Pruning the deadwood

Extension of service beyond the age of superannuation will no longer be a right of the government employees. The government will decide wh...

Extension of service beyond the age of superannuation will no longer be a right of the government employees. The government will decide whether they are entitled to an extension up to the retirement age of 60. This follows from the decision of the Supreme Court on a petition filed by a judicial officer, who was denied extension after he attained the age of superannuation.

The ruling will have implications for millions of Central and state employees as it strikes at the root of security of tenure that government employees have always considered their birthright. Under the judgement, the government will be able to review individual cases and decide whether their services are beneficial and deserving of extension. Thus, the deadwood, the infirm, the incompetent and the dishonest can be sent home once they have turned 58. For most government staff, 58 is in any case the age of superannuation and therefore there is no injustice involved in not calibrating the age of superannuation and that of retirement.

It is a standard practice in the private sector to specify in the appointment letter that any extension of service beyond the age of superannuation is dependent on the mutual satisfaction of the employee and the employer.

The apex court is right when it considers superannuation as an appropriate occasion to remove from service those of doubtful utility. But the pertinent point is, should the government wait for so long? If a person is quot;deadwoodquot; or of quot;doubtful integrity and reputationquot;, why should it be bound to suffer that particular individual until he or she reaches the age of superannuation? The court has, therefore, willy-nilly justified the periodic review of the utility of government employees. Seen in this light, the judgement threatens the sense of job security government employees have long cherished.

For so long in fact that they have almost forgotten that security was provided to them in the first place only to ensure that they are able to discharge their duties without fear or favour. As the experiences during the Emergency clearly showed, despite all the security they enjoyed, few central and state employees had the courage of conviction to say no8217; to patently illegal and extra-governmental orders. Thus while ordinary people who should have been the real beneficiaries of this provision have not benefited, the corrupt and the incompetent have thrived because of it.

However, the judgment does raise some questions. Who, for instance, will decide whether an employee is quot;deadwoodquot; or of quot;doubtful integrityquot;? Can the matter be left entirely to the concerned individual8217;s boss or employer, who may not be impartial or unprejudiced? It is not uncommon in some states to find every departmental and district head, not to speak of the chief secretary and the police chief, being transferred the moment a new chief minister is sworn in. Similar tendencies are now visible even in the Central government. If security of service is withdrawn from the employees, it will be easy for governments to remove those whom they consider irksome or inconvenient. If anything, all this underlines the need to set up sufficient checks and balances within the system to ensure that only the truly dispensable or corrupt get eased out, not the courageous and the committed.