Repatriation of deputationists to parent departments
Islamabad—After a notification by Capital Administration & Development Division (CADD) to send the deputationists back to their parent departments/institutions doctors in the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) have either refused to accept it or raised objections on it.
A large number of doctors in PIMS and Polyclinic hospitals are working on deputation basis and the recent notification has sent shivering waves among them and they maintain that their absorption in current posts is in line with the existing rules. It may be mentioned here that Director of the Children’s Hospital Dr Raja Amjad Mehmood has been conveyed by the PIMS administration to report back to Punjab Health Department. Interestingly, PIMS Additional Director Dr Ayesha Isani who has issued notice to Dr Amjad, is herself on deputation basis in PIMS and is from Sindh.
In Capital Development Authority (CDA) too, several deputationists have been repatriated and the Supreme Court recently denied a request to grant a stay against the CDA’s repatriation of officers to their parent departments.
Dr Babar Awan, representing 15 doctors, had argued that the decision of repatriation would adversely affect the training of some postgraduate doctors who were being supervised by senior doctors but had now been repatriated to other departments.
But the court observed that no exception could be made for them and citing a 2013 Supreme Court judgment recalled that 5,000 officers in Sindh had to be repatriated to their parent departments despite the fact that they had been working for the last 20 years.
The court also wondered whether the CDA Board was more powerful than the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) to appoint or transfer people on its own, adding if the tendency of absorption on deputation was not discouraged, it would discriminate against genuine officers who waited for their promotion for years while their junior would supersede them to senior post by coming to their departments on deputation.
It was on Mar 25, 2016, the apex court had ordered CDA Chairman Maroof Afzal and the Capital Administration and Development Division (CADD) secretary to explain whether the CDA Board can absorb officers from different departments or transfer to other departments in defiance of the principles laid down in the 2013 judgment. In compliance, the advocate Munir Paracha submitted a reply stating that 35 employees who were absorbed into CDA service had been repatriated to their parent departments whereas the absorption of three CDA employees in the authority, who were later transferred to other departments, had also been withdrawn.