The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a report over appointments made in Port Qasim Authority (PQA), during tenure of former ports and shipping minister Babar Khan Ghauri and directed the government to frame proper rules and regulations to run all affairs of the authority.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Javed Iqbal with Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed was hearing a petition filed by dysfunctional secretary of ports and shipping Abdul Jabbar Memon, who has challenged appointment of Mehmood Zameer Farooqi, brother-in-law of Makhdoom Amin Fahim, federal minister for commerce, in PQA.
Shaiq Usmani, counsel for PQA, presented a report over the appointments, which the court rejected and directed to review the appointment of dysfunctional secretary (Memon) in light of prime minister's directives and present a report to the court within four weeks.
Justice Javed Iqbal observed that PQA was established in 1973 but no rules have been made despite lapse of so many years, paving way for illegal appointments one way or another. He directed the authorities concerned to inform the court that how the authority is being run and under what rules the appointments have been made.
Terming formation of board for appointment illegal, Justice Javed Iqbal said that strict action would be taken against responsible officials found involved in making illegal appointments. He noted that three persons from the same family were appointed in grade-15 in PQA and within 15 days of their appointments, they were promoted to Grade 20. "It seems as if the rules and regulations were completely ignored while making appointments in PQA", he remarked.
The petitioner had filed a miscellaneous application requesting the court to stop former federal minister for ports and shipping Babar Khan Ghauri for using his influence in transfers and postings in the PQA. On last hearing, the court had sought report complete record of appointments from grade 1 to 20 during the tenure of the former federal minister. The PQA had submitted a report of 400 staff, who had been employed during the last three years but the court had expressed dissatisfaction over the report and held that the record of appointments was incomplete. The hearing was adjourned for four weeks.























Comments
Comments are closed for this article.