Retirement age across the world - ILC Report

 

Retirement age across the world - ILC Report

Policy Reforms in Ageing Health and Innovation in OECD Countries

NON-HEALTH RELATED

Pension Reform 

One very common policy response to increased longevity is pension reform to ensure the future sustainability of pension systems while ensuring that older people receive adequate retirement income (OECD, 2009). The most common measures taken are raising the state pension age, scrapping or limiting the possibility of early retirement and encouraging personal (individual/employer) pension provision (OECD, 2009; OECD, 2006).

Almost all OECD countries have made changes to state pension age; those with a state pension age below 65 are in the process of raising it such as Japan, Korea and the Czech Republic, whereas countries such as the UK, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands that already have a state pension age of 65 are increasing it (OECD, 2009; Guardian, 2010). However, it is important to note that most while the state pension age guides retirement, many people retire before reaching it, while others choose to continue working (Berry, 2010).
 
Many countries including Portugal, Turkey, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Sweden have cut future benefits, although many have targeted cuts so that poorer people are not adversely affected (OECD, 2007). A number of OECD countries, such as France, Hungary, Poland, Portugal and Germany have made personal pension provision more attractive through favourable tax treatment, while other countries such as New Zealand and the UK have introduced or are introducing opt-out personal pension schemes for people without access to employer based schemes (OECD, 2009). 

When it comes to incentivising early or later retirement, there are differences (OECD, 2009). Countries can however take different options; for example Germany retains state funded early retirement which acts as an incentive, whereas the UK abolished it a long time ago and incentivises people to retire later by improving pension entitlements for those who defer their state pension (Muller-Camen et al, 2011). 

While some OECD countries such as the USA do not have a default retirement age, many do. Until recently, the UK had a default retirement age of 65, which meant that an employee could be forced to retire at 65 even if they did not want to (BIS, 2011) The scrapping of the default retirement age was warmly welcomed by older people’s organisations and trade unions and cautiously welcomed by employers; retirement will now become the subject of negotiation between employee and employer (BBC News, 2010a).

State pension age in OECD countries

Country	Male	Female	Change planned?	Notes
Australia	65	63	Yes	Women's pension age will gradually rise to 65 by 2014 and both will increase to 67 in stages between 2017 and 2023.
Austria	65	60	No
Belgium	65	65	No
Canada	65	65	No	The normal pension eligibility is age 65 but an early pension can be claimed from age 60.
Chile	65	60	No
Czech Republic	62	61	Yes	Retirement age will be increased for men to 63 years from 2016 and for women without children from 2019 and to age 59 to 62 for women with children (depending on number of children they have raised).
Denmark	65	65	Yes	Government propose to raise the age to 67 over an eight year period starting in 2017.
Finland	63	63	No	Under the Employees' Pension Act (TYEL) the retirement age is 63 to 68 years.
France	60	60	Yes	Will be raised to 62 over the next eight years.
Germany	65	65	Yes	This will increase to age 67 between 2012 and 2029. It is possible in some circumstances to retire at 63 years.
Greece	65	60	Yes	There are plans to increase women's age to 65 years.
Hungary	62	62	Yes	Retirement age will increase to age 65 for men from 2018 and for women from 2020.
Iceland	65	65	No	This is for the public sector. The legal retirement age for private sector employees is 67.
Ireland	65	65	No	There is no fixed retirement age for employees. There is a statutory retirement age of generally 65 for some public servants.
Italy	65	60	No
Japan	60	60	Yes	The pension age is gradually being increased to 65, between 2001 and 2013 for men and between 2006 and 2018 for women.
Korea (Republic of)	60	60	Yes	The pension age is being increased gradually and will reach age 65 by 2033.
Luxembourg	65	65	No	Normal retirement age is 65 but early retirement at 57 is possible.
Mexico	65	65	No	Normal retirement age is 65 years but early retirement is available from age 60.
Netherlands	65	65	Yes	There are plans to increase the retirement age to 67.
New Zealand	65	65	No
Norway	67	67	No	60% of employees are entitled to early retirement from the age of 62 years under the early retirement plan.
Poland	65	60	No	There are some professions that are entitled to earlier retirement such as teachers and armed forces.
Portugal	65	65	No	Early retirement is possible in some circumstances from the age of 55 years.
Slovakia	62	57	Yes	The retirement age for women is currently increasing to 62 years by 2014 so that both sexes will be equalised
Spain	65	65	No
Sweden	61	61	No	The retirement age is flexible, state pensions can be claimed from age of 61 years.
Switzerland	65	64	No
Turkey	60	58	Yes	There are plans to increase the retirement age in stages from 2035 to age 65 for both men and women.
United Kingdom	65	60	Yes	The retirement age for women is being increased between 2010 – 2020 to 65 years. State pension will rise to age 66 in 2024, age 67 in 2034 and age 68 in 2044.
United States	66	66	Yes	Increasing to age 67 in stages.

Source: Guardian (2010)

 

Source:http://www.globalcoalitiononaging.com/v2/data/uploads/documents/ilc-uk-ihp.pdf

Retirement age stays 60, pensioners disappointed

 

Retirement age stays 60, pensioners disappointed

But some say it’s a good decision

Many city pensioners’ associations awaiting a decision on extension of retirement age of central government employees were disappointed on Monday when the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) decided to keep it at 60 instead of 62.

A senior member from the establishment department of the DoPT told Newsline, “It has not been discussed and we have not issued any orders or have taken any ‘in-principle decision’ on the same.’’

“Though there was no official announcement, the news of the extension of retirement age was widely circulated among the departments,’’ said M Naik, associated with the central government.

B J Piwal, a member of the central government employees for national confederation, said he was disappointed with no extension in the age. “Though we had no news or order from the seniors in the department, news which appeared on the Net about the extension gave us some hope. Two more years would have good,’’ he said.

P K K Unni, a member of the central government association, said one has to think about the unemployed youth who are hoping to get government jobs. “The government is justified in not increasing the age as it will affect youngsters,’’ he said.

The last time the government extended the retirement age of central government employees was in 1998. It was also a two-year extension from 58. This was preceded by the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission, which had put severe strain on government finances. Subsequently, all the state governments followed the Centre’s policy by extending the retirement age by two years. Public sector undertakings too followed suit.
A certain section of the employees serving in various government establishments feel that the news of the extension was more political with the government facing lot of corruption cases.

P K Raje, another central government employee, said, “The rumour was earlier circulated last year as well. However, even if the government is not extending the age limit, it should recruit more people.’’ He said IMD Pune’s mechanical wing has many vacancies but there has been no news of filling up the posts.

 

 

Source: Indian Express

Retirement of five government employees at 58 invalid–High Court

 

Retirement of five govt employees at 58 invalid: HC

PANAJI: The high court of Bombay at Goa has held that reduction in the retirement age from 60 to 58 years by the state government without the prior approval of the central government is invalid.

The judgment was passed in a petition filed by five retired workmen of the public works department. Zilo Zo and four others, who were retired at the age of 58 in 2006, had approached the high court in September 2008.

According to the petitioners they were employed when Goa was a union territory. Section 60 (6) of the Goa State, Daman and Diu Reorganization Act, 1987, puts an embargo on altering the service conditions of the petitioners to their disadvantage except with previous approval of the Centre.

The petitioners argued that they were entitled to retire from service at the age of 60 under Rule 56 (b) of the Fundamental Rules.

During the hearing of the case, the government lawyer said that no relief could be granted to the petitioners as they had approached the court in 2008 while they had retired in 2006.

The government affidavit further stated that the rules for reducing the retirement age to 58 years were published in an official gazette in August 2000 and subsequently, on July 30, 2001 the central government had given ex-post facto approval for altering the retirement age. The petitioners' lawyer, S M Walwaikar, argued that the state government had not taken prior approval from the central government for altering the terms and conditions of service.

Stating that the ex-post facto approval is not an approval in the eyes of law, Walwaikar added that Section 60 (6) of the Act of 1987 contemplates prior approval and that this is a mandatory requirement.

He contended that the retirement of the petitioners at the age of 58 violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

A division bench of Justices S C Dharmadhikari and Justice F M Reis observed: "Once the law laid down is that approval must be prior then there is no question of the age of retirement being altered to the disadvantage of petitioners by respondents."

The court opined that the action of the state government in retiring the petitioners at the age of 58 cannot be sustained as it is contrary to Section 60 (6) of the Act of 1987 and violates the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.

The court further noted that the petitioners shall be held as retired from service from the date on which they attained 60 years.

"Although we find that they could have been continued in service till the year 2008, they having taken no steps from 2006 to 2008 except relying on the representations and assurances given to them and awaiting fate of their written complaints, interest of justice would be served by directing that each of the petitioners would be entitled to retirement benefits from the date of filing of the petition (September 30, 2008)," the court said.

It also directed authorities to compute and calculate the retirement benefits by fixing the petitioners' salaries as if they had continued in service till the date of attaining 60 years. But the retirement benefits shall be released only from the date of filing of the writ petition, the court held.

The court ordered that the benefits, including the arrears, be released within a period of three months.

 

Source: Economic Times

Central Government employees’ retirement age to be extended by 2 years to 62

 

Central govt employees’ retirement age to be extended by 2 years to 62

 

New Delhi: The government is planning to extend the retirement age of all central government employees by two years — from the current 60 to 62 years. Sources said that an in-principle decision has been taken in this regard and the department of personnel and training (DoPT) has begun the work to implement the same. A formal announcement to this effect is expected this year itself.

 

The last time the government extended the retirement age of central government employees was in 1998. It was also a two-year extension from 58. This was preceded by the implementation of the 5th Pay Commission, which had put severe strain on government’s finances. Subsequently, all state governments followed the Centre’s policy by extending the retirement age by two years. Public sector undertakings followed suit too.

 

The decision to extend the retirement age is well-timed both politically and economically.

 

The UPA government reckons the move would be a masterstroke. At a time when it is buffeted by several corruption cases, it is felt that the extension of the retirement age will go down well with the middle classes. Economically also, the move makes sense because by deferring payment of lump sum retirement benefits for a large number of employees by two years, the government would be able to manage its finances better. “An in-principle decision has been taken to increase the retirement age by two years within this year itself. This would reduce the burden on the fisc from one-time payment of retirement benefits for employees including defence and railways personnel,” an official involved in the discussion said. With the fiscal consolidation high on the government's agenda, this deferment would come handy.

 

There’s some flip side too if the retirement age is extended by two years. Those officials empanelled as secretaries and joint secretaries would have to wait longer to actually get the posts. And of course, there is the issue of average age profile of the civil servants being turning north.

It is also felt that any extension is not being fair with a bulk of people who still look for jobs in the government.

 

However, officials point out that at least it prevents an influential section of the bureaucracy to hanker for post-retirement jobs with the government like chairmanship of regulatory bodies or tribunals.

 

“As it is, a sizeable section of senior civil servants work for three to five years after the retirement in some capacity or the other in the government,” said a senior government official. The retirement age of college teachers and judges are also beyond 60.

As per a study, the future pension outgo for the existing Central and State government employees is estimated at a staggering R1,735,527 crore or 55.88% of GDP at market prices of 2004-05.

 

 

Source: The Financial Express

Babus retirement age set to go up

Babus retirement age set to go up

The top two officials in the state administration, chief secretary, Mr S.V. Prasad, and the director-general of police, Mr K. Aravinda Rao, will benefit from the Centre’s decision to set the retirement age for civil servants at 62 years from the present 60 years. Mr Aravinda Rao was due to retire in June and the chief secretary in September.

Sources told this newspaper that the Cabinet subcommittee of the Union government gave its nod for enhancing the retirement age, and orders amending the service rules are expected much before the retirement of the two officials. The Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, was keen to enhance the retirement age of bureaucrats.

Sources said that though the proposal is ready for implementation, there will be a few months’ delay because the government wants to make Mr Pulok Chatterjee the new Cabinet secretary at the Centre and prefers to wait for bureaucrats senior to him to retire before it makes the announcement.

Mr Chatterjee had earlier worked with the UPA chairperson, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, and is considered a natural choice to take over from the incumbent Mr K.M. Chandrasekhar. “There are a few bureaucrats senior to Mr Chatterjee and the Centre will wait for their retirement in April,” explained a senior official.

Back here in the state, the government will be keen to retain the services of Mr Prasad and Mr Aravinda Rao who have proved to be assets when the state is passing through turbulent times. The former chief minister, Mr K. Rosaiah, appointed the two officials to the top posts and his successor Mr N. Kiran Kumar Reddy did not make any changes. Another senior bureaucrat, Ms Janaki Kondapi, will also benefit from the change in the new retirement age as she is due for retirement in the next few months.



Source: Deccan Chronicle

Will the Retirement age of central government employees go up from 60 to 62?

Will the Retirement age of central government employees go up from 60 to 62?

As we heard every time before the budget session of parliament, this time also a rumor about raising the retirement age of central government employees from 60 to 62 is spreading here and there among the central government employees. May be the officers at the verge of retirement be happy about this rumor. Otherwise there is no reason to be happy about this rumor.. As India is having 51% of people below the age of 25 years , it is not a good news to millions of jobless people. Sources close to the trade union movements and Federations told that there is no such proposal with the government since none of the workers federations have demanded it.

In 2009, The Manmohan Singh government was serious in weighing the pros and cons of increasing the retirement age for government employees from 60 to 62 years.That time it was believed that the finance ministry had prepared a detailed note on the issue and sent it to the prime minister's office (PMO) But the government shelved the idea, largely because of fears that a higher retirement age would adversely impact employment generation and create resentment in the bureaucracy because of blocked promotional avenues. At that time, it was the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) that was asked by the PMO to study the issue and prepare a report.

The BJP led National Democratic Alliance government had raised the retirement age from 58 to 60, in 1998, a move that benefitted 90,000 government servants and 50,000 defence personnel. At the time, the logic was: the retirement of 140,000 employees would have cost Rs 5,200 crore whereas paying salaries cost only Rs 1,493 crore.

Incase if the decision is finally taken, it will only be the third time the government will have raised the retirement age. Jawaharlal Nehru was the first prime minister to have increased the age of superannuation from 55 to 58 following the 1962 war with China. The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government did it a second time in 1998.

Source: Vinmoney

REGARDIN G EXTENSION OF RETIREMENT AGE FROM 60 YEARS UPTO 62 YEARS FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

RETIREMENT AGE FROM 60 YEARS UPTO 62 YEARS

To,
Smt. Sonia Gandhi,
Chair Person of U.P.A,
Leader of Congress party of India,
New Delhi

Sub.:- REGARDIN G EXTENSION OF RETIREMENT AGE FROM 60 YEARS UPTO 62 YEARS FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.


Respected Madam,


With due regards we beg to say that we all are the young youth of India residing in different states of India. Some of us are employed and some are still not employed and searching for job in government sector and always busy in preparation of competitive examinations.

Madam, recently print media has published that congress party is increasing the retirement age from 60 years to 62 years to the central government employees of Indian government.

Madam, in this case we want to state that this would not be good a move for congress party and its vote bank. We are the sincere workers of congress party and this move will really decrease the achievements of congress party as Indian young youth will not support congress party on this move. India is having 40% of young youth and most of them are still unemployed and searching jobs.

If the retirement age would be increased to 62 years, then job opportunities for unemployed young youth would be decreased drastically and it would ruin their dreams too.

It is requested to you Madam to please interfere in this case and retirement age for central government employees should not be increased upto 62 years and it should be kept same as 60 years and clarification about above may please be published in the print media at the earliest to reduce the worries of young unemployed congress workers.

We hope that this point would be discussed immediately among party leaders.

Yours faithfully,

DATED:- 11 OCT 2008

Young youth of India,
Congress party workers
From all states of India.


Source: jeetegakaun