PTBP Web Desk
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday sought an explanation from the chief commissioner Islamabad regarding issues linked to promotions, vacant posts, and the holding of dual offices. The hearing, presided over by Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, centered on the promotion of an officer who had superseded eight senior colleagues to rise from Labour Inspector to Labour Officer.
The case has drawn attention because it touches not only on alleged irregular promotions but also on the larger problem of vacant government positions, administrative inefficiency, and overlapping responsibilities at the highest levels of Islamabad’s governance.
During the proceedings, Justice Kayani directly questioned why the chief commissioner was simultaneously holding the position of chairman of the Capital Development Authority (CDA). He observed that such dual responsibilities diluted the commissioner’s focus on his core duties.
“It seems the chief commissioner is more interested in chairing the CDA than focusing on his actual responsibilities,” Justice Kayani remarked.
He directed the commissioner to review his primary obligations and to explain why several critical posts under his jurisdiction remained vacant despite a large number of unemployed people in the capital city.
The court expressed concern over the persistence of vacant posts, including four Labour Inspector positions in Islamabad. Justice Kayani compared the situation to the long-criticized patwari system, where patwaris often hand over their responsibilities to clerks, creating administrative loopholes.
The IHC observed that leaving government posts vacant not only delays service delivery but also reflects weak governance. With unemployment already a pressing issue in Pakistan, the court underscored the importance of filling positions promptly to ensure transparency, efficiency, and fairness.
Advocate Riaz Hanif Rahi, appearing during the hearing, highlighted that the chairman CDA was also serving as the chief commissioner Islamabad, which was against judicial precedents. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that both offices should be held by separate individuals to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure administrative efficiency.
This dual office-holding arrangement has become a recurring problem in Pakistan’s bureaucratic setup, where senior officials often occupy multiple positions, resulting in divided attention and delays in policy execution.
At the center of the case was the promotion of an officer who, after superseding eight senior colleagues, was elevated first as Labour Inspector and later as Labour Officer. The unusual trajectory raised questions about merit, transparency, and procedural fairness.
Justice Kayani expressed astonishment at the circumstances, noting that the officer had initially been superseded, then promoted after a writ petition was dismissed, and eventually transferred to a new cadre.
“If he was such an extraordinary officer, he should have been directly appointed as Deputy Commissioner,” Justice Kayani said, highlighting the contradictions in the process.
The IHC emphasized that judicial precedents require a strict separation of responsibilities between the chief commissioner and the CDA chairman. Combining these roles undermines accountability and makes it difficult for courts and the public to hold officials responsible for administrative lapses.
By raising this issue, the court highlighted a recurring theme in Pakistan’s governance structure — the lack of institutional clarity and the reliance on stopgap measures, such as overburdening one official with multiple responsibilities.
The case reflects broader issues within Pakistan’s bureaucratic and administrative framework. On the one hand, there are unemployed youth desperately seeking jobs; on the other, the government leaves crucial posts vacant for extended periods. This disconnect underscores the inefficiency of governance mechanisms.
Moreover, irregular promotions and cadre shifts create dissatisfaction among senior officers who are sidelined despite years of service. Such practices erode institutional trust and contribute to declining morale in public service departments.
