Pakistan Railways: Employees move court for cash payments

The petitioners have challenged the order directing bank accounts for salaries.


Express January 12, 2012

RAWALPINDI:


Five employees of Pakistan Railways (PR) have moved the Lahore High Court’s Rawalpindi Bench, challenging the November 4, 2011 order of PR authorities directing all employees to get salaries through bank accounts.


Many lower-grade employees could not withdraw their salaries in December as they were unable to open bank accounts.

“We could not get our salaries for last month, due to which we have been facing financial difficulties. The situation is likely to get worse if we are not paid in cash,” said one of the petitioners.

“The high court is likely to take up the petition filed by Ghulam Tanvir, Muhammad Ilyas, Rehmat Din, Muhammad Taj and Muhammad Mehboob Mughal on Friday,” said Advocate Abdul Wahid Qureshi, who represents the petitioners.

The petitioners have made the railways minister, chairman, deputy general manager, divisional superintendent, and divisional accounts officer respondents in the petition.

“The petitioners are not well-educated and their signatures are not of permanent character, while their signatures in Urdu do not match if repeated and they have to use their thumb impressions instead”, says the petition.

The employees also find it difficult to operate an account using thumb impressions, as the backing procedure for such clients is very different from other clients; they are identified through their photographs, due to which they have to visit the bank for every transaction. Furthermore, they cannot avail the facility of automatic teller machine, debit and credit cards and online banking, the petitioners maintained.

The petitioners have requested the court to direct the authorities to facilitate them by paying their salaries in cash instead of bank cheques.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 12th, 2012.

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