The leaders of the civil trade unions have said that the rights of the employees who helped in the political change by being at the forefront of the democratic movement cannot be lowered even an inch.

The heads of the employees' union organization close to the main political party said that they played an active role in the 2062/063 movement and said that trade union rights cannot be curtailed under any circumstances. They held a collective opinion that the mistakes are made by the political leadership and high-level employees and that they should not cut down the rights by placing the blame on the lower-level employees. 

During the discussion on the Federal Civil Bill organized by the State Order and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives on Friday, they repeatedly brought up the reference of participating in the protest at the call of the parties. The chairman of the committee, Ramhari Khitiwada, started the meeting by saying that he wanted to invite the leaders of the trade unions to discuss the civil law.

In the past few meetings, the staff circle has been opposing it because the party's whips held the idea of ​​abolishing the party-based employee union organization and arranging a single trade union. In the meeting, suggestions were collected regarding trade union rights and the provisions to be kept in the Civil Bill.  In a discussion with the participation of parliamentarians of the

committee and heads of 6 employees' unions, trade union leaders said that the mistakes made by the political leadership and high-level employees were blamed on them. 

Lekhnath Koirala, president of UML-affiliated civil servants organization, put forward the idea that the rights of the employees who participated in the protest should not be curtailed at the call of political parties. He said that it is not appropriate to try to curtail the trade union rights of the employees, saying that he was at the forefront of political support in 2062/063. He added that they have helped political parties in difficult situations and said that employees are the closest allies of the government. He insisted that the problem was not due to trade unions. He said, "Trade union rights given by the constitution should not be curtailed." Chairman Koirala suggested the problem of adjusted employees and the issue to be included in the bill. 

Gopal Prasad Pokharel, president of the civil servants union close to the Nepali Congress, said that trade union rights cannot be lowered even an inch. He questioned why it was tried to curtail the rights of the employees who were active in the political movement at the call of the parties. As the government has the right to organize the transfer system of employees, he requested that trade unions should not be blamed for it. 

Citing the fact that the trade union leaders are walking around without doing their work and there is a tendency to cheat in transfers, he said that it would be wrong for one person to make a mistake, but it would be wrong to heap the blame on the lower level employees. He said, "Our bottom line is trade union rights, morale development of employees and the management of interprovincial transfer of adjusted employees."

President of the Nepal Civil Service National Organization close to the Maoists, Ambadatta Bhatt, said that the right cannot be curtailed because of the development of the commentary that trade unions are corrupting good governance. He said that transfer is done on the basis of faith, and it is wrong to transfer on the basis of casting a vote somewhere. He said that the blame should be on us but the transfer will be done by others.

Bhuvaneshwar Chaudhary, President of Nepal Madheshi Civil Employees Association, Yam Bahadur Khatri, President of CPN Unified Socialist Closely Integrated Government Employees Organization of Nepal, Sharan Kumar Gurung, President of Independent National Servants Association of Nepal, Govind Prasad Belwase, President of Federal Parliament Secretariat Employees Union, should keep the trade union rights and civil rights bill. Suggested on the matter of provision.  During the discussion of the