nary Government employees who are not taking part in the policy decisions. In contrast to this the advance made in countries

like England and France, is worth noticing

as the service conditions of Civil Servants in those countries have been liberalised and today Government service there is not a bar for many of the outside avocations.

Recently an amendment to Government Service conduct rules has been passed, prohibiting Government employees from participating in any demostration pertaining to their conditions of service and this needs to be examined in relation, not only to practice in other countries and to our Constitution but even more from the point of view of human relations which are now the accepted method for solving employer-employee disputes. Only a few days ago French Civil Servants were on strike. They were on strike on several occasions before and their action was not illegal. In other democratic countries, too, Government servants are not barred from demonstrations and strikes and we hear little of such incidents, it is because of the satisfactory working of mediation agencies like England's Whitley Councils. A blanket ban on demonstrations and strikes is hardly in consonance with either the letter or the

spirit of the Constitution. It may be justifi

able that demonstrations or strikes shall not be held while conciliation talks are proceeding or that a strike must be duly notified. But a total prohibition is hardly justifiable. Is there again any reasonable basis for treating Government employees as a separate class which deserves to be treated differently from other emplyees? The public is as much incovenienced by strikes of employees in the private sector as by those of employees in the public sector. Now do Government employees enjoy any special previleges which can justify restrictions on their trade union activities. In reality they are, if any thing, worse off than employees in industrial and commercial firms, their payscales are lower and they do not get any bonuses. the labour laws and awards of industrial courts, most employees in the private sector are not only assured of retirement benefits but enjoy more or less the same degree of security of service as of Government Servants. In any case in the context of today, security of

Under

service is too high a price to pay for a surrender of democratic rights.

can

not

Government, which is free to regulate the The fundamental question is whether the conditions of service of its employees, like any other employer can impose on them restrictions which are compatiable with constitutional rights and democratic practices. As in other fields, the Government must set the example. It must be an ideal employer and must practise those principles of human relations which it preaches to the private sector. Punitive restrictions are no part of human relations which enjoin that the employer must respect the feelings and aspirations of his employees, and evolve a machinery for joint consultation under which genuine grievances are speedily redressed and disputes settled amicably. The Government must lay greater stress on these aspects of employer employee relations than on punitive practices and threats. These, latter only drive the discontent underground and such suppression often results in an undesirable explosion.

There is, therefore, need for setting up a co-operative machinery for prevention and settlement of disputes between the Government and their employees on matters relating

to work, remuneration, and other conditions of service. Whitley councils which are in vouge in United Kingdom furnish a valuable instrument for bringing together different points of view and enabling the subordinate staff to place the real difficulties before Government. The essential requirement for a successful Whitley Council system is the willingness of the government to adopt the same code of behaviour as other good employers. This they can do by separating their responsibilities as employers from the prero gatives of Government, and allowing fruitful discussion with staff representatives on conditions of work and pay. Unless there is a yielding of the Central authority to meet the views and wishes of the staff in a spirit of co-operation and compromise, the Whitley Councils cannot succeed.

It is really a study in human relations in which each side has something to give, each side something to gain. The official side wants greater efficiency, economy in adminis

an

So far as the upper grades of services are concerned, they are well protected in their service rights by rules and by their readier access to those who frame policy and ultimately by right of appeal to the Public Service Commission. For the more moderatly circumstanced servants like those of Clerks, Assistants etc., the question is really the important as close contact between Government and the servants are not possible. These fears are very real because the existing Civil Service system fails to guarantee upward communication to employee aggrieved against his superior. While Civil Service Rules do provide legally for appeals, the system largely lacks the dynamic character, which focusses attention upon alleged injustices. It is possible that in many cases the officers can become petty tyrants without being called to account. Impartial Administrative Tribunals to enquire into the grievances of Class III and IV staff appears to be necessary to provide adequate safeguards of service conditions of non-gazetted staff.

Reforms in the existing conditions of service are therefore necessary particularly in regards to guaranteeing self respect, independence and competence.

Prospects For Promotion

The management of promotions is partly a technical question but is also deeply affected by commonsense judgement and fairness. A badly planned promotion system harms the service not merely by pushing ahead unqualified persons but also undermining the morale of the whole group. The hope for timely promotion is so normal and so widespread that the influence of a good promotion system is all pervasive. It is one of the means of holding in Government Service the best and capable hands.

The principle object of a promotion system is to secure the best possible incumbents for the higher positions while main. taining the morale of the whole organization A proper basis for promotion is, therefore, very important in a Civil Service. A formula for promotion must be worked out which will ensure so far as possible, that the ablest officials eventually rise to the most responsible positions, while those capacity for with lesser growth terminate at an earlier stage or will rise only to a point which corresponds to their ability. The promotional system must be one in which the influence or partisanship and politics is eliminated. So far as humanly possible personal preferences and bias should be excluded. At the same time the promotion plan must be one which will give adequate prospects to the career man, so that he will find sufficient reward in the service both in terms of prestige and in terms of money to be willing to continue with it instead of seeking opportunities in the business or professional world.

In an ideal state of society good work would be the only criteion for promotionThat is not so in Government Service where. seniority also counts for a great deal. There is however no doubt that recognition of merit is essential for good administration. Promotion to a superior cadre outght, in any case, to be on the basis of merit and even within a cadre it might be worthwhile having one or two posts with special allowances to which people whose work was particularly good could be appointed. The amounts need not necessarily be large though such inducement is definitely needed to provide incentive for effort and application. Acknowledgement of good work is often as much a need of the human effort as food is of man's body.

Employees often prefer the rule of seniority by which the eligible longest in service is automatically awarded the pro motion. Within limits, Seniority is entitled to consideration as one of criteria of selection as it tends to eliminate favouritism, and experience is certainly a factor in the making of successful employee. But when seniority is made the sole determining factor at any level, it is a dangerous guide. It does not follow that the employee longest in service in a particular grade is best suited for pro

motion to a higher grade. The very opposite may be true. Hence merit and Seniority Hence merit and Seniority should both be taken into account for the promotion system. Merit should be properly defined and there should be rational basis for determining the merit of each individual without giving any scope for nepotism and favourtism.

It is very desirable that people in the lower grades of the public service should be given adequate opportunities to prove their fitness for more responsible work. Examples are not lacking to show that inspite of almost complete regidity of the hierarchical system there have been found in the lower ranks exceptional men who have risen to the higher positions. We are not however concerned only with such men. They will make their way any-how. What is necessary is to evolve a system by which those amongst the lower ranks who are fit for higher positions can be discovered and appointed.

Opportinuties for further education must be made available in the form of special classes etc., for the young members of the lower ranks of officials. Those who attend regularly will clearly demonstrate their industry and their desire for improvement. If they disclose' talent, there should be scope for their advancement to the higher services. Proof of talent can take many forms. A man might write a book completely on some matter forming the subject of his work. He might show talent during discussions. What is necessary is that there should be scope for recognition of merit and intelligence.

In this connection it would be worthwhile to refer to the recommendations of the committee appointed by the Railway Board to report, after enquiry, on promotion avenues for Class IV railway staff. It has recommended that the different cadres in the various departments of railways should be fixed in such a manner that each employee can reasonably expect to get the first promotion before he has put in 12 or 13 years of service. To achieve this objective it has made detailed recommendations about (i) opening up new channels of promotion where they do not exist (ii) grouping of posts to avoid deadends (iii) stopping direct recruitment in

higher grades and (iv) upgrading posts. It has also recommended that training should be imparted to various categories of staff to equip them for promotion. These suggestions being worthy of consideration should be extended to subordinate services of all departments if promotion is to be rationalized and if it is to serve as an effective incentive to good work.

It is therefore necessary that the existing provisions for future promotions in service and recognition of talent should be modified in order to incorporate the above proposals. These are necessary in order to fit the civil service to the changed conditions and increased responsibilities flowing from the country's rapid industrialisation under Government's auspices and to lay the foundations of a welfare State. Standard of Living

We cannot determine absolutely what standard of living and social position of a Government official ought to be. That he should be above want is clear. That his salary should not be so low as to make the temptation of illegally increasing it too great, is also clear. But there is no absolute measure by which we can determine these things. For the "poverty line" varies from country to country and it depends on the prevailing conception of the "standard of living" whether a man will consider himself well-off or otherwise. As long as persons of similar standing qualifications and attainments are on an average earning much more elsewhere there is bound to be dissatisfaction. In the existing type of social and economic organisation all over the world the Government official holds a position much above the labouring and somewhat above the skilled artisan class. But apart from this general idea, the result of supply forces, no definite standard can be laid down. But in general it may be stated that the Standard of living of Civil Servants should be such as to ensure public confidence and a good service morale and a proper Code of Conduct.

Age of Retirement

The age of suerannuation of all Government Servants generally is 55. It has been felt in many quarters that the age limit is unduly low and should be raised to at least 58

if not 60. The present age limit appears to be a relic of the past. The Britisher, working in an alien and hot climate, naturally felt tired and unfit at a comparatively early age; and the limit was apparently fixed in the light of his personal experience. Besides, till within living memory, the appliances and conveniences which now make conditions of service in Government offices tolerable, if not comfortable, were unknown. Even the electric fan, let alone air-conditioning, was not known. Today with the advance of medical and mechanical sciences, conditions have completely changed. Social habits have also changed. People live longer, marry late and mature late. It is cruel to compel a man in full vigour to retire on a pittance while his children are still at school, just to make room for the hungry generations of younger men waiting to step into the artificially created vacancies. The situation is difficult; but on the while the age limit of 55 appears to be obsolete in modern conditions. The younger men put off for two or three years at one end have the prospect of being compensated at the other, when in most cases they would be more in need of adequate earnings.

The Anomalies

are

But apart from this, the situation is full of comic if not tragic ironies. There amazing anomalies in the rules of public service. While the lower-grade servants in Government Offices are impartially made to retire at 55, the higher classes appear to enjoy special privileges. The principle of public service seems to be the higher the job, the longer the span of service. And the position leads to ludicrous results. For instance, a subordinate judge is pronounced physically unfit for his job at 55. If he has the luck to be promoted to a High Court Judgeship, he officially and authoritatively becomes fit for the higher judicial duties for five years more. The High Court Judge in his turn has to retire at 60; but if he is elevated to the Supreme Court Bench he may survive till 65.* It is therefore necessary that the age of superannuation should be suitably enhanced. On the whole, the age limit of 60 appears to be reasonable.

Pension Difficulties

It is notorious that many a pensioner dies

before his pension papers have been finalised. Recently a forest officer of the Mysore State who retired over a year ago had to resort to hunger-strike before the Government could be persuaded to take an interest in his case and order the early disposal of his pension papers. Hundreds of other retired employees are in a similar predicament, but they continue to suffer without resorting to such drastic methods as hunger-strike. Nothing can be more condemnatory of the administration's dilatoriness than the fact that the pension cases of its own employees retiring after long and loyal service should take months and sometimes even years to be disposed of. It is therefore necessary that the proper action should be taken to see that the pension papers ars sanctioned well before the date of retirement and there should be no hardships caused by delay in such sanctions.

Another important factor influencing the morale of Public Servants is the pension rates The minimum prevailing in the country. pension rates should be such that atleast the pensioner and his wife should be able to make both ends meet. They should also be

eligible for the grant of Dearness Allowance according to the increase in the cost of living. Otherwise this class becomes demoralised and present themselves in an awkward position. The spectacle would be very miserable and consequently this presents a picture to those who are in service and thereby they determine that they should do something to be financially sound before they retire from Government Service. That again induces them to corruption. It may be that all subordinates may not be able to earn through illegal ways. But the temptation is there and given a chance, they would not hesitate to resort to these practices. Hence the State should revise its present policy towards the rates of pension and guarantee that the minimum pension is such as guarantees a living wage to its recipient.

Conclusion

Government [administration is a huge machinery and Government servants form components of it. Just as every part of a machinery is important and has a purpose to fulfil in its working, every Government Ser(Continued on page 22)

where x stands for the number of new staff required each year; k, the number of staff seeking promotion through the appointment of subordinates; /, the differences between the ages of appointment and retirement; m, the number of man-hours devoted to answering minutes within the department; and n, the number of effective units being administered.. Instead of dividing by n, one shouid perhaps multiply.

The full implications of Parkinson's discovery and mathematical pleasantry lie beyond the scope of this article, but we feel its suggestive nature best if we appreciate that, on the basis of Parkinson's Law, we can illumine such a phenomenon as this: in 1914 the Royal Navy had a strength of 146,000 officers and men, 3,249 dockyard officials and clerks, 57,000 dockyard workmen, 62 capital ships; in 1928 there were 100,000 officers and men, 62,439, workmen, 20 capital ships, and 4,588 dockyard officials and clerks. The equation does not, of course, recommend what to do with all these clerks, but it may suggest another aid in halting recessions.

Now, a bureaucrat is not just a k in a formula whose special pleasure it is to harass patient taxpayers. A bureaucrat is an administrator. When we are dissatisfied with the way an administrator behaves we call him a bureaucrat. In this sense, bureaucracy is a

*This article is an expansion of an address delivered before the Canadian Institute of Public Affairs.

disease of administration. All organizations are subject to it—whether government, business, union, church, or university.

The problems of bureaucracy are as old as today by four contemporary factors. First, human organization. They are accentuated there is the problem of hugeness in the size of institutions. This interferes with intimacy and face-to-face relationships. Second, there is the specialization of skills and knowledge. This makes us more and more dependent upon trained administrative personnel. Third, there is the interlocking character of the chains of command in various institutions.

This makes it difficult to counterpose one bureaucratic power against another in there are external dangers to the security of order to limit excesses of power. Fourth, the State, first from Fascism and now from administrators great authority in the interests Communism. This gives policymakers and of defence. "Weapons of criticism are laid aside when criticism by weapons begins"— at least for the time being. If all this is true, we must be careful to avoid easy denunciations of bureaucracy. In fact, we ought never to overlook the human being in the bureaucrat and the potential bureaucrat in ourselves.

It

Administration is like government. always takes away some individual freedom, but its justification must be sought in the fact that it makes possible more of the desired kinds of freedom than would be possible in its absence. Without the operation of our present complex administrative procedures of licensing, regulating, inspecting and controlling the use of automobiles, for example, who in his senses would maintain that he could have the same individual freedom to use his car in our highly populated cities as he presently has ?

Nonetheless, there is good and sufficient reason for scrutinizing carefully the entire machinery of administration in the light of new developments. There is first the tendency exhibited by all bureacracies whether in government or outside it, to expand their