| Why is J&K's "one officer, one vehicle" policy still on paper? Speaker asks Govt | | Autumn Session 2026 | | Sanjay Pandita
Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 24: Jammu and Kashmir Assembly Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather on Thursday delivered a sharp public reprimand to Transport Minister Satish Sharma over the prolonged delay in implementing a new vehicle policy for government officers. He asked why a process begun in 2021 was still unfinished in 2026.
"When the high-level committee has already submitted its report, whom do you still need to consult?" Rather asked the minister on the House floor. He called the practice of providing officers with more than one official vehicle a "serious issue." "We are a poor state," he said. "We cannot afford to bankroll luxury for officers."
The exchange came during Question Hour, on a query from BJP MLA Ranbir Singh Pathania of Udhampur East. Pathania sought details on how official vehicles are allotted to officers, how much the government spends on maintaining its fleet, and where the government stands on the "one officer, one vehicle" principle.
In his reply, Sharma told the House that a revised vehicle policy had been drafted and proposes "one vehicle per officer." He added that the policy is still under government consideration and has not been formally notified. Exceptions are proposed for security needs, field duties, additional charge, operational requirements and the functional needs of departments and institutions.
The minister said the General Administration Department constituted a committee on April 9, 2021, to review and recommend changes to the existing vehicle policy. The committee later drafted the Government Vehicle Management Policy, 2026, but it has yet to be enforced. The department submitted its own report, based on the committee's recommendations, earlier this month. That report is being assessed, he said, and the policy will be notified soon.
The Speaker was not satisfied. He asked why action had not followed the committee's report, and what the government had been doing in the 24 days since it arrived. "Whom do you have to consult now?" he asked. Rather asked the government to place a detailed account of the policy's status and implementation before the House during the current session.
Sharma acknowledged the delay. He said he would study the policy and brief the House in detail, and that the government would move quickly.
The sharpest exchange came over officers holding additional charge of several departments, who are provided a separate official vehicle for each. Rather asked why each department should need its own vehicle for the same officer. The minister described this as a "long-standing arrangement" that the government would examine, with corrective steps if needed.
That answer drew a sharper response from the Speaker. "If the old arrangement is wrong, will you continue it?" he asked. He said an arrangement being old does not make it right, and that official resources must be used prudently. If an officer and staff can manage with one vehicle, he asked, why are several being used? He said the matter should be reviewed on the basis of real and rational use of public resources, not on precedent.
The government's reply also brought out a gap in the rules: there is currently no uniform, binding limit on the number of official vehicles that can be allotted to a single officer across departments, PSUs, boards and autonomous bodies.
Pathania also questioned the cost of running these vehicles. He sought answers on claims for petrol, oil and lubricants (POL) linked to multiple vehicles, and on alleged double TA/DA claims. He also asked whether an independent third-party audit could be conducted, in addition to departmental audits and physical verification, to check how the vehicles are actually used and what they cost. The minister said the State Motor Garages Department periodically audits and physically verifies the fleet.
After the exchange, the government must now give the House a detailed explanation of the new policy's status, its timeline for implementation, and the existing practice of providing officers with more than one vehicle. |
|
