This refers to the letter ‘Budget excess’ (June 28) by Dr Najeeb A Khan. Reduction in overstaffing in the government will not provide significant saving in the short term. On the other hand, it will increase the pension burden on account of employees prematurely retired. The existing huge pension liability of the government cannot be extinguished even by an act of parliament, let alone by an executive order, since this is part of the service rules. The pension is an earned asset of the employees and this asset cannot be taken away. Going forward, the pension system can be replaced by a contributory scheme but its impact would be visible gradually over the years in future.
The payment of a golden handshake amount, as proposed by the writer, would be an additional burden on the budget. So where is the saving? Why should the laid off staff be given compensation out of taxpayers’ money? This does not happen in the private sector. Nevertheless, reduction in overstaffing is prudent from a longer-term perspective.
Kulsoom Arif
Karachi
It is painful to see how, after every protest march, each stakeholder aims for a win-lose outcome and uses short-term...
Every home, every street, every community in Pakistan has known the shadow of gender-based violence . As the world...
Talhar, a taluka headquarter town of District Badin, Sindh, with a population of around 40000, serves as an...
I was travelling from Lahore to Islamabad and stopped at a rest area on the motorway to take a break. I bought chips...
This letter refers to the article ‘The era of old politics is over’ by Suhail Warraich. In my view, the PTI and...
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur seems to have forgotten that the day he took charge as the...
