Raising retirement to 62
Raising retirement to 62
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is keen on extending the retirement age of civil servants to 62, one of his aides told this columnist in Delhi recently. He had apparently been keen to do so earlier this year, but such a change was thought politically risky at a time when the Congress party was using Rahul Gandhi’s youth as its electoral strategy (how do you convince voters that the party is going to harness the energy of the youth if you propose to keep all the old babus for another two years?). It may seem unreal now, but back then many in government feared that the Congress might lose power (even national security advisor M K Narayanan apparently threw a farewell party!), so the PM’s plan was shelved. It is being revived again, with the PM himself taking great interest.
This proposal has two justifications. First and foremost is fiscal. As had happened when the retirement age was raised from 58 to 60 in 1998, the expenditure on pensions would be curbed. In this year’s budget, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee earmarked non-Plan expenditure for pensions at Rs 25,085.49 crore. That is a growth of almost 40 per cent (39.4 per cent). It is a major contributor to the total spending that was announced by Pranab, a little over Rs 10 trillion, a hike of around 36 per cent from last year.Of course, coming at the time of a global economic slowdown this massive expenditure is possibly a good risk to take; but the prime minister is obviously looking for ways to keep costs from running away.
Of course, worse than the central finances are those of many of the States; their governments are far more reckless than the Centre’s. In the decade after New Delhi raised the age of superannuation to 60, the States slowly but surely followed suit. The States would likely follow the Centre’s lead again and that would help them manage their fiscal problems.
The other reason the PM wants to push retirement back another two years is that he wants to make tap the valuable human resource that bureaucrats represent. For one thing, life expectancy in India has gone up. According to UNICEF, in 2007 it was 64 years, and this is a figure that the average bureaucrat would have pulled upwards. Thus, when a civil servant retires at 60, she or he is still at their mental peak, and each acts as an institutional storehouse of government policy and programme implementation. Retaining them for another two years would possibly enrich functioning of the government. At the very least, it would keep some of the hypocrites off the boob tube — it’s very bizarre that the same bureaucrats who set government policy for 30 years or so, start abusing the government at the nearest TV station studio the moment they find themselves jobless. (Maybe it’s their pique at not getting a post-retirement sinecure).
The PM is not the first person to have such a brainwave. Almost a year ago, the University Grants Commission appointed a committee under G K Chadha to study pay revision, and he made a suggestion that teachers’ retirement age be raised to 65. This is timely advice considering that India is currently set to expand education in a major way under the stewardship of the dynamic Kapil Sibal. It is not just a matter of filling the ranks of teachers, but imparting quality teaching to India’s children.
If the PM wants to extend the retirement age then he would only be following a global trend. The retirement age in the US is 65; in Japan it is 60 and the government is gradually raising it to 65 by 2013, but people anyway continue working till 65 on reduced wages. By 2033, Austria’s retirement age will be 65. In Denmark it will be 67 years by 2027. Hungary plans to make it 69 years by 2050. Israel is already raising it to 67 years for men. All these countries and many others are increasing the retirement age because of an increasingly alarming problem — their ageing populations. By 2020, a quarter of Japan’s population will be 65 and over. Life expectancy in the US is about 77, and by 2050 is expected to go up to 83. Japan’s is already 82.4 years. Indeed, the life expectancy in some of the advanced countries, according to 2009 OECD data, are: France 80.9 years, Canada 80.4 years, Sweden 80.8 years, Italy 80.9 years and Spain 81.1 years. You would have to think that as India gets wealthier — which it undoubtedly is — our population’s life expectancy will similarly increase.
Imagine a person retiring at 60, but living till at least 80 (if not more), perhaps physically weakened as she or he passes 75, but still mentally at the top of his or her game. What do they do with such a long retirement? And besides the fact that the increase in life expectancy leaves retirees with too much time on their hands and their skills unutilised, it also places a great burden on the working population, which has to finance the social security and health benefits that the elderly need. In the West it costs much more to maintain an elderly person than it does to raise a child; and health care costs in the rich world are projected to be those countries’ biggest finance headache (much more than the costs of the stimulus to end the current economic crisis). Thus it is not surprising that there are an increasing number of voices in the West and Japan who are talking of increasing the retirement age to 75. Doing so would engage the older citizens, contribute to the state exchequer in terms of taxes from older workers, and reduce the social security burden on the young. It is a surprisingly obvious solution.
With the PM politically on the defensive after the all-round criticism of his joint statement with his Pakistani counterpart at Sharm-el-Sheikh, it is unclear when he may undertake the change in retirement age, though he is said to be very enthusiastic about it. Sharm-el-Sheikh will pass however; party boss Sonia Gandhi can manage the naysayers in the Congress, and the BJP is still shell-shocked from its electoral defeat to do serious damage to the government. And even within the BJP it is thought that currently the coming assembly elections in Maharashtra favour the Congress. Manmohan Singh will soon enough have the political wind at his back to make this proposal. Good thing, for it is an eminently sensible one.
Source: Express buzz
also read Business Standard
Comments
Such short sighted approach cannot be expected from a learned person, least of all from a person like Dr. Manmohan Singh.
Indian electorate punished CPM for their sinister design and now if congress which enjoys almost absolute majority acts in dictatororial manner, it would also meet the same fate.
As long as there is no robust mechanism to weed out dead wood such idea of enhancing retirement age to 62 or above is suicidal even if it is to delay the inevitable, ie: the cash flow.
Dinesh
Respected Prime Minister Sir, all can not be like Manmohan Singh, the dearest for every bureaucrat in this country.
How many bureaucrats could become Prime Ministers of India?
Would Cong[I] came into power without efforts Rahul Gandhi this time?
Pleaazzzzz. Enough is enough. Give rest for the Sixties and make way for the youngsters. Government can think this way too.... a fresher need be paid lesser than a retiree.....
Raising the retirement age is a unwanted matter in Govt. sector. If an Indian Govt is headed by a youth this foolishness will not happen. It is very shameful for India and Indian Govt. Best way to sustain the old people in large number is recruit the people between the age 55 to 75 and make a old and ancient India.
Whe can i expect this from CG
i think govt has grown up mentally. age should be 65 and not 62.it will save money for govt and will have no impact on elections as govt is elected recently. by the time of next election impact of raising the age will disappear . at the time of recession it is must to raise age limit to save the country.
dr ashok kumar agrawal
jaipur
better avoid such situations..
NO this increase of retirement age will introduce stagnation at current levels.
We should vehemently oppose this idea.
This is realy sad news for youth of India. If we compare to foreigh country the decison looks nice but in India where the population is more than 120 crores and unemployement is a big problem, the decision of raising retirement age is not acceptable by the people of India. The youth must be given chance to serve.
C.S. SINGH
IF IT IS THOUGHT THAT A PERSON AT 60 YEARS IS STILL ON HIS MENTAL PEAK, BUT WHAT ABOUT HIS PHYSICAL FITNESS? A HEALTHY MIND LIVES IN A HEALTHY BODY.
IF YOUR OPINION IS BASED ON UGC'S SUGGESTION TO INCREASE THE RETIREMENT AGE OF 65 YEARS, THEN FOLLOW THE PATTERN AS PER USA, WHERE THERE IS NO RETIREMENT OF WORKING PROFESSORS IN ANY UNIVERSITY. AFTER 60 YEARS, HE HAS TO SOUGHT EXTENSION FOR EACH YEAR ON BASIS OF HIS HEALTH FITNESS AND ABOVE ALL APPRAISALS FROM HIS STUDENTS.
It would be the pitiest move by govt. The old employees( Officers)are engaged in enjoying balance HPL, LTC etc at the time of urgent works, such as election, important meetings. They try to be in easy going life with previous experience.They want to pass the time till retirement.They are not conversant with new technology. Instead 3-4 unemployed can be engaged having computor basic nowledge. Remove old person .
This is the most appropriate time for the Govt. to announce its decision to enhance the retirement age to 62 years otherwise the demand may come from opposition to score a point in view of the present fiscal situation.
After all what is the point in paying hefty pension to a healthy mind [which 99.99% of the employees do have] sitting idle at the age of 60?
none of the youth wants to work, they knew that they will get a house, a travelling allowance , and free medical , for this they sang a song of unemployment in youth,
we just get another new refreshing mind but not the productive mind for nxt 60 yrs...
if the young one are so talented that they can move society , govt , sector so upward. why dont they join some other sector..
there are many other field where they can use there productive brains in private seator,, just because that they have to work hard for private seactor they dont want to join private...
as the life expectancy increased ...
govt should increase age to 65..
so that they will remain healthy and deciplined as well...
this need to take as early as possible
i think govt has grown up mentally. age should be 65 and not 62.it will save money for govt and will have no impact on elections as govt is elected recently. by the time of next election impact of raising the age will disappear . at the time of recession it is must to raise age limit p.k.jha Bhubneswar
HB Khamari,AIR, Cuttack
While Mr Rahul Gandhi is looking towards the young of the indthis country and seeking their support to runn the government/politics of this country. It will bedly effect the economy at all. Also raised the unemployment of this country. No doubt the senior persons got lot of experience and efficiency but they cannot work quickly as I experienced.
BY-K.R.CHAKRABORTY.DOORDARSHAN
AMBIKAPUR
In most of the government department there is no promotion because of age of retirement. In my case I am eligible for the promotion as FAO after completing 8 years of service but I have already completed 10 years. Moreover another four five year I am not expecting the promotion. so retirement age has to be 62 or the 33 years of service which is earlier.
S.K. Dogra
sir
I 'm well sattaled youth but I'm supporting the retirment plan of 62 to 65 bcz when any person is going to age of retirement his or her child is is struggling to stand on his or her feet,for just moral support of this youth this Idea is nice one . Behalf of all the youth struggler I want to say If it not possible then all plotician should also have an age limite of 60 years...thx
For morethan 36 years serviced peoples in centralgoverntment they are expecting for retirement.If increased the age they will get heart attack. For those people
govt to give some choice in the way of money to get his retirement
as he desidred
I too am a State Government Employee and put in a service of above 30 years. Inspite, I feel that the enhancement of retirement age will be fruitful to none, except the concerned Employee. Moreover, in the present trend of corruption engaging youths in public service the currupt practices could be curbed, since the youths though not possess experience but they possess enthusiasm and sense of honesty and integrity. So, they will compensate the loss likely to be caused on account of retirement of experienced personnels. Anyway, such experienced ones are bound to retire on one or the other day, consequently the Government is sure to lose its experienced servants. Thus, it will be wise to employ youths in its sevices and allow them to gain the experience at their early ages rather than continuing the experienced for another two years.
many seniors have vast experience which will be helpful in betterment of society. just implement it as soon as possible