Whispers Forum

DEBATE (1)
With due respect to the idea of enhancing the age of retirement from 60 to 62 - I have a different vision to look at this matter.
India is a country where the majority of the population is youth. To make a best utilization of available resources, the retirement should get down to 55.
We could generate enormous opportunity from the youth of our country. Countries like Japan may consider such thoughts of school - where retirement age needs to be increased as they do not have youth population to suffice the gap between demand and supply of the workforce.
A nation conditioned for decades on theories of population control, with politicians still talking of the need for “two-child policy” was suddenly shaken up by the prospects of a reversal in trend. The Economic Survey pointed towards demographic projections that India’s population growth will continue to decline over the next two decades, growing less than 1 per cent during 2021-31 and under 0.5 per cent during 2031-41.
Viewed together with statistics of increasing life expectancy, it makes the spectre of an ageing country appear closer than we thought. The under-19 population has already peaked. From a high of 41 per cent in 2011, it is expected to decline to 25 per cent by 2041, according to reports. India’s demographic dividend is beginning to taper off, it seems.
Hence in my view - youth of our country should get the opportunity to make maximum utilization of this available resource. Where entire world is focusing on India as a youth capital of the world - this is the right time to make one and all functional.
As far as retired person is concern - he would have made enough accumulation, in the form of Gratuity, PF, savings etc., to go for a startup business as per his enormous experience. Usually people find it difficult to start a business after 60 or 62 - hence one can always dream of starting something new at the age of 55.
Startups are not only made for youth - because of the fact that, youth neither have experience nor money. They can only work on some creative ideas based on their studies and risk taking appetite. Whereas an experienced person can certainly start up something in which his expertise, contacts, money and awareness on the industry norms, will make him successful in a very short time.
Hope I could deliver my message, the way I look at the gravity of this matter. If you find it meaningful - please reply with your comments - I will certainly try to improve on the required areas. Thank you. Regards,
Kanak Banot
DEBATE (2)
In my view and for the sake of youth. It should be 60 only.
Harpal Singh
DEBATE (3)
Performance based promotion and continuation in service after 50 years age has been suggested by me because I believe that we now have a decisive and performing government that can take bold decisions in public interest. Screening out deadwood and non performers and incentivizing the performers is the soul of good public governance. The time for alibis, excuses and procrastination is over. We cannot have business as usual and continue 19th century bureaucratic models in the 21st century. The new mantra for public service is – Perform or Perish.
Rohit R Brandon IAS Retired.

DEBATE (1)
To save money- good for Government’s point of view but bad for the youth because promotions will be blocked.
N K Singh IPS (Retd)
DEBATE (2)
The decision taken to increase the retirement age by two years in central government in 1999 was due to financial burden on exchequer. However, vested interest of bureaucrats at top level to remain at the helm for longer period also weighed in its favour. However, situation is different today as 7th CPC recommendations have already been implemented. Most of the work in govt offices has been shifted to online. Further, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that productivity or outcome would increase with increase in retirement age. Instead of increasing the retirement age, the government should work on earmarking its activities into two parts i. e. Core activities and non core activities. Core activities can be handled by government itself and non core activities should be outsourced to privates agencies. Manpower and computerisation should move in opposite direction and not in the same direction. Hence, existing age should continue.
Raj Kumar Thakur
August 5 is now true Independence Day
The day, August 5, should be celebrated as our true Independence Day. Always said Modi has appetite for risk and speed.
Jadhav

DEBATE (1)
The Government of India should lay emphasis on generating jobs instead of raising age specially for deadwoods. The decision to increase retirement age to 62 years will deprive the jobless youths of services in this burgeoning population.
Sunil Kumar
DEBATE (2)
Brandon's comments on retirement age is unwarranted and cannot be implemented as it will open a pandora's box and also uneasiness among Government employees. He is easily saying this because he is a retired man. Why could he not suggested this when he was in service?
Seth
Way out ?
I think of late the senior officers have taken to this route to save their skin .What is the way out ?
Karan Singh Shekhawat
C.A.T. has no meaning
Your news item on July 9, 2019 regarding closure of C.A.T., has definitely created flutter in the circles of Advocates and those who are working in this Organization. I don’t know as to what is it at the back of the Prime Minister's mind but continuation of C.A.T. is only a burden on the government as the ratio of expenditure to income is approx. 6000 to 1 and also that decrease in its status after L.Chandrakumar's case in 1992, continuation of C.A.T., is only an eye wash and nothing prominent is being done. Hence, closure of C.A.T. is the best way to tackle with the decreased status. Further, 60% of the orders are challenged before the High Court and the government itself is not satisfied with the orders of C.A.T. which means that the government has no confidence in the organization. Hence, continuation of C.A.T. has no meaning and I feel that closure is the only way that this can be managed.
Lakshmi Narayan A V

DEBATE (1)
I am to refer to your debate on the increase of retirement from 60 to 62 years and to say that I will be benefitted by the same as I would be retiring in 2033 instead of 2031. However, I strongly believe that though the mortality rate has increased, it does not mean that man does not get effected by aging. Aging is a process of life and one has to respect the age. After 55 years of age, the stiffness, sternness and muscular power deteriorate. Hence, irrespective of mortality rate the retirement age as fixed earlier i.e., 58 years should be maintained. The government always enjoys the prerogative of appointing the experts on consultant basis so that their expertise can be utilized for the benefit of the government. Increase in the retirement age always increases the burden of the government by paying salaries while to the retirees, it would be paying less than 1/3rd of the salary being paid. Hence, I strongly oppose the increase of retirement age to 62 and put forth my desire that it should instead be reduced to 58 years.
Lakshmi Narayan A V
DEBATE (2)
Say NO to increase in retirement age from 60 to 62. I fully agree with the comments of Ravi
Nagasurya
Wow, ICS officer completing 100 years !
It is great to see one of our ICS officer has completed century and still going strong. Wish him many many more happy years.
G Manmadhan Pillai

The appellant had sought a copy of the report submitted by the Government of Maharashtra regarding investigation of 7/11 bomb blast case at Mumbai. The appellant further sought a copy of the report/dossier submitted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year2009 regarding investigation of Indian Mujahideen group related to 7/11 bomb blast case. The appellant emphasized that the disclosure of the information sought for would serve the purpose of larger public interest as the disclosure would ensure justice to the innocent.
The State Govt. of Maharashtra declined to provide the information to the appellant on the ground that the Anti-Terrorist Squad was exempted from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that investigation in the matter was ongoing since 15-20 accused including foreign nationals are yet to be arrested. Thus, the disclosure of information was not warranted in accordance with Section 8 (1) (h) and Section 8 (1) (a) of the Act since access of information by the public including the perpetrators of the offence can prejudicially affect the sovereignty, integrity and security of the nation. The CIC ruled that keeping in view the sensitivities involved in the matter as also the factual position narrated by the respondent, no further intervention is warranted.
Comments
In case of taking a decision about disclosure of investigation findings, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Ajay Madhusudan Marathe v. Sanjukta Ray and Ors, W.P. (C) 1464/2013 Decided On: 05.03.2013 would be relevant. It was held that the area in respect of which information is sought, could have security implications and the judgment in this regard is best left to the wisdom of the agencies concerned, who are tasked with the responsibility of sifting such information and thereafter arriving at a conclusion one way or the other.
Citation: Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui v. CPIO, O/o Internal Security, Division-I (IS VI Desk), Ministry of Home Affairs in Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2017/166137, Date 31.07.2019.
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

DEBATE (1)
Persons who are in favour of increasing the retirement age are only those with vested interest. They must be having very nice time in office where they are working with less work. Indirectly, they also must know that someone will be overworked because of them. Also many of them are enjoying with their personal business by using the office as a launch pad. These persons certainly will be reluctant to retire even if they are asked to do so at the time of attaining superannuation at the age of 60.
Ravi
“Liberation of Indian Muslim Women”
The passage of Triple Talaq bill by Rajya Sabha makes the pronouncement of instant oral talaq or talaq-e-biddat void and illegal, criminalizing it as a cognizable offence punishable upto three years in jail.
A historic win for nine crores Indian Muslim women. A landmark achievement by PM Modi for his determination and persistence in fighting the unholy alliance between misguided muftis and politicians. A milestone in the quest for gender justice; a moment of satisfaction for the entire country. A historic fallacy has been ultimately corrected through Parliamentary legislation, consigning the weird medieval practice to the dustbin of history. This will give the Indian Muslim women the dignity they deserve.
Where is “ the intolerance gang of 49 pseudo-liberals who had recently written to PM on the “Lynchistan” affair, screaming that their freedoms and the minorities were under threat? Strangely, none of the morons hailed the emancipation of Indian muslim women from the vicious medieval practice. Their silence is baffling ; confirms their hypocrisy.
Abstentions and walk-outs by the Opposition MPs helped in passage of bill in Rajya Sabha. The Opposition has charged the ruling dispensation of clandestinely manipulating the listing of triple talaq bill for voting. This shows how much divided the so-called Maha-gathbandhan is.
The misogynistic muftis and self- styled Islamic scholars must get used to new protocol, while others open windows of their medieval mindsets. Earlier, the better.
The Media must immediately report instances of violation for investigation by the Police and filing the FIR. Monitoring cells must put maulvis , muftis and the filthy-rich Sheikhs from the middle east, under surveillance against indulging in unethical practices.
A K Saxena (A former civil servant)

DEBATE (1)
In US there is no population problem. Secondly, the quality of population is more superior than that in India. Therefore, there is no retirement age there. Here, it would be silly to think about that because all have to live, not only a particular section of pupulation.
Pankaj Kumar
DEBATE (2)
Raising retirement age will be a positive step if taken. Many areas like judiciary, education, scientific organisations have varying retirement age from 62 to 65 yrs. Taking advantage of the past experience is not a bad idea. Varying retirement ages do not have logic also. Director-CBI can work up to 62 yrs but same person if made DG-Homeguard, he will have to relinquish it as there retirement age is 60 yrs only. Therefore, if a judge (SC) or VC (of Central University) can contribute with his experience, why people of services of other departments can't contribute. One argument put forth is reduction in the job opportunities for young generation. However, if properly surveyed, one will find that strength of staff have reduced in practically 90% of the departments what it was 10-15 yrs earlier. It means these have not been filled up proportionately with the retiring numbers. With proper management, job opportunities will not be lost. In addition, retirement age across one domain should be uniform throughout the country. If VC of Central University can work up to 65 yrs, why can't VC of state university, if CJI of SC can work up to 65 yrs, why can't judge of high court up to 65 yrs. Many PSUs still have retirement age of 58 yrs.
V K Pandey
Will ' whispersinthecorridors ' throw some light as to when DOPT will issue orders for grant of HAG NFU for 1988 batch Group A organised services which is due since April 9, 2019 ? It is unnecessarily being delayed.
One visitor
If CAT is abolished then how will the central government employees take remedy against arbitrary decisions taken against them ?
Anjali

DEBATE (1)
Retirement age should not be increased rather, it should be decreased to enhance chances for employment for unemployed young generation.
Sundar Lal Gautam
DEBATE (2)
It is not about age or life expectancy. It is all about vision and performance. Public servants can become deadwood at 40, some may become cynics by 50 and some may have the zest and quest for action even at 70. The bold and brave government must decide matters with surgical precision and perfection. Make 50 the age of retirement to allow people to leave and work elsewhere. Those who wish to continue must clear a proficiency and performance test conducted only by the UPSC as mandated by the Constitution for the IAS and Allied services and a Screening Committee for others twice at age 50 and 60. Those who clear this can continue till 65. This two-step process will energize and reward the performers and cut out the deadwood. Such a Civil Service reform is long overdue.
Rohit R Brandon, IAS (1981- Retd.)

DEBATE (1)
There is no sense in raising the retirement age. Present age is sufficient. Government should get the maximum out the existing staff. This should continue with new and young employees. The population of our country is such that increasing the retirement age makes no sense. Young should get the opportunity for proving their efficiency.
Pankaj Kumar
DEBATE (2)
I don’t understand why people lack basic knowledge of common sense, forget about law, economics or polity. It is absurd comments like raising retirement age will deny jobs to youth which creates doubts in uneducated masses. Be thoughtful of ur comments (read data, analyse and not just say things) and site must moderate.
LA

DEBATE (1)
There is no retirement age in the US. Why it can’t be in India ?
Raj Kishore
DEBATE (2)
Raise in retirement age will deny jobs to the young generation
L S Pandit
Promotion of 1986 Batch of IAS Officers as Secretaries
It is an important day when many IAS Officers of 1986 Batch and my foundation day friends have been promoted to the post of Secretary or equivalent in different Ministries, or Departments or Organisations. I congratulate all of them and wish them all the best.
A. K. Verma, ISS(Retd.)

DEBATE (1)
Age should be raised but without affecting the job prospects of the new generation.
Dr Bansal
NITI Ayog in Place of Planning Commission- A Major Leap forward to achieve Good Governance
NITI Ayog formation is a major leap forward in bringing about systemic reforms in India to achieve desirable goals of socio-economic development. Planning Commission had become a dumping place for protégés & favorites who conducted meetings without any concrete output. Annual ritualistic meetings with State CMs individually were waste of time & money because thumb rule of 10% hike over preceding year’s fund allocation remained as the basis rather than State’s requirement. On the other hand the structure and objectives of NITI Ayog indicate continuous involvement of State CMs as members of the Central Governing Body as also members of respective Zonal Councils. In this way, not only will diversity & specificity of each State be kept in view but relative conditions of the State in the national context will enable fix priorities in the right order. Provision for involvement of experts from universities/R&D institutions in rotational manner will provide professional strength with less expenditure than what Planning Commission was spending on large permanent fleet of experts. Success of NITI Ayog, however, critically depends upon the effectiveness/commitment/ dedication/flair,knowledge & experience of the CEO+ others in the Secretariat to provide requisite support to Governing Council in driving forward with speed despite imminent bureaucratic resistance like it happened in Disinvestment process. Premature dissenting outcry against this noble idea is either political rhetoric or inability to visualize fruitful outcome in the form of real good governance.
KK Gupta,Retd.IFS(HP:1971)
Formerly Secretary(NCST)Govt of India

Information regarding the dates and value of debit of certain DEPB License was denied under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act claiming that the third party had objected to the disclosure of information. The CIC referred to Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, as per which where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the PIO is expected to communicate the reasons for such rejection. The Third Party submitted that the Appellant was mis-utilizing the RTI forum to settle his personal disputes. It was further stated that the Company had many overseas clients and if the information was provided then there was a possibility of misappropriation of information for the personal benefit of the Appellant which could cause numerous litigation between the directors and overseas clients. Moreover at the time of filing the RTI application, the Appellant was a disqualified Director not holding any post in the Company. The CIC held that the mere claim of the Customs that the third party had denied the disclosure of information cannot be a ground for denial of information under the RTI Act.
Comments
In the case of Dy. Commissioner of Police v. D.K. Sharma, WP (C) No. 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010, the Delhi High Court held that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act, the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. The mere fact that a criminal case is pending may not by itself be sufficient unless there is a specific power to deny disclosure of the information concerning such case. Hence, a PIO should be careful while passing an order and ensure that a speaking order is passed which gives due justification for denial of information.
Citation: Mr. Dipak S. Mehta v. Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Import – II) New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCUM1/A/2018/166143-BJ, Date of Decision: 05.07.2019
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/