The Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs has raised serious constitutional and legal objections to a government proposal that would require civil servants to retire at the age of 55 or after completing 30 years of service, arguing that the provision unlawfully alters employment conditions guaranteed to serving employees.

Officials involved in reviewing the draft Federal Civil Service Bill say the retirement provision cannot be endorsed in its current form because it conflicts with both the Constitution and existing civil service law.

The Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives, Federal Affairs and General Administration, which drafted the bill, sent it to the law ministry on May 26 for legal vetting. More than a month later, the ministry has yet to return the draft, delaying the legislative process. The bill cannot proceed until it receives clearance from the Ministry of Law.

At the centre of the dispute is Clause 57 of the draft legislation.

Although the bill proposes raising the mandatory retirement age for future civil servants from the current 58 years to 60, it also includes a transitional provision requiring all serving employees who are already 55 years old or who have completed 30 years of service upon the law's entry into force to retire immediately.

The proposed measure is intended as a one-time arrangement. Civil servants who are not affected by this transitional retirement round would instead be subject to a mandatory retirement age of 60.

The draft further proposes that employees who turn 58 during the fiscal year in which the law takes effect would retire upon reaching 58. Under the existing Civil Service Act, mandatory retirement applies only after an employee reaches the age of 58.

If enacted without amendment, the provision would force thousands of serving civil servants to leave public service years earlier than the retirement age that applied when they entered government service.

A senior law ministry official said internal legal discussions had concluded that the proposal was inconsistent with constitutional and statutory protections.

“We have already informed Law Minister Sobita Gautam of our conclusions,” the official said. “The retirement provision is not the only concern. Several other provisions in the bill also appear inconsistent with the Constitution. We have submitted detailed comments to the minister.”

The draft has been examined by the ministry's secretary, joint secretaries and other senior legal officials.

“The Civil Service Bill is highly anticipated,” another official involved in the review said. “But the current draft contains numerous flaws. It is poorly structured and legally inconsistent. We have prepared clause-by-clause comments explaining what needs to be revised, the strengths and weaknesses of key provisions, and why certain sections conflict with the Constitution and existing laws.”

The ministry argues that forcing employees to retire before the age of 58 would effectively amount to the state unilaterally breaching the employment terms it agreed to when appointing civil servants.

“When the government appoints a civil servant, it guarantees specific service conditions, including salary, pension and retirement benefits,” one official said. “Those conditions cannot be reduced without the employee's written consent. The current proposal violates Section 58 of the Civil Service Act.”

Section 58 explicitly states that the salary, gratuity, pension and other service conditions applicable at the time of appointment cannot be altered to an employee's disadvantage without written consent. Even if the law is amended later, any adverse change cannot be applied to employees already in service unless they agree to it in writing.

Law ministry officials, therefore, argue that civil servants who joined the service with the legitimate expectation of retiring at 58 cannot legally be compelled to retire at 55 without their consent.

Officials have also cited constitutional principles protecting public office holders from arbitrary changes to their service conditions.

The Constitution specifically guarantees that the remuneration and service conditions of Supreme Court justices, the chief justice and constitutional office holders cannot be altered to their disadvantage except during a constitutionally declared economic emergency. Law ministry officials say the same constitutional principle should guide the treatment of all public servants.

“This provision did not exist in earlier constitutions,” an undersecretary at the ministry said. “Although the Constitution explicitly mentions judges and constitutional office holders, the underlying constitutional principle applies to all state employees. Nepal is not under a declared economic emergency, so reducing service conditions in a way that disadvantages employees cannot be justified.”

The ministry has not opposed the government's broader objective of reducing the size of the civil service or recruiting younger employees. However, officials say any downsizing must respect existing legal protections.

They have suggested that if the government wants employees to retire at 55, it should continue paying them the salary and retirement benefits they would have received until reaching the existing retirement age of 58. Another option would be to introduce a voluntary retirement scheme offering appropriate financial compensation instead of imposing compulsory retirement.

Current law recognises only one mandatory retirement threshold for civil servants: reaching the age of 58. Introducing either a lower retirement age or a maximum service period of 30 years would reduce the employment conditions originally guaranteed to existing staff, officials argue.

“The Constitution and the law do not permit that,” one official said. “Our job is simply to point out what the law says. We are not concerned with who drafted the bill or what their motives may have been. We assess it against the Constitution, domestic law and international practice.”

Officials have also questioned the fairness of the proposed transitional arrangement.

Under the draft, an employee who is already 55 on the day the law takes effect would be forced to retire immediately, while someone even one day younger could continue working until the new retirement age of 60.

“That would mean two employees with virtually identical circumstances are treated completely differently simply because of a single day's difference in age,” another official said. “It would create the impression that the state is harsh toward one group while being generous to another. The state should not operate that way.”

The officials acknowledged that the issue is ultimately a political decision and will be settled by the government rather than by bureaucrats.

The Public Service Commission has been recommending since 2010 that Nepal raise the retirement age for civil servants to 60.

Retirement ages across the public sector are already significantly higher in several institutions. Supreme Court justices and constitutional office holders retire at 65, while judges of district and high courts and university employees retire at 63. Health service personnel within the civil service have long retired at 60.

The law ministry has also warned that forcing thousands of civil servants into early retirement at once could impose a substantial financial burden on the state because of immediate pension and retirement obligations.

“We have submitted a comprehensive note covering every major issue in the bill,” one official said. “The minister is studying it. After discussions with her, we will develop the ministry's formal position before holding further consultations with the Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives, Federal Affairs and General Administration, which drafted the bill.”