Kathmandu – Janardan Sharma, Deputy General Secretary of the CPN (Maoist Centre), has strongly objected to the alleged amendments made to the Federal Civil Service Bill, calling for a thorough investigation into what he described as a deliberate interference in the parliamentary process.
Speaking to journalists at the Federal Parliament premises on Tuesday, Sharma claimed that the phrase “cooling-off period” in the bill had been quietly altered in the final version presented to the House. According to him, the final version included wording that was not approved by the relevant parliamentary committee, indicating intentional manipulation.
Sharma Questions Integrity of Legislative Process
“How did a version different from what was passed by the committee end up in the final bill?” Sharma questioned. “The committee chair says he was unaware, and the secretary claims it was written ‘naturally.’ But such errors are never natural — this points to deliberate intent.”
Sharma described the incident as a violation of parliamentary norms and warned that such actions undermine public trust in democratic institutions. “If such a conspiracy can occur in the very place where laws are made, who will the people trust?” he asked. “This is not a trivial matter — a proper investigation and accountability are necessary.”
Committee Chair Ramhari Khatiwada reportedly stated that he had no knowledge of the change, while the committee secretary referred to the change as unintentional. Sharma, however, dismissed these explanations, arguing that the insertion of the word “except” could not be categorized as a simple mistake.
Concerns Rise Over Wording Change in Final Bill
The government initially introduced the bill in Parliament in Falgun 2080 (February–March 2024), stating that retired civil servants would not be allowed to work in private or non-governmental organizations for two years without prior government approval. However, constitutional and diplomatic appointments were explicitly excluded from this provision.
Sharma noted that the version passed by the committee did not include the word “except” regarding appointments made by the government. However, in the final version tabled in the House of Representatives, the term was reinserted — expanding the exemption in a way that was not authorized by the committee.
Concerns over this alteration have also begun to surface within the ruling party itself, with questions being raised about the lack of transparency in the legislative process. In conclusion, Sharma stated, “This is a serious offense. Whoever is responsible for tampering with the bill must be held accountable. Without a full investigation and necessary action, this incident will erode the integrity of parliamentary governance.”
