September 19, 2004

Granting extension to retired military men on civilian posts suggests a huge failure of governance and leaves the deserving civil servants utterly crestfallen

THE new prime minister, with his cabinet of 59, is now comfortably placed to run the affairs of the state with adequate help from his colleagues in politics. But before he had even settled down, there came a report that he had granted his first extension. Knowing the lack of speed with which a summary moves, it is impossible to believe that it was his decision. He only appears to have vetted a decision handed down to him by his appointing authority. One is sure that given a free hand this particular extension would not have been granted.

The person concerned is a retired general and this is not the first civilian job he has held since his retirement one doesn’t remember when. Congratulations to him for achieving such a feat. But his happiness must hide a heap of sorrows and sadness with which civil servants would receive this news having given their life at serving their careers to the best of their abilities and to sustain this great department, which still manages to carry ordinary letters to the intended destinations.

The destroyed careers of civil servants of the department, who had legitimate expectancy to retire from the highest position in the department, impose an enormous cost on the motivation of the serving civil servants. One has to meet them to know the depth of despondency and dejection they have touched. With morale at an all time low, the performance of the departments cannot be exemplary. There is a large number of departments, which have become a preserve of the retired military officers.

Grant of extensions to the military personnel or civilians symbolizes a great failure of governance. That is why the government is at pains to hide the truth. Recently, in an answer to a question from the somnolent Senate, the government furnished a list of 70 such officers as had been re-employed over the last five years. One had the leisure of going through the list to see which people had stubbornly refused to fade away and continued to hang on to public perks whatever it cost in terms of their remaining personal self-respect. The result was a startling discovery. That the list was not complete and was either a slipshod effort on the part of the department concerned or a deliberate ploy to downplay the enormity of the situation where extensions are granted literally at the drop of a hat. We are back to the Zia era when no one was allowed to retire. One finance secretary broke all records by having served to the ripe age of 70.

There is this case of senior official appointed by this government who was granted two extensions in a row on the same job and finally appointed to a provincial service commission. He nurses an eternal regret at the fact that the term in that commission is only three years, unlike five in the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). One wishes him another term at the commission and that will more than compensate for the loss of two years.

Another official who served during the period when Benazir headed the government was appointed to the FPSC after a few months. He continued to serve unless Nawaz Sharif’s government was seized, and he was appointed to the National Security Council as the ‘best representative’ of his province. Under the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance 1977, “On ceasing to hold office a member shall not be eligible for further employment in the service of Pakistan.” Well, rules and statutes are violated day in and day out. There was this case of an administrator who was appointed to the KMC while he was still serving in the provincial public service commission. When the council had to be reformed and purged of its civilian content, he was rewarded with a cushy job as chairman of a moribund organization, which should have been abolished as soon as Zia had seized power, because its role finished with his arrival on the scene.

When a vacancy occurred in a high profile job, he was appointed to this semi-judicial job for four or five years. Ironically, the Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly had recognized him for his role in the infamous five helicopters’ purchase case, and recommended prosecution. The helicopters never arrived although $1.1 million had been paid.

A large number of federal secretaries have also been re-employed in the recent past. One could go on and on, and a pattern would seem to emerge that re-employment is once again the rule, rather than an exception.

One would normally assume that each government has its own set of favourite civil servants. But that is not true. The genus of civil servants who manage to creep into the good graces of one government are equally adept at doing it with another. This policy of succumbing to the temptation of not refusing extension because they have been working with you is an important element of failure in the much acclaimed good governance, which the present government proclaimed as one of its achievements after having replaced a duly elected constitutional set up some five years back.

In neighbouring India, they are so careful and cautious in avoiding to re-employ a retired civil servant that a deviation receives national attention and equally forceful condemnation.

India is the largest democracy and Pakistan the largest military dictatorship — other dictatorships being Myanmar and Guinea-Bissau. Dissimilarities in quality of governance, or the lack of it, are startling. There was this case of chief secretary, Uttarpardesh (UP) A P Singh. He was 1967-IAS officer and was due to retire on October 31, 2003. Over the objections of cabinet secretary, Kamal Pandey, the then prime minister of India Atal Behari Vajpayee extended his service for three months. Three months! The fellow should have died of shame. One knows of an officer of elite service of Pakistan who begged and got only six months extension from an upright prime minister, Muhammad Khan Junejo. The difference is that in Pakistan the extension would have been for at least a year, if not two, and the recent trend is for an indefinite period until further orders. But there is more to the story than meets the eye.

A P Singh was not an ordinary officer because he was mired in controversy from the very beginning of his appointment as chief secretary only two months before the controversial extension. Mulayam Singh Yadav, who was the chief minister, insisted on appointing him, ignoring a proposal from the Centre for a CBI probe into the charges of corruption, irregularities and amassing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. The state government ignored a letter from a union minister for establishment reminding the chief minister of a CBI probe. What is depressing is the fact that the chief minister’s predecessor, Mayawati, had taken a similar stand on the issue. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

The report does not shed any light on the factors underlying this controversial decision. But one would be safe in assuming relying on one’s experience in Pakistan that the chief minister, both present and former, felt comfortable with a corrupt and vulnerable chief secretary being totally supine, who would be amenable to suggestions. Such a chief secretary on extension will be far more useful. The decision by the union government (federal government) to agree to the proposal from the chief minister in spite of pending inquiry with the CBI must have been motivated by the desire of the coalition government at the Centre to keep the chief minister in good humour, because of the impending elections in the four states. Surprisingly, our conduct is not dissimilar, although we don’t usually face elections and whenever we do they are a farce and results are generally fixed.

There is a silver lining though to the cloud in India, but not in Pakistan. IAS officers of the state were up in arms against the decision to retain a corrupt chief secretary. Their protest took a concrete new turn in the form of a petition filed with the Supreme Court of India on the ground that extension of service will demoralize the officers. The petitioners maintained that the decision to stop investigation into corruption charges against him was unjustified. The court admitted the petition and issued notices to the parties. One has not kept track of the progress of the proceedings, but knowing the calibre of Indian judiciary one can safely assume an honourable outcome.

People at large may fail to understand the dynamics of serving the government after superannuating. Civil servants who have bent backwards all their life to serve the government of every stripe and colour find it easy to creep into their good graces to be able to wangle an extension for as long as possible. This they do to avoid losing the perks and privileges of office. Their backbone having long been in disuse presents no problem of principle or probity. The officers re-appointed by the present government may perhaps have broken all previous records in servility. Virtually nobody has been allowed to retire. What is interesting is to see officers (one of the latest to join the hall of shame) accepting re-employment who themselves used to denigrate the practice, when they thought that they had a long way to go.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)