The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has admitted a petition, challenging the alleged illegal "look-after" charge of the all-important position of the chief economist of Pakistan given to the vice chancellor of a public sector university by the Planning Commission.
Acting IHC Chief Justice Justice Sarfraz Dogar has asked the government to submit replies by March 26. The court has instructed that it should be provided the legal basis for giving the look-after charge of the chief economist position to the vice chancellor of Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE).
However, Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal has defended the decision, saying Dr Nadeem Javaid has been appointed temporarily and there is also legal merit in the appointment.
He said that Nadeem Javaid was also Member Research of the Planning Commission and thus there was modus operandi for giving him the look-after charge. The charge has been given until the regular appointment process is completed, the minister added.
Soon after appointing Dr Nadeem Javaid as PIDE Vice Chancellor, the government on February 18 gave him the look-after charge of the vacant post of chief economist in clear violation of the Establishment Division's instructions of April 2021.
The court admitted the petition and served notices on the day a high-powered board promoted Dr Imtiaz Ahmad, belonging to the economist group, to the highest Pay Scale-22. This makes Imtiaz Ahmad eligible for the post of chief economist or secretary in any division.
The Planning Commission is entrusted with the responsibility of making Pakistan's long-term economic plans and ensuring their implementation.
The petitioner, the senior most officer of Grade-21 in the economist group, challenged the look-after charge given to PIDE vice chancellor and also challenged the continued placement of his services at the disposal of the Establishment Division since December 2021.
The petitioner prayed the court that it may declare that the look-after charge for the vice chancellor of a university was unlawful and devoid of legal basis.
According to the Establishment Division's instructions, "there is no provision of look after charge in Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Rules made thereunder, rather an officer can be deputed temporarily as an internal arrangement to look after the work of another post for disposal of day to day work of urgent and routine nature in the Ministry, Division, Organization concerned".
Going by these instructions, either one of the senior most officers should have been appointed the chief economist or the look-after charge should have been given to any of the senior most officers.
The Establishment Division's instructions further read that as a matter of principle, the senior most officer is normally asked by the head of a division or department to look after the work of a post when its incumbent is temporarily away.
However, the instructions further clarified "there may be certain issues which are of quasi-judicial nature and decision cannot be taken by an officer not formally designated to exercise those powers".
However, Nadeem Javaid is taking all the decisions which in the routine business fall within the domain of the chief economist.
The Establishment Division further stated that certain financial and administrative powers can only be exercised by an officer to whom the additional or current charge of the post is entrusted in the prescribed manner.
An officer looking after the work cannot exercise such powers as he has not been delegated such powers by the competent authority, according to the Establishment Division.
The petitioner prayed the court that the vice chancellor was an external element in the established hierarchy but he still was granted the look-after charge of chief economist, despite it being a promotional post.
He made the Establishment Division secretary, planning secretary and Nadeem Javaid parties in the case.
The petitioner asserted that the planning ministry "improperly assigned the look-after charge of the vacant position of chief economist". He contended that the assignment was unlawful as the chief economist was a promotional post.
The petitioner said that the term "look-after charge" lacked statutory basis within the Civil Servants Act and constituted an attempt to circumvent the petitioner's legal right to be considered for promotion.
He disclosed that he had earlier filed a writ petition before the IHC but the petition was subsequently withdrawn on September 16, 2024, premised upon assurances extended to the petitioner by senior officials that their candidacy for promotion would be duly considered.
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