Re-employment of or extension in the services of some favourite state employees on the pretext of administrative exigency is tantamount to throwing dust into the eyes of the public. Retirement of a government employee is not governed only by the principle of healthy discharge of official duties but also on making room for others who are waiting in the line. By denying others the chance of offering their talent, we deprive the overall civil administration of fresh blood and zestful cadres. Nearly 140 officials have been re-employed or given extension in their services during past three years. These unusual and much disliked re-employments/extensions have been made on the plea of administrative exigency but without specifying the nature and content of “administrative exigency”. The simple outcome of this act is that the chances of others waiting in line are denied and the public exchequer is unnecessarily forced to bear the extra expenditure.
Closer examination of these re-employments shows that the beneficiaries are not from essential cadres and ranks. Most of the favoured officials belong to lower rungs of administrative staff and are not at all indispensable. Included in the list of re-employed officials are Naib Tehsildars, Senior Assistants, Head Assistants, Private Secretaries, Horticulture Technicians, Audit Officials, Block Development Officers and Section Officers. Common sense is that none of these cadres can fall under the category of “administrative exigency”. What is more, even chauffeurs and machine operators also figure in the list. The simplest inference is that rank nepotism and favouritism are behind these re-appointments.
There is no justification in the Government taking such objectionable decisions. It leads to heartburning among various categories of civil employees. Our State is faced with large scale unemployment among the educated youth. All emphasis is on providing means of subsistence to them. Favouritism will intensify the anger of the youth, and thus add to the difficulties of the Government. How come a private secretary to a Minister falls under the head of administrative exigency when thousands of graduate and post-graduate degree holders are cooling their heels for even the lowest level job in the Government? How come a chauffer becomes administrative exigency when thousands of drivers are struggling with unemployment?
This is a serious case with the potential of landing the administration in trouble. We would, therefore, suggest that the Government acts swiftly and orders inquiry into this act of favouritism and contravention of established rules as a matter of impropriety. Responsibility has to be fixed and show cause notice given to the concerned parsons as to why legal action against the defaulters should not be initiated. That would be the second step, and the first step should be to immediately withdraw orders of re-employment of concerned officials, and proceed with enquiry into the case of those who have been favoured with extension. The rule of law has to be established. If rules and regulations are violated at the very source of the enforcing organization, one can imagine what will be the state of affairs when matters are handled by lower rungs of administration. It is a pity and contradiction in terms that on the one hand the government vehemently opposes raising the age of retirement of Government employees on the plea that the unemployed youth need to be given chance but on the other hand, it allows selective re-employment and extension to the favourites. This is dichotomy in Government’s policy and is fraught with grave consequences.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel