Petitioner claims Pirzada was not posted according to civic authority’s law. PHOTO: FILE
In the petition, petitioner Rana Anwer – submitting through his lawyer Hafiz Arfat Chaudhry – he claimed that Pirzada did not possess any experience of administration and even that he had been a junior officer in the Inland Revenue Service and could not have been appointed to a senior position in the CDA.
Chaudhry contended that there were a number of basic pay scale grade 20 officers of CDA whose services were being dealt with by a junior officer. Moreover, the lawyer argued that Pirzada is also dealing with human resources and administration issues of the civic authority without having requisite the experience.
“Appointment is therefore liable to be set aside,” he stated in the petition.
The CDA Member Administration is appointed under the CDA Ordinance, Chaudhary said, adding that the notification of Pirzada’s appointment states that he had been appointed under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act 1973. Chaudhry contended that Pirzada’s appointment, was thus, not a matter of a regular transfer or posting of a civil servant, rather the appointment had to be made in accordance with the CDA Ordinance 1960.
“His [Pirzada’s] appointment as Member (Administration) CDA is a sheer waste of public money,” Chaudhary argued.
“It is also causing serious loss to his department which is currently not able to utilise services of a trained resource.”
Challenging Pirzada’s appointment, Chaudhry urged the court to issue directions to Pirzada to show under what authority he was holding the office of CDA Member Administration and to recover perks, monetary benefits he has drawn from CDA.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 15th, 2017.
1726117332-0/Megan-Thee-Stallion-(1)1726117332-0-165x106.webp "article")
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ