The Supreme Court’s pronouncement that the extension to the Chief Secretary of Delhi does not violate any rule turned a nail-biting thriller into a damp squib. When the apex court had questioned the Union of India asking, “Why can’t the CM and LG resolve the issue together?”, an impression was created that a new chief secretary must take over from the incumbent. Hours before he was to superannuate, the Centre granted Naresh Kumar a six-month extension, and the apex court said it found nothing wrong with that. As a result, the story of a beleaguered government getting bypassed fell flat.
The grant of extensions to top officers is nothing new and began years ago under the UPA government with a slew of cabinet secretaries, then home and Defence secretaries. This was done by changing the All-India service rules. Over the years, various state governments have also given extensions to Chief Secretaries – sometimes agreed to by the central government and sometimes by posing a fait accompli. The incumbent Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh was granted an extension in service just prior to his retirement as Urban Development Secretary and immediately dispatched to his current post and then given another extension.
Every government feels comfortable with known people, accustomed to understanding its priorities, capable of troubleshooting without rocking the boat and most importantly, holding up the edifice of government. A new person might be more brilliant, may think out of the box, and be willing to introduce new ways of doing things but by nature, the political executive, at the Centre or in the states, is status quoist. In any case, lighting fires is not a bureaucrat’s job. Topmost officers should be able to keep the fire that has been lit by political masters going — occasionally stoking it with the authority that position and proximity to power bestows. The top guns in any government must also find solutions, and hold the reins of a bureaucracy as it trots along, commanding it to break into a canter when needed. These men must second-guess what the political executive wants — attributes that newcomers will take time to master. And if the chemistry also works what is an extension here or there? In the larger scheme, those who govern have more to gain by giving extensions than run the risk of disrupting carefully laid plans with newcomers.
But there is another point of view. The members of the All-India Services are in a formal setup. Their recruitment, training, discipline, age of retirement and retirement benefits emanate from the All India Services Act. The Act does not acknowledge extensions as normal but the rules provide for exceptions. The Supreme Court is right in that a six-month extension to the Chief Secretary of Delhi does not violate any rule. In the exigencies of work, such extensions are already envisaged and in Delhi, the justification is apparent. The general elections are around the corner. In the case of Delhi, the legality of the 2023 amendment to the NCT Act, which determines whether the central government could have overturned a judgment of the Supreme Court and given authority over services to the Chief Minister, is still under consideration. Until the apex court gives its verdict, the law of the land gives authority to the Lieutenant Governor to control services – albeit through a convoluted system of consulting the Chief Minister. His recommendation on the continuance of the Chief Secretary is central to the decision.
Introducing a new argument, the Solicitor General of India said that the Chief Secretary of Delhi performs two kinds of functions. He reports directly to the Lieutenant Governor on entries 1, 2 and 18 of List II of the Constitution of India, which pertain to police, law and order and land. Whatever else he may do, he is answerable only to the central government for matters relating to these three entries, which form the core of any government. Hence, if the central government so chooses (as it has) to extend the services of the incumbent Chief Secretary, it has not only the authority but its own justification to continue with the officer, regardless of the Delhi government.
Had reports about Naresh Kumar indulging in corruption, involving a company where his son works, not queered the pitch, his extension may have gone through without anyone even noticing. Those allegations (promptly dismissed by the L-G) have unfortunately received credence in the public eye. So, when the Supreme Court entertained the petition of the Delhi government seeking the posting of a new Chief Secretary, it convinced us that an extension was ruled out. But it also created anxiety about the judiciary entering into what for decades has been a strictly administrative matter.
All chief secretaries of Delhi have invariably been appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is the cadre-controlling authority of IAS and IPS officers of the AGMUT cadre (to which now the J&K cadre has been added).
On a broader plane, that leaves the question of whether extensions per se are good. It is time the government thought over this practice. In 1998, the retirement age was increased from 58 to 60 years. In OECD countries, the global average retirement age for someone starting work at 22 years is around 64 years. There is now a compelling case for pushing up the retirement age to at least 62 years if not 64. The All-India Services are distinct and draw their existence from the Constitution of India. We should never have increased the age of entry beyond 24 years to what is now almost the mid-thirties. Second, the government should implement the provisions of FR 56(j) and compulsorily retire those whose record doesn’t measure up – not sporadically — but by using transparent benchmarks to cut out the deadwood, before it becomes a burden.
Whether extension in service is the only way of recognising the services of excellent officers, however, needs more thought and better optics.
The writer is a former Health Secretary and former Chief Secretary of Delhi
SC approves extension of Delhi Chief Secretary: Why governments keep their favourite bureaucrats
9
1
01.12.2023
The Supreme Court’s pronouncement that the extension to the Chief Secretary of Delhi does not violate any rule turned a nail-biting thriller into a damp squib. When the apex court had questioned the Union of India asking, “Why can’t the CM and LG resolve the issue together?”, an impression was created that a new chief secretary must take over from the incumbent. Hours before he was to superannuate, the Centre granted Naresh Kumar a six-month extension, and the apex court said it found nothing wrong with that. As a result, the story of a beleaguered government getting bypassed fell flat.
The grant of extensions to top officers is nothing new and began years ago under the UPA government with a slew of cabinet secretaries, then home and Defence secretaries. This was done by changing the All-India service rules. Over the years, various state governments have also given extensions to Chief Secretaries – sometimes agreed to by the central government and sometimes by posing a fait accompli. The incumbent Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh was granted an extension in service just prior to his retirement as Urban Development Secretary and immediately dispatched to his current post and then given another extension.
Every government feels comfortable with known people, accustomed to understanding its priorities, capable of troubleshooting without rocking the boat and most importantly, holding up the edifice of government. A new person might be more brilliant, may think out of the box,........
© Indian Express
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
