PMS Association accuses PAS officers of being unfair, biased towards them.

LAHORE   -  The rift between the provincial and federal civil services is likely to in­tensify in coming days as the annu­al general body meeting of PMS As­sociation held in Lahore the other day accused the PAS officers of be­ing unfair and biased towards them in matters of placements against ad­ministrative positions. 

The general body of the PMS asso­ciation demanded that the appoint­ment of PAS/DMG officers in the province should be restricted to 115 provincial posts as per CSP rules of 1954 so that PMS officers can get their due fair share of posts in Pun­jab which are mostly held by PAS of­ficers. The PMS body termed posting of PAS officers in the province as un­constitutional, illegal, and injustice to PMS officers and the main cause of misgovernance.

This long standing dispute be­tween the two civil services about their proportional share in admin­istrative posts has surfaced again with the PMS officers threatening to resort to protest if they are de­nied their due share in accordance with their numerical strength in the province. According to the available data regarding the current share of the PMS officers in different grades allocated as per the Inter Provincial Coordination Committee (IPCC) for­mula of 1993, out of total 1200 pro­vincial officers, around 800 are serv­ing at base level in BS 17 still seeking promotion to senior posts. Also, the PMS has been awarded 294 seats in BS 18 of which 67 are lying vacant. Of 140 seats in BS 19 allocated to PMS officers, 25 are vacant. Likewise, out of 67 posts in BS- 20, 13 are lying vacant and of 12 seats in BS 21, two posts are lying vacant due to delay in promotion of the PMS officers.

According to the IPCC formula de­vised under the caretaker setup of Moin Qureshi, 75 percent of BS- 17 posts were reserved for PMS and 25 per cent for PAS officers. While in BS- 18 posts, 60 percent posts were reserved for PMS and 40 percent for PAS. In BS- 19, the posts were dis­tributed 50 per cent each. Likewise, 40 percent seats for PMS and 60 per­cent for PAS in BS -20 were reserved. For BS-21 posts, the seats were allo­cated with the ratio of 35:65 PMS and PAS respectively. 

According to this formula, out of total 1065 posts belonging in BS-18 to BS- 22 , PAS bags around 450 seats in Punjab while PMS should have 513 seats in the province de­spite having a total around 1200 of­ficers in the province. Also, the post of Chief Secretary, Senior Member Board of Revenue, Chairman P&D Board, ACS, ACS Home, Secretary Services and even AS Admin S&GAD, AS Welfare S&GAD are only meant for PAS officers. 

Speaking to The Nation about the IPCC formula, the president of PMS officers Association Punjab Naveed Shahzad Mirza said that even this for­mula was in clear violation of Article 240 of the Constitution which states that the appointments of persons in the service of Pakistan and the terms of their service shall be decided un­der an Act of the Provincial Assem­bly. Maintaining this, he alleged that even the disputed IPCC formula was not being implemented properly due to which PMS officers have been de­prived of their due share of the posts. The PMS officers association presi­dent said that through a notification issued by Establishment Division in March 2021, PAS earmarked 446 posts for themselves despite the fact that the both civil services DMG/PAS does not have the numerical strength to fill these posts. However, despite the declared number 115 DMGs that can be posted in the province, the number of DMG officers in Punjab has always remained around 350.

He further stated that the March 2021 notification issued by the es­tablishment division, on the grounds of being violative of Article 240(b) of the Constitution was challenged and suspended by three High Courts of Pakistan- Lahore, Peshawar and Sindh. But the DMG/PAS Officers continue to occupy the provincial posts illegally despite suspension of the notification. The scribe repeat­edly tried to contact the President of PAS officers association via text and calls to take his version on the mat­ter, however he didn’t respond.