Three-member bench questions competence of retired officers
‘who don’t even know where to put colon or semi-colon’
The Supreme Court directed the advocate general of Sindh on Friday to appoint regular employees to administrative and technical posts of the law department and remove all contractual retired employees within a week.
Hearing an application of Gulzar Rehman, a three-member bench, headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim, asked the advocate general why retired government employees had been appointed to the department on a contract basis by the government.
It observed that appointments of retired government officers as deputy secretary, additional secretary and consultant on a contract basis would amount to their re-employment, and that could not be permitted under the law.
The bench said persons beyond 60s and 70s had been appointed on a contract basis and the system would be destroyed if regular appointments were not made.
It observed that retired government employees were also getting pension benefits, questioning the competence of such retired officers who did not even know where to put the colon or the semi-colon.
Advocate General Zamir Ghumro submitted that the contracts of these employees would be over in April and October and sought time to seek instructions.
The court observed that such contractual employees could not continue in office and the department could work without them.
The advocate general submitted that contract employees, including the additional secretary drafting, deputy secretary opinion and consultant, would be denotified within one week and in their place regular appointments would be made in accordance with the civil service law.
The bench directed the service secretary to appoint cadre officers in the intervening period. It ordered that all employees who were appointed on a contract basis be removed forthwith and in their place appointments be made through advertisement as per the law.
Illegal promotions
The Supreme Court directed the advocate general to formulate new rules of business for the promotion of employees in the anti-corruption department.
Hearing an application against violations of its order, the court inquired the anti-corruption director why employees of the department were not being promoted despite their service of 20 years.
The applicants said police and other departments’ employees got promotions more than two times, but employees of the anti-corruption department had been ignored.
The chairman of the anti-corruption department submitted that 50 percent of appointments were made directly, 25 percent of employees were promoted, and the rest of the employees came from the police department.
The court also took exception to the appointment of Fida Hussain as director, observing that a person facing a NAB inquiry had been appointed as anti-corruption director. It directed the law officer to submit a report after formulating the rules of the business with regard to the promotion of employees in the anti-corruption department and submit a report.