close
Saturday February 15, 2025

PHC seeks CS, others’ replies in petition against PMS officers in KPRA

By Bureau report
January 01, 2025
People are seen gathered outside the Peshawar High Court (PHC). — Geo News/File
People are seen gathered outside the Peshawar High Court (PHC). — Geo News/File

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Tuesday asked the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief secretary, secretary finance, secretary Establishment, and director general of the KP Revenue Authority (KPRA) to submit replies in a petition filed against the appointment of officers from the Provincial Management Services (PMS) on the deputy directors and deputy collectors’ positions in the authority.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Kamran Hayat Miankhel and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal heard the petition filed by Munir Khan and others.Counsel for the petitioners Ali Gohar Durrani informed the court that his clients served as Grade-17 Assistant Collectors in the KP Revenue Authority, which was an autonomous body governed by its own act.

He pleaded that the authority was managed by its policy board chaired by the minister or advisor for finance as well as members, including the minister for Excise and Revenue, SMBR, secretary finance, secretary Excise, and the DG KPRA.

The counsel argued that since the petitioners’ appointments in 2019, all positions for DDs and DCs had been filled by provincial bureaucracy. “Whenever a PMS officer is promoted from Grade-17 to Grade-18, they are appointed to vacant positions in this authority, despite the fact that these are not scheduled posts,” he contended.

He said an assistant registrar from the Swat University was appointed in KPRA on deputation, which was illegal.He argued that since the authority was under the influence of PMS officers, these posts were declared as scheduled posts in violation of the KPRA Act of 2017, which clearly stated that the authority was an autonomous body to be led by the DG as the Chief Executive Officer.

The counsel said that frequent interference by the Establishment Department and provincial government had resulted in the denial of the petitioners’ rights and could adversely affect the performance of the authority.

After arguments, the court directed the provincial government, through the chief secretary, secretary Establishment, secretary finance and DG KPRA to submit their responses and halted any further appointments or actions against the petitioners until the matter was resolved