Kathmandu, September 29
Lawmakers have questioned why the Federal Civil Service Bill, which the government had listed as a priority under its 100-point programme and promised to introduce within 45 days, has not yet been presented to Parliament.
Some lawmakers have also raised concerns that the government may be preparing to end the ongoing session of the Federal Parliament and introduce legislation on the federal civil service through an ordinance.
Parbati BK, a lawmaker from the Nepali Communist Party, questioned why the government was seeking to bring the civil service law through an ordinance instead of Parliament.
“The civil service law is reportedly being brought through an ordinance. This is very problematic. Why is the government trying to bypass Parliament and bring the civil service law through an ordinance?” she asked.
The current parliamentary session is expected to end this week.
The parliamentary calendar had initially been set until October 1, but was extended by one day to October 2. Parliament is expected to complete work on pending business by then and hold either the same day’s or an additional meeting before concluding the session.
The ongoing session began on May 11. During the session, Parliament passed the budget and legislation related to it. It also endorsed ordinances introduced by the government while Parliament was not in session. Bills replacing those ordinances were subsequently passed and converted into laws.
Parliament also conducted direct question-and-answer sessions with ministers and allowed ministers to address contemporary issues on behalf of the government. However, a direct question-and-answer session with the prime minister has not yet been held.
The absence of the Federal Civil Service Bill and the School Education Bill was also raised by NCP lawmaker Balawati Sharma.
CPN-UML lawmaker Gurupasad Baral questioned the government’s priorities, while fellow UML lawmaker Pushparaj Kandel accused the government of seeking to govern through ordinances.
Kandel also questioned the government over an earlier ordinance that removed more than 1,500 public officeholders and alleged that the government was attempting to restore previous provisions to facilitate political appointments.
The Special Provisions Ordinance on the removal of public officeholders was issued on May 2. It amended 110 existing laws and resulted in 1,534 public officeholders losing their positions.
No new appointments have yet been made to all the vacant positions. Meanwhile, the government has introduced a bill seeking to restore provisions from 85 of the 110 laws that had been amended or repealed by the ordinance.
Speaking during the discussion, Kandel alleged that both the earlier ordinance and the current bill were motivated by partisan interests.
“This was brought purely in the party’s interest. The earlier ordinance was also brought for the same reason, and so is the current bill. If the old provisions are being restored, then restore the previous appointments as well,” Kandel said.
The questions raised in Parliament come amid preparations to conclude the current parliamentary session and concerns among lawmakers that the government could again use ordinances to introduce legislation on important issues.
