The Hon. (Prof.) A.H.M.H. Abayarathna - Minister of Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Local Government

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, I am pleased to join this debate on the Adjournment Motion moved by Hon. Kariapper. In line with the 2022 Budget, the then Government increased the public service retirement age to 65 from 01.01.2023, and Public Administration Circular 02/2022 dated 06.01.2022 was issued. However, it can be observed that this extension was done without adequate consideration of grades and services within the public service.

¶ 02 Subsequently, during the Interim Budget speech on 30.08.2022, it was proposed to reduce the compulsory retirement age of public officers to 60, and Parliament approved that proposal. Accordingly, Public Administration Circular 19/2022 dated 14.09.2022 was issued, and Circular 02/2022 was made inoperative after 31.12.2023. Under the Minutes on Pensions, the compulsory retirement age is 60, with optional retirement at 55. For medical officers, pursuant to a court order, the compulsory retirement age is 63, and as mentioned by Hon. Kariapper, some continue on contract for a period.

¶ 03 At the time of extending retirement, due to the economic situation, new recruitments were restricted, creating more vacancies. However, Hon. Presiding Member, this was a temporary situation. Keeping the higher retirement age in place long-term would likely have led to the following across the public service: - Prolonged vacancies in lower grades, delaying new recruitments and promotions. - Denial of opportunities for youth who have completed their schooling and higher education to enter the public service. - Senior officers’ promotions taking longer, causing dissatisfaction. - While ageing populations are an issue in many developed countries, Sri Lanka is not yet in that situation; we still have a substantial youth cohort to replace retirees, though in another 25 years we may face a different picture.

¶ 04 Further, youth unemployment could rise, potentially causing social tensions, as seen in recent protests by unemployed graduates. We must balance the call to provide jobs for youth with demands to further extend service of senior officers. Ageing also affects health, potentially reducing efficiency and effectiveness. Maintaining less productive officers would impose additional costs on the Government, and continued extensions would limit the infusion of new knowledge and technical skills into the public service.

¶ 05 If retirement to 65 is allowed only for selected sectors, others will protest unequal treatment. Under the 2025 Budget, salaries of all public officers are being raised in three phases. If compulsory retirement is increased to 65 in certain sectors, many officers are already at maximum salary points, increasing Government costs further. Longer service also increases pension liabilities due to higher applicable percentages.

¶ 06 Therefore, based on these observations, the more suitable solution is to conduct a proper study of human resource requirements, carry out a cadre review, and effect recruitments within set timelines. Given Sri Lanka’s current youth workforce eager to join the public service, there is no compelling need to extend the retirement age. Not doing so will also improve employment opportunities.

¶ 07 Thank you very much.