Legal challenges: Bureau of Statistics in administrative disarray

Body responsible for holding census is working without service rules


Shahbaz Rana October 08, 2016
A February 2013 office memorandum of the Establishment Division declared the PBS as an attached department of the Statistics Division. It is rare that head of the attached department is more powerful than the parent ministry’s secretary. PHOTO: EXPRESS

ISLAMABAD: The administrative affairs of Pakistan Bureau of Statistics – the body tasked to hold population census – are in disarray as the bureau is working without any service rules after six years of its inception, creating legal challenges for the government.

The bureau decided to challenge an Establishment Division summary, recommending applying Civil Servants Act 1973 to the PBS. The summary was approved on August 31, PBS officials told The Express Tribune. 

According to them, the PBS wanted that the rules should be approved under the General Statistics Reorganization Act of 2011, a move opposed by the Establishment Division and even the office of the Secretary Statistics Division.

Interestingly, the Establishment Division received two summaries, one sent by the Secretary Statistics in March this year and another by the bureau’s chief statistician. The Secretary Statistics called for applying rules under the 1973 Act while the Chief Statistician wanted rules under the 2011 Act.

“The Establishment Division has approved the summary of the Secretary Statistics,” said Dr Masood Akhtar, the spokesman for the Establishment Division.

Two of the previous three secretaries of the statistics division said that none of them were happy because of the strong role enjoyed by the PBS chief statistician.

Lately, Finance Minister Ishaq Dar gave the additional charge of Secretary Statistics to his Special Assistant, Tariq Pasha.

Rules under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 infringe the General Statistics Reorganization Act of 2011, said Asif Bajwa, the Chief Statistician of the PBS.

Bajwa said that the PBS would seek clarification from the Establishment Division, as the rules have to be framed under the statistics law otherwise the PBS governing law needed to be amended.

The PBS had been set up in 2011 as the prime national agency for collecting and disseminating data on socio-economic indicators. Its main task is holding the population census and house listing.

According to officials of the Ministry of Law and Justice, ambiguity over PBS’ administrative affairs might create legal challenges for the government.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a suo motu case on the delay in holding the next population census.

The chief statistician runs the PBS and five functional members assist him.

Section 18 of the General Statistics Reorganization law states: “A member shall exercise such powers and perform such functions as may be assigned to him as shall be prescribed by rules.”

Since there are no rules, members’ work could easily be challenged in courts, according to legal experts. Another irregularity was that recruitments took place even before approval of the rules.

Over the past six years, the Chief Statistician had been contending that “rules are under process”.

The Office of the Auditor-General of Pakistan has also framed audit objections over “irregular and unauthorised appointments of functional members”, who were hired without framing the rules. Three of them are retiring in January next year after serving their four-year term.

A February 2013 office memorandum of the Establishment Division declared the PBS as an attached department of the Statistics Division. It is rare that head of the attached department is more powerful than the parent ministry’s secretary.

The Chief Statistician shall be an ex-officio Secretary to the federal government, according to the law. However, the chief statistician and five members have been hired on contracts.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 8th, 2016.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ