X : @vivekbhavsar
PART III
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in Mumbai has been plagued by anomalies in recent times, especially with regard to the appointment and tenure extension of its officers. The mandate of the Government Resolution (GR) dated February 16, 2018, is clear: no official may be extended for more than five years, and they must observe a two-year cooling-off period prior to being reappointed. Recent allegations, however, suggest that certain officials have disregarded this law, including those from the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC).
This GR of 16.2.2018 makes it very plain that no extension may be given for longer than a five-year term, after which there must be a two-year cooling-off period observed before re-deputation. However, it appears that certain officials have gotten around this rule, which begs the question of how much protection they have from higher up, such as Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. Critics contend that corrupt practices, such as officials securing their posts through bribes or favours, may occasionally be the cause of term extensions. This circumstance emphasises the necessity of structural changes and constant watchfulness to guarantee that laws are followed and the public’s confidence in the government is preserved.
Irregular Extensions and Alleged Violations
Despite the GR of 2018 requiring a maximum of five years followed by a mandated cooling-off period, the extended deputations of SRA officials and engineers from MHADA pose serious questions regarding accountability and governance. Systemic problems within the administration may be the reason why certain officials have been on deputation for up to 17–18 years, and MHADA engineers for up to 8 years.
The prolonged deputations raise the possibility of protection and favouritism from higher authorities, especially the SRA CEO. This encourages inequity and may result in a lack of faith in the organisation. Long-term deputations may cause stagnation, which lessens the chance that new people and perspectives will be able to further the goals of the SRA. Inefficiencies may also result from officials growing accustomed to their extended roles.
Critics contend that Establish a strong auditing mechanism to keep an eye on deputation terms and make sure rules are being followed. To avoid favouritism and maintain justice, transparent, merit-based procedures for appointments and tenure extensions should be established. Additionally, an independent oversight body should be established to look into and resolve any irregularities in deputations and tenure extensions.
Permanent Posts and the Question of SRA’s Status
The government recently decided to make thirty percent of the post inside the SRA permanent, which further complicates matters. This development has generated a lot of discussion and was prompted by demands from a Mumbai-based BJP MLA and a former minister of state for urban development. The SRA was founded in 1995 with the intention of eliminating slums from Mumbai. The SRA’s long-term goals are called into question by the recent decision to make thirty percent of the posts permanent. This looks like a conflicting judgement if the SRA is a transient organisation. Why wasn’t this clear from the beginning if the intention was for it to be permanent?
If the SRA was intended to be a permanent establishment, it raises the question of why all 100% posts were not made permanent at its inception in 1995 (Government Notification 16 December 1995). Conversely, if it is a temporary organization, why is there now a push to make 30% of the positions permanent?
If it is a temporary establishment, existing only until Mumbai is made slum-free, why is there a need to make any posts permanent? These inconsistencies point to potential policy missteps by previous governments, including the tenure of Mr. Devendra Fadnavis as Chief Minister of Maharashtra. If the SRA is indeed a permanent entity, why were not all posts made permanent at its inception in 1995? Critics argue that this selective permanency is an attempt to protect and embed officials who have allegedly engaged in irregular practices.
Making some of the positions permanent, according to critics, may be an attempt to shield and integrate officials who have allegedly participated in irregular practices, behaviour, guaranteeing their protection and influence going forward. Permanency may jeopardise attempts to confront and correct persistent anomalies in the SRA. If these posts are filled without stringent monitoring and merit-based selections, it might potentially result in a lack of transparency and accountability.
The decision is a reflection of the government’s inconsistent handling of the goals and organisation of the SRA. Any organisation that has such a significant mission must have well-defined and uniform policies in order to work effectively. The fact that political figures were involved in making this decision shows how much politics influences administrative decisions within the SRA. Critics demand the government clearly defines whether the SRA is a permanent or temporary entity and ensure that all appointments, especially permanent ones, are made through transparent and merit-based procedures.
The BMC’s Concerns and the Government’s Inaction
The ongoing worries about SRA procedures and the purported shielding of personnel engaged in questionable operations highlight a crucial problem with accountability and governance. Mr. Bhushan Gagrani, the chief of the BMC, emphasised that the government and the BMC had suffered large financial losses as a result of unlawful approvals that were given under these particular regulations. Still, no remedial measures have been implemented.
The lack of action after Mr. Gagrani’s critical communication points to either a lack of responsibility within the SRA or the possibility of outside influence shielding the implicated personnel. The lack of action has raised concerns that these officials are being protected rather than held responsible for their acts by the administration, headed by Chief Minister Shri Eknath Shinde. It is believed that the decision to make thirty percent of SRA positions permanent was made strategically to secure the posts of officials who are suspected of taking part in a scam involving hundreds of crores of rupees. This can strengthen the idea that the highest authorities are watching out for them.
Critics claim that a substantial decline in public confidence in the government and the SRA may result from ongoing inaction and the appearance of protecting dishonest officials. He goes on to explain that the BMC and the government may face serious consequences as a result of the illicit approvals and the ensuing financial losses, including possible legal challenges and further financial burden. As Mr. Gagrani pointed out, the SRA needs to respond to these improper approvals with swift corrective action. As he requests, this entails rescinding the approvals and paying the accumulated damages.
Conclusion
The situation within the SRA indeed highlights critical concerns that need to be addressed urgently. The inconsistent extensions of deputations, the selective permanent postings, and the lack of response to grave accusations of financial malfeasance point to underlying systemic problems. Stakeholders and the general public are keeping a careful eye on SRA developments. In order to address these concerns, the government must act decisively and transparently. Failing to do so can strengthen the status quo and erode confidence in the organisation and its leadership. The government can reestablish trust in the SRA and guarantee that it successfully accomplishes its goal of eliminating slums in Mumbai by exhibiting a dedication to transparency, accountability, and good governance.
List of SRA officials serving for more than 5 years
1. R. B. Mitkar, Deputy Chief Engineer (7 years)
2. Sandhya Bawankule, Assistant Registrar (6 years)
3. U.C. Bodke, Executive Engineer (5 years)
4. Milind Wani, Executive Engineer (7 years)
