|
|
|
| June 18, 2003 | Wednesday | Rabi-us-Sani 17, 1424 |
Ban suggested on re-employment of govt servants
ISLAMABAD, June 17: The Senate on Tuesday deferred a resolution suggesting a ban on re-employment of government servants after reaching the age of superannuation.
MQM member Babar Khan Ghouri, the mover of the resolution, decided to defer his motion for next private members day when members asked to amend his resolution by exempting scientists and educationists at the same time, emphasizing that this provision should be implemented in letter and in spirit against bureaucrats.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Raza Heraj, however, opposed the motion on the grounds that sometimes the extension was granted in public interest to strengthen the public institutions because expertise of such persons were needed.
However, he said normally the services of the government employees were not extended unless needed, adding that greater flexibility should be shown where the greater public interest was concerned.
Mr Ghouri, while moving his resolution, said that thousands of educated youth had remained unemployed because they could not get jobs because of such extensions in jobs.
He was of the view that there should be a complete ban on the extension of all kinds of services especially at the top levels.
Dr Khalid Ranjha was of the view that the resolution was concerned more with the concept of good governance. He also suggested that there should be some check on the discretionary powers of the competent authority which reemployed the government servants.
He also suggested that the extension had also created nepotism and favouritism and, therefore, the government should announce some age limit after which no extension should be given.
Justice (retd) Abdul Razzaq Taheem also supported the resolution but said that educationists and the scientists should be exempted from this.
He said that those who were at the helm of affairs never retired and always sought extension in their jobs.
Mr Nisar Memon said that a House committee should be formed to scrutinize all extensions besides job opportunities should be created for the unemployed youth of the country.
BILL: A PPP senator’s bill seeking punishment of acts of high treason such as abrogation and suspension of the constitution with life imprisonment could not be introduced on Tuesday because of an opposition walkout from the upper house.
The Punishment for High Treason Bill of Senator Farhatullah Babar of the People’s Party Parliamentarians was high on the agenda of private members’ business set for the day.
But before the house could begin any legislative business, senators of the PPP and other opposition parties walked out to protest against the LFO and other issues.
However, parliamentary sources said the bill would remain on the agenda until a decision about its fate though it had little chance of being passed because of certain opposition from the ruling coalition.
Section 3 of Article 6 of the Constitution defines abrogation or attempting or conspiring to abrogate the constitution as high treason and requires parliament to make law to provide for the punishment for those found guilty of this offence. But such a law was yet to be made.
Mr Babar’s bill said the Supreme Court must determine whether a person has committed high treason, on a petition from someone dispossessed of parliament’s membership by abrogation of subversion of the constitution.
But it said the Supreme Court would not condone or justify abrogation of subversion of the constitution under the so-called doctrine of necessity or the theory of successful revolution or for any other reason.
The bill also requires the Supreme Court to determine if any person or persons had collaborated in an act of high treason and that those found guilty of high treason and collaboration “shall be immediately dispossessed of the coercive apparatus of the state held by them”.
“The punishment for high treason shall be imprisonment for life and dispossession from all official title, honours and awards that may have been conferred on them by the state from time to time,” the bill said.
It also said that if the guilty could not be punished immediately because of the state’s “coercive apparatus” held by them, the punishment must be awarded when they are deprived of this power or even after their death.
|
|
|
|
