (23.09.2019) to expose the rumours through a reality check. Terming the rumour on ‘proposal of lowering the retirement age’ a ghost Indianmandarins in its report dated 05.11.2019 underlined that “....contrary to the rumours Indianmandarins’ learnt through some key officials that no such proposal has been initiated as yet.”

Finally, Union Minister for Personnel Dr Jitendra Singh (on 27.11.2019) said in a written reply to Lok Sabha; "No Sir. Presently, there is no proposal to reduce age of retirement on superannuation from 60 years to 58 years,"

It may be underlined that MPs Kaushal Kishore and Upendra Singh Rawat had asked whether there was any proposal before the government to decrease the retirement age of central government employees from 60 years to 58 years or under article 56(J) of compulsory retirement on attaining the age of 50 years.

Further, in his reply, the Dr Jitendra Singh said that there were provisions under Fundamental Rules 56(j), Rule 48 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Rule 16(3) (Amended) of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, according to which the government has the absolute right to retire officials prematurely, on the ground of lack of integrity or ineffectiveness, in public interest, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice.

CLICK TO READ:

Retirement age 58 years: The ghost returns (News dated 05.11.2019)

NaMo Administration and retirement age: Rumours Vs reality (News dated 23.09.2019)

Uncertainty over retirement age galore: Buck must stop? (News dated 21.09.2019)


29 Nov 2019
sports-joint-secretary-prematurely-repatriated

Sports: Joint Secretary prematurely repatriated

By IndianMandarins 18 Aug 2020

Inder Dhamija (IFS:1985:TN), Joint Secretary, Department of Sports, prematurely repatriates (w.e.f. 24.08.2020) to his parent cadre on the grounds of availing promotion in the cadre.

retirement-age-galore:-indianmandarins’-reports-proved-accurate

Retirement age galore: Indianmandarins’ reports proved accurate

By IndianMandarins 29 Nov 2019

Lowering the retirement age of the Central Govt employees had been the most discussed issue in past few months. Several such versions were floating across media claiming each of them to be authentic one but it was Indianmandarins which relied on its own top sources and its successive news reports denying any such move of lowering the retirement age from 60 yrs to 58 yrs.  

Indianmandarins questioned (21.09.2019) the growing uncertainty over retirement age issue and made an effort (23.09.2019) to expose the rumours through a reality check. Terming the rumour on ‘proposal of lowering the retirement age’ a ghost Indianmandarins in its report dated 05.11.2019 underlined that “....contrary to the rumours Indianmandarins’ learnt through some key officials that no such proposal has been initiated as yet.”

Finally, Union Minister for Personnel Dr Jitendra Singh (on 27.11.2019) said in a written reply to Lok Sabha; "No Sir. Presently, there is no proposal to reduce age of retirement on superannuation from 60 years to 58 years,"

It may be underlined that MPs Kaushal Kishore and Upendra Singh Rawat had asked whether there was any proposal before the government to decrease the retirement age of central government employees from 60 years to 58 years or under article 56(J) of compulsory retirement on attaining the age of 50 years.

Further, in his reply, the Dr Jitendra Singh said that there were provisions under Fundamental Rules 56(j), Rule 48 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Rule 16(3) (Amended) of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, according to which the government has the absolute right to retire officials prematurely, on the ground of lack of integrity or ineffectiveness, in public interest, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice.

CLICK TO READ:

Retirement age 58 years: The ghost returns (News dated 05.11.2019)

NaMo Administration and retirement age: Rumours Vs reality (News dated 23.09.2019)

Uncertainty over retirement age galore: Buck must stop? (News dated 21.09.2019)


namo-administration-and-retirement-age:-rumours-vs-reality

NaMo Administration and retirement age: Rumours Vs reality

By IndianMandarins 23 Sep 2019

When one becomes a government servant, the most certain thing is tenure of service and retirement age. But today it has become the most uncertain thing albeit for the time being only. Changing rules of the game everywhere is the new normal. Making uncertain things certain (Demo & Article 370 are living examples) and certain things uncertain has been the hallmark of the NaMo Administration so far.

 

Lowering the retirement age of the Central Govt employees has been the most discussed issue of late. Several such versions are floating across media claiming each of them to be authentic one. It has heavily pre-occupied the mind space of govt officials and medipersons alike and none of them having any clear version about the truth of this piece of information. Even most of the senior members of Indian bureaucracy are anxious and inquisitive about the authenticity of what have been doing rounds for the last 4-5 days.

 

Social media is flooded with different versions. One such message reads, “DoPT has finalized proposals for implementation of 33 years service or 60 years age whichever is early for retirement on superannuation for all government employees. File sent to finance ministry for implementation w. e. f. 1.4.2020.”

 

Surprisingly, a list of senior civil servants was also circulated on social-media on Sunday announcing their new date of retirement. But it was also interesting that the list was only about IRS officers as if someone was trying to make them jittery.

 

Another document also found prime space in social-media having caption “DoPT seeks service profile of central services”.


Information and documents as above mentioned, intended to underline that retirement age (60 yrs or 33 yrs of service) was just a matter of announcement. May be true but at the same time Govt must come up with its true version. When ambiguity dominates public space like in the case of ‘Ganesh ji drinking milk’, the government version is announced to put thing in perspective.

 

Indianmandarins spoke to several senior bureaucrats across services and batches but most of them were unsure of any such move finding themselves among mute-spectators. When people sitting in high offices become uncertain even about certain things it castes its shadow downward as well.

 

In fact, several theories, though none of them convincing, are also being attached to the retirement age galore.

 

One such theory suggests that it may have been the game-plan of opposition ahead of Delhi Assembly elections as a big chunk of voters are from service class with influence. Earlier, same set of rhetoric of  retirement age did rounds ahead of Delhi elections.

 

The other theory doing round suggests that it might be a part of design to distract public attention from gleaming economic parameters. It is also being said that receiving Rs 1.76 lakh crore from RBI and big tax cut in corporate tax to boost economy, the government might have firm plan to address unemployment issue. This theory, to an extent, makes some sense as the move of lowering the retirement age may add up lakhs of recruitment every year.  But the flip side is that the government would have to cough up huge money for PF and gratuity payments.

 

Moreover, in case it turns out to be true early age entrants (at 22-24 yrs) who once exhibited competence and promising career prospects may be at the receiving end than those ones who entered civil service quite late. 

 

Another version too sounds convincing enough. A very senior civil servant told Indianmandarins that the NaMo administration has great appetite for experiments in governance and administration like in the cases 360 degree method, lateral entry, aspirational districts, IAS probationers as Assistant Secretary in Govt of India and many more. It has bigg appetite for bigger risks as well (e.g. Demo, GST and Article 370). And this debate over retirement age galore too could be part of NaMo administration’s scheme of thing but it seems to be at the nascent stage. The officials told Indianmandarins that it appears that the move could have been initiated from the very top that’s why most of the senior level officials are still less exposed to information on any such initiative.

 

Another official told Indianmandarins that as far as the new civil list with revised retirement date might be part of some ongoing exercise to gauge number of vacancy and monetary implications and floating the list of IRS officers must have been made viral from some IT enthusiast.

 

It may be recalled that following a similar sustained rumours Dr Jitendra Singh (MoS Personnel & PMO) had, in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha, put to rest all speculations on retirement age reduction (In December 2015) by saying that "the retirement age for Central Government employees was revised from 58-60 years in 1997 on the basis of recommendations of the fifth Central Pay Commission," and that there was no such proposal "at present" to reduce the age from 60 to 58 years.

 

So will NaMo Govt come up with any such official statement approving or disapproving any such proposal on retirement age once again?

 

Obviously, speedy action on the provisions of 56J has added to the panic related to the retirement age.

 

Whatever be the truth the ongoing scenario has left various questions which may be answered in phases and they are: Has NaMo administration finalised a new retirement policy for govt employees adding new provisio of ’33 years of service or 60 years whichever earlier’ been added’? Has DoPT sent the policy decision to the Department of Expenditure for evaluation and assessment of cost of mass retirement? Will it pass judicial scrutiny? Will the move boost employment and economy? And lastly, will the policy, if already finalised, be effective w.e.f. 01.04.2020? A big question mark everywhere. And one may say that ‘the buck must stop’ somewhere.

(CLICK to read related story)

Uncertainty over retirement age galore: Buck must stop?

https://www.indianmandarins.com/news/uncertainty-over-retirement-age-galore:-buck-must-stop-/19128

(By Rakesh Ranjan, Editor-in-chief)

uncertainty-over-retirement-age-galore:-buck-must-stop-

Uncertainty over retirement age galore: Buck must stop?

By IndianMandarins 21 Sep 2019

For the past few years the ghost of retirement age has been haunting civil servants over and over again. It not only makes them apprehensive but keeps them on tenterhooks as well leaving them clueless that who’s and what purpose does it serve? And at what cost?

 

Sometime it is about lowering the retirement from 60 to 58 and sometime it is about increasing it from 60 to 62. The rumours keep oscilating between 58 to 62. Both ways the only certainty about retirement age is that there is uncertainty. Is this the response to clarion call made on employment generation?

 

This doesn’t seem to be the answer rather it is keeping bureaucracy in flux making their work hamper especially those who are at important positions. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the government of the day to clarify on issues like this traveling in public domain. But if the government wants to keep its officials at tenterhooks by such ambiguity, its prudence will be questioned for sure!

railways-may-retrench-officers-and-employees

Railways may retrench officers and employees

By IndianMandarins 14 Jul 2019

The Ministry of Railways may review the performance of its employees to determine their suitability for continuation in their jobs. In group A and B, the performance of officers aged 50 and in group C and D, employees above 55 years, are to be reviewed. Besides, the performance of officers and employees who have completed 30 years of service may also be reviewed. 

 

The Ministry's proposal for review follows a directive issued last month by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).

 

After considering the DoPT directive, the Railway Board on Tuesday advised the zonal railways and production units to assess the performance of employees.

 

One of the reportedly controversial guidelines for identifying employees for early retirement states that if the conduct of an employee is not deemed in public interest or obstructs the efficiency in public service, they can be recommended for premature retirement.

 

It is expected that the plan for premature retirement of employees, in particular, may run into serious obstacles because the railways have strong unions. On the other hand, the government may not face that kind of opposition in weeding out Group A & B officers whose associations have no deterrence power.

 

The plan, if implemented unwisely, may disrupt railways functioning which is already short of 2.9 workers and officers at various levels.

 

Official records show that, as on March 31, 2017, the strength of railway employees was 13,08,323 and over 2.9 lakhs posts were vacant. Further, from 2013, about 22,000 to 25,000 railway employees have been inducted into the service every year, while the retirement rate was 55,000 to 60,000 a year.

free stat counter