Forced to call it quits at 58, the civil servants of Nepal have among the lowest retirement ages in the world. Indian and Pakistani civil servants both retire at 60. The Brits retire at 65; the American government employees slog it out till 66. Before 1988, Nepali civil servants also retired at 60. The retirement age was reduced by two years that year with the intent of bringing new faces into the aging civil service. Now the government is thinking of reinstating the age bar of 60, in line with the recommendation of the High-Level Administration Reform Monitoring Committee. The committee had two years ago furnished various reasons for why the country should reinstate the age bar of 60: the average age of Nepalis has increased (from 60 to 71 in course of past 15 years), there is a dearth of experienced manpower in Nepali civil service and the national exchequer is being unnecessarily burdened with a huge pension bill every year. The committee also saw the need to bring uniformity in retirement age between different government agencies: while most civil servants retire at 60, government teachers retire at 62, while some judges can continue to serve until they are 65.We believe all these are valid concerns. The fact that Nepal has among the lowest retirement ages in the whole world is certainly odd. Perhaps Nepal has, as the committee suggests, indeed failed to take advantage of the vast experience of older civil servants. The committee is also bang on when it points to the need for uniformity in retirement age among all government bodies. And, yes, by increasing the retirement age, the country could every year save itself billions of rupees in pensions accruing from early retirement. But we should not overlook the reason the retirement age had to be cut down to 58 in the first place. Every year around 350,000 Nepali youths enter the job market. With the private sector decimated by years of political instability, persistent power shortage and various natural and man-made calamities in recent times, the state must make every effort to absorb the bright young talents in civil service. This does not, however, mean that unnecessary staff should be hired. We only imply that the state must be in a position to attract talented youngsters who would otherwise migrate. Maintaining the current retirement age is one of the ways to do it.
Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that age brings maturity among our civil servants. In fact, we suspect the opposite might be is true. Most senior officers in government service, long used to their leisurely ways, simply refuse to change themselves to the needs of the 21st-century market economy. Nepali bureaucracy badly needs young and enterprising workers who are ready to break with the old ways of doing things, who are more ready to accept and adapt new technology and who are looking to constantly upgrade their skills in today's fast-changing workplace. So, again, while there are compelling reasons to go back to the retirement age of 60, we hope the policymakers who are thinking of doing so also properly understand the downsides.
Related story
The Do's and Dont's before buying a laptop
