MUZAFFARABAD: The AJK High Court on Wednesday turned down the government’s plea to reject a petition challenging allegedly illegal post-retirement benefits to federal government officers who served as chief secretaries and inspectors general of police (IGP) in the territory.

The single member bench comprising Justice Mohammad Shiraz Kiani held that since the points raised in the petition needed consideration, it stood admitted for regular hearing.

On March 28, 2017, the AJK services and general administration department had clandestinely issued a notification to supplement the facilities admissible to retired chief secretaries under an earlier notification issued on June 15, 2006, and renewed on June 4, 2011.

The March 28 notification not only added 800 free local phone calls, 800 units of electricity, 25 cubic hectometres gas and 200 litres petrol per month to the post-retirement benefits of the chief secretaries but also declared the admissibility of the same benefits to IGPs after their retirement.

Commonly referred to as ‘lent officers’, chief secretaries and IGPs are posted in AJK by the federal government for a tenure that has rarely exceeded three years.

The notifications were challenged through public interest litigation by Khalid Bashir Mughal, a member of the Central Bar Association Muzaffarabad on Feb 23, following which the bench sought comments from the respondents – the AJK government and others.

The petitioner had contended that both officers were the liability of the federal government, and since the terms and conditions of their service as well as their pension, gratuity and other post-retirement privileges were respectively determined and provided by the federal government they were not eligible to claim any benefits from the AJK exchequer after retirement.

However, in their comments, submitted through Additional Advocate General Raja Ikhlaq Kiani, the respondents pleaded dismissal of the petition because the “petitioner did not fall in the category of aggrieved persons”.

“Neither does the petitioner enjoy any authority to interfere in official matters nor does he hold the office of caretaker of state exchequer and therefore his petition is liable to be dismissed,” he maintained.

“Since these privileges are formally notified after approval from the competent authority, they have attained the status of law and cannot be withdrawn at the unlawful, unconstitutional and unethical demand of any individual,” he said.

The bench directed the respondents to file their written statements, documents and affidavits, if any, on or before May 21, the next date of hearing.

Published in Dawn, April 19th, 2018