IT has been reported that the National Reconstruction Bureau is considering a proposal to revise the retirement age of civil servants from 60 to 63.

Nothing could be farther from good reason. The fact is that this proposal, if implemented, could deliver a body blow to the already crippled civil service structure.

The suggestion appears to rest on three distinct arguments. One, life expectancy has increased; retiring secretaries are often very fit at 60 and therefore it would be better to utilise their services instead of putting them out to pasture. Two, the granting of extensions causes heartburn among those not chosen for this favour, and a general extension shall add a healing touch by eliminating the element of nepotism. Three, the move will reduce the pension burden by delaying retirement-related payouts.

All three arguments are patently erroneous. The life-expectancy argument is indeed used in developed countries but the reasons behind it are different. In Japan and France and elsewhere, low birth rates mean that there are not enough young workers in the system to support the greying population. Also, the economy often faces labour shortages. Raising the retirement age allows more people to work and reduces their burden of paying for the social benefits of retirees.

Granting extensions to some senior civil servants indeed breeds resentment but raising the retirement age for all is hardly the optimal solution. To begin with, this argument overstates the element of nepotism, implying that everyone with a sore heart also deserves an extension on merit. This may not be the case. Like all other decision-making at the highest level, any move towards a general extension has to be tempered with wisdom and prudence. Flexibility helps, wooden rules don't. Granting extensions to some high-quality managers may indeed be required. Some officers recalled from retirement indeed merit the recall. Most unfortunately don't.

To be fair, it may not be easy to let some really excellent officers go home, but then it is possible that their replacements, given the opportunity, may turn out to be better. The worst problem with this heartache argument is that a general amnesty shall facilitate the laggards and weaklings along with the best. This will cause more harm than benefit for the performance of all grade-22 officers can't be above average.

The reduction-in-pensions argument is similarly false. It is not clear from what has been reported in the media if this proposal will apply only to the federal secretariat or to all government servants. Assuming it does apply to all and inductions at the lower level continue, the rise in the salary bill will far outweigh any gain in pension-reduction. If it applies only to federal secretaries, the reduction in pensions will be so small as to hardly matter.

The pensions argument may be valid if coupled with a ban on inductions but all of us know that this linkage is not possible because the government can't stop new appointments. Too many young persons are looking for jobs. Promotions create vacancies that need to be filled. Also, stopping the inflow of young blood doesn't make any organisational sense.

At best, the alleged gains from this proposal are minimal. Several clear and present negative consequences, on the other hand, shall cause much more harm. First, it will further demoralise the middle management. One of the great incentives of joining the civil service used to be the opportunity to man decision-making positions — assistant commissioner, deputy commissioner, provincial secretary, federal secretary — in the provincial and federal governments at a comparatively younger age with the commensurate chance to contribute. With such extensions, the chances of next-tier officers reaching top executive positions gets delayed by three years. The cascading effect will reach even the lowest tiers. Given the existing painful realities of low pay and reduced decision-making roles, the already low morale of officers will sink further.

Moreover, most observers know that federal officers from the provinces have become increasingly reluctant to serve in the federal government. The cost of life in the capital, challenges of relocation and housing issues are all major factors. But one of the more significant is that a relatively senior grade-20 officer from the provincial government becomes an ordinary middle-manager joint secretary, one among the anonymous many, in the federal capital.

Loss of ego is one aspect of this reduction in powers, the reduced ability to make decisions another. The only incentive is that the eventual rise to federal secretary or similarly substantial position shall be worth the effort. Raising the retirement age will only make officers serving in other cities even more unwilling to move to Islamabad.

The failure of the federal secretariat to attract officers from the provinces is a serious problem with major negative consequences. It reduces the quality of the human resource pool, especially in critical middle-management positions, available to the capital. The proposed change shall thus aggravate the problems of quality it aims to solve.

More importantly, the reluctance to move to Islamabad harms the spirit of federation. Officers used to serve in the provinces, preferably more than one, at the beginning of their careers. The final 10 years or so would be spent in the federal secretariat, where the breadth of their experience and exposure to grassroots problems would be brought to the

decision-making table. But with officers from the provinces resisting relocation to Islamabad, the resulting absence of experience and empathy with provincial-level issues is likely to increase parochialism and reduce the spirit of accommodation in federal decision-making.

The proposal to raise the retirement age may, for the time being, apply only to the federal secretariat. But the contagion will not stop there. The power of the precedent will ensure that it soon reaches the federal line departments and then naturally the provincial secretariats and their line departments. The negative effects will rise exponentially as the numbers involved increase dramatically.

The federal government, like the provincial administrations, suffers from a dearth of quality officers. This proposal perhaps reflects a desperate desire to hold on to a few excellent officers. But the solution has to be more systemic and organised. Better salaries, reduced politicisation, organised succession, improved performance assessment, enhanced job scopes, revised business processes and increased delegation of powers can help. A blanket extension in the retirement age can only do harm.

zkb@cyber.net.pk