The government has cleared 82 employees in the Group ‘C’ category, but interestingly 30 are from the police department alone. The list includes civil staff, police sub-inspectors, assistant sub-inspectors, head constables, and other officers. Last year, 29 police department personnel were among nearly 100 government employees opting for VRS. The numbers certainly raise critical questions on the underlying factors that could be leading to an early retirement.
Top on the list are issues like stress, workload and a lack of support within the force. It is a known fact that policing has its challenges with personnel often exposed to high physical and mental stress leading to health issues. Also, there have been cases in the past of discrimination and favouritism that have affected the morale of aspiring officers, let alone their medical history. Add to this lack of appropriate and fair redressal mechanisms. While men-in-khaki are often linked to corruption, there has been very little debate on factors leading them to quit their jobs before time.
The number of police opting for VRS raises a concern because there are consequences. Abolition of posts would lead to an increased workload for the remaining staff, potentially causing burnout and further attrition. This cyclical effect can weaken the force’s operational effectiveness, ultimately affecting public safety. Some police stations are already facing staffing issues, which affect their ability to respond quickly to crime. The police department especially depends on experienced officers, whose knowledge is vital during emergencies, investigations, and daily operations. Moreover, an understaffed police force can erode trust and confidence.
Launched in November 2023, the VRS scheme aimed to restructure the workforce. It offered retirement benefits to employees aged 45 and older, with changes allowing those with 20 years of service to participate regardless of age. From a financial standpoint, abolishing unfilled posts seems sensible, because the government avoids the extra financial burden of paying VRS benefits while staffing the same positions again. This strategy fits the broader aim of cutting ongoing salary expenses and controlling public spending.
However, the government’s reasoning also raises questions about planning. If the aim is to save costs, how reasonable is it to recruit for new government positions at the same time? These conflicting actions of removing VRS vacated posts while hiring new employees seem contradictory. If there’s a freeze on new hiring, then abolishing posts might be justifiable. But if recruitment continues, the cost-saving argument loses its validity.
Moreover, the focus on cutting costs must be weighed against the broader need for public service. Eliminating positions solely to save money might ignore the essential need for operational capacity, especially in critical areas like policing. A more careful approach would involve evaluating the specific roles vacated, their importance, and the potential impact on service delivery before deciding whether to eliminate or keep these positions.
While financial responsibility is important, it should not compromise effective governance and public service. The government must develop a balanced strategy that considers both budget limitations and the essential need for a skilled, experienced workforce. Reforms should focus on improving working conditions, addressing staff concerns, and ensuring the sustainability of essential services. Abolishing posts after VRS risks damaging the foundation of efficient administration and public trust. Hence, it is important to consider the implications on administrative efficiency, public service delivery, and institutional stability.
