The ongoing government servant protest

Dr. Forqan Uddin Ahmed :

The Government of Bangladesh issued the Government Service (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025 on May 25, 2025. Section 37 of the Government Service Act, 2018 was amended by adding a new Section 37A, through this ordinance. This amendment includes provisions allowing immediate disciplinary action against government employees without departmental inquiry for four types of misconduct. This move triggered strong reactions among government employees, sparking protests across the country. It has been widely debated in administrative, social, and political circles since the issuance of the ordinance
Section 37A states that if a government employee commits negligence in duty, unjustified absence, obstructs a colleague from performing their duties, or induces their absence, they may be punished, including dismissal, within 14 days after issuing a show-cause notice. This process does not include a departmental inquiry or a full hearing, which is important. There aren’t many ways to appeal, and the President’s order is final.
So, legal action is pretty much impossible, even if an employee wants to fight the decision. The government says this rule makes it easier to quickly impose penalties, which makes the administration more efficient. But in real life, this could lead to revengeful actions. For instance, if a senior officer doesn’t like a subordinate personally, using this rule incorrectly could easily lead to an unfair firing. People are worried about their freedom and job security because of this.
The long-standing mismanagement and discontent with government employees and bureaucracy provide a significant backdrop for the protests. Widespread annoyance has been brought on by the elimination of time-scale promotions and selection grades, irregular promotions, pay disparities, the undervaluation of civilian employees in departmental posts, and the rise in contractual appointments under outsourcing. Inflation pressure and the denial of the 50% hardship allowance are added to this. In light of this, the new ordinance has dealt a serious blow. The “Bangladesh Secretariat Officers and Employees Unity Forum” and other groups organised in protest as soon as the ordinance was issued. On May 24, a sit-in at the Secretariat marked the start of the movement. The movement was then further disseminated by press conferences, rallies, memorandum submissions, and work stoppages. On May 26, they made five demands: (1) the ordinance be repealed; (2) the Ninth Pay Commission be established; (3) a 50% hardship allowance be provided; (4) the rights of trade unions be guaranteed; and (5) the implementation of ration benefits and increments. On June 2, they sent the adviser a memo warning of heightened nationwide protests starting on June 22. Despite being centred at first on the Secretariat, the movement swiftly expanded to divisions, directorates, districts, and upazilas. Field administration staff members also showed solidarity. Through speeches, images, and videos that went viral, social media increased public awareness of the movement. The protest has become a cultural phenomenon thanks to symbolic marches, the wearing of black badges, and the hanging of cloth strips with slogans on them.
Experts opine that the amended ordinance is one-sided, punitive, and contrary to administrative transparency and justice. The absence of departmental inquiry and limited appeals conflict with Articles 26, 27, and 31 of the Constitution. It has created fear and insecurity among government employees, potentially destabilising the administrative framework. Instead of democratic participation in governance, a repressive approach may prevail. Legal experts stress that the rule of law in a state means not just punishing offences but also ensuring fair procedures for proving guilt. However, the ordinance restricts the accused’s right to defend themselves. Moreover, as the President’s order is final, higher courts have no jurisdiction to intervene. This blocks employees from obtaining justice and violates human rights. Lawyers argue that since this section is unconstitutional, there should be legal avenues to challenge it. In response to the movement, the government formed a reconsideration committee to evaluate the ordinance’s legal and administrative aspects.
Although the government has invited dialogue, employees have firmly stated they will not withdraw the movement unless the ordinance is fully repealed. They believe the calls for dialogue are merely stalling tactics. Political analysts say the government should have consulted the relevant parties beforehand. Imposing the ordinance has suddenly broken the trust between the government and employees. During the protests, various political parties indirectly expressed their views; some termed it a “manifestation of state oppression.” Government ministers maintain that misuse of the law will be prevented, but trust among employees remains low.
This movement has transcended opposition to a specific ordinance, becoming a broader struggle for job security, constitutional rights, and dignity. Solidarity among employees in various administrative units across the country is growing. If the government ignores these demands, frustration, dissatisfaction, and disengagement may increase in the administration. Conversely, seeking honourable solutions can restore trust between the government and bureaucracy. This movement could become a landmark in future governance. If the government avoids constructive dialogue and reasonable compromise, it will not only be a protest against a policy but a historic resistance against administrative mismanagement. The employees’ unity, organisation, and rights consciousness will influence future movements. Conversely, if the government turns this opportunity into dialogue and reform, it could set a positive example of democratic governance in Bangladesh.
The Government Service (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025 was issued in an uncertain context, where imbalance between administrative discipline and employee rights has emerged as a key issue. It reflects the internal problems of Bangladesh’s government work environment and the challenges of reforming state administration. The need to establish discipline among government employees is undeniable. However, it is unjust to deprive rights or neglect humanity in the name of administrative discipline. The ordinance introduces harsh punitive measures that deprive employees of due process. By limiting the opportunities for a show cause and a full hearing, the ordinance violates the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 31. In the long run, this could lead to a lack of administrative transparency and accountability.
The government should repeal the ordinance and convene a new discussion forum involving employee organisations and legal experts. Departmental inquiries should be mandatory, giving the accused full opportunity to defend themselves and rewriting the law accordingly. The President’s order should not be final; avenues for judicial appeal must be open to ensure legal fairness. Long-demanded salary reforms should be implemented to alleviate employee dissatisfaction. Granting legal recognition to government employees’ organised rights will allow peaceful assertion of their rights.

(The writer is a former Deputy Director General, Bangladesh
Ansar and VDP).