Chandra Kant Sharma
The recent announcement by Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami regarding the mandatory retirement of government employees failing to perform their duties has reignited a critical debate on governance and administrative efficiency. While the policy itself is not new and was introduced nearly three to four years ago, its lack of transparency and unclear implementation raise serious concerns. The absence of concrete data on the number of employees who have been either retired or terminated under this policy suggests a failure in enforcement. If this policy had been implemented effectively, there should have been publicly accessible records detailing the actions taken against underperforming employees. Instead, the Chief Minister’s need to reiterate the policy indicates that either no substantial action has been taken or that the government is reluctant to disclose the outcomes.
According to sources in the state administration, government departments, particularly the secretariat, have a large number of employees who have occupied positions for years without demonstrating any significant contribution. This raises the fundamental question: is this policy merely an instrument for political grandstanding, or will it genuinely be implemented? The formation of committees to assess non-performing employees has further compounded doubts regarding their effectiveness. A senior bureaucrat, speaking on condition of anonymity, remarked, “Committees are often formed for review, but without clear guidelines and accountability, their recommendations rarely translate into action. The lack of transparency makes it difficult to gauge whether these committees have any real impact.”
A crucial aspect missing from the government’s narrative is the potential political influence in the execution of this policy. Can the Chief Minister guarantee that political affiliations and pressures will not influence the decisions of the officers tasked with enforcing retirements? In many cases, government employees operate under political patronage, shielding them from administrative actions despite inefficiencies. If a large number of employees are forced to retire, what is the government’s roadmap for filling these vacancies? Available data suggests that the BJP government has struggled to generate employment both at the national and state levels. According to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), Uttarakhand’s unemployment rate stands at approximately 6.2%, higher than the national average. If mass retirements occur without a clear employment plan, administrative paralysis could follow.
The economic structure of Uttarakhand also poses challenges to implementing this policy. Unlike Haryana, where former Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar executed a similar policy leading to the forced retirement of multiple employees, Uttarakhand does not have the advantage of a robust agricultural sector. The state is heavily dependent on tourism and a few industrial sectors that contribute modestly to its revenue. Given this economic landscape, is it pragmatic to retire a large section of employees when replacements may not be readily available? “The state’s tax revenue is already limited. If administrative positions remain vacant, the efficiency of public service delivery will further decline,” said economist Usha Sunil.
Employee unions have voiced their opposition, arguing that the policy lacks fairness and clarity. “There is no well-defined criteria for assessing non-performance. If the government does not set objective parameters, the policy can be misused as a tool for harassment rather than genuine efficiency improvement,” stated Rajiv Pandey, a senior union leader representing government employees. Experts suggest that an independent review mechanism should be established to ensure fair evaluation. “Ideally, performance should be judged based on measurable outputs rather than subjective opinions of seniors. Otherwise, the policy may end up being a weapon of convenience for those in power,” remarked political analyst Dr. Anil Sharma.
The absence of periodic reports on retirements further fuels skepticism. If the government is genuinely implementing this policy, why have there been no official figures released detailing its impact? How many employees have been dismissed or taken voluntary retirement? What percentage of these employees were holding critical administrative positions? Without answers to these questions, the policy risks being perceived as an empty threat rather than a genuine reform measure.
The effectiveness of such a policy ultimately hinges on execution. If the government intends to enforce mandatory retirements, it must ensure an objective, data-driven approach with regular audits and public disclosures. Additionally, a workforce replenishment strategy is crucial; otherwise, the government risks creating a bureaucratic void. Given Uttarakhand’s economic structure and reliance on tourism rather than a diverse industrial base, knee-jerk administrative reforms could backfire. While the intent behind the policy may be to enhance efficiency, its opaque implementation raises more concerns than solutions. Until the government provides clear data, establishes objective criteria, and ensures political non-interference, the policy will remain a subject of skepticism rather than a credible administrative reform.
(Author is a well-known name in Indian journalism, having served 36 years with Doordarshan. A research fellow at Moradabad University specializing in special child cases in India, he is an award-winning documentary filmmaker and a trusted advisor to multiple media institutions)
