[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
VRS for the IAS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This draft letter which I am currently writing is meant to get feedback
from the many IAS officers on this list. Also, other govt. servants on this
list may wish to respond, preferably to my mailbox, with a copy to debate.
thanks! SS
Sub: Request for certain changes in Rule 16(2A) of the AIS
(Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958
Sir,
The current provision (above) which allow voluntary retirement after 20
years of service in the IAS effectively prevents a number of those who are
dissatisfied with the current system from leaving the job. Voluntary
retirement or other retreat from the IAS, at times, could be in the best
interests of the individual and the country. For example, I believe that
IAS officers who differ strongly with the policies and decisions of the
governments they serve are unable to do much within the system, and must be
encouraged to leave. Also, in a system which cannot guarantee honest
bosses, either political or bureaucratic, dissent by resignation must be
encouraged. Others may wish to leave for personal reasons which should not
concern the government.
a) Financial barriers: Today, the financial stakes are such that officers
wishing to quit early are unable to do so before completing 20 years in
service when they become entitled to pension and gratuity, etc., upon their
voluntary retirement. A simple calculation shows that the difference
between the net present values of resignation at 19.99 years and retirement
at 20 years of service is between Rs. 12 to 15 lakhs for an officer. This
amount is so huge compared to the meagre savings an average officer
accumulates though his career that he is unable to opt for resignation.
This effectively imposes a very high barrier to exit, amounting to
"bonding" the officer to government till 20 years of service.
b) Age barriers for resettlement: The second problem is that by the time
many IAS officers realize their essential irrelevance to the country, they
have usually become worthless to the rest of the world by virtue of their
having been generalists for many years. That is a Catch 22 situation, for
by then they are often too old to start life afresh and thus would face
serious hurdles in resettlement. Such disenchanted officers plod on to the
rest of their career even after 20 years of service, doing no particular
good to the country. If this requirement of qualifying service is brought
down to 10 to 15 years, there is at least some possibility that some
unhappy but otherwise capable officers might be able to get out of the
system and contribute more productively to India in a job outside.
c) Unfairness relative to CPF: In the private sector a person would
accumulate funds in his Contributory Provident Fund account, in which the
employer also adds a proportionate amount. As the CPF account is untouched
on resignation, the individual does not suffer enormously on moving from
one organization to the other. In the case of the IAS, officers are treated
like bonded labourers till the time they achieve 20 years of service. This
problem of unfairness in treatment is the most acute for officers between
15 and 20 years of service, who have to forego huge amounts of entitlements
and start at the bottom of the financial heap if they leave the job.
Whatever merit this rule may have had in British or earlier times, when
forced loyalty to the Government was perhaps required by the foreign rulers
of our country, in today's circumstances of an free and independent India,
penalizing a government servant so severely for his apparent "disloyalty"
to government exhibited by the act of leaving the job before completion of
20 years, amounts to gross injustice.
Against this background, it was welcome news that appeared in 1994
regarding a scheme to permit IAS officers to take voluntary retirement
after 10 years' of service (see photocopy of news item at Annexure I). It
now appears that that proposed scheme was thereafter shelved without a firm
decision being taken. I would like to suggest below some merits of such a
scheme, and request the Government to revive and reconsider this option for
those who are essentially reluctant bureaucrats. I see now that public
sector banks are recommending a VRS for employees with 15 years of service
or 40 years of age (see photocopy of news item at Annexure II). This letter
is being sent under this changing context.
1. Self-selection of better officers:
It is gathered informally that it was felt in 1994 that with early
voluntary retirement being made applicable to the IAS, some of the better
officers would leave the job. In my opinion, this might not be true today,
since very large batches were recruited between the late 1970s and the mid
1980s. Many such officers with 15 years of service and more are whiling
away their time today in relatively insignificant jobs across the country.
Becoming a Joint Secretary in the Government of India is getting to be a
distant dream for most, since even if they do get empanelled, vacancies are
scarce. Therefore, even if one third of these large batches are enabled to
quit, by lowering the service needed for voluntary retirement, I believe
that the country will not suffer one bit, but gain through reduced salaries
and pensions.
2. Redundancy of posts in State Governments:
In this connection, it is gathered that the Expenditure Reforms Committee
headed by Shri K.P. Geetakrishnan is going through various
Ministries/Departments with a tooth-comb in an effort to cut out the
"flab". Apparently, he has already recommended closure of several
Departments and is likely to recommend some major staff cut for most
Departments. Presently these excess employees are all placed in DOPT's
Surplus Cell till they are redeployed elsewhere, with DOPT paying their
salaries in the interregnum.
A similar study on the surplus officers in IAS could be carried out. I
gather that for the IAS, the Central Deputation Reserve (CDR) is 40% of the
cadre posts. This percentage was fixed about four decades ago and today
there are not that many Central Government posts to keep pace with the high
recruitment made in the late 70s and 80s. Since the CDR is an input for
computing the authorised strength in a cadre, there is a clear scope of
reducing this reserve to 20% today, thus freeing up many redundant IAS
officers for retirement.
3 a) Pension after 10 years' of service:
Even today, there is provision to pay pension to persons who have 10 years
service (for those who join service late). It is calculated on a pro rata
basis.
3 b) Deferred Pension:
Under the current rules, pension is allowed to persons who go from a
pensionable organisation to a non-pensionable organisation (like, say,
PSUs) and get absorbed there. If they are not eligible for pension at the
time of getting absorbed (that is, when their service is less than 20
years), the pension is calculated on a pro rata basis, but is actually paid
after the person has completed 20 years service (including some of the
service rendered in the new organisation.). Thus there exists the concept
of deferring pension payment till 20 years service would have been completed.
4. Solutions:
I therefore, request the Government to review its policy on the number of
years needed to seek voluntary retirement in the IAS and to permit officers
with 10 or more years of service to retire voluntarily. In such a case,
pension payment can be deferred to the time when 20 years of service would
have been completed.
The Fifth Pay Commission had made many recommendations for downsizing the
Government. It cited the example of Kerala which allows its employees to
remain on leave upto the completion of 20 years without pay to take up
employment within the country or abroad. On this analogy, the Pay
Commission recommended that employees may be allowed to seek employment
outside the Government and keep their lien for about 2 years by which time
they should be able to make up their mind whether to return to their jobs
or not. This could be explored.
Alternatively, a system like the CPF may be instituted so that recognition
by the employer (Government) of an officer's dedicated service is always
available in this account which can be utilized when the officer moves away
from one employer (Government) to another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform. debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives: ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------