IHC Questions Legality of ‘Look-After’ Charge for Chief Economist Position

Background

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has taken up a petition challenging the Planning Commission’s decision to assign the “look-after” charge of the Chief Economist of Pakistan to Dr. Nadeem Javaid, the Vice-Chancellor of the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE). The court has requested the government to provide a legal justification for this appointment by March 26.

Government’s Stance

Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal has defended the temporary appointment, stating that Dr. Javaid, who also serves as Member Research at the Planning Commission, was given the charge until a regular appointment is finalized.

Establishment Division’s Guidelines on ‘Look-After’ Charge

The Establishment Division has previously clarified that the concept of “look-after” charge is not recognized under the Civil Servants Act of 1973 and its associated rules. According to their instructions, such arrangements should be temporary and limited to urgent routine matters within the respective ministry or division. Typically, the senior-most officer is assigned to oversee the duties of a vacant post temporarily. However, certain financial and administrative powers are reserved for officers formally designated to the position, and those merely “looking after” cannot exercise these powers.

Brecorder

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, a senior Grade-21 officer from the economist group, contends that:

• The “look-after” charge given to Dr. Javaid is unlawful, especially since the Chief Economist position is a promotional post within the civil service hierarchy.
• Assigning the charge to an external individual undermines the established promotion process and bypasses eligible senior officers.
• The term “look-after charge” lacks statutory basis within the Civil Servants Act and may be used to circumvent rightful promotions.

Recent Developments

On the same day the court admitted the petition, a high-powered board promoted Dr. Imtiaz Ahmad, an officer from the economist group, to the highest Pay Scale-22, making him eligible for the Chief Economist position or a secretary role in any division.

Implications for the Planning Commission

The Planning Commission, responsible for formulating and implementing Pakistan’s long-term economic plans, faces scrutiny over this appointment. The outcome of this case could impact the commission’s internal processes and the adherence to established civil service rules.

FAQs

1. What is a ‘look-after’ charge in the context of civil service appointments?

A ‘look-after’ charge refers to a temporary arrangement where an officer is assigned to oversee the duties of a higher post during the incumbent’s absence. However, this concept is not formally recognized under the Civil Servants Act of 1973.

2. Why is the ‘look-after’ charge for the Chief Economist position being challenged?

The charge is being challenged because it was assigned to an individual outside the regular civil service hierarchy, potentially bypassing eligible senior officers and established promotion protocols.

3. What are the Establishment Division’s guidelines regarding ‘look-after’ charges?

The Establishment Division advises that ‘look-after’ arrangements should be temporary, limited to urgent routine matters, and typically assigned to the senior-most officer. Such officers are not authorized to exercise certain financial and administrative powers reserved for formally designated positions.

4. Who is Dr. Nadeem Javaid, and why was he assigned the ‘look-after’ charge?

Dr. Nadeem Javaid is the Vice-Chancellor of PIDE and also serves as Member Research at the Planning Commission. The Planning Minister stated that his assignment as Chief Economist is a temporary measure until a regular appointment is made.

5. What could be the potential outcome of this legal challenge?

The court’s decision could lead to a reevaluation of the appointment process for the Chief Economist position, ensuring adherence to civil service rules and promotion protocols. It may also set a precedent for future ‘look-after’ charge assignments.