The joint sitting endorsed the bill on the recommendation of a joint committee
Civil Service Bill 8 July, 2010 - After almost two years of lengthy deliberations on the civil service bill, which was introduced as an urgent bill, shelved as a dead bill, tabled as a new one on two occasions, and reaped several revisions, the two houses of parliament finally endorsed the bill yesterday.
2003- Drafted the civil service bill
June 2007- Tabled before the erstwhile NA during its 87th session. NA postponed its enactment. Provisions clashed with judicial services Act, ACC Act and the audit Act
June 2009- Tabled in the 3rd session of the parliament as an ‘Urgent Bill’
July 2009- Tabled at the joint session following disagreements between the two houses
July 2009- Rendered a dead bill after joint session failed to endorse it
December 2009- Tabled at the NA as a fresh bill. NA endorsed it
June 2010- NC discussed it as a fresh bill, endorsed and sent it back to NA
July 2010- With several unresolved disagreements, the bill was tabled at the joint session. Both houses agree and finally endorse the bill
That was made possible, after the two houses reached a compromise, over whether constitutional offices should be given complete autonomy over personnel management, instead of being with the royal civil service commission.
A joint committee, comprising members from both the houses, met on the evening of July 6, the recommendations of which influenced the outcome of the discussion yesterday.
The members of the two houses endorsed new sections, which give constitutional offices complete autonomy over recruitment, selection, appointment and promotion of their staff up to executive level 2 (Ex2) in accordance with the Bhutan civil service rules.
The civil service commission, meanwhile, would have authority to recruit, transfer and appoint civil servants, falling within executive level 1 (Ex1) and experts and specialists level in particular fields (Es1) in the constitutional offices.
A new section was also added allowing RCSC to make transfers to and from constitutional offices in consultation with these offices.
The earlier bill allowed constitutional offices to recruit, transfer and promote employees up to P1 (earlier grade four).
In the beginning of the session, national council members resolved on June 17 that employees of the judiciary and other constitutional offices, comprising the election commission, anti-corruption commission and royal audit authority, would no longer be with the royal civil service commission (RCSC).
They wanted these offices to hold complete autonomy over personnel management.
On the contrary, most national assembly members, during a discussion on June 22, felt the country’s civil servants, irrespective of which constitutional office they worked for, should be governed by the civil service act.
The joint session of the parliament also decided the five-year tenure of secretaries should not be extended, as some national council members proposed. Assembly’s legislative committee chairperson, Ugyen Wangdi, said secretaries to the ministries would not be reappointed as a secretary once they complete their five-year term.
The civil service bill received a majority 66 ‘yes’ votes out of 68 members present at the parliament yesterday. Of the remaining two members, one, national council member Kuenlay Tshering had voted ‘no’ and the other Thimphu council member Sangay Zam abstained from voting.
Justifying his stand, Kuenlay Tshering said the Constitution demanded that constitutional offices be given complete autonomy, without which it was difficult for them to function with check and balance.
Constitutional offices - recruitment, selection, appointment and promotion of their staff up to EX 2 level
RCSC- Recruit, select, appoint, transfer and promote civil servants falling within EX 1 and ES 1. Transfer staff to and from the constitutional offices in consultation with these offices.
The word ‘royal’, which the national council members had earlier removed from the preamble of the bill, was reinstated.
National council deputy chairperson, Sonam Kinga, informed the house it was done, not out of disrespect or disregard for the institution of Monarchy, but to maintain consistency with the Constitution.
Source: kuenselonline.com |
|
| |
|
|
|
