The government has been widely criticised for allegedly trying to stall the Federal Civil Service Bill even after it was presented in the plenary of the House of Representatives. Prior to this, the bill was endorsed by the concerned House committee.

Lawmakers from the opposition parties and other stakeholders came down heavily on the government after the agenda of tabling the bill for deliberations was not included in the fortnightly calendar of the House of Representatives published on Wednesday.

Opposition MPs have accused the government of trying to change the provision for a two-year cooling-off period included in the bill by the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee.

The provision restricts top bureaucrats from political appointments for two years after leaving office.

The bill passed by the committee on May 16 was presented in the House meeting on June 15 for further process.

A parliamentary discussion on the legislation was earlier scheduled for Tuesday. But it was removed from the agenda, allegedly due to pressure from government secretaries. Speaker Dev Raj Ghimire also adjourned the House meeting until Thursday to delay the discussion on the bill, a member of the House committee said.

When a fortnightly calendar was published on Wednesday, the agenda of the Federal Civil Service Bill was not included, hinting that the government is not ready to carry the bill forward without modifying the cooling-off provision.

After the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee of the House passed the Federal Civil Service Bill on May 16, top bureaucrats had intensified lobbying against the new clause in the bill barring retired government employees from political appointments for two years after leaving office.

Nepali Congress lawmaker Hridaya Ram Thani, also a member of the committee, argues that providing a cooling-off period has become essential. Its absence would encourage a civil servant to leave office before retirement for a political appointment. This provision was apparently included after concerns that senior bureaucrats look to appease politicians in order to secure political appointments post-retirement.

Thani also said that the provision of a two-year cooling-off period was incorporated in the bill based on suggestions from Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who now allegedly wants to backtrack on the provision already passed by the committee.

“There had been rigorous discussions within the committee on whether the retirement age for civil servants should be increased to 59 or 60 years,” Thani told the Post.

“The Public Service Commission had recommended gradually increasing the retirement age to 60 years over a period of three years–by adding six months in the upcoming fiscal year, one year the next year, and another six months in the third year,” he said.

At present, civil servants retire at 58 on age grounds. Considering the rising life expectancy of Nepalis, there were suggestions that the retirement age threshold too be increased. According to the World Bank, when the current civil service was introduced, the average life expectancy of Nepali people was 58 years, which had climbed to 70 by 2023.

“The prime minister conveyed his message to the committee through three ministers, repeatedly suggesting that the retirement age be kept at 59 years, with a two-year cooling-off period. We proceeded accordingly,” Thani added.

Speaking in the House on Thursday, Hit Raj Pandey, chief whip of the main opposition CPN (Maoist Centre), urged the tabling of the bill without further delay.

Similarly, Rajendra Pandey, deputy parliamentary leader of the CPN (Unified Socialist), claimed that the government was reconsidering the bill after secretaries threatened to tender their collective resignations.

“Even if 25 secretaries resign, new ones will be appointed. Vital policy decisions cannot be held back just because of the resignation threat,” Pandey said.

But Suresh Acharya, secretary at the Ministry of Energy, doesn’t buy the argument that the bill was stalled due to their pressure. He argues that the bill passed by a House committee can still be amended by the plenary of the lower house and also by the National Assembly. A bill becomes law only after both chambers of the federal parliament endorse it and the President then approves it.

Acharya argued that there is no reason for the secretaries to lobby against the bill, and once a bill enters parliamentary proceedings, no one can arbitrarily halt its progress.

However, he was quick to add that if the government intends to enforce a cooling-off period, it should not apply solely to civil servants. If such a provision is to be implemented, it must also apply to employees of other government agencies.

Not only opposition leaders, even Ram Hari Khatiwada, Congress lawmaker who chairs the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee, expressed his dissatisfaction over the government’s dilly-dallying in moving the bill forward.

Presenting the Bill to Amend the Citizenship Act in Thursday’s House meeting, he drew the government’s attention to the delay in advancing the civil service bill.

“I do not see the Federal Civil Service Bill included in today’s agenda,” Khatiwada said. “I hope it will soon be put on the agenda and passed.”

According to two ministers, the issue of cooling-off period was thoroughly discussed at the Cabinet meeting on Monday. The discussion centred on exploring alternative provisions for secretaries in case the cooling-off period mentioned in the Federal Civil Service Bill could not be removed.

During the Cabinet meeting, prime minister Oli was of the view that not all retired senior officials get political appointments and as such removing the two-year cooling-off period could be an option, said the ministers, quoting Prime Minister Oli.

“These points were discussed in the Cabinet as matters requiring careful consideration. It was also noted that the experience of civil servants at retirement may be irrelevant after a few years,” a minister told the Post. “Therefore, the discussion centred on whether appointments could be made in a manner that serves public interest.”

The Cabinet decided this matter should also be discussed among the top leaders of three major political parties.

Prime Minister Oli had indeed invited Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba and Pushpa Kamal Dahal, leader of the main opposition, to discuss the cooling-off period, among other national issues.

However, the top leaders could not meet on Wednesday as Dahal was in Chitwan. But the three did not meet on Thursday as well.

However, leaders from coalition partners Congress and the CPN-UML did meet. Prime Minister Oli was joined by Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel of the UML in the meeting. From the Congress, in addition to President Deuba, also present were Vice President Purna Bahadur Khadka, General Secretary Gagan Thapa, Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba, and Minister for Energy and Water Resources Deepak Khadka. Thapa was attending a two-party meeting after a long interval.

“Our discussion on Wednesday revolved around how to make the government’s functioning and delivery more effective, how to end the parliamentary obstruction and expedite the passage of bills, and recent political developments, including the budget,” Congress Vice President Khadka told the Post.

Khadka claimed that the nearly four-hour-long meeting saw discussions on various bills, but not the one involving the cooling-off period.

However, according to another leader privy to the discussion, the Civil Service Bill and the cooling-off period were the subject of discussion in the meeting.

“There is still no consensus on the cooling-off period,” the leader said. “A decision has yet to be made on whether the two-year period is appropriate.”