We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
The controversial provision of the civil service bill prepared by the parliamentary sub-committee to allow retired civil servants to get pension benefits despite being found guilty by the court on charges of moral corruption including corruption, has been removed. The amendments made in the original bill by the sub-committee chaired by Dilendra Prasad Badu have been corrected in the state order and good governance committee.
The committee has established the rule that "if the ex-employees or their close relatives are found guilty by the court of an offense of moral turpitude, they will not get pension facilities from the state" mentioned in section 68 of the original bill.
Earlier, the sub-committee removed the provision of section 68 of the original bill and replaced it with a provision related to 'dual facilities'. "It has been decided to remove the amendments made by the sub-committee and send the bill to the House by maintaining the provisions in the original bill," said Ramhari Khatiwada, the chairman of the State Arrangements Committee. In subsection 1 of section 68 of the original bill, "a person who is on leave and receiving pension or family pension shall not be entitled to such pension if he is found guilty by the court of corruption, embezzlement of government or public documents, crimes against the state, drug dealing, money laundering, sale of antiquities, human trafficking, kidnapping and body hostage, extortion, polygamy or other criminal offenses showing moral turpitude." There was an arrangement.
Civil Service Bill was submitted in the House of Representatives on 21 February 2080 by the then Federal Affairs and General Administration Minister Anita Devi. A year after that, on February 9, the State Order Committee formed a sub-committee headed by Congress MP Badu to study the bill and submit a report. was The
sub-committee discussed and reported quarterly in a closed room. The report was submitted to the committee on March 14 after amending various clauses of the original bill. Kantipur published a series of news about the report made by the sub-committee to maintain the pension of the ex-employee found guilty.
Congress's Badu, UML MP Raghuji Pant and Maoist's Hitraj Pandey expressed their displeasure in the sub-committee in an informal meeting on Sunday saying, "How was the report leaked to the media without discussion in the committee meeting?" In Monday's committee meeting too, they expressed anger that the media had published 'misleading news'.
UML MP Pant expressed anger saying that the media should be barred from entering the committee meeting. In the meeting of the committee, the sub-committee coordinator Badu argued that it would be unfair to the employees if there was a provision of not getting pension even for minor criminal charges. But the committee unanimously amended the report of the sub-committee on Wednesday.
The existing civil law does not mention the provision of pension arrangements if the ex-employee is convicted after retirement. That is why convicted ex-employees/security personnel are getting pension benefits.
In section 45 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2059, it is only written that 'the provisions of this Act shall not be considered as a hindrance to prosecuting a public servant while in office, by misappropriating or damaging government or public property or the property of an institution owned by the Government of Nepal. In the case of existing employees, there is a provision that they will not get pension if they are convicted while still in service. Now the same arrangement is going to be kept in the case of ex-employees as well.
