MHA Clarifies Chandigarh Service Rules Amidst Political Row
MHA Clarifies Chandigarh Service Rules Amidst Political Row
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) recently clarified the implementation of Central Civil Services Rules in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. This action followed a significant political controversy involving Punjab and Haryana, who raised concerns over perceived alterations to the UT's administrative framework. The MHA's statement aimed to allay fears and address stakeholder concerns regarding the shared capital.
Background: Chandigarh’s Unique Status and Administrative Evolution
Chandigarh holds a distinct and historically sensitive position in India's federal structure. Conceived as a planned city, Chandigarh became Punjab's capital after the 1947 partition. Following the linguistic reorganization of Punjab in 1966, when Haryana was carved out, Chandigarh was accorded the unique status of a Union Territory (UT) and declared the joint capital of both Punjab and Haryana.
This dual role created a complex administrative arrangement. The Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966 stipulated that Chandigarh's administration would be carried out by a Chief Commissioner, appointed by the President of India. The Act also established a system for Chandigarh Administration employees, largely drawn on deputation from Punjab and Haryana. Historically, a significant majority, particularly at senior levels, were from the Punjab cadre, governed by Punjab service rules.
The rationale behind this system was to maintain administrative continuity, leverage state cadre experience, and ensure shared ownership, given its joint capital status. Over decades, this arrangement, though functional, has been a recurring political contention. Punjab has consistently asserted its exclusive claim over Chandigarh, viewing it as an integral part of its territory and culture. This demand was enshrined in resolutions like the Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973) and the Rajiv-Longowal Accord (1985), which promised Chandigarh's transfer to Punjab.
Conversely, Haryana has always maintained its right to Chandigarh as a joint capital and has, at times, sought its own separate capital or an equitable share of the UT. The administrative setup, particularly the application of Punjab service rules and the proportion of deputed officers, has often been a barometer of the delicate political balance between the two states and the Centre.
The recent controversy began with an MHA notification shifting Chandigarh Administration employees from Punjab service rules to Central Civil Services (CCS) Rules. This move, presented by the Centre as an employee-centric welfare measure, was immediately perceived by Punjab as an attempt to dilute its historical claim and alter the administrative character of the Union Territory, reigniting a long-standing political dispute.
Key Developments: The Shift to Central Rules and MHA’s Clarification
The political storm began in late March 2022, when the MHA announced applying Central Civil Services Rules to Chandigarh Administration employees. This directive departed from decades of practice where Punjab service rules governed employees, even those on deputation.
Provisions of the New Central Civil Services Rules
CCS Rules implementation brought several changes to service conditions for approximately 22,000 Chandigarh Administration employees. Key provisions included:
- Enhanced Retirement Age: The retirement age for employees increased from 58 years to 60 years, aligning with central government employees.
- Improved Leave Benefits: Women employees became eligible for 180 days of Child Care Leave, a benefit previously less comprehensive under Punjab rules.
- Revised Pay Scales and Allowances: Employees would now receive emoluments, allowances, and other benefits as per Central Pay Commission recommendations, potentially leading to higher salaries and better overall compensation.
- Applicability: The new rules applied to all Chandigarh Administration employees, whether directly recruited by the UT or on deputation from Punjab, Haryana, or other central services.
The MHA’s stated rationale was employee welfare, aiming for parity with central government employees and addressing long-pending union demands for improved benefits and a standardized framework.
Immediate Political Backlash from Punjab
The announcement triggered immediate and strong condemnation from Punjab’s political establishment. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann (AAP) termed the move an “attack on Punjab’s rights” and a “unilateral decision.” He argued the decision violated the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, and undermined Punjab’s historical claim over Chandigarh.
Various political parties in Punjab, including the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) and the Congress, echoed these sentiments, accusing the BJP-led central government of attempting to dilute Punjab’s stake in its capital. Concerns were raised that the move could eventually reduce the proportion of Punjab-cadre officers in the UT administration, altering the demographic and administrative balance. The Punjab Assembly subsequently passed a resolution against the MHA’s decision, urging the Centre to reconsider and uphold existing arrangements.
The MHA’s Clarification and Reassurance
In response to the escalating political row, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a significant clarification. The MHA unequivocally stated “no intention to make any changes in the existing principle of the administration of Chandigarh.”
The clarification emphasized that Chandigarh would continue as a Union Territory and the joint capital of Punjab and Haryana. Crucially, the MHA reaffirmed that the existing arrangement regarding the proportion of employees from Punjab and Haryana in the Chandigarh Administration would be maintained. This refers to the long-standing understanding that roughly 60%
