By HH Mohrmen
The argument made by the All India Service officers that the Government’s decision to reimburse the officers’ income tax is an act of natural justice is not convincing at all. In fact it raises more question than it answers. It was also argued that the reimbursement is based on the principle of equal pay for equal work, but the question is, why the arc of natural justice is selective and bends only to please certain sections of income tax payers in the state. Why is this so called natural justice applicable only to certain sections of government officials or particularly those who are close to the power centres in the state?
Now if the principle of natural justice is to be taken as the yardstick for reimbursement of income tax, then what about the state government officers in the different departments who work even in the far-flung areas of Meghalaya? Why does the arc of natural justice not bent to include them too? After all they also receive their salaries from the same government treasury? Why is natural justice not so natural as to include the officers who have to pay income tax which includes engineers, doctors in the various state government departments who have equally toiled hard to serve this state and its people?
What about the income tax payers who work in the different banks, central government offices and other institutions in the different parts of the state? What about income tax payers like those in the North Eastern Hill University, IIM, Shillong, Regional Engineering College, Shillong, NEIGRIHMS, Shillong and others? Why does the State Government’s arc of natural justice not cover them too? Why is the arc of natural justice limited to the All India Service officers? Income tax payers who are working in these different offices and government institutions also work for the welfare of the people and the development of the state and if the reimbursement is based on natural justice then it is only natural that their income tax should also be reimbursed.
It was also argued that the decision of the government will encourage AIS officers to come back to their state cadre but the lay person’s question to this baseless argument is, isn’t the service called ‘all India service’? Why did they opt for the service in the first place if they are not ready to serve the nation and its people who reside in different parts of the country? How can reimbursement of income tax be a morale booster for the officers? Does it mean that monetary compensation is the only factor that can boost the morale of the officer?
It is obvious from the justification of the All India Service cadre serving in the state that they take their appointment in the state as a punishment. Therefore they are entitled to some kind of special reimbursement for the sacrifices they make. What is more painful (and perhaps it is not wrong too) to surmise from the argument is that the cadre also see income tax as a punishment. If what is considered to be the steel frame of the country still regard having to pay income tax as a punishment, then what is the future for this country? How can we expect other lesser advantaged sections of the population to wilfully pay income tax when the officers who are well paid and are supposed to lead in the nation building, consider paying income tax as a punishment? Where is the pride of being an income tax payer?
How can one expect that the AIS officers will one day come up with a policy document to include the rich and the high ranking officers in the state to pay income tax, when they themselves take a u-turn when it comes to paying income tax. By getting their income tax reimbursed the officers no longer have locus standi or have lost the ground to push for policy changes with regards to income tax payment in the state. The other important question is how can the steel frame of the country hope to convince the rich and well to do tribals in the state and even their own colleagues at work to pay income tax when they themselves are trying to circumvent the system by getting the tax they paid reimbursed by the Government?
But the most important point is – if and when the AIS officers collect their reimbursement does it not reduce their status as officers? How different are the officers from their helpers or their drivers now? How can they be different from them when they are also paying only indirect taxes? With all the pay, the perks and the statuses that they have, when it comes to paying tax to the government the officers are no different from the least of all their helpers and employees. They are no different from even the fourth grade staff because at the end of the day, like the low income government staffs, they too are only paying indirect tax.
The officers still have the option to demonstrate to the people of the state that they are not going to be lured by this Government’s appeasement policy. Perhaps it is not surprising if all or some of the officers reject the reimbursement that was offered to them. The officers still have the option of saying ‘No’ or even if it is reimbursed to them, they can contribute the money to charity.
Obviously this Government is only trying to please the officers in the state, but at what cost? A precedent is set and now if the government continues with its appeasement measures, it will have to bend its arc of natural justice to include and cover all and sundry income tax payers in the state. As of now the scale of natural justice is tilting only towards those who are in the position to influence government policy. Only If and when all the income tax payers are included in the concession can the government claim that there is equality and justice is served.
This Government is facing (or rather is creating) another problem with the management of the Meghalaya Electric Corporation Limited. The employees of the Organisation are pitted against each other. Now in spite of the Books of Accounts of the Corporation being in the red, it is alleged that the management still offers special concessions to big companies who have defaulted in their payment of electricity bills. What kind of example does the Corporation wish to demonstrate when it rewards instead of punishing the defaulters. The allegations made by the Union of Engineers with regards to the implementation of the centrally sponsored Saubhagya scheme is very serious and needs to be investigated immediately. It is sad that even before the smart meter project is being implemented it is already steeped in controversies. There is obviously something not very right in the way the Corporation is managed and the Government needs to immediately address the issue before it is too late.
But how can we expect the Corporation to provide better service to the State when the management and the employees are not in the same page and are even at odds with each other? The management of the Corporation has already lost the confidence of the public and it now needs to work hard to even gain the confidence of its employees.
The Government is also in a catch 22 situation between enhancing power production through hydro-electric projects and promoting tourism. The Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board has notified that MeECL has proposed to set up a 210 MW Umngot Hydro-electric Project near Siangkhnai and a public hearing is proposed to be held on April 9, 2021 at Moosakhia village. Now the question is whether construction of the run of the river (RoR) project upstream of river Umngot will not affect the tourist spots downstream like Amkoi, Nongbareh, Shnongpdeng Darang and Dawki. Will the construction of the project not affect the crystal clear condition of the water which is in fact the unique selling point (USP) of these spots? If the water loses its crystal clear component or transparent state which makes the above places famous the world over, will it still be able to attract tourists to the different tourist spots? Will the Government answer the above questions?