Whispers Forum

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.)

DEBATE (1)
There is no sense in raising the retirement age. Present age is sufficient. Government should get the maximum out the existing staff. This should continue with new and young employees. The population of our country is such that increasing the retirement age makes no sense. Young should get the opportunity for proving their efficiency.
Pankaj Kumar
DEBATE (2)
I don’t understand why people lack basic knowledge of common sense, forget about law, economics or polity. It is absurd comments like raising retirement age will deny jobs to youth which creates doubts in uneducated masses. Be thoughtful of ur comments (read data, analyse and not just say things) and site must moderate.
LA

DEBATE (1)
There is no retirement age in the US. Why it can’t be in India ?
Raj Kishore
DEBATE (2)
Raise in retirement age will deny jobs to the young generation
L S Pandit
Promotion of 1986 Batch of IAS Officers as Secretaries
It is an important day when many IAS Officers of 1986 Batch and my foundation day friends have been promoted to the post of Secretary or equivalent in different Ministries, or Departments or Organisations. I congratulate all of them and wish them all the best.
A. K. Verma, ISS(Retd.)

DEBATE (1)
Age should be raised but without affecting the job prospects of the new generation.
Dr Bansal
NITI Ayog in Place of Planning Commission- A Major Leap forward to achieve Good Governance
NITI Ayog formation is a major leap forward in bringing about systemic reforms in India to achieve desirable goals of socio-economic development. Planning Commission had become a dumping place for protégés & favorites who conducted meetings without any concrete output. Annual ritualistic meetings with State CMs individually were waste of time & money because thumb rule of 10% hike over preceding year’s fund allocation remained as the basis rather than State’s requirement. On the other hand the structure and objectives of NITI Ayog indicate continuous involvement of State CMs as members of the Central Governing Body as also members of respective Zonal Councils. In this way, not only will diversity & specificity of each State be kept in view but relative conditions of the State in the national context will enable fix priorities in the right order. Provision for involvement of experts from universities/R&D institutions in rotational manner will provide professional strength with less expenditure than what Planning Commission was spending on large permanent fleet of experts. Success of NITI Ayog, however, critically depends upon the effectiveness/commitment/ dedication/flair,knowledge & experience of the CEO+ others in the Secretariat to provide requisite support to Governing Council in driving forward with speed despite imminent bureaucratic resistance like it happened in Disinvestment process. Premature dissenting outcry against this noble idea is either political rhetoric or inability to visualize fruitful outcome in the form of real good governance.
KK Gupta,Retd.IFS(HP:1971)
Formerly Secretary(NCST)Govt of India

Information regarding the dates and value of debit of certain DEPB License was denied under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act claiming that the third party had objected to the disclosure of information. The CIC referred to Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, as per which where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the PIO is expected to communicate the reasons for such rejection. The Third Party submitted that the Appellant was mis-utilizing the RTI forum to settle his personal disputes. It was further stated that the Company had many overseas clients and if the information was provided then there was a possibility of misappropriation of information for the personal benefit of the Appellant which could cause numerous litigation between the directors and overseas clients. Moreover at the time of filing the RTI application, the Appellant was a disqualified Director not holding any post in the Company. The CIC held that the mere claim of the Customs that the third party had denied the disclosure of information cannot be a ground for denial of information under the RTI Act.
Comments
In the case of Dy. Commissioner of Police v. D.K. Sharma, WP (C) No. 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010, the Delhi High Court held that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act, the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. The mere fact that a criminal case is pending may not by itself be sufficient unless there is a specific power to deny disclosure of the information concerning such case. Hence, a PIO should be careful while passing an order and ensure that a speaking order is passed which gives due justification for denial of information.
Citation: Mr. Dipak S. Mehta v. Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Import – II) New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCUM1/A/2018/166143-BJ, Date of Decision: 05.07.2019
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)
If retirement age is raised it will affect the employment prospects of the young generation.
R T Goel
Creating nuisance for the ruling party
The insistence of the opposition on the Prime Minister to personally speak and deny what Trump attributed to him was just to create some nuisance value for the ruling party. Every one knows that Donald Trump is a compulsive liar. So much so that one newspaper in Washington has been keeping record of the lies he has spoken since he became President. The number exceeds 10000 i.e 12 lies a day. Why should we believe him what he said about Prime Minister Modi. Knowing the Prime Minister, no one can accept that he would ask Trump to mediate on Kashmir. Trump's made up story was to please Imran Khan. External Affairs Minister Shri Jaishankar categorically made it clear that no such request was made by the Prime Minister. As far as PM not speaking, it is wise to do so as there is a question of delicate relationship between two countries. To avoid offence to Trump by not exposing his lie is the correct approach. Sometimes silence is the best form of diplomacy.
Aarti Khosla

DEBATE (1)
.
The retirement age should be increased to 62 years. The following points support it.
· The life expectancy is increased for men as well as women and will continue to increase. People are fit to work even after 60.
· The fertility rate has been declined. India's population is expected to grow under 0.5 per cent during 2031-41 due to decline in fertility rate as explained in the Economic Survey. In future there may be gap or shortage of staff. To combat the situation, the retirement age cannot be abruptly increased to 70 year. So we have to increase it gradually at least by 2 years right now and review it after 5 year.
· Due to ageing population and increasing pressure on pension funding, it is inevitable to raise the pensionable retirement age.
· At the time of retirements, retirement benefits like Gratuity, PF fund, leave compensation etc. are given to employees. Huge money is given to few people who are retiring. By increasing the age this expenditure can be deferred by the Government. This fund can be utilised in developmental schemes. This will help in cutting Government expenditure.
· More number of years in service means less saving to arrive at the same corpus at the time of retirement. It will imply more expenditure by the employees. It will create more demand of consumable items that will lead to boost manufacturing, services sectors.
· This will affect the job opportunity for younger is a big MYTH only. Because as discussed above it will give boost to services and manufacturing sectors. It will create jobs avenues in these sectors.
Anuradha Sharma

DEBATE (1)
Retirement age should be raised. It is needed because of longevity in life.
R K Dube
“Trump ki Dadagiri”
Could Trump, the most powerful man on earth, speak a lie ? Can Trump Indulge in double-talks ? Sample some questions.
Was there no prior briefing by his officials before meeting with Imran Khan ? Trump did not even spare UK's ambassador to the US, seeking his repatriation. He is unpredictable, impulsive and diplomatically naïve.
May be, Trump is upset with India for imposing heavy import duties on American products. India was marginalised during Afghanistan talks while China, Pakistan, Russia and the US were associated. All this left Trump totally confused. At least, so it seems.
Could PM Modi suppress the truth ? Is his silence diplomatic ? Parliament mei hangama hota rahega ? But, India must hit back and keep its self-esteem intact.
Modi's " Mei chup rahoonga ", doctrine will not work. He must speak up and set the entire controversy at rest. Sending a strong signal to the US is more important than taking things lying down. Hopefully, he does so, sooner than later.
All things considered, Pakistan may not get a single penny as aid from the US. He will return empty-handed.
A K Saxena (A former civil servant)

DEBATE (1) Retirement age
Raising the retirement age is not only a good idea but is infact required, considering the fact that due to the developmental trajectory followed by India requires the plans churned out so far are put into practice. The merit of the sustainable ideas is not slave to the computer age and digitalisation, they are infact timeless. Since they have ripened now and therefore can be implemented in full force by those very people who formulated them. The level of development and knowledge that one requires to assimilate has also increased and so the carreers take off much later than they used to in earlier times. Further the life expenctancy has also increased. This requires more money to be saved and retiring the government servants at 60 would be unfair to them on this count too.
Balraj Joshi
Ravi is not the lone IPS cadre governor
Telangana state present governor ESL Narsimhan (1968 batch) is also an IPS officer. Hence RN Ravi (IPS) is not the lone IPS cadre governor.
Vishwanath

DEBATE (1)
If retirement age is raised it’s good because of longewity factor.But at the same time employment would be zero during the next two years.
G S Mathur
Compared To Other Countries?
Deriving comfort by comparing tax rates with other countries is like comparing grapes with berries. In matters of honouring contracts India stands at 185th position as compared to other countries. Can the country achieve the status of an economic superpower with such a record of contracts? Contracts form the backbone of business. They comprise the base of all business/industry. They mean transparent governance, clean administration, fast delivery of judicial remedies. Here everyone is cheating everyone else. The phrase skill development gives birth to thousands of institutions/training centres etc. imparting skill development as if it is a smartphone like gadget to fulfill all the needs of the aspirant. Conning is the more profitable business in India, unlike other countries, than honouring contracts. Nations can become economic superpowers if they acknowledge the value of wealth and wealth creators. We swing between two extremes: wealth is Maya and so be abhorred & Dhanam Moolam Idah Jagat. The Maya doctrine has ruined Indian economy by delivering anti-rich budgets since 1950. For a 5 T economy, the precept given by the Indian political-economist Chanakya is to be the guide. Chanakya was no Nobel Laureate, but is relevant to India. Other countries have industrialised and can pursue policies taxing the super-rich but are the super-rich of India comparable with them? We consider 500 crore as super-rich category, which is less than the price of one Rafale fighter jet whose sound is so loud that it makes young Indians in politics uncomfortable. Similarly, 5 lakhs is supposed to be a great concession whereas dog pedigrees in India fetch a higher price than 5 lakhs and an affordable house is a guarantee for poverty for the next 3 generations. We have to invest in research and development at a higher rate than national highways/port etc. Neglect of the high employment potential soft power and culture is not correct. Antrix may generate good commerce, but the country also needs skilled mass scale employment opportunities. We can’t afford to procrastinate anymore.
M L Gupta

Whose Retirement ?
There is different retirement age for different categories: some secretaries retire after 62. Similarly, many scientific officers go beyond 60 years. Judges retirement is no secret. There are the “bada log” who don’t retire till they retire from this world. They get 5 years’ tenure before they even vacate the official residence. They continue as they are superbly skillful, though many are continued for valid reasons too (like the Hon’ble External Affairs Minister etc.). But there are many smart guys who seek voluntary retirement. Then there are those at the bottom of the pyramid, who also have a longer tenure than 60 years. In these circumstances, who is left out? Moral of the story: if 60 was not enough, 62 will not be! Santoshi sada sukhi.
M L Gupta
Is Pakistan’s global discomfiture any cause for celebration by India ?
ICJ’s ruling on Kulbhushan Jadhav in our favour, is no doubt, a defining moment. A victory for international human rights. Kudos to Harish Salve for his historic presentation in the court, a lawyers’ delight.
But, for India, it may be too premature to celebrate the verdict. It is going to be a long drawn-out process for India, lasting several years.
While putting Jadhav’s death penalty on hold, the ICJ has directed Pakistan to allow consular access to him. He can move a plea for review of military Kangaroo court’s verdict on his execution.
The matter is not as simple as it is made out by Indian media especially TV channels. Pakistan is celebrating the verdict as the accused is still under their custody. No wonder, the frustrated Pakistan will make all out efforts to delay the process of implementing court’s verdict on flimsy grounds.
The ICJ is silent about transferring the case from Pak’s Kangaroo court (which had awarded death penalty to Jadhav) to a civilian court. Pakistan is a military state and not a democracy.
Its military can go to any extreme in obfuscating the legal issues before its captive military court. It will continue to treat Jadhav as a spy.
We cannot expect a fair trial from Pak’s military courts.
Will international pressure alone work on a rogue state like Pakistan? Jadhav case may linger on in Pakistani courts for years. Never expect Pakistan to return Jadhav to India on a platter.
Worse, the wounded Pakistan is bound to escalate with vengeance its terror activities in India This calls for a disproportionately heavy (not matching) military response from India.
The bottom line is: India cannot get Jadhav released by Pakistan through legal and diplomatic efforts alone. Building international opinions in our favour, is important in world politics. But, will power of public opinions influence Pakistan’s decision ?
What will happen if the Pakistani military court decides after review to convert Jadhav’s death sentence into life sentence for 14 years?
Let us take lessons from history. International military sanctions may not help. India, ultimately, will have to respond to Pakistan’s Armed Forces in their own lingo, if experiences in the past is any guide.
A K Saxena (A former civil servant)