Aalok Yadav / Kathmandu. In 2015, the life expectancy of Nepal’s chieftain was about 46 years. There was no immediate 30-year service period. The age limit for Superintendent of Police and above was 58 years. In the year 2049, when the 30-year service period came into force, the age of the Nepalese was 56 years. Currently, the life expectancy of Nepalis is 69 years for men and 71 years for women.
The 30-year service period, which is not applicable even when the Sardar age is 46 years, is maintained when the Sardar age is 70 years. It is not appropriate to stay in service for a long time when the life expectancy is short, but it is not appropriate to be released from service early when the life expectancy is high. Another theory related to age is also plausible.
Hundreds of children are born on the same day, but all those children born on the same day grow up and die at different times. The 30-year service period has made it possible to be appointed on the same day and retired on the same day.
It can be seen from few examples how the heroes of the state power play on the image of the police organization and the morale of the police personnel.
Khadga Prasad Oli is a person who has ‘contributed’ to the overall decline of Nepal Police in the recent period. He reduced the ranks of senior police in a pinch. He became a policeman himself. He did something that would not happen anywhere else in the world. A position like the prime minister did not necessarily know the police officers personally, nor was he interested in their moral development. He gave the badge of honor to the higher police officers.
The policemen who were in his favor were promoted two levels overnight and brought closer to the future police chief. No seniority, no qualification, no ability is needed to commit such a crime. Professional officers were sidelined.
Only he will know when Oli got angry, but he confidently completed the task of clipping the wings of the Nepal Police Organization. Like, trying to usurp the position of the police, sending a joint secretary to investigate the Nirmala rape-murder case, conducting the investigation of 33 kg of gold by another joint secretary, keeping the Federal Police Act stuck, destroying the old structure in the name of federalizing the police, doing ‘Pajni’ in the name of developing the character of the police, monitoring Gaurav’s projects. Sending the budget to the police to buy the necessary technology, taking away the operational autonomy of the police, playing games between the armed forces and the Nepal Police. These acts were a ‘sabotage’ strategy, the ultimate goal of which was to ‘capture’ the organization.
Attempts have been made to remove the provision of 30-year service limit in the Police Regulations-2071, saying that skilled manpower will go home soon and recruiting new ones will cost the state a lot. Some senior police officials have termed the removal of the 30-year service period as ‘justified’.
“For the benefit of the organization, the 30-year service period should be removed,” said a police officer. Some police officials have suggested that it would be appropriate to remove the 30-year service period in the police and keep the tenure. Some police officials argue that keeping the tenure of IGP for 3 years and AIG for 4 years is appropriate.
Now the tenure of IGP is 4 years and that of AIG is 5 years. Due to the 30-year service period, no one has been able to serve the entire term. The then KP Sharma Oli-led government removed the 30-year service period in the National Investigation Department saying that 30-year service period was not appropriate to keep in the security organization. The term of office of the Director of National Research Department is kept for three years.
On 18 December 2075, the Oli-led government provided that the term of office of the Chief Research Director of the National Research Department will be three years in the Nepal Special Service Regulations-2044. The Oli government itself had put forward a plan to apply the law to the police as well. However, some police officers say that the 30-year service period was not removed due to internal interests.
The demand to remove the 30-year service period in the police has been rising since 2055. The High Level Task Force on Security Agency Modernization Report-065, formed under the leadership of senior advocate Yuvraj Sangraula, also gave the opinion to the government that the 30-year service period in the police is not appropriate and should be removed.
Similarly, the Nepal Police Reform Task Force Organizational and Restructuring Report-066 submitted by the committee led by the former commissioner of the Abuse of Authority Investigation Commission, Keshav Baral, also suggested removing the 30-year service period.
In the report submitted by the Nepal Police Restructuring Study Committee in 2073, the 30-year service period had a great impact on the organization and it was asked to be removed in the long term. Former IGP Kuveer Rana was the coordinator of the Restructuring Study Committee at that time.
However, although the government has formed various study committees for the reform of the police organization, it has not implemented the suggestion to remove the 30-year service period. Which has a great impact on the police organization.
Police officials say that due to the 30-year service period, the fraternal relationship in the police organization is bitter. From 15 February 2049, the 30-year service period has been implemented in the police.
For this reason, the provision of ’30 years of service’ in the police should be removed
Employees are compulsorily retired on three grounds – age limit, tenure and 30 years of service. The first Police Regulations, 2015 did not have a ’30 year limit’. According to paragraph 10, rule (1) and (2) of the said regulation, police personnel were exempted from service only on the basis of age limit and tenure.
According to paragraph 10, rule (1) and (2) of the Second Police Regulation, 2033, there was only age limit and term of office. After the change in 2046, the third ‘Police Regulations, 2049′ also did not have a 30-year limit. However, this regulation was amended on February 15, 2049, and by adding sub-rule (1) to rule 98, a new provision was introduced to provide compulsory retirement even after completing ’30 years of service’, which has been in constant controversy since its inception.
An analysis of the introduction and maintenance of the ’30-year limit’ provision
After 2046, the then government introduced a ’30-year limit’ in all areas of general administration, including justice, health, and public institutions. Based on this, the then Inspector General of Police Ratna Shamsher Jabara was retired. From February 16, 2049, Motilal Bohora became the Inspector General. During his time, it was possible to add up to 2 years in 30 again and he served for 4 years.
Later, the service period could be extended up to 35 years within the age limit. In 2052, the Council of Ministers decided that after 30 years of police personnel, the system of adding 2 years will be added automatically, which was not followed. Perhaps, in the beginning, the police leadership did not pay attention to the complacency of the decisive role of the leadership and later politics dominated. As a result, even after the ’30-year limit’ has been resolved elsewhere, it still exists in the police. Jehos, bringing a ’30-year limit’ to the police may be a part of the same policy, but not following the decision to automatically increase it and making it 32, 35 is presumed to be “malicious intention”.
Some international trends
In general, in developed countries, the retirement of the police is included in the national retirement policy just like the civil, while in most of the third world, the police in their own laws. Age limit in 17 central police and all provincial police of India is 60 years. Apart from 59 in Bangladesh, the service period of police in other countries of South Asia is 60. The retirement age for male police officers in China is 60 and 55 for women. South Africa has 60. 60 in other African countries too. In Japan, South Korea, France, etc., the retirement age is 60.
In America, there is a trend that policemen should not be kept in service after reaching 65, that is, in America, they can stay employed until 66 years. However, there are more than 17,000 different police organizations in the United States. 65 years in Britain, Australia, Libya, Luxembourg, Poland, United Emirates, Brazil, Chile, Belgium, Argentina, Croatia etc.
In Canada, the age limit for police personnel was 60 years until 2009, but after 2009, it has been made 65 years. 67 years in Iceland, Germany and Israel. It is 65 to 68 years in Finland and 68 years in the Netherlands. Almost all over the world, the age limit of police officers is 60 to 68 years. However, due to the existing ’30-year limit’, the age limit of the police in Nepal is between 48 and 56 years because the age of entering the service is only between 18 and 25 years.
Some other principles related to this are as follows:
1. The main reason for not completing the tenure of the Inspector General
Due to the existing ’30-year limit’ in the police, after 2049, no other Inspector General of Police, except former Inspector General of Police Motilal Bohora, has been able to complete a 4-year term. Since one must participate in the selection within 25 years to enter the service, regardless of the age limit and term of office set by the ’30-year limit’, the Inspector General of Police must retire before that.
For example, because of this, the outgoing Inspector General of Police, who retired at the age of 53, had to go on compulsory retirement after being the Inspector General for less than 2 years. The 30-year system may have had an adverse effect on the stability of the organization, as no Inspector General of Police was allowed to serve a full term.
2. The principle that the law should not be retroactive
There was no 30 years service period before 15th Chait, 2049. Recognizing the international principle of justice that the law should not be retroactive, this provision should not be applicable to the police personnel before this amendment. Notably, the civil servant’s contract was later reversed as ’30 years of service’ was set in 2048. The lower rank employees who were removed by the then government filed a case in the Supreme Court claiming that their removal was illegal on the basis of the 30-year limit. And, based on the 30-year service period, the allowance given by the government was found to be illegal and was reinstated.
3. The question of the identity of the police service
If the police job is considered as a police force like military service, there is no legal provision to retire after 30 years of service in the army. If the police service is considered to be the same as the civil service, then the 30-year service period is not maintained even in the civil service. Willingly or not, the police, the army, the civil service, i.e., neither the force nor the service, have come to a strange situation which is not compatible with the established practices of the country and abroad.
4. Theory of Sardar Age
In 2015, the life expectancy of Nepal’s chieftain was about 46 years. There was no immediate 30-year service period. The age limit for Superintendent of Police and above was 58 years. In the year 2049, when the 30-year service period came into force, the age of the Nepalese was 56 years. Currently, the life expectancy of Nepalis is 69 years for men and 71 years for women.
The 30-year service period, which is not applicable even when the Sardar age is 46 years, is maintained when the Sardar age is 70 years. It is not appropriate to stay in service for a long time when the life expectancy is short, but it is not appropriate to be released from service early when the life expectancy is high. Another theory related to age is also plausible. Hundreds of children are born on the same day, but all those children born on the same day grow up and die at different times. The 30-year service period has made it possible to be appointed on the same day and retired on the same day.
5. Principle to reduce the ‘Pension Burden’
The fact that the burden of pension should be made as light as possible for the development of the country and the national interest is the essence of modern administration. Taking this into account, in Rule 131 of the Police Regulations, 2071, police personnel appointed after 2060.12.26 have to complete 20 years of service without getting pension in 16 years as in the past. However, when introducing a 30-year service period in the police, rule 127 (3) should be introduced, in which the police personnel who were appointed before 2049.11.15 who retire due to the 30-year service period, will retire according to the police regulations in force at the time of their appointment. The remaining age should be added to the total employment period, and the pension should be given to him.
As a result, since there is currently a 30-year limit, some employees who retire at 48 years have to be given pension as if they had worked for 58 years. Again, since new employees have to be appointed in that position, the state is facing a double burden of expenditure. The current provision is that if the entire workforce retires, the government will have to shoulder an additional financial burden of more than 20 billion, apart from pension.
6. Principle of Equality
There is no provision for 30 years in civil service. On the military side, not in the army. Not found in other countries of the world. Why this disparity only in Nepal and the police? On the other hand, in the case of those who entered the police service after working in the fields of civil service, education, health, justice, etc. in the past, the previous service period of 30 years is not added. However, in the case of employees who have worked at the lower level of the police, the previous service period is always added. The 30-year-old system has become unequal and discriminatory, as it will not be added to those who come from other services, but will be automatically added to those who have served in their own organization.
7. The principle that the interests of marginalized groups should be promoted
The son of the poor enters the service as a police constable at the age of 18. While taking a job, he studied hard, passed the certificate level and became a police sub-inspector. He passes his graduation again and becomes a police inspector. When he is an inspector with a friend who becomes an inspector directly without taking a job, his service period is at least 6, 7 years. However, both may be the same age. Later, when both of those people reach the top level together and it is time to take the leadership of the organization, the hardworking, efficient and qualified police personnel of that poor family will retire 6-7 years earlier due to the calculation of the service period of the post of jawan and police assistant inspector.
Because of this 30-year limit, there is no situation to go higher than SSP, no matter how qualified a policeman who enters the service at the lower level and serves for a few years. Even yesterday, if there was a 30-year service period, people from different tribes and other ordinary families, including D.V.Lama, who entered the service at lower positions, would not have reached the rank of Inspector General of Police or higher. Departmental employees who have passed equally in open competition, usually from lower positions, have to be harassed because of the 30-year limit. Similar to the civil service, this difference has also been caused by the forced joining of the successful candidates from the open competition without giving them the freedom to join the previous lower employment period or not.
8. Recommendations of Police Reform Recommendation Commissions
For the purpose of making the police timely and effective, the four main recommendation commissions have been formed by the post-democratic government so far. All these commissions have clearly recommended that the 30-year service period should be removed in their respective reports. In the report of the Police Reforms Commission, 2055, page no. 217, point no. 22.214.171.124, it is recommended that the current 30-year service period should be removed as police personnel of different levels automatically retire after reaching different ages depending on the age and term of office. is
In the report of the high-level task force on modernization of security agencies, 2065 (report of the Yubaraj Sangraula Commission), page no. 58, point no. 4.6.3, it is recommended to remove the 30-year period by maintaining only age and tenure as the basis for police service termination. The report of the Nepal Police Reform and Restructuring Task Force under the Administration Restructuring Commission (Baral Commission Report), Page 61 of 2066, Part 5, Item No. 6 recommends that the 30-year limit should be removed from the police force.
In the study report related to the restructuring of Nepal Police, 2073 (Kuver Rana Commission Report), page 71, point no. 126.96.36.199, it is recommended that only the age limit and term of office should be maintained in relation to the retirement of the Nepal Police. The recommendation to remove the 30-year limit for all reports does not seem to have been followed so far.
9. A situation where a higher level suddenly empties
After 2047, there has been a trend of selecting and appointing many people at the police inspector level at the same time. For example, there were 138 people in the appointment dated 2070.12.09. A large number of newly recruited police inspectors have become senior police personnel who have reached all the highest levels, including the Inspector General of Police, by the time their 30 years of service are paid. Thus, as such a large number of high-ranking police officers, including the Inspector General of Police, will retire on the same day and with the same letter, many leadership and high-level positions in the organization will suddenly become vacant and there will be a big gap.
10. Provisions that do not match the police profession (career).
No research was done when this limit was introduced. That is why the new police inspector will become a police superintendent in about 21,22 years and all other promotions will be in 8,9 years and should retire after completing the tenure of the inspector general of police. Due to this, a situation has been created where the positions are stopped at the lower level and from SSP to IG gradually increase and they have to leave without full tenure.
11. A system with less experience in leadership
Each level has its own role in the organization. In order to reach leadership, it is necessary to perform all these roles and gain experience. Up to Deputy Inspector General of Police can be considered a field job where field command knowledge is necessary, while Additional Inspector General of Police is a departmental job where experience of coordination and administrative roles is necessary. Due to this limitation, there is a mandatory situation where the person who goes to the leadership has to go up one or two levels at once and suddenly take over the leadership. Personally, the present Inspector General of Police does not have any idea of this lack of experience, but the 30-year limit creates immaturity.
12. Experience and experience are devalued
Experience and practical knowledge are invaluable assets of the organization. Some banks only accept people with certain experience. However, due to the 30-year provision, experience and veterans in the police have been devalued. Departmental employees who passed the open competition and those who entered the service at a younger age should be released from service at a younger age. For example, employees who entered the service at a lower rank and passed the open competition at the age prescribed for the higher position as a departmental candidate should be free from service from the age of 48, even if they are of the same age as their counterparts. Another thing, it has been arranged that the candidates who are less than 25 can apply for Inspector.
If a qualified person completes the prescribed educational qualification and joins the service at the age of 22 years, then the employee of that young age should also be exempted from service along with the other older employees who joined the service. For example, the present Inspector General of Police, who joined the service 2 or 3 years younger than his batch, has come to retire at the age of 53.
13. The post-democracy situation and the changed nature of the country
According to the constitution, the police, transformed into a federal structure, must be managed at the federal, provincial and local levels. Nepal Police has been restructured in different 7 provinces and the provincial police offices and the former regional police offices have been transformed into federal police unit offices. In this process, the process has been started by projecting the addition of approximately 22,000 manpower. About 1700 policemen have been added recently.
On the one hand, in the case of sending home at 48 years, sending them with additional facilities up to 58 years and hiring new employees at that place, the country is facing a financial burden. Similarly, when it takes at least 2 years from the selection process to the training to be sent to the field of work, there is another aspect of sending young police officers home.
14. Do not affect the next generation
This is the most important thing. According to the current retirement age limit in Police Regulations 2071, Inspector General of Police is 58 years old, Additional Inspector General of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police are 56 years old, Senior Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police are 55 years old, Deputy Superintendent of Police is 54 years old, and Inspector of Police is 53 years old. According to the provision of retirement based on the term of office of the Police Regulations 2071, the Inspector General of Police has 4 years, the Additional Inspector General of Police has 5 years, the Senior Superintendent of Police has 6 years and the Superintendent of Police has 10 years.
According to the current draft, which is said to be prepared to remove the 30-year period, the age limit from the Inspector General of Police to the Senior Superintendent of Police is 58 years and the term of office has also been matched according to the needs. The proposed unanimity arrangement will not affect any subsequent transactions. It is not necessary for other people to come to the leadership. As in the past, each generation will be gradually led, so the next generation will not be affected.
15. Opinions of Supreme Court and Public Service Commission
In this regard, there are frequent cases in the honorable courts. The court has ordered in this regard in cases including the government of Nepal against Keshav Kharel, the government of Nepal against Madan Wahadur Khadka, the government of Nepal against Dinkar Shamser Rana, and the government of Nepal against Ganesh Raj Rai.
After a comprehensive study and analysis of all these orders, it appears that the court has said that this 30-year limit should be removed, but the Police Act should be amended without amending the regulations. Similarly, in the report of the Public Service Commission which is submitted to the President every year, it is recommended to increase the service period of national servants from 58 to 60 years, but the Public Service Commission has instructed that this provision should be assimilated by issuing a new law rather than by general revision of the existing law. 30 Removal is the order and desire of both the court and the public service.
16. There is no moral basis that the 30-year limit should remain
It has been mentioned above, 30 years limit was introduced in the police from 2049.11.15. Prior to that, the law and the police officers appointed by that law were not recognized in principle and entered into this arrangement. If the 30-year limitation period is considered good, then it is a lottery, if it is considered bad, then the damage has been done. What happened was unforgivable. From the point of view of the law, there may be many explanations, but from the point of view of ethics, there is no moral basis to say that a person who has been appointed before reaching that age should not be removed from the matter that he accidentally entered during his professional journey.
When the 30-year service period entered, there was definitely some impact, even if it is removed now, there will be some impact. It may have been brought with the intention of immediately benefiting someone, but if it is removed now, it will not harm anyone’s interests and equality will be maintained among all the police. Basically, it gives equality to the police personnel who entered the service from the lower ranks, who are a marginalized group who have been subjected to injustice from the past without knowing it.
Removing this 30-year service period will not affect the process of promotion and leadership of the organization. Promotion will be delayed by only two years. This has made the police prisoner of indecision for a long time. A government that succeeds in breaking the syndicate can think of breaking this net as well. There should not be inappropriate discussions and complaints among the employees of disciplined organizations about the government’s decision.
Since the 30-year limit has resulted in an additional burden of 20 billion on the Nepal Police, it is appropriate to have an accounting of the burden on the Armed Police as well. In the same way, more than 35,000 people’s representatives at the local level, projected additional 22,000 policemen and 15,000 civil servants who had to be paid more than 35,000 people’s representatives, and about 15,000 civil servants, will be given additional salary allowances in Nepal, taking into account the fact that 65 judges, 63 professors and 60 civil servants will serve for 60 years. There is bound to be a long-term reflection by the responsible people regarding whether or not to bear the double and triple economic burden due to the economic power of the country that has gone to construction and renewal and federalism.
What do former IGP Rana and Gyawali say?
Thakur Prasad Gyawali: 30 years service period in the police is impractical. It has many effects. A large number of police officers retire at once due to 30 years of service.
Apart from that, it has also had a great impact on the moral development of police officers. Due to the 30 years of service, many police officers have fallen into disrepute.
It is necessary to remove it by arranging it in the law. It is necessary to remove it in a phased manner by keeping a certain period of time.
Kuveer Rana: I am tired of talking about removing the 30-year service period. Even when I am the IGP, it should be removed. Even now we are saying it but it has not been implemented.
All of us have been suggesting that the former IGPs should remove this system after every new home minister.