There existed a deep conflict between my self-serving personal interests and the professional judgement. Being a university teacher, even though my scales and service conditions remained formally outside the purview of the FCPC, I knew that they would later be extended to me in some form or the other. I realised, however, that I was appointed to the FCPC in my professional capacity and there was need to over-ride personal interests. This may be kept in view in reading this note.... Retirement age
One major area where I differ with my colleagues relates to the age of retirement. My colleagues have recommended an increase in the age of retirement from 58 years currently to 60 years and are taking the credit annually for Rs 1,500 crore for two years had the employees retired at the age of 58 years at present. ...I am not in favour of this move and would like to maintain the status quo. My main reasons are as follows:
(i) The grounds mentioned in the report for raising the age of retirement ... would be legitimate only if the size of the government would be right. ...Overstaffing in the central government is conceded in the recommendations for 30 per cent reduction over the ten year period. By extending the age of retirement, the normal annual reduction due to this factor would be postponed by two years....
More From This Section
(ii) Secondly, the report rightly emphasises at various points that the role of the bureaucracy has to change from being a controller to a facilitator. This requires a drastic change in the mindset which becomes all the more difficult, the higher the age.(iii) Thirdly, there had been considerable expansion in the intake of new recruits in group A starting with the 1960s and gradually accelerating in the 1980s...According to the civil list (as on 1st January) the stock of directly recruited IAS officers with service of 30 years or more went up from 95 in 1981 to 170 in 1986, 289 in 1991 and 456 in 1996. This more than four-fold expansion in the matter of 15 years has resulted in (a) the clamour for the creation of additional high-level posts, (b) IAS officers occupying technical and other positions as parking places before getting regular postings; and (c) stagnation resulting in frustration. The number of secretary-level positions in the central government occupied by the IAS officers has indeed more doubled from 36 in 1984 to 74 in 1996. This is correctly criticised in the report...Para 47.24, therefore, recommends 30 per cent reduction in the authorised strength and filled in posts in the all India Services. While endorsing the recommendation wholeheartedly, it would be useful to point out that the problem of stagnation in the IAS is going to get progressively worse. The 1996 Civil List of IAS shows that... the following number of officers existed in the different intervals of experience:
Thus, even without an increase in the retirement age... there is going to be considerable overcrowding at the higher level....
In the foregoing arguments, I have not taken into account the life-time obligations in terms of pension and other post-retirement benefits. ...[the] deleterious long-term consequence of an increase in retirement age would far outweigh the illusory financial savings in the two years estimated to be Rs 1500 crore per year without any firm data base.