Statement — Financial stringency has prevented State “X” from paying salaries to its employees since April this year. Courses of Action — I. Immediately curtail staff strength by at least 30%. II. Reduce wasteful expenditure and arrange to pay pending salaries.
-
Aif only I follows
-
Bif only II follows
-
Cif either I or II follows
-
Dif neither I nor II follows
-
Eif both I and II follow
Answer
Correct Answer: if only II follows
Explanation
Introduction / Context:When a government defaults on salaries due to fiscal stress, immediate corrective actions should restore essential obligations while addressing inefficiencies. Measures must be proportionate, lawful, and socially responsible.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Problem: months of unpaid salaries.
- COA I: slash workforce by 30% immediately.
- COA II: curb wasteful spending and prioritize salary payments.
Concept / Approach:COA II directly targets the cause (spending discipline) and the effect (arrears), fitting public-finance norms of honoring wages first. COA I is extreme, operationally disruptive, and impractical without due process, legal frameworks, and workforce planning; it may worsen service delivery and morale and cannot restore arrears quickly. Therefore only II logically follows.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Recognize salaries as priority obligations.2) Trim non-essential expenditure and reallocate to arrears (II).3) Reject blanket, immediate 30% layoffs (I) as disproportionate and infeasible.Verification / Alternative check:Fiscal rules typically prefer expenditure rationalization, improved collections, and short-term financing over abrupt mass retrenchment. II aligns with this logic.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Either/Both: over-reactive and legally questionable.Neither: ignores a viable corrective path (II).Common Pitfalls:Assuming headcount cuts are the only way; often leakages and non-priority spends are substantial.
Final Answer:Only II follows.