ISLAMABAD, Feb 8: While taking up a petition filed by sacked defence secretary Lt-Gen (retired) Khalid Naeem Lodhi, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday restrained the government from filling the post on permanent basis till final decision on the case.

When Justice Mohammad Azim Khan Afridi took up the miscellaneous petition of Mr Lodhi seeking temporary relief in terms of reinstatement, the petitioner could not convince the court against his sacking order issued in sequence of the government-military standoff on the memo issue as the government counsel claimed that the prime minister had never criticised the conduct of the official and the termination was a routine matter.

The court observed that the charge of the said position had already been assigned to Nargis Sethi; therefore, at this stage the request for reinstatement could not be accepted.

The court, however, directed the government to maintain status quo on the position and asked Deputy Attorney General Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri to submit the reply of the president, secretary cabinet and acting secretary defence before the next hearing of the matter.

Mr Jahangiri told the court that after retirement from the army Mr Lodhi was hired on contractual basis for the period of two years. He said the competent authority terminated his service in accordance with the prescribed terms and condition of the contract, adding under clause 14 of the contract either party could terminate the contract on a month’s notice or payment of one month's basic salary in lieu thereof.

He said after terminating Mr Lodhi’s contract, the government gave him a cheque for Rs0.2 million to fulfil the contract's requirement.

He said the sacked secretary had rendered commendable services and the prime minister or any other official never said even a single word on his conduct.

The DAG also produced the reply of the prime minister and the establishment secretary which stated that the petition was not maintainable as no vested right of the petitioner had been infringed or any law violated. “If the petitioner still believes that his sacking was illegal, he can file a representation before the president as an alternative remedy is available to him.”

Advocate F.K. Butt, the petitioner's counsel, contended that his client was appointed as defence secretary for a period of two years on November 28, 2011, but his contract was abruptly terminated on January 11 without issuance of a show-cause notice on the allegations of his misconduct as reported in several newspapers. “This seriously damaged the petitioner's reputation,” he contended.

He alleged that the government wanted to remove Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and director general Inter Services Intelligence Ahmed Shuja Pasha for their stance on the memorandum issue and the termination of his client was the first in this respect.

“My client refused to sign a readymade affidavit on the memo case for its submission to the Supreme Court which irked the respondents,” he added.

He told the court that the government pressured Gen Lodhi to sign the affidavit that it submitted to the Supreme Court in which it termed the memo a pack of lies and said being just a piece of paper the memo could not jeopardise national security.

It may be mentioned that the prime minister while addressing a gathering at Pakistan National Council of the Arts on December 22 last year had stated that he would not tolerate a state within state. The PM was annoyed at the military authorities for their stance on the memo issue that was not in conformity with that of the government and the statement of the defence ministry that army was not in the operational control of the government.

The government’s counsel, however, tried to clarify that the media had misinterpreted the prime minister’s statement.

Gen Kayani in his reply submitted to the Supreme Court had admitted the existence of the memo. His reply also stated that the ISI chief had briefed him about the memo on October 24 while in his affidavit the director general of the spy agency said having seen the means of communications used, he was satisfied that Mansoorr Ijaz had enough corroborative material to prove his version regarding the case.

The petition pointed out that in common practice government departments and authorities submitted their replies directly to the superior and lower courts without the consent of the law ministry and their respective ministers.