The passage of the Civil Bill has been delayed due to controversy over the 'cooling period' and leave provisions. There is a dispute among the MPs of the ruling party as to how long the 'cooling period' should be, while high-ranking employees have been continuously putting pressure to arrange provisions in the bill according to their interests.

There is also a difference in the implementation method of raising the retirement age from 58 to 60 years. Due to the controversy, the State System and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives has not been able to finalize the "Bill to regulate the formation, operation and conditions of service of the Federal Civil Service".

On Sunday, the discussion on the final draft report of the Civil Bill was started at the meeting of the State Affairs Committee. In the meeting, Committee Secretary Suraj Kumar Dura said that while reading the draft report, two of the main controversial points have been put forward. A member of parliament said that the chairman of the committee, Ramhari Khatiwada, told the secretary of the committee, Dura, not to recite those two points due to the pressure exerted by the staff through the top leaders.  In point number 33 of the

report, it is mentioned that the retirement age of federal civil servants will be increased from 58 to 60 years. In its implementation method, there is a proposal in the report that an additional period of two years of leave should be implemented, starting with 6 months, then one year, and then 6 months. Madhav Prasad Regmi, chairman of the Public Service Commission, also submitted this suggestion to the committee in writing. 

However, the chief secretary and secretaries are not happy with the provision. Instead of that, their position is that the retirement age should be implemented from 58 to 60 years at once. It is alleged that the chief secretary, secretary and joint secretary, who are going to retire within the next one year, are trying to extend their job tenure by two years by taking such a stand. However, the Public Service Commission said that under this arrangement, it will not be possible to open new advertisements and recruit employees for at least three years. The commission has suggested to the committee that only 50 percent of the current advertisement can be taken for new admissions even if it is implemented once a year. 

The next item number 41 that has been put forward is the provision of 'cooling period'. The parliamentarians have tried to keep the system of not getting appointments in constitutional, diplomatic and political positions for a certain period after retiring from the high positions of the federal civil service. Regarding the 'cooling period', it is written in the committee's final draft report, 'Civil servants or employees who have retired from other government services will not be appointed to any constitutional or government position until one year has passed from the date of retirement.'

The committee also backtracked after criticism that the arrangement would discriminate against employees. But the chief secretary and secretaries have been pressing saying that 'cooling period' should not be kept.  In the

meeting, Congress MP Hridayram Thani said that the period of 'cooling period' should be kept for two years. After leaving one place, employees have a strong desire to go to another place to work. Therefore, if we keep a cooling period of two years, the situation of the country can be considered. That urge must be stopped. You don't put a cooling period of one year under anyone's pressure and rabaf," he said. 

Maoist's Hitraj Pandey has also maintained that the 'cooling period' should be at least 2 years. The cooling period should be at least two years. My demand is that it should be increased. By keeping the cooling period less than two years, this country will not be built under any circumstances," he demanded. Congress MPs Sarita Prasain, Ambika Basnet and Ishwari Neupane were also of the opinion that the 'cooling period' should be kept for 2 years. 

UML's Padam Giri said that the 'cooling period' should not be kept for 2 years. We are making a legal arrangement to retire in 60 years. After a two-year cooling period, a person will be 62 years old, and where will he go to get an appointment for two or three years?'' he said. He proposed that it should be kept only for one year saying that if there is no 'cooling period' there will be a conflict of interest and if it is kept for a long time it will be unreasonable.