A bill with a two-year 'cooling period' to end the trend of appointing to various government posts including the Constitutional Commission by adjusting the political 'setting' since being in office has been unanimously passed by the State System and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives on 2nd of June.

However, the chief secretary and secretaries are visiting the leader's house to stop the 'cooling period' arrangement which has been passed by the parliamentary committee . Why? In this context,

Rishiram Poudel of Kantipur had a brief conversation with Chief Secretary Eknarayan Aryal . Why are the secretaries, including you, dissatisfied with the two-year cooling period in the Federal Civil Service Act?

Firstly, parliamentarians have the right to make decisions about bills in parliament. In some cases, staff can provide advice. Employees have no other role in making laws. Many of the secretaries and joint secretaries have expressed some dissatisfaction regarding the 'cooling period'. I also think that their dissatisfaction is justified. There is no need to have any personal 'reservation' in that. The main thing is that while making the law, it should apply equally to all, not just one part of the state. The employees felt insulted when they tried to limit the 'cooling period' only to civil servants.

The main reason for expressing dissatisfaction is because of not getting an appointment immediately after leaving the job?

The secretaries have raised the question of how an employee who is good for 30 years in the job will be bad after retirement. Their voice that this cannot be done constitutionally can be said to be justified. It has been said that discrimination will be born when a law is made that does not require a two-year 'cooling period' for others to be appointed to a constitutional body, but applies only to civil servants. As a parent of a civil service employee, I have to listen to some issues. But the parliament will make the law. That is not even a matter of our jurisdiction, until the request is made.

Did the secretaries meet the Prime Minister and Congress President and say that they will resign en masse if the two-year cooling-off period is not removed?

I have learned that the secretaries met the Prime Minister and the Congress President and made their point. It is also natural for them to complain about their concerns. But I don't know about collective resignation. No one even listened to what someone had said on impulse. Again, the employee cannot do such a thing. It is the responsibility of the employees to follow the laws that the Parliament makes.

How can the questions raised by the secretaries regarding the 'cooling period' be addressed?

It is not that there should not be a 'cooling period', it is more dissatisfaction that only civil servants are banned. A person working in government service is not ineligible for government service. Aren't constitutional commissions and ambassadors government services? Everyone had to be treated equally. Our point is why ban only civil servants. If the

is to be kept, it is better to have a provision of 'cooling period' not in the Civil Service Act, but in the Act on Appointment of Constitutional Officers. Doing so does not violate the right to equality. The constitution also mentions that the services of retired employees will be utilized. In the draft of the bill, we have put a provision that after the retirement of government employees, they will not be able to take appointments in projects, projects, donor agencies, private firms, etc. for one year.