Dimapur, June 6 (MExN): Apparently referring to calculations given by government employees to explain why the superannuation policy should not be reviewed, the Educated Unemployed Union of Nagaland today disputed the figures otherwise. Rather, the Union has demanded investigations into all educational documents of officials who joined service in or prior to 1976 and have not reached 60 years of age.
“The government must thoroughly investigate educational documents of all the state officials who had joined the service in or prior to 1976 and have not reached 60 years of age. If most of them joined the service at the age of 18 years as stated… they must have graduated at the age of 17 years or earlier and matriculated at the age of 14 years or earlier or joined class ‘A’ at the age of 2 years” the Union said in its statement received today.
It is necessary, the Union stated, to know what the required minimum age limit for admission into class ‘A’ and minimum age and educational qualification for entering Government service at that time was. The EUUN had this observation: “If the parents sent their children at the age of 2 years during 1960s and 1970s time, then the parents were not really illiterate as stated by senior government officials as they already possessed high awareness on the children education. But, if they entered the government service and joined high schools at the age of 18 years during 1960s and 1970s, was the minimum age for entering the government service 18 years during that period of time.” If the government remains indifferent, then the matter must be handed over to the CBI for impartial investigation into “this kind of malpractice,” it added.
The Union also referred to the high court’s judgment quashing the decision of the government to review both the length of service at the age of 33 years and retirement at the age of 57 years in 1993. If the court can do so, the union stated, it can also pass a decision against tampering of age in the service and backdoor appointment which amounts to denial of equality of opportunity in public employment, the EUUN explained. The high court has not ruled out both the length of service at 34 or 35 years of age, and retirement at 59 or 60 years of age (or whichever) is earlier, “cannot be fixed,” it stated.
Stating that the culture of age-tampering for appointments in the services has spoiled the future of thousands of deserving youths, the Union said it amounts to ‘denial of right to life with basic necessities and is unlawful betrayal of the people’. “The decision of the government to fix both the length of service and retirement age is not intended to ‘please the younger generation’ as stated by ‘to be affected senior government servants’ but, it is rather to rectify the error committed and provide solution to the excess social problems created by the people in the chairs due to the absence of the clear-cut policy and mismanagement of affairs,” the Union added.
The government servants are advised to “understand that retirement is not a punishment but they are granted retirement from the service when their service becomes outdated or is no more required by the public. There is no rule which permits the government servants to serve as long as they want to occupy the chairs,” the EUUN stated.
