KATHMANDU: As Nepal moves toward implementing administrative federalism, a contentious debate has emerged over the proposed “cooling-off period” provision in the Federal Civil Service Bill.
Though the bill has yet to be tabled in Parliament, discussion has already sparked differing opinions among former bureaucrats and political stakeholders.
The State Affairs and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives passed the bill on May 16, incorporating a provision that would enforce a two-year “cooling-off period” for retired bureaucrats before they can take on constitutional or government appointments.
The provision also sets the retirement age for civil servants at 60 and retains the position of Additional Secretary.
In bureaucratic terms, the “cooling-off period” refers to the mandatory waiting period a retired civil servant must observe before accepting a new government position.
Former Chairperson of the Administrative Reform Commission, Kashiraj Dahal, defends the provision, arguing it is necessary to prevent cronyism and ensure ethical governance. “If there were genuine intent for good governance, such a provision might not be necessary,” said Dahal. “But when civil servants manipulate the system for personal gain or through political alliances, measures like this are justified.”
Dahal noted that the trend of officials vying to remain in positions of power—mirroring political behavior—has eroded professionalism in the bureaucracy. He emphasized that legal mechanisms must be in place to curb partisan influence and ensure neutrality in the administrative leadership.
His commission had previously recommended the inclusion of such a clause in the law.
“The recent uproar over the cooling-off period suggests a lack of self-confidence among senior administrative leaders. Even if the state deems someone unsuitable post-retirement, civil servants should accept that,” Dahal said.
He suggested that instead of opposing the provision outright, the flexibility to amend it based on national need should be embraced.
However, some former administrators argue that the provision is an attempt to tarnish the image of the civil service, especially when similar rules do not apply to other sectors such as the military, police, or academia. They allege the rule has been introduced selectively and unfairly.
Dr. Jagat Nepal, Head of the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism at Ratna Rajya Laxmi Campus, suggests that a decision on whether to include the cooling-off period should come only after addressing widespread irregularities in government appointments.
“Appointing officials immediately after retirement is inappropriate. However, if someone possesses merit, capacity, and the country needs them, they should not be barred,” he stated. “The rule should apply fairly—either to all or none.”
The bill explicitly bars any civil servant from taking a constitutional or government appointment for two years after retirement. This provision was passed following Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak’s statement in the committee expressing the government’s agreement on the two-year limit.
The issue of the cooling-off period has surfaced before. A previous Administrative Reform Commission report recommended that retired civil servants found guilty of misconduct should not be allowed to work on foreign aid-funded projects for at least six months.
Comment