IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
       (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
        
MR. JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA. 
 
MR. JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN. 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN. 
 
CMA. NO. 4918  OF  2012  AND  CMA. NO. 08 OF 2013 
   IN  
CONSTITUTION      PETITION     NO.     23     OF     2012.  
(Regarding putting of two Govt. Officers namely 
Hassan Waseem Afzal and his wife Farkhanda 
Waseem Afzal as OSD). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the applicant: 
 
Mr. Hassan Waseem Afzal and his  
wife Farkhanda Waseem Afzal in person.  
 
 
 
 
 
For the respondents: 
Mr. Dil M. Khan Alizai, DAG. 
 
 
 
 
Malik Sher Afzal, Joint Secretary.  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Abdul Latif, Dy. Secy. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Sarfraz Durrani, Dy. Secy. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Shahbaz Kirmani, SO (Legal). 
 
 
 
 
Establishment Division.  
 
Date of hearing: 
 
26.04.2013. 
 
 
 
 
 
J U D G M E N T  
 
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN,  J. - In the case of “Syed Mahmood Akhtar 
Naqvi and others. Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others” commonly known 
as Ms. Anita Turab case (PLD 2013 S.C. 195), this Court ruled as under :-  
 
“OSD: Officers should not be posted as OSD except for 
compelling reasons, which must be recorded in writing and 
are judicially reviewable. If at all an officer is to be posted as 
OSD, such posting should be for the minimum period possible 
and if there is a disciplinary inquiry going on against him, 
such inquiry must be completed at the earliest.” 
 
2. 
 
A news item in daily “The News” was flashed with the heading 
“The OSD couple, waiting for God’s or SC help”. This Court’s while taking its 
notice on 31.12.2012 observed as under :-  
“Notice was taken on a news item appearing in the daily 
‘News’  wherein it has been stated that two senior civil 
servants namely Hassan Wasim Afzal and Farkhunda Wasim 
Afzal who are officers in BS-21 are posted as officers on 
special duty (OSD) by the Establishment Division since 
CMA. NO. 4918 OF 2012  AND  CMA. NO. 08 OF 2013 IN  
CONSTITUTION    PETITION   NO.    23   OF   2012.  
 
2 
16.6.2008 and 15.11.2011 respectively. This prima facie 
constitutes a violation of the judgment of this Court in 
Constitution Petition No.23/2012 (Anita Turab Vs. Federation 
of Pakistan). Let notice issue to the Secretary Establishment 
Division for 2.1.2013 to explain as to why contempt 
proceedings should not be initiated against him and others 
responsible for violating the Court order. 
2. 
Likewise, notice shall issue to the Chief Commissioner 
Islamabad to explain as to why orders in the case of Ms. 
Rabia Aurangzeb were issued by him in violation of the 
aforesaid judgment in 
Constitution 
Petition 
No.23/12. 
Furthermore, the Secretary, Ministry of Interior shall explain as 
to why similar proceedings as noted above for violating the 
Court orders in Constitution Petition No.23/12 should not be 
initiated against him in relation to orders for premature 
transfer/posting of Dr. Khurram Rashid and Maryam Khan.  
3. 
Let this application and connected matters arising 
from Constitution Petition No.23/12 and CMA 4848/12 be 
listed for hearing on 2.1.2013”. 
 
3. 
 
Its follow up culminated in the order dated 2.1.2013 which 
reads as under :-  
“A report has been submitted by the Chief Commissioner 
Islamabad. The officer Ms. Rabia present in Court has gone 
through the report and states that facts have not been 
properly set out in the same. She needs some time to state 
the correct factual position. Let this be done within this 
week. 
 2. 
Mr. Shahid Hameed, Additional Secretary, Interior is 
present. The Secretary Interior who is statedly busy in a 
meeting in the Election Commission, has submitted a report 
which is perfunctory and unsatisfactory. It does not give full 
details as to the letter surrendering the services of Dr. 
Khurram Rashid, SP shortly after he was posted as SP 
Industrial Area. Likewise, the report in respect of Ms. Maryam 
Khan sought from the Secretary Interior is unsatisfactory. The 
Court needs information as to the reasons why the law 
enunciated in the case of Anita Turab (Constitution Petition 
No. P.23//12)  was not adhered to. A report in this behalf 
shall be submitted by the Secretary Interior within this week. 
3. 
A report had been sought from the Secretary 
Establishment Division as to why Mr. Hassan Wasim Afzal and 
Mrs. Farkhanda Wasim Afzal, both BS-21 officers had been 
CMA. NO. 4918 OF 2012  AND  CMA. NO. 08 OF 2013 IN  
CONSTITUTION    PETITION   NO.    23   OF   2012.  
 
3 
continued as OSD even after the enunciation of law on the 
subject vide our order of 12.11.2012 in the case of Anita 
Turab (supra). The report submitted is wholly unsatisfactory 
because it merely informs the Court that the two officers 
have been given posting on 1.1.2013. This report does not 
respond to the notice issued to the Secretary Establishment 
Division to show cause why proceedings should not be 
initiated against him for not complying with the above 
referred judgment of this Court dated 12.11.2012. A report in 
this behalf shall be submitted by the Secretary Establishment 
within this week.  
4. 
CMA No.8/2013 has been filed by Dr. Shafi ur 
Rehman for being impleaded as a party in this matter. Let it 
be listed with other matters. Adjourned for 8.1.2013”. 
 
4. 
 
On 9.1.2013, this Court observed as under :-  
“When the case was first called for hearing in the earlier 
hours of the day, we were informed by Mr. Khayal Zada Gul, 
Dy. Secretary, Establishment Division that a notification 
dated 1.1.2013 had been issued appointing Mr. Hassan 
Waseem Afzal as Director General Pakistan Museum of 
Natural History and Mrs. Farkhanda Waseem Afzal as the 
M.D. National Trust for Disabled. However, we were surprised 
to note that the aforesaid notification had not actually been 
delivered/served on the petitioners and as a consequence, 
they remained uninformed officially of their postings and 
resultantly did not report for duty at the notified positions. 
We, therefore, asked the Deputy Director, Establishment 
Division to file a statement giving reasons as to why the 
officers named above, were not given any postings and 
were instead made OSDs since 2008 and 2011 respectively. 
The statement does not appear to be satisfactory inasmuch 
as the details of official action since 2008/2011 has not been 
given and also because there is no reasonable explanation 
as to why these officers were not given postings until 1.1.2013 
or that they have not been given intimation of their postings 
even after 1.1.2013. For ease of reference, the statement 
submitted by the Deputy Secretary in Court is reproduced as 
under:- 
“Notification in respect of Mr. Hassan Wasim Afzal 
(PAS/BPS-21) and Mrs. Farkhanda Wasim Afzal (PAS/BPS-21) 
to their posting as Director General (BPS-21), Pakistan 
Museum of Natural History and MD (BS-21)  National Trust for 
Disabled were issued on 1st January, 2013, in late hours. 
CMA. NO. 4918 OF 2012  AND  CMA. NO. 08 OF 2013 IN  
CONSTITUTION    PETITION   NO.    23   OF   2012.  
 
4 
Accordingly the signed notifications were issued to all 
concerned on 2.1.2013. As per practice, the notifications to 
the individual officers are sent to the Organization where 
they are posted and also sent on their last posting address. In 
the instant case the posting orders have been sent to the 
Organization where they have been posted and delivered 
to Admin Wing on 02.01.2013. However, the same could not 
be further communicated to the officers concerned at their 
postal address. This is not a deliberate action on the pasrt of 
any individual official or the Establishment Division, rather a 
lapse pointed out by any officer for the first time. As per past 
practice in all such cases the official concerned contact the 
Establishment Division, obtain their posting orders and 
relinquish the charge of the post of OSD for processing 
issuance of Last Pay Certificate (LPC) for regularization of 
their pay in the other organization (where posted) and 
taking charge in that organization. 
 
On taking notice by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 
Pakistan on 8.1.2013to the Non-delivery of notifications to the 
officers 
concerned, 
the 
Establishment 
Division, 
took 
immediate action to send the notifications on home 
addresses of the concerned officers through UMS/TCS on 
08.01.2013. The Establishment Division further shall take 
serious cognizance of this incident and improve system 
regarding intimation of posting orders to the officer 
concerned at their available postal addresses.  
 
 
 
    (KHALIL ZAD GUL) 
 
 
 
     Deputy Secretary  
 
 
 
 
  Establishment Division.” 
 
 
 
It is a matter of concern that it is only after this Court’s 
notice in the matter, on the basis of a press report, that 
action appears to have been initiated by the Establishment 
Division and clear directions in the judgment dated 
12.11.2012 (Anita Turab’s Case) appear to have been 
violated. We, therefore, would be justified in issuing notices 
to concerned government functionaries as to why contempt 
proceedings should not be initiated against them. However, 
before doing so we direct the two officers namely Hassan 
Wasim Afzal and Farkhanda Wasim Afzal to file their 
statements setting out particulars and identifying the 
causes/persons who may have been responsible for the 
failure to give them substantive postings. The incumbent 
Secretary Establishment Division and the Secretaries of the 
Establishment Division since 16th June, 2008 shall also submit 
CMA. NO. 4918 OF 2012  AND  CMA. NO. 08 OF 2013 IN  
CONSTITUTION    PETITION   NO.    23   OF   2012.  
 
5 
their concise statements setting out their reasons as to why 
these officers were made OSDs and why they were not 
given 
substantive 
postings. 
The 
incumbent 
Secretary 
Establishment Division shall also file relevant documents 
including all noting/correspondence which he may consider 
relevant during this week. The matter shall be listed for 
hearing on 15.1.2013”. 
 
5. 
 
On 16.1.2013, this Court after hearing the parties at some 
length observed as under :-  
“We had noted that the two officers Hassan Wasim Afzal 
and Mrs. Farkhanda Wasim Afzal both in BS-21 had been 
made OSDs since 2008 and 2001 respectively. We had, 
therefore, directed the Secretary Establishment Division and 
the Secretaries of the said Division since 16.6.2008 to submit 
their concise statements setting out their reasons “as to why 
the aforesaid officers were made OSDs and why they were 
not given substantive postings”. The incumbent Secretary 
Establishment has filed a concise statement (CMA-173/13). 
The said concise statement, however, does not contain 
explanations as to why the aforesaid officers have been 
kept as OSDs. Furthermore, there were six civil servants who 
occupied the position of Secretary Establishment from 
16.6.2008 till the present incumbent was posted to the 
position on 28.6.2012. We have inquired about the status of 
these six persons. It is surprising that four out of these six 
persons have attained superannuation and have been re-
employed on contract basis. This has happened even 
though the two officers namely Hassan Wasim Afzal and Mrs. 
Farkhanda Wasim Afzal are OSDs and are being paid their 
salaries/emoluments out of the public exchequer, although 
no official work has been assigned to them since 2008 and 
2011 respectively.  
2. 
The six persons whose names appear on page 100 of 
CMA. 173/13 shall again be served notice. The office and 
the Establishment Division shall be responsible for effecting 
service on them. These persons shall file their concise 
statements giving details as to why during their tenure no 
effective steps were taken for postings of the above named 
two officers. The case shall be listed for hearing on 31st 
January, 2013”.  
 
6. 
 
On 27.3.2013, this Court again heard the matter and summed 
up in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 which read as under :-  
CMA. NO. 4918 OF 2012  AND  CMA. NO. 08 OF 2013 IN  
CONSTITUTION    PETITION   NO.    23   OF   2012.  
 
6 
“3. 
We have gone through the aforesaid summary which, as its 
subject indicates, was moved for the purpose of appointing one Mr. 
Abdul Latif Leghari as Additional Secretary, Capital Administration 
and Development Division. It has been stated in para 2 of the 
summary that the “Establishment Division proposes a panel of the 
following BS-21 officers for posting as Additional Secretary, Capital 
Administration and Development Division”. Thereafter the 3 officers 
and the summaries in respect of them have been recorded as 
follows:- 
 
“Foregoing in view, Establishment Division proposes a 
panel of the following BS-21 officers for posting as 
Additional Secretary, Capital Administration and 
Development Division. 
(i) 
 MR. 
ABDUL 
LATIF 
LEGHARI 
(Secretariat 
Group/BS-21) 
He joined Government service on 2.9.1980. Presently, 
he is posted as Senior Joint Secretary, Capital 
Administration and Development Division. Earlier, he 
remained 
posted 
as 
Joint 
Secretary, 
Capital 
Administration and Development Division, Joint 
Secretary, Industries and Production Division; Director 
General, 
Pakistan 
Public 
Administration 
and 
Research Centre; Joint Secretary, Cabinet Division, 
Director General, National Archives of Pakistan 
Deputy Secretary, Finance Division and Deputy 
Secretary, Economic Affairs Division. He is Sindh 
domiciled and will superannuate on 12.7.2004. 
(ii)  
MR. HASSAN WASEEM AFZAL (PAS/BS-21) 
He joined Government service on 8.3.1978. Presently, 
he 
is 
posted 
as 
OSD, 
Establishment 
Division. 
Previously, he remained posted as Principal Secretary 
to the Governor Punjab; Deputy Chairman, NAB 
Lahore; Secretary, Home Department, Government 
of 
the 
Punjab; 
Secretary, 
Health 
Department 
Government of the Punjab; Director NIPA Lahore, MD 
Pakistan 
Housing 
Authority, 
Islamabad; 
Joint 
Secretary, Prime Minister’s Secretariat; Additional 
Director General EPB, Lahore and Consul General 
Montreal. The officer is Punjab domiciled and will 
superannuate on 26.4.2013.  
(iii) 
 MR. 
SHAHZAD 
IQBAL 
(SECRETARIAT 
GROUP/BS-21) 
He joined Government 
service on 
15.11.1980. 
Presently, he is posted as Senior Joint Secretary, Inter 
Provincial 
Coordination 
Division. 
Previously, 
he 
CMA. NO. 4918 OF 2012  AND  CMA. NO. 08 OF 2013 IN  
CONSTITUTION    PETITION   NO.    23   OF   2012.  
 
7 
remained posted as Joint Secretary, Inter Provincial 
Coordination Division, Director General, Privatization 
Commission, Joint Secretary, Information Technology 
and Telecom  Division, Deputy Secretary, Commerce 
Division, Deputy Secretary, Environment Division, and 
Deputy Secretary, Housing and Works Division. The 
officer is Punjab domiciled and will superannuate on 
18.10.2013. 
 
The proposal at para 2 above is submitted for kind approval 
of the Prime Minister.    
 
4. 
This summary which has been mentioned above prima 
facie, does not conform with the judgment in the case of Ms. Anita 
Turab supra, because it does appear to be incomplete inasmuch as 
it has not been stated therein that Mr. Hassan Waseem Afzal has 
remained OSD for a period of 5 years starting 16.6.2008. And, even 
after our judgment on 12.11.2012 in Anita Turab’s case, the situation 
was not rectified. We, therefore, require the Secretary Establishment 
to submit an explanation in terms of section 3 of the Contempt of 
Court Ordinance, 2003 read in the light of Article 204 of the 
Constitution. This should be done within 10 days from today. 
Thereafter based on our consideration of the explanation, we shall 
consider further action ”.  
 
7. 
 
Today when we took up this case for hearing, it was again 
noted that Mr. Hassan Waseem Afzal had been posted OSD ever since 
2008 and Mrs. Farkhanda Waseem Afzal. Their cases were forwarded for 
promotion but were deferred on the sole ground that they could not earn 
any PERs because of their being posted as OSDs. When we inquired as to 
what called for such treatment, no answer much less satisfactorily has been 
given by the persons at the other end. In fact the two officers of the 
Ministry, present in Court have accepted that the treatment given to the 
applicants is not in conformity with the accepted norms. We ourselves also 
scanned the record but could not find anything which could call for such 
treatment. Had their past performance or integrity been below the mark, 
they could have been treated as such but there is nothing of that sort. We 
were rather amazed and even appalled to see them treated in this way. 
Yes, as per minutes of meeting dated 02.08.2011, 25.11.2011 and 
12.04.2012, they could not earn any PERs one way or the other because of 
CMA. NO. 4918 OF 2012  AND  CMA. NO. 08 OF 2013 IN  
CONSTITUTION    PETITION   NO.    23   OF   2012.  
 
8 
their posting but this could not be construed to their detriment under any 
cannons of law and propriety. The more so when their past record had 
been outstanding throughout. They initiated a contest in the High Court, 
but called it off when the respondents on the other end assured the High 
Court that they would be considered for promotion. But nothing in black 
and white was done towards what was assured, in spite of the fact that this 
order was also upheld in intra court appeal. We have been told that Mr. 
Hassan Waseem Afzal is going to retire in a day or so while his spouse is 
going to retire in a year in grade 21. Their promotion to the next higher 
scale has been denied for want of PERs and PERs have not been complied 
on account of their posting as OSDs which is not an act of their own doing. 
“Let them suffer” may be a command of expediency but we cannot 
approve it when, “give them their due” is a command of justice, which 
prima-facie appears to have been denied to them out of indignation and 
ill will of the high ups. It appears to be a typical case of political 
victimization, where even a moment’s delay could cause irreparable harm 
and immeasurable loss to the officers whose merit lacks intercessional props 
and pillars. We have, therefore, no alternative but to direct the Secretary 
Establishment to convene a meeting of HPSB DSC for passing an 
appropriate order after considering the aforesaid officers for promotion to 
the next higher scale but before the sunset today. 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad.  
26.04.2013. 
MAZ/*  
‘NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING’ 
