Can unemployment be solved by forcing government employees to leave service early?

 

Can unemployment be solved by forcing government employees to leave service early?

-Bruhaspati Samal-

Is unemployment to be fought by shortening the working lives of government employees, while the tenure, privileges and pensions of those who govern remain untouched? This is the fundamental question, Union Minister H. D. Kumaraswamy must answer after suggesting that government employees should leave service after 10–15 years, or within a shortened tenure of 15–20 years, so that more people can obtain government jobs. Reports published on 16–17 October 2026 describe his proposal as a way to address unemployment and provide at least one government job to every family. He has indicated that he would pursue the idea if given the opportunity to implement it in Karnataka. It is a proposal for public discussion, not an approved policy of the Union Government. Yet, coming from a Union Minister, it deserves serious scrutiny rather than being dismissed as a passing remark.

The first question is whether any Central Pay Commission has recommended such a sweeping measure. The historical record requires a clear distinction. The Sixth Central Pay Commission did recommend contractual appointments for selected government posts requiring high professional skills, including opportunities to induct specialists from outside government. It also contemplated contractual arrangements for certain existing employees who voluntarily opted for them after leaving their regular service. These were limited arrangements intended to attract specialised talent, not a recommendation that every regular government employee should be compelled to retire after 15 years. The Seventh CPC examined pay structures, efficiency, recruitment and retirement benefits without recommending a universal 15-year service ceiling. The published Terms of Reference of the Eighth CPC similarly contain no such mandate. 

The argument that shorter service automatically creates more jobs is equally questionable. India’s unemployment crisis cannot be solved merely by forcing existing employees out of service earlier. If a department has 100 sanctioned posts and all are occupied, creating vacancies through premature retirement may provide recruitment opportunities, but it does not necessarily create additional posts or expand public services. If the objective is to provide employment to unemployed youth, why not fill the enormous number of existing vacancies, establish transparent annual recruitment calendars and strengthen departments suffering from staff shortages? The immediate priority should be to recruit eligible candidates against vacant sanctioned posts, not to shorten the careers of those already serving.

A government job is not merely a temporary opportunity to earn a salary. It is a career entered through prescribed qualifications, competitive examinations and lawful recruitment, accompanied by responsibilities, transfers, promotions and expectations of retirement security under applicable service rules. Employees plan their children’s education, housing, family obligations and old age around the conditions of service under which they were recruited. A compulsory 15-year ceiling would disrupt these expectations, weaken institutional experience and potentially discourage qualified candidates from joining public service. It could also adversely affect continuity in education, healthcare, postal services, administration, defence support and other essential sectors. The promise of a monthly pension of ₹8,000–₹10,000, as reported in connection with the proposal, raises another question: can such an amount provide dignified retirement security amid inflation, medical expenses and rising living costs? A pension figure cannot be judged in isolation from the employee’s contributions, service conditions, family responsibilities and the prevailing cost of living.

The constitutional dimension cannot be ignored. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 16 protects equality of opportunity in public employment. Article 309 provides the framework for regulating recruitment and conditions of service, and Articles 310 and 311 govern tenure and safeguards relating to dismissal, removal and reduction in rank. These provisions do not automatically prohibit every fixed-term appointment or every change in retirement policy. Nevertheless, a blanket measure affecting existing regular employees would require clear legal authority, constitutional scrutiny, appropriate transitional arrangements and consideration of legitimate service expectations. A policy cannot be justified merely by invoking unemployment. Nor can one assume that a rule designed for contractual appointments in specialised posts provides legal authority to impose compulsory early retirement across the entire Central Government workforce.

Now comes the question that makes this debate unavoidable: if government employees must surrender decades of service to create opportunities for others, why should the people’s representatives who formulate such policies remain outside the same test of sacrifice? Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies occupy positions of public trust. Their tenure, remuneration and pension arrangements arise under separate constitutional and statutory frameworks, not the ordinary service rules applicable to government employees. That distinction must be acknowledged. Nevertheless, if the governing principle is that public employment should be distributed widely and no individual should occupy a public position for too long, why should that principle be discussed only in relation to employees? Should there not also be a serious debate on limiting elected representatives to a single tenure, subject to constitutional and electoral requirements, and restricting pension entitlement to a single pension rather than benefits linked to repeated terms? Any such reform would require separate legislative consideration, particularly because MPs’ pensions are governed by the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954, while MLAs’ entitlements depend on the relevant state laws. The question is not whether the two categories are legally identical; it is whether public accountability should operate in both directions.

The issue becomes even more compelling when pension inequality is considered. Central Government employees appointed on or after 1 January 2004 were brought under the contributory National Pension System, while subsequent changes introduced the Unified Pension Scheme as an option for eligible central employees. The arrangements for elected representatives are governed separately by law. If financial sustainability and wider distribution of public resources are the arguments for cutting employees’ careers short, elected representatives should be prepared to explain why comparable scrutiny of their own tenure, pension entitlements and public expenditure should not be undertaken. A demand for a single pension for representatives, regardless of the number of terms served, can be debated as a proposal for public accountability; it should not be misrepresented as an existing constitutional requirement. Fairness requires transparent comparison of the applicable rules, costs and public responsibilities, rather than selective austerity imposed on one section alone.

The minister should therefore ask himself a fundamental question before advancing such a far-reaching proposal: is the purpose of government employment to provide a short-lived benefit to one family or to build a competent, experienced and accountable public service for the entire nation? A policy promising one government job to every household may sound attractive, but employment cannot be distributed fairly by an arithmetic formula that ignores qualifications, administrative requirements, fiscal consequences and the rights of existing employees. There is also no guarantee that one vacancy created by early retirement will translate into one appointment, or that the resulting recruitment will reach the poorest and most disadvantaged households. If corruption, delayed recruitment and irregularities in selection are among the causes of public frustration, as reported during the discussion that prompted Kumaraswamy’s remarks, the remedy must include transparent examinations, timely appointments, accountability and adequate staffing—not merely a reduction in service tenure.

Public service must not become a sacrifice demanded only from public servants. The country needs more employment, stronger public institutions and dignified retirement—not a contest in which one citizen’s security is sacrificed in the name of another citizen’s opportunity. Before asking government employees to surrender the prospect of a full career, those who exercise political power must answer the question that democracy places before every public representative: why should the burden of reform fall upon the governed while the privileges of the governing remain beyond question?

(The author is a Service Union Representative and a Columnist, presently working as the General Secretary, Confederation of Central Govt Employees and Workers and President, Forum of Civil Pensioners' Association / National Coordination Committee of Pensioners' Association, Odisha State Committee)

*****