Social media platforms are abuzz with images of the Chief Secretary and secretaries from various ministries reaching Parliament to lobby for the removal of the two-year cooling-off period after retirement passed by the State Affairs Committee under the House of Representatives. Those commenting on the photo and related news are highly critical of this attempt by top bureaucrats to gang up against political leadership and lawmakers to alter a legal provision in their favor. This effort to exert undue influence to include self-serving provisions not only raises serious ethical concerns but also poses a clear conflict of interest. When the highest-ranking civil servants begin forming factions to pressure the state for personal benefit, it deeply undermines discipline, integrity, and accountability in the broader civil service. Two key provisions are at issue: raising the mandatory retirement age for civil servants from 58 to 60 and imposing a two-year cooling-off period before reappointment to any public positions. These reforms—endorsed by the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee—are intended to safeguard institutional integrity.
Unhappy with the provisions, incumbent secretaries are lobbying top leaders, including the Prime Minister and the Speaker, to have the retirement age increase applied immediately to those currently in office and to remove the cooling-off period altogether. While raising the retirement age may be reasonable given longer life expectancy and improved healthcare, applying it immediately to those already serving violates the principle of natural justice. Civil servants should retire under the same terms agreed upon when they entered service. Midway changes—especially under pressure—set a dangerous precedent. Similarly, the cooling-off period is critical to preventing conflicts of interest and ensuring accountability. Without it, retiring secretaries may prioritize pleasing political leaders over their current responsibilities. Worse still, it could turn top bureaucratic roles into mere stepping stones for politically motivated reappointments, thereby weakening both the civil service and the institutions they move into. We have already seen the damage such practices cause in the broader politics and the governance. This must stop.
The anxiety effect: Air pollution may lead to unethical behavio...
Constitutional bodies, increasingly filled by retired bureaucrats and party loyalists, have lost their credibility and effectiveness. Nepali Congress (NC) senior leader Dr. Shekhar Koirala aptly called them the “retirement club” of top bureaucrats. If the trend continues and secretaries bypass the cooling-off period to leapfrog into new roles, public service will become a revolving door of political patronage. Now, some secretaries are even threatening mass resignations if the law doesn't serve their interests. But such threats ring hollow. Most are unlikely to resign—and even if they do, the impact on service delivery will be minimal. Joint secretaries waiting for their promotion as secretaries are often just as capable. Since the parliamentary committee has already deliberated and passed these provisions, they must not be reversed due to bureaucratic pressure. Lawmakers must remember that the laws should serve the people—not the personal interests of a few. This is a moment to reaffirm the rule of law—not retreat from it. Lawmaking must never be held hostage to such lobbying.
