KATHMANDU, Dec 13: The State Affairs and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives is continuing discussions on the bill concerning the formation, operation, and service conditions of the federal civil service. The discussions, which began on Sunday, are set to continue on Thursday. The committee is reviewing the bill with the proposed amendments. A total of 124 amendments, both individual and joint, have been registered, and the bill has been amended on 1,583 issues.
One of the key provisions of the bill is mandating the retirement for civil servants at the age of 60. Under pressure from employee organizations, many lawmakers have proposed an amendment to raise the retirement age to 60, a proposal likely to pass with majority support.
Previously, the Civil Service Act of 2049 set the retirement age for civil servants at 58. Lawmakers are now debating whether to increase it to 60 or maintain the current age.
China is raising its retirement age, now among the youngest in...
Some lawmakers argue that the retirement age should be raised to 60 due to the increase in life expectancy in Nepal. They also highlight that in other SAARC countries, the retirement age for employees is already above 60. UML lawmaker Yogesh Bhattarai also supported raising the retirement age during the committee meeting.
The Employee Act enacted by the provinces already sets the retirement age at 60, influenced by the federal civil servant organizations. However, some employees who adjusted to the 60-year retirement period under provincial laws have challenged the federal law in court because this period is not counted towards their pension.
If the retirement age is increased from 58 to 60, concerns have been raised that it might halt the growth and development of lower-level employees, and young people competing for public service positions might find themselves stuck in vacant roles for an additional two years.
Some young lawmakers suggest that current employees’ retirement is pressured by political party leaders to keep leadership in the hands of older individuals, which is why there is support for keeping employees in service longer.
On the other hand, increasing the number of older employees may create a situation where younger people find no vacancies for two years when entering the public sector. Critics also argue that retaining older employees, who may have outdated views, could prevent younger, more dynamic individuals from rising in administrative roles.
In developed countries, where ample employment opportunities exist and people can find good jobs in both the public and private sectors, age limits may not matter. However, experts argue that in Nepal, this could cause problems in government jobs.
Some former chief secretaries and secretaries have suggested that employees who join after the passage of the bill should have a mandatory retirement age of 60, while those already in service should retire at 58. These former employees argue that extending the service period by two years would reduce the pension burden.
