After the Gen-z revolution in Nepal, a common comment ‘the old generation is not able to build the nation, so the new generation should come to power’ was being disseminated. The same idea is being translated into the bureaucracy specifically in civil service. In that context, the Federal Civil Service Bill is being drafted and at the center of which is ’30-55 provision’, the most debated provision.
What is the 30-55 Provision?
It has came to light that there is a provision in the civil service bill under which those who have completed 30 years of service or reached the age of 55 would be subject to compulsory retirement. This is known as 30-55 provision in the current Nepalese public management domain.
Since the bill is still being drafted and expert opinions are being collected, it is unsure whether this provision will be enacted or not. However, during the period between the bill and its enactment, voices for and against the 30-55 provision have already surfaced.
Employees’ Perspective
Employees who would be affected and expected to retire if the proposed provision is enacted are opposing the provision for one main reason. The prevailing Civil Service Act, 1993 protects civil service employees by preventing the government from adversely affecting their terms and conditions that were prevailing at the time of appointment.
Section 58 of that Act mentions “The conditions of service relating to salary, gratuity, pension, and other benefits applicable to any civil servant at the time of their appointment shall not be altered to their detriment without their consent. If any subsequent amendment adversely affects, in any manner, the aforementioned conditions of service of a civil servant who was in service prior to such amendment, the amended provisions shall not apply to that civil servant unless they have given their written consent to be governed by such amended provisions.”.Â
A literal interpretation of that article makes one thing clear to us that an employee who was appointed with the term and condition of retiring at the age of 58 can not be subjected to a compulsory retirement provision without his consent. For them, it is their legitimate expectation to remain on the job until they reach the age of 58. I think there is nothing wrong with interpretating it that way. However, we simply cannot stop and end the discussion here just by showing that particular article 58.
There are voices in support of the 30-55 provision as well. Some employees argue that, higher positions will become vacant, young officials with new ideas and skills will be promoted to higher impactful positions, and employees who have waited a long time in the hierarchical chain will get promotion faster. Some employees are actually excited about that provision which would create a large number of vacancies in higher positions creating promotion opportunities. And there is nothing wrong with getting excited, because promotion opportunities are one of the motivational factors.
What Do Experts Say?
Experts’ opinion is that retiring experienced top-level managers at once would affect the institutional memory of government organizations. There would be a large vacuum for knowledge, experience, and skill, which might lead to immature decision making, mismanagement, and unrealistic policy making.
Their concern is based on a simple understandable theory that if a person takes retirement from an organization, that organization obviously miss her experience and knowledge; and if a large numbers of top managers retire at a single time, then resulting experience and knowledge vacuum will be large. Yes, it is true. However, it raises a huge concern about the poor succession planning in our civil service.
Where Does Government of Nepal Focusing on?
On top of these arguments for and against, it seems that the Government of Nepal is mainly focusing on downsizing the civil service structure. As soon as the new government was formed, it reduced the number of ministries and merged several organizations. After that, an organization and management survey was conducted which led to substantial reduction in the number of employees in the approved organizational structure. This creates a challenge in managing excess employees. One way would be stop recruiting new employees, which the government (and even I) prefers the least because that would restrict the newcomers with new skills into the organizations. Next way, which the government might have preferred, is to bring 30-55 provision as an instrument.
Another interest could be, of course, bringing young employees into the service and which the government might be considering impossible without the implementation of 30-55.
Some people argue that the government is retiring older employees to be able to hire more capable professionals to higher positions for better performance. I believe that government is careful about implementing those kinds of provisions without compromising the merit system. Yes, I believe and I hope so as well. Also, it would be an exaggeration to argue that government is willing to hire employees on contract by retiring skilled and matured top-level managers. So, here, I would like to remain optimistic.
Who is Right in the Debate?
Yes, the difficult part is to decide who is right here. On the one hand, the arguments of employees who are going to be affected seem very plausible because of Section 58 of prevailing Civil Service Act. On the other hand, the arguments of employees who would benefit for promotion also seem plausible because there are employees who have not received a promotion in more than 15 years.
On the one hand, experts’ opinion on losing institutional memory also seems correct. On the other hand, the government’s focus on downsizing is also correct because downsizing the civil service structure was being suggested by many high-level commissions for civil service reform and demanded by experts within the bureaucracy. And yes, without retiring employees, how can we downsize? By stopping recruitment? It’s your time to think.
What is the Correct Course of Action?
The correct course of action, in my opinion, could be to make 30-55 provision voluntary rather than compulsory. But how would it help? First, the compulsory retirement provision might violet the existing Section 58 of Civil Service Act.
Also, there might be employees who really want to retire before reaching the age limit of 58. Providing retirement opportunities to those employees would identify motivated employees who still want to remain in the job and serve the citizens despite being eligible for retirement and pension provisions.
However, this would only partially fulfill the objective of downsizing. Of course, in-depth research must be conducted to determine the appropriate course of action rather than listening only to elites’ opinions. Even I cannot tell what to do just sitting in a chair. Even if I have something in my mind, I won’t present it as a true solution without supporting research evidence.
The next step could be shifting the discussion from 30-55 provision, and starting the discourse for overall civil service management. Actually I am wondering why we are emphasizing 30-55 provision, that much as if the civil service bill is all about that. The number of the civil service employees is not the only one unsolved issue in Nepalese Civil Service Management.Â
Even more serious issues in the Nepalese civil service management are increasing turnover intention, declining social respect for civil service jobs, lack of motivation, amotivation, burnout, a business-as-usual tendency, perceived inadequacy of salaries and benefits, declining service motivation, a shrinking intellectual labor pool (due to brain drain), base-pay inequity, and so on.
By listing these problems, I am not claiming that I can solve all those problems. Then who are supposed to solve? We need to solve them, of course, through academic, empirical, and practical discussions. When should we start? Yes, this is the right time to start, since we are formulating the Civil Service Act which is going to be the principal law to guide and establish the basis for the future of Nepalese civil service. By discussing only one ’30-55′ provision and comparing its immediate benefits, let’s not miss the opportunity to draft a civil service act that is grounded in and aligned with our country’s context for a brighter future of Nepalese civil service.Â