Whispers Forum

DEBATE (1)
The Government of India should lay emphasis on generating jobs instead of raising age specially for deadwoods. The decision to increase retirement age to 62 years will deprive the jobless youths of services in this burgeoning population.
Sunil Kumar
DEBATE (2)
Brandon's comments on retirement age is unwarranted and cannot be implemented as it will open a pandora's box and also uneasiness among Government employees. He is easily saying this because he is a retired man. Why could he not suggested this when he was in service?
Seth
Way out ?
I think of late the senior officers have taken to this route to save their skin .What is the way out ?
Karan Singh Shekhawat
C.A.T. has no meaning
Your news item on July 9, 2019 regarding closure of C.A.T., has definitely created flutter in the circles of Advocates and those who are working in this Organization. I don’t know as to what is it at the back of the Prime Minister's mind but continuation of C.A.T. is only a burden on the government as the ratio of expenditure to income is approx. 6000 to 1 and also that decrease in its status after L.Chandrakumar's case in 1992, continuation of C.A.T., is only an eye wash and nothing prominent is being done. Hence, closure of C.A.T. is the best way to tackle with the decreased status. Further, 60% of the orders are challenged before the High Court and the government itself is not satisfied with the orders of C.A.T. which means that the government has no confidence in the organization. Hence, continuation of C.A.T. has no meaning and I feel that closure is the only way that this can be managed.
Lakshmi Narayan A V

DEBATE (1)
I am to refer to your debate on the increase of retirement from 60 to 62 years and to say that I will be benefitted by the same as I would be retiring in 2033 instead of 2031. However, I strongly believe that though the mortality rate has increased, it does not mean that man does not get effected by aging. Aging is a process of life and one has to respect the age. After 55 years of age, the stiffness, sternness and muscular power deteriorate. Hence, irrespective of mortality rate the retirement age as fixed earlier i.e., 58 years should be maintained. The government always enjoys the prerogative of appointing the experts on consultant basis so that their expertise can be utilized for the benefit of the government. Increase in the retirement age always increases the burden of the government by paying salaries while to the retirees, it would be paying less than 1/3rd of the salary being paid. Hence, I strongly oppose the increase of retirement age to 62 and put forth my desire that it should instead be reduced to 58 years.
Lakshmi Narayan A V
DEBATE (2)
Say NO to increase in retirement age from 60 to 62. I fully agree with the comments of Ravi
Nagasurya
Wow, ICS officer completing 100 years !
It is great to see one of our ICS officer has completed century and still going strong. Wish him many many more happy years.
G Manmadhan Pillai

The appellant had sought a copy of the report submitted by the Government of Maharashtra regarding investigation of 7/11 bomb blast case at Mumbai. The appellant further sought a copy of the report/dossier submitted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year2009 regarding investigation of Indian Mujahideen group related to 7/11 bomb blast case. The appellant emphasized that the disclosure of the information sought for would serve the purpose of larger public interest as the disclosure would ensure justice to the innocent.
The State Govt. of Maharashtra declined to provide the information to the appellant on the ground that the Anti-Terrorist Squad was exempted from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that investigation in the matter was ongoing since 15-20 accused including foreign nationals are yet to be arrested. Thus, the disclosure of information was not warranted in accordance with Section 8 (1) (h) and Section 8 (1) (a) of the Act since access of information by the public including the perpetrators of the offence can prejudicially affect the sovereignty, integrity and security of the nation. The CIC ruled that keeping in view the sensitivities involved in the matter as also the factual position narrated by the respondent, no further intervention is warranted.
Comments
In case of taking a decision about disclosure of investigation findings, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Ajay Madhusudan Marathe v. Sanjukta Ray and Ors, W.P. (C) 1464/2013 Decided On: 05.03.2013 would be relevant. It was held that the area in respect of which information is sought, could have security implications and the judgment in this regard is best left to the wisdom of the agencies concerned, who are tasked with the responsibility of sifting such information and thereafter arriving at a conclusion one way or the other.
Citation: Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui v. CPIO, O/o Internal Security, Division-I (IS VI Desk), Ministry of Home Affairs in Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2017/166137, Date 31.07.2019.
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

DEBATE (1)
Persons who are in favour of increasing the retirement age are only those with vested interest. They must be having very nice time in office where they are working with less work. Indirectly, they also must know that someone will be overworked because of them. Also many of them are enjoying with their personal business by using the office as a launch pad. These persons certainly will be reluctant to retire even if they are asked to do so at the time of attaining superannuation at the age of 60.
Ravi
“Liberation of Indian Muslim Women”
The passage of Triple Talaq bill by Rajya Sabha makes the pronouncement of instant oral talaq or talaq-e-biddat void and illegal, criminalizing it as a cognizable offence punishable upto three years in jail.
A historic win for nine crores Indian Muslim women. A landmark achievement by PM Modi for his determination and persistence in fighting the unholy alliance between misguided muftis and politicians. A milestone in the quest for gender justice; a moment of satisfaction for the entire country. A historic fallacy has been ultimately corrected through Parliamentary legislation, consigning the weird medieval practice to the dustbin of history. This will give the Indian Muslim women the dignity they deserve.
Where is “ the intolerance gang of 49 pseudo-liberals who had recently written to PM on the “Lynchistan” affair, screaming that their freedoms and the minorities were under threat? Strangely, none of the morons hailed the emancipation of Indian muslim women from the vicious medieval practice. Their silence is baffling ; confirms their hypocrisy.
Abstentions and walk-outs by the Opposition MPs helped in passage of bill in Rajya Sabha. The Opposition has charged the ruling dispensation of clandestinely manipulating the listing of triple talaq bill for voting. This shows how much divided the so-called Maha-gathbandhan is.
The misogynistic muftis and self- styled Islamic scholars must get used to new protocol, while others open windows of their medieval mindsets. Earlier, the better.
The Media must immediately report instances of violation for investigation by the Police and filing the FIR. Monitoring cells must put maulvis , muftis and the filthy-rich Sheikhs from the middle east, under surveillance against indulging in unethical practices.
A K Saxena (A former civil servant)

DEBATE (1)
In US there is no population problem. Secondly, the quality of population is more superior than that in India. Therefore, there is no retirement age there. Here, it would be silly to think about that because all have to live, not only a particular section of pupulation.
Pankaj Kumar
DEBATE (2)
Raising retirement age will be a positive step if taken. Many areas like judiciary, education, scientific organisations have varying retirement age from 62 to 65 yrs. Taking advantage of the past experience is not a bad idea. Varying retirement ages do not have logic also. Director-CBI can work up to 62 yrs but same person if made DG-Homeguard, he will have to relinquish it as there retirement age is 60 yrs only. Therefore, if a judge (SC) or VC (of Central University) can contribute with his experience, why people of services of other departments can't contribute. One argument put forth is reduction in the job opportunities for young generation. However, if properly surveyed, one will find that strength of staff have reduced in practically 90% of the departments what it was 10-15 yrs earlier. It means these have not been filled up proportionately with the retiring numbers. With proper management, job opportunities will not be lost. In addition, retirement age across one domain should be uniform throughout the country. If VC of Central University can work up to 65 yrs, why can't VC of state university, if CJI of SC can work up to 65 yrs, why can't judge of high court up to 65 yrs. Many PSUs still have retirement age of 58 yrs.
V K Pandey
Will ' whispersinthecorridors ' throw some light as to when DOPT will issue orders for grant of HAG NFU for 1988 batch Group A organised services which is due since April 9, 2019 ? It is unnecessarily being delayed.
One visitor
If CAT is abolished then how will the central government employees take remedy against arbitrary decisions taken against them ?
Anjali

DEBATE (1)
Retirement age should not be increased rather, it should be decreased to enhance chances for employment for unemployed young generation.
Sundar Lal Gautam
DEBATE (2)
It is not about age or life expectancy. It is all about vision and performance. Public servants can become deadwood at 40, some may become cynics by 50 and some may have the zest and quest for action even at 70. The bold and brave government must decide matters with surgical precision and perfection. Make 50 the age of retirement to allow people to leave and work elsewhere. Those who wish to continue must clear a proficiency and performance test conducted only by the UPSC as mandated by the Constitution for the IAS and Allied services and a Screening Committee for others twice at age 50 and 60. Those who clear this can continue till 65. This two-step process will energize and reward the performers and cut out the deadwood. Such a Civil Service reform is long overdue.
Rohit R Brandon, IAS (1981- Retd.)