The State Order and Good Governance Committee will remove the controversial provision of the Civil Service Bill prepared by the Parliamentary Sub-Committee to allow retired civil servants to receive pension benefits despite being found guilty by the court of corruption and moral corruption.

The meeting of the committee held on Monday agreed to amend the provision and send the bill to the House of Representatives after finalizing it as mentioned in the original bill.

The sub-committee under the State Order Committee, formed under the coordination of Congress MP Dilendra Prasad Badu, submitted a report that the pension of the employees who were convicted of the crime of moral turpitude would remain intact . The said provision of the report has been stopped by the original committee . The chairman of the committee, Ramhari Khatiwada, said that if the ex-employees or their "closest beneficiaries" are found guilty of a criminal offense involving moral turpitude, the provisions of the original bill will be removed and the provisions will be included. He informed that the matter has been agreed upon in the meeting of the committee on Monday and the final form of the bill will be sent to the House of Representatives.

Kantipur published news on Sunday about the report made by the sub-committee to maintain the pension of the ex-employee found guilty. On Sunday, the Chairman of the Committee, Khatiwada, discussed this matter with the Member of Parliament who is a member of the Sub-Committee. Then the committee agreed to remove the provision.

In subsection 1 of section 68 of the original bill, "A person who retires after the commencement of the Act and is receiving a pension or a family pension, if found guilty by the court of corruption, embezzlement of government or public documents, crime against the state, drug dealing, money laundering, sale of antiquities, human trafficking, kidnapping and hostage-taking, extortion, polygamy or other criminal offenses showing moral turpitude, he shall receive such pension. No' was mentioned. The sub-committee removed the subject of the said section and put a provision in it that 'double benefits should not be taken' .

2080 On February 21, 2080, the then Minister of Federal Affairs and General Administration, Anita Devi, submitted to the House of Representatives, in Section 68 of the Federal Civil Service Bill, a provision was made that ex-employees or their pensioners who are convicted of a criminal offense involving moral turpitude will not receive such benefits from the state fund . A year after that, on 9th February 2081, the state system committee formed a sub-committee under the leadership of Congress MP Badu to study the bill and submit a report. had done .

The sub-committee amended various sections of the original bill and submitted the report to the committee on March 14. It was found that the provision that ``convicted employees will not get pension benefits'' contained in section 68 of the original bill was removed unanimously. Sub-committee member Shukla said that the disputed provision was kept under the influence of high-ranking officials of the civil service, the threatening pressure of the civil trade union and the agreement of the three big parties. In place of the said section, provision was made that if the ex-employee is appointed to another public position after retirement, he will not get double benefits .

After the news about this matter was published, Badu of Congress, UML MP Raghuji Pant and Hitraj Pandey of Maoist, who are in the sub-committee, expressed their displeasure in the informal meeting on Sunday, saying, "How did it get leaked to the media without discussing it in the committee meeting?" In the committee's meeting held on Monday, they expressed their displeasure saying that the matter was misinterpreted. Pant objected that there was no formal discussion and that there was news about this matter in the media. He made statements to the extent that the media should be banned from the parliamentary committee meeting. However, the chairman of the committee, Khatiwada, made it clear that no matter what report the sub-committee gave, the provision of giving pension facilities to ex-employees convicted through the judicial process was unfair and the committee had restrained it.

Even now, in the Civil Act, the ex-employee/security personnel who have been found guilty are enjoying pension because there is no mention of the provision of pension arrangements if the ex-employee is convicted after retirement. In order to prevent this loophole in the law, in the original bill, provision was made that ex-employees who were found guilty of moral corruption would not get pension. The members of the sub-committee who prepared such a report were dragged into the controversy after the same arrangement was made invisible by the parliamentary sub-committee.

In Monday's meeting, the discussion in the committee focused on what will happen to the pension of the convicted employee. The parliamentarians also had an opinion on the 'cooling period'. The sub-committee report also contains another controversial provision that the employees who are facing court cases for offenses other than automatic suspension should not be suspended . Chairman Khatiwada said that the meeting will discuss this matter and reach a conclusion. Chairman Khatiwada said that the sub-committee's amendment to the original bill will also be discussed in the committee.

Article 103 (4) of the original bill states that "If any civil servant is prosecuted for corruption, government or public documents, crime against national interest, drug dealing, money laundering, sale of antiquities, human trafficking, kidnapping, body hostage, coercion, polygamy or other criminal charges that show moral turpitude, such employee shall be automatically suspended". However, the sub-committee has added a 'restrictive phrase' in section 103 (4) and arranged that such employees who miss bond, surety and date after filing a case in court for an offense shall not be suspended. In the restrictive phrase, it is said, "However, if a civil servant is released from the relevant court on bond, surety or on ordinary dates, if a case has been filed for an offense other than the offense which is automatically suspended after the filing of the case according to the prevailing law, he will not remain under suspension." Badu said in the meeting, "There is a wrong interpretation that pension should be given for committing corruption, pension is a facility that families and children get, pension should not be stopped because of a small punishment," Badu said in the meeting, "If the pension is not given and the punishment is also punished, then there will be a double punishment . Let's also keep not getting pension and let's keep not getting double benefits.' He said that instead of not getting appointment for 2 years of retirement, it should be maintained for one year .