Anomalies suspected in re-engagement of retired officers
Source: The Sangai Express

Imphal, February 06 2017: A strong suspicion has been raised that many anomalies were committed in the process of re-engaging six engineers including the Chief Engineer of Manipur State Rural Roads Development Agency (MSRRDA) .

After MSRRDA Chief Engineer N Babuchand and six/seven engineers including Additional Chief Engineer had completed their age of superannuation, they were re-engaged for a period of another year on contract basis, informed a well placed source.

Meanwhile, LJP Manipur State yesterday filed a written complaint to the Chief Electoral Officer contending that re-engagement of N Babuchand as MSRRDA Chief Engineer contravened rules as well as the election model code of conduct.

The written complaint filed by LJP Manipur State unit general secretary Kh Rajen said that N Babuchand who retired on January 31 this year has been continuing as RED/MSRRDA Chief Engineer enjoying all facilities of the office including personal security escort.

His continuation at the office is only to facilitate release of funds/bills in respect of contractors who are close to Ministers and other high functionaries of the State Government and as such, model code of conduct which came into force with effect from January 4 has been seriously compromised, said the complaint.

The LJP's complaint also urged the Chief Electoral Officer to take necessary measures and action against the persons involved in violating the model code of conduct and also for wilful act of allowing N Babuchand to continue as Chief Engineer as RED/MSRRDA.

Chief Engineer N Babuchand retired from service on superannuation on January 31 this year.

However, the State Government had adopted a decision on November 21 last year to re-engage the Chief Engineer for one more year on contract basis.

Re-engagement and service extension are two totally different terms.

Re-engagement is generally done on contract basis and the salary is fixed after negotiation.

Re-engaged officers would do official works as advisories, said the source.

As such, it is highly questionable whether a re-engaged officer can occupy the post of Chief Engineer and whether he/she should be authorised to give technical sanction, hold tender, release bills of contracts works and other funds etc.

Not being a regular employee, entrusting financial power to a re-engaged officer is unacceptable, continued the source.

Many high ranking officials are currently re-engaged after a Cabinet decision was adopted to this effect and they signed an undertaking with the administrative department concerned .

But this undertaking does not lay out any terms and conditions.

If any official should be re-engaged, it should be done under specific terms and conditions.

The degree of power that would be entitled to a re-engaged official and other details such as salary etc should be laid out within the terms and conditions.

But no terms and conditions were applied to the recent re-engagement of officials.

Moreover, re-engagement of senior officials cannot block the line of promotion of junior officials.

The administrative department concerned might have compiled a note stating that the service of Chief Engineer N Babuchand was still required before the State Cabinet took a decision to re-engage him.

If it was assumed that Babuchand's service was still required, one would like to ask why his service period was not extended rather than re-engaging him.

Although N Babuchand is on re-engagement, he has been working like a regular Chief Engineer.

Likewise, there is a strong suspicion that the Additional Chief Engineer and the Executive Engineers who were re-engaged along with the Chief Engineer might have been working as regular employees.

Comment