My home cadre, Himachal Pradesh, has been witnessing an extraordinary (and ongoing) kerfuffle in its corridors of power over the last month or so. I am no stranger to bureaucratic "lapsus calami" during my long and undistinguished career in government, and have probably been responsible for quite a few of them myself, but what is happening now is of Trumpian proportions. Since I still draw a pension from the state, minus the last five DA instalments because the state coffers are as dry as the Indus basin in Pakistan post operation Sindoor, I had initially decided not to comment on this issue, believing in the time-tested canine dictum: If you can't eat it, or hump it, or change it, then just piss on it and walk away. But a statement made by the Chief Minister last Wednesday cannot be allowed to go uncontested, because it is pregnant with the potential for more administrative calamities in the future.
Addressing the members of the State Electricity Board union who have been getting restive for some time now at not receiving their pensions and arrears on time, the CM claimed that the problem was due to there being too many (highly paid) officers in the Board, draining its finances. Now, this is true, not only for the Board but for the whole government generally. Himachal probably has the highest employee/pensioner to population ratio in the country; in a previous blog I had suggested that the govt. could easily be downsized by 20%. But the irony and disingenuity in the CM's statement lies elsewhere.
Why did the govt. add another "highly paid" officer to the Board just a week earlier, appointing a retired Chief Secretary as the Chairman when there was an abundance of serving officers available, both within and outside the Board? Does the additional Rs. 50 to 60 lakhs per annum which the Board now has to bear for this officer square with the CM's claim? Unfortunately, such appointments and "extensions" have become a norm in this bankrupt state, which is why the CM's statement is not likely to find many takers.
For the fact is that the state's senior HR management over the last couple of years has been a disaster. Rules and conventions have been thrown out of the window in order to favour some and to (presumably) serve political interests. Even as I write this piece, a most unusual situation prevails- the top-most three administrative posts in the state, all belonging to the All India Services, are held by officers in an officiating, and not regular, capacity. The Chief Secretary, the Director-General of Police and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests are all holding ADDITIONAL charge of their posts, and will probably do so till they retire in a few months. This is absolutely unprecedented and I can't recollect whether this has ever happened in any state at any time! This is ad-hocism at its worst. The point I am making is simple- if the govt. found these officers suitable in terms of seniority and merit to be appointed to these posts (even by superseding their seniors) then why not do it in a substantive capacity, so that they can function with confidence? And if the reason for giving them officiating or additional charge isbecause they lack in these qualities, then why appoint them in the first place? Is it the objective to keep them insecure and on tenterhooks so that they toe the political line and do the "official" bidding?
Sadly, this is not an isolated example but appears to have become part of a pattern in recent times. Extensions in service, reemployment and appointment of "Advisors" is the new leitmotif of Himachal's cadre management. There does not appear to be any public interest involved in them-I can only guess what other motives are in play. All four of the last four Chief Secretaries have been reemployed. Extensions have become the order of the day, if the concerned officer has sufficient clout at the Center. There are at least half a dozen Advisors-God only knows what advice they are rendering, given the sorry condition of the state's finances, infrastructure and environment.
The IAS cadre strength of Himachal is about 140; for a small state with only 12 districts that is more than enough to staff every Board, Corporation and Regulatory authority or Commission: there is absolutely no reason to appoint retired officers or outsiders to them. This is also reason enough not to give indiscriminate extensions in service to anyone or to deny regular postings to deserving candidates. Such a policy demotivates those in the line of succession and encourages the more "political" or "connected" among them to play their tricks and to undermine their superiors. It is difficult for an "officiating" boss to command the respect and obedience of his team. And a state which has a debt burden which is almost double its annual budget can ill afford to spend crores pandering to personal or political interests of a few.
A cadre or organisation can give of its best only when seniority is respected, merit is recognized, tenures are stable and career trajectories are not dogged with uncertainty. Sadly, all these factors are missing in Himachal's cadre management. It is perhaps time for the Chief Minister to course- correct, and to abide by the rules and conventions which have stood the test of time over seven decades. Any implement or tool is only as good as the hand that wields it.
[ Post Script: Actually, if you ask me, the state needs only one Advisor- Kangana Ranaut. The lissome lady can (and does) speak on any subject under the sun, disburses her advice even when no one wants it, is prone to thinking (is that the word?) out of the box, and best of all, does not care to charge a penny for it. One hopes that said penny drops for the Hon' CM.]