ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Citizen’s Portal, which was introduced by the government in 2018, is proving useless in resolving the ordinary man’s issues, with a large number of complaints being closed without providing any help to the complainant.
Inam Jamil Anjum, a retired employee of a Pakistani state-owned bank, also used his complaint webpage to knock on Prime Minister Imran Khan’s door.
His former employer, on the other hand, notified the PM’s Office that the problem had been rectified and that Anjum’s complaint was without validity. He isn’t on his own. Ghulam Ahmad is also seeking justice for his son, an expatriate who purchased land from the National Police Foundation (NPF). Ahmad, like Anjum, filed a complaint with the Prime Minister’s Office, and he is now bouncing between NPF and the Capital Development Authority.
Despite admitting that he had been robbed, the NPF assigned Ahmad’s son a plot on the green belt, and no department, even the PM’s Office, could assist him to seek justice. Anjum claims he was “unjustifiably denied promotion as vice president in 2012” and that he retired without receiving his due compensation, which harmed his retirement benefits, including his pension.
He left the bank in August 2017 after reaching superannuation age, and he has been trying to “get justice” ever then. He protested to the PM’s portal in May of last year, claiming that two employees in his bank had been promoted to the vice president despite having received lower grades than him. Anjum urged that everyone be treated equally.
Prime Minister Imran Khan took notice of the unresolved complaints on the Pakistan Citizen’s Portal (PCP) in 2021 last month and asked the relevant officials to check the backlog.
According to a letter from the Prime Minister’s Office, a total of 1.5 million complaints were submitted on the portal in 2021, with 238,098 of them being marked for revisiting due to negative public opinion. The citizens denied obtaining any aid, therefore the complaints were closed as “relief granted.” The Prime Minister’s Office stated that it was necessary to determine how relief was refused and whether it had been provided in the first place.
In 2016, the then-management allegedly promoted 75 officers and executives in contravention of the promotion rules by exercising extraordinary powers, according to a recent draught audit report issued by the Auditor General of Pakistan (AGP). In 2016, nearly a dozen persons with lower grades than Anjum were promoted. According to the draught report, their final grades were as low as 17 in at least one example.
During the audit for the years 2012-2020, it was discovered that during 2016, management elevated 75 employees to officers and executive positions in contravention of the promotion rules. Officers and executives ranging from OG-III to senior vice presidents received promotions.
Despite the fact that their names were at the bottom of the merit list, management promoted officers and executives in 2016 under special powers granted by the bank president.
Promotions were given due to a lack of understanding of merit.
The conclusions of the AGP were disputed
In response to the AGP, the bank’s management indicated that the idea to promote deserving personnel under unusual circumstances was authorized by the board of directors in 2016. Although they were excellent performers within their groups, it stated that a number of deserving candidates in office and executive grades were unable to qualify for promotion due to interview criteria or appraisal-related score limitations caused by limitations in the bell curve model of performance management.
All promotions, according to the management, were made in accordance with the policies established by the board of directors. It asserted that none of the 75 employees were ineligible for advancement because they all met the minimum qualifying criterion outlined in the standards.
Furthermore, the relevant group chiefs were well aware of their service details, and all promotions were based on the relevant group chiefs’ recommendations, which were approved by the board.
However, the auditors did not accept the management’s reply, according to the draft report.
