Streamlining the bureaucracy
THE chief adviser, while addressing the top bureaucrats a few days back, put emphasis on a comprehensive reform program for civil services to streamline administrative methods, speed up processes and cut red tape.
He also asked them to overcome partisan concerns and concentrate on holding free, fair and credible upazila and parliament elections.
The secretaries present in the meeting suggested ways to improve the standard and restore the image of public services with the immediate implementation of the following:
- Forming a pay commission;
- Raising the retirement age of public servants from 57 years to 60 years;
- Forming a recruitment commission;
- Renunciation of the rule for compulsory retirement after completion of 25 years of services;
- Opening up positions for placement in the UN system and inclusion in peace keeping missions;
- Framing of a legal regulatory framework for all promotions and postings of civil servants, replacing the present ad-hoc rules;
- Protection from the law in discharging services under pressure;
- Pension benefit up to 100 percent.
Some of the issues are pending resolution for quite a long time, of which change in the retirement age tops the list. The Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974 Clause 4 states: "A public servant shall retire from service on the completion of the fifty-seventh year of his age."
Since 1974, there have been many movements for reviewing this act, but to no effect. A general notion has been established that politicians do not like a strong bureaucracy with wide experience.
On the other hand, Clause 5(3) of the same act, prohibiting re-employment but giving an opportunity for contract service after retirement, has been applied in many cases.
The demand for the review of the retirement age was tabled time and again in view of the enhancement of life expectancy.
Besides, the age of retirement in India has been fixed at 59, while in Pakistan and SriLanka it has been raised to 60 years, considering the benefits of services from experienced bureaucrats.
In our country, too, the retirement age of judges has been increased to 76, while for teachers it has been revised to 65 to get the benefit of experience and wisdom.
More precisely, a person cannot have wide experience of serving at the policy level if he cannot render service for at least 30 years -- 20 years at the field level and 10 years at the decision making ministry level.
A person cannot get this opportunity if he enters service at the age of 30, as provided now, and a freedom fighter entering service at the age of 32 can hardly get the opportunity of servicing for 25 years. Thus, the canon of justice demands review of the retirement age as suggested by the bureaucrats.
How can this provision of the act be changed without the promulgation of an Ordinance, or in the absence of the parliament?
In fact, the constitution provides enough authority to the president to decide the tenure of service in the republic. The president might consider promulgating an Ordinance considering the justification of the same.
At the same time, the provision of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974, Clause 9(2), for the compulsory retirement of a public servant at any time after completion of twenty-five years of service, without assigning any reason, needs to be reviewed immediately.
This provision has been exercised with political motives on different occasions and, therefore, needs to be repealed to ensure security of job for a bureaucrat.
It is also contradictory to Article 135 (2) of the constitution, providing opportunity for making a statement of defence against any accusation/allegation.
The Services (Reorganisation and Conditions) Act of 1975 is the mother law governing the power of the government to reorganise services of the republic and public bodies or national enterprises.
Bangladesh Civil Services (Reorganisation) Order, 1980 was issued in exercise of the powers conferred under this act of 1975. A legal regulatory framework for all postings and promotions could be considered under this act, keeping in view Article 133 of the constitution, and also in consultation with the Public Service Commission as provided under Article 140 of the constitution.
The visible discrimination in promotions and postings has generated resentment, and a demand was placed time and again for framing a transparent framework governing the management of this aspect of civil service.
In fact, there were repeated allegations about changes in promotion criteria during different regimes to accommodate blue-eyed boys and most obliging bureaucrats in important places of postings.
Protection from the law, for any action under pressure, was also an issue discussed many times before. There is a difference of opinion on creation of new rules to protect public servants from prosecution on the plea that they discharge certain duties under duress.
A school of thought is of the view that pubic servants are well protected under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 and the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980. Some are of the view that such a law might give public servants too much room to manipulate and twist the provisions of the Rules by availing the opportunity for protection.
There are many reasons, however, to address issues raised by top bureaucrats to streamline the administration and ensure good governance in the rank and file.
Sheer negligence toward such issues is gradually compounding the discontent and discouraging diligent and dutiful bureaucrats from discharging their responsibilities with dedication and devotion.
It is high time to address these issues neutrally, with a vision to build a better bureaucratic structure in the country for efficient governance.
Therefore, adequate attention should be given to making necessary reforms and developing an effective bureaucracy in the country. A pay and services reorganisation commission should be established to address the issues raised by the top bureaucrats of the country.
Comments