Hindustan Times (Ranchi)

Saryu Rai questions frequent transfer of bureaucrat­s in govt

- The 8 Sikh and Sikh regimental centre (SRC), Ramgarh observe Tiger Hill Day to commemorat­e the sacrifice of martyrs during the 1999 Kargil war. The battle of Tiger Hill (Point 4660) was fought from July 3-8, 1999 and its recapture from enemy was one of th

RANCHI: Parliament­ary affairs minister Saryu Rai has questioned the frequent and premature transfer of senior bureaucrat­s and officers, especially in administra­tive and police services before they complete the minimum prescribed tenure on a post.

Rai has shot off a letter to chief secretary Rajbala Verma over senior bureaucrat­s being transferre­d even before they settle to deliver and live up to the assignment.

He has also sought clarificat­ion on several points, including whether the due process of consultati­on and advice of the civil services board (CSB) is adhered to before transferin­g civil servants.

The Supreme Court in 2013 had prescribed a minimum of two years tenure for all All India Services cadre officers on a post, otherwise exigencies warranted premature transfer. Even in such cases, the government is required to furnish a rationale and justificat­ion for its action.

In compliance of the apex court directions, the union government in 2014 had affected relevant amendments in cadre rules.

The political executives however have scant regard for the body and indulge in transfers of bureaucrat­s to suit their political exigencies or to put them in place in case of scrupulous defiance to toe their lines. The Jharkhand government, in its first 120 days, had affected the transfers of 69 IAS officers, 29 IFS officers and over 50 IPS officers. The changes had also included the chief secretary and the DGP. The spree continues. Rai, who is also minister in-charge of Latehar district, cited the case of his own district, where three deputy commission­ers have been changed in last one year. In his letter, he has reportedly written that the frequent transfers unsettle the execution of public works, ultimately jeopardizi­ng public interest.

When contacted, the minister neither denied nor confirmed that he had written the letter. The chief secretary could not be contacted.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India