Repatriation case: Verdict reserved on ECP official’s plea

Sher Afgan has challenged repatriation to the Supreme Court

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) reserved on Tuesday verdict on a petition filed by the additional secretary of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) challenging repatriation to the Supreme Court.

Justice Aamer Farooq reserved verdict on the petition of the ECP’s Additional Secretary, Syed Sher Afgan, after his counsel, Ghulam Muhammad Khan, concluded his arguments.

Afgan has challenged repatriation to his parent department – the Supreme Court.

He said that the notification of June 24 was issued in an arbitrary manner without issuing any notice to the petitioner.

Afgan had made the chief election commissioner, the ECP secretary, the ECP deputy director, Nafeesa Hashmi, and the registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, respondents in the case.

Khan said that Afgan was serving as principal private secretary (BPS-18) in the Supreme Court and was posted with the then chief justice of Pakistan.

He said that the services of the petitioner were requisitioned by the respondents on deputation basis and later on, the petitioner was absorbed in the ECP on regular basis with the approval of the “lending and [the] borrowing departments.



Khan has submitted notification of appointment on deputation, consent of the petitioner, the NOC issued by the parent department, and notification regarding absorption of the petitioner.

“The chief justice of Pakistan has been pleased to allow Syed Sher Afgan, ex-principal private secretary of this court to be absorbed in the Election Commission
of Pakistan on regular basis,” the registrar of the apex court had stated in the NOC.

Subsequently, Khan said, Afgan was granted promotion as joint secretary, granted up-gradation in BPS-21, his post was re-designated as director general and was recently appointed as the ECP additional secretary.

Khan said that on June 24, Afgan was suddenly repatriated to his parent department with immediate effect on the ground that the apex court, presumptively, in a recent judgment had held all such absorptions as illegal.

He said that Nafeesa Hashmi was not the competent authority to issue the notification in the case of petitioner.

Among the grounds, Khan said the notification of repatriation was a result of misreading and non-reading of the judgment on the Supreme Court and Hashmi acted beyond her powers, which were liable to be set aside.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 29^th, 2016.