KATHMANDU, July 2: Lawmakers from the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee of the parliament have claimed that the controversially altered cooling-off period provision in the Federal Civil Service Bill 2024, which was passed by the House of Representatives on Sunday, was intentionally modified by bureaucrats who were against the provision.
The clause 82 sub-clause 4 of the bill sets a two-year ‘cooling-off period’ for retired government employees, restricting them from taking constitutional or governmental positions. However, sub-clause 5 of the same clause mentions that civil servants of secretary and joint secretary levels can still take such positions.
Chairperson of the committee Ramhari Khatiwada opined that the introduction of the contradictory sub-clause is an intentional act by the bureaucracy which had been pressurizing the government to redact the cooling-off period provision from the bill.
The controversial sub-clause 5 was initially presented as sub-clause 4, but was replaced with the current sub-clause 4 after it faced criticism in the parliament. According to members of the State Affairs Committee, which approved the amendment of the bill prior to its presentation on Sunday, the committee members had unanimously decided to redact the erstwhile sub-clause 4 which nullifies the much-hyped provision related to the cooling-off period barring retired civil servants from taking other high-profile positions within two years of retirement.
National Assembly moves to include cooling-off period in Federa...
“The re-introduction of the sub-clause is not a minor issue,” Lawmaker Khatiwada told Republica, “The committee clearly amended sub-clause 4 and unanimously redacted the previous provision. In such a scenario, the sub-clause 5 should have never been mentioned in the amended bill.”
“To keep the committee in the dark about the re-introduced provision which was rejected by the committee is a mala fide intention of the bureaucrats involved in drafting the final version of the bill,” Khatiwada added, “This issue needs to be investigated and the people involved in undermining the parliamentary system need to punished accordingly.”
While some members of the general public have been claiming that lawmaker Khatiwada re-introduced the sub-clause without the consent of the State Affairs Committee, members of the committee have confirmed that the committee had, in fact, redacted the controversial sub-clause
Lawmaker Buddhiman Tamang, who is from the opposition Rastriya Prajatantra Party, confirmed that the committee had unanimously decided to redact the erstwhile sub-clause 4.
“Some quarters of the general public have started blaming MP Khatiwada claiming that sub-clause 5 was overlooked and not discussed in the committee meeting,” MP Tamang told Republica, “However, it is important to note that the committee had, in fact, deliberated on the issue and decided to redact the contradictory provision in its entirety.”
Tamang accused Finance Secretary Ghanshyam Upadhyaya, Federal Affairs and General Administration Secretary Rabilal Pant and Chief Secretary Eak Narayan Aryal of altering the bill before it was passed by the HoR. All of the three top-level civil servants who seemingly interfered with the parliamentary process had been reportedly lobbying to remove the cooling-off period provision as it would affect their post-office aspirations of constitutional and diplomatic appointments.
“The bureaucracy had been repeatedly attempting to remove the cooling-off period provision as it would restrict their post-office employment opportunity,” lawmaker Tamang said, “And the State Affairs committee had sent the amended bill to them for final drafting. It is clear who altered the bill without the parliament’s consent.”
Legal experts echoed both of the MPs' claim that the modification of the bill was not an error from the bureaucracy but an intentional action from people involved in the final drafting of the bill.
Senior Advocate Radheshyam Adhikari slammed the intentional move stating that such an act is regrettable in the parliamentary system as it derails parliamentary practice.
“The bill was passed by keeping the HoR in the dark about the alteration,” Adhikari told Republica, “The detrimental interference, seemingly by the bureaucracy, must be investigated thoroughly to set a right precedent in the parliament.”
