New Delhi: While much has been written about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s proclivity to rely on retired civil servants to assist him and spearhead his governance agenda, a similar trend is picking up in states across the country, with chief ministers holding onto officers beyond their retirement.
Last week, when Nilam Sawhney, a 1984-batch IAS officer, retired as the chief secretary of Andhra Pradesh after getting two extensions, she was immediately appointed the Principal Adviser to Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy.
Sawhney is not the first former chief secretary to join Reddy’s Chief Minister’s Office (CMO). Her senior in the IAS, 1983-batch officer Ajeya Kallam, already holds the post of Principal Adviser in the CMO. P.V. Ramesh, a Special Chief Secretary who was not granted an extension by the central government last year when he was due for retirement, also held the position of Additional Chief Secretary to the CM until last month, when he resigned.
In neighbouring Odisha, Chief Secretary Asit Kumar Tripathy retired from government service last week, and was immediately appointed the Principal Adviser to Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik on regional development, tourism, agribusiness and industry. The top officer in the state CMO, the Chief Adviser to the CM, is R. Balakrishnan, who had retired as additional chief secretary in 2018.
In Maharashtra, after two extensions as Chief Secretary, Ajoy Mehta was appointed as Principal Adviser to the CM this year, despite questions being raised by the Congress, a partner in the Shiv Sena-led ruling alliance, on the influence he wields in the state’s administration.
Move north towards Gujarat and another example emerges — 1979-batch IAS officer K. Kailashnathan has been the Chief Principal Secretary to the CM since 2013, when he retired as then Gujarat CM Modi’s additional chief secretary. He has received six extensions in his role as Chief Principal Secretary under three chief ministers (from the same party) — Modi, Anandiben Patel and incumbent Vijay Rupani. In 2019, his term was finally made co-terminus with that of the CM. Known as “Modi’s man” in Gujarat, he is seen as a key link between the political leadership and bureaucracy in the state.
In Bihar, too, the Nitish Kumar government appointed 1981-batch IAS officer Anjani Singh as adviser to the CM, a day after his retirement as chief secretary in 2018.
These are not exceptions. Across the country, several offices of chief ministers are being run by IAS officers who have just retired from top posts in the government, such as chief secretary, home or finance department secretaries, and are known to be the ears of the CMs in their respective states.
Rules laid down by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) state that retired officials ought to be re-engaged in exceptional circumstances. But the flurry of such appointments in the recent past suggest that the rule is not always followed.
Several civil servants and politicians describe this trend as “dangerous”, and one that undermines the role of active civil servants. Such post-retirement positions for civil servants have often also led to centralisation of power in the CMO, they add. However, others justify the trend, saying it is the prerogative of chief ministers to appoint advisers who enjoy their trust. Even so, they add, these appointments should not come at the cost of norms or disturb the usual hierarchy of administration.
Also Read: IAS edge proves a winner as chief secretaries overshadow political bosses in virus battle
‘Undermining the active bureaucracy’
Speaking to ThePrint, a chief secretary-level officer described the trend as “extremely dangerous… and a perfect example of how the bureaucracy becomes a threat for itself”.
“The adviser, who has very little accountability because he signs no files, gradually starts eating into either the powers of the chief secretary or the principal secretary,” added the officer, who did not want to be named.
“In the state government, you have the chief secretary who will be like the senior-most officer in the state, and the objective conscience-keeper of the bureaucracy, and the principal secretary to the CM, who will articulate the government’s political agenda,” the officer said. “These are well-accepted, institutionally defined roles. You add an adviser senior to both of them to the equation, and it is a recipe for conflicts, ego battles and general chaos.”
T.R. Raghunandan, a retired IAS officer, and adviser with the Accountability Initiative at Delhi-based think tank Centre for Policy Research, agreed.
“Appointing outgoing officers as advisers completely erodes the office of the chief secretary. These days, in several states, even a peon does not get transferred without the approval of the CMO, which is occupied by these retired officers,” he said.
“There is a question of centralisation, but also the issue of demoralising the entire bureaucracy by entrusting a few people with all responsibilities.”
Also Read: ‘Mini CM’, ‘super CM’, troubleshooter IAS officer — the power centres in Yogi’s UP
‘Little accountability’
These are apprehensions shared by some politicians as well. Senior Congress leader and former Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan, who served as Minister of State for the DoPT during the UPA government, said this trend is increasing across the country, and goes against well-established norms of governance.
“It seems like the states are copying the Centre’s model,” he added. “In Delhi, the principal secretary to the PM has always been a retired IAS officer, but this model is new to the states… It is something I am personally against, it demoralises the whole bureaucracy, and raises serious questions of accountability,” he added.
“The adviser has to sign no files, just issue orders in the CM’s name that others have to follow.”
It is an issue taken up by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well. Setting aside the appointment of retired 1983-batch retired IAS officer Suresh Kumar as Chief Principal Secretary to Chief Minister Capt. Amarinder Singh in 2018, the court said he was holding the position without any authority.
“Even consultation with the ministers and the administrative secretaries is not necessary. It is not difficult to envision a situation where the state is plunged into crisis by a decision taken by such appointee because he can’t be expected to have, despite his long career as a bureaucrat, same vision for the state’s development as the CM who enjoys the mandate of the general populace and is answerable to them for his decisions,” the bench observed.
The aforementioned IAS officer who sought anonymity said the main responsibility of the adviser is to vet any file that has to be cleared by the CM.
“In several cases, the CM is only listening to the adviser, who is not governed by any constitutional rules, has not sworn the oath of secrecy, and will have no accountability if a decision goes awry,” the officer added.
Chavan said it is not just the serving bureaucracy that “these advisers can undermine, but also the ministers”, Chavan said. “They are often given Cabinet rank by the government when they are appointed as advisers, which is completely ridiculous.”
Raghunandan agreed. “It completely upends the hierarchy between the political executive and bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are not supposed to have the ranks of ministers, but this is routinely done to circumvent the bar on the number of ministers one can have in a Cabinet,” he said.
Article 16 of the Constitution states that “the total number of ministers, including the chief minister, in the council of ministers in a state shall not exceed fifteen per cent of the total number of members of the legislative assembly of that state”.
However, this rule is completely circumvented when you accord the rank and status of Cabinet minister to a retired officer, Raghunandan said.
Also Read: ‘Mamata’s trusted officers don’t retire’ — chief secretary joins list as industry body head
‘Exceptional circumstances’
According to DoPT rules, “No proposal for extension of service or re-employment beyond the age of superannuation should ordinarily be considered.”
Further, the rules state, “Extension of service/re-employment can be justified only in very rare and exceptional circumstances.”
Extensions can be justified only when other officers are “not ripe enough” for the job or the officer in question is of “outstanding merit”, they add. Both these conditions need to be sufficiently established for an extension to be granted to a retiring officer or to re-engage them in government service.
One of the advisers mentioned above told ThePrint that it is the CM’s prerogative to appoint advisers they trust completely.
“At that level, trust becomes very important for any CM… And it is not a trend limited to states. At the level of the PMO, it is two retired IAS officers who wield the maximum influence,” said the retired officer, referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Principal Secretary P.K. Mishra and Principal Adviser P.K. Sinha.
“The only thing is that the adviser should not enjoy more power than the chief secretary… There is a well-established line of administration where there are secretaries of departments and their ministers, and the chief secretary and the CM. It is important that this line is not disturbed.”
For example, in the case of Punjab, the CM had devolved the powers of clearing files to the adviser, also entrusting him to hold meetings in his absence, the officer said.
“It is those cases that disrupt the norms and rules of administration.”
In most cases, the officer added, the roles of these advisers are like those of consultants to the government. “If the CM feels an officer has expertise in a certain area, then they can be appointed as advisers. Their role is like a consultant, which is a widespread phenomenon in government offices today,” the officer said.
“By and large, the role of the adviser is to give the CM feedback, and it goes without saying that such a position can only be occupied by someone who enjoys the CM’s trust,” the adviser added.
Also Read: Ignore seniors, find favourite IAS officer — the dubious tradition of picking chief secretaries