Proficiency test: PHC admits writ petition of NAB officers

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Monday admitted writ petition of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) officers for hearing and restrained the anti-graft body from taking any adverse action against the employees even after appearing in the proficiency test.

A division bench comprising Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Justice Abdul Shakoor admitted the writ petition for a full hearing in which the employees have challenged the proficiency test by the NAB chairman after 16 years of their regular service.

The bench did not issue the stay order in the proficiency test to be held in Islamabad today for the remaining 26 NAB employees.

However, the court directed the NAB that no adverse action should be taken against the employees after appearing in the test, which the NAB claimed was being conducted for increasing their proficiency.

The petition was filed by assistant private secretaries of the NAB KP, including Asia Rehman, Ubaid, Manzoor Hussain and Ahmad Hussain, seeking suspension of the proficiency test to be held on November 6.

The petitioners sought direction for the respondents not to hold the test, which they termed against the rules and regulations.

During the course of the hearing, Fida Gul appeared for the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners had been appointed as stenographers in BPS-15. In 2011, he said, they were re-designated through a notification and promoted as assistant private secretary (APS) on February 28, 2013.

He argued that NAB chairman through a departmental letter issued on October 9 directed the petitioners across the country in all regional offices to take the test on November 6 at their own expenses. The lawyer said that the NAB chairman had warned the petitioners of the disciplinary proceedings if they did not appear in the test.

The lawyer pointed out before the bench that there was no proficiency test in the Terms and Conditions of Service 2002 of the petitioners. He pointed out that the test was against the law and amounted to discrimination against the petitioners, whose job nomenclature had been changed.