The Secretary of Punjab Local Government and Community Development has issued strict orders to immediately cancel all unlawful appointments and adjustments made within the Metropolitan Corporation Lahore (MCL), directing the Chief Officer of MCL to submit a compliance report within three days. An official letter to this effect has been circulated.
According to details, a complaint was filed by a citizen, Syed Sajjad Shah, regarding illegal appointments within the Infrastructure and Services Wing. The complaint highlighted that employees of local councils had been appointed to positions specifically reserved for the Punjab Local Government Service (LGS), in clear violation of the Punjab Local Government Service Rules, 2018.
The complaint was forwarded to the Administrator/Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Corporation Lahore for necessary action. A subsequent inquiry revealed that several individuals—Kalim Ullah (Nishtar Zone), Fayyaz Nizami (Headquarters), Muhammad Waqas (Ravi Zone), Naveed Arshad, Hasnat Gilani, Abid Ali (Nishtar Zone), and Amir (Shalimar Zone)—had been either illegally appointed or given additional charges as Assistant Zonal Officers and Sub-Engineers.
These postings were found to be based on unauthorized orders issued by the Metropolitan Officer (Infrastructure) and the Director (Administration), which not only contravened established government policy but also violated the Punjab Local Government Service Rules, 2018, particularly the clause that prohibits appointment of non-LGS personnel to designated LGS positions.
Notably, the Punjab Local Government Board had already issued a directive on 17 February 2021, stating that no local council employee shall be appointed to, or assigned additional charge of, any position reserved under the LGS framework.
In light of these findings, the Punjab Local Government Board instructed the Chief Officer MCL to immediately revoke all illegal appointments and adjustments, annul the relevant orders, and submit a comprehensive compliance report within seven days. However, a follow-up letter dated 14 April expressed strong dissatisfaction over the failure to submit the report within the stipulated timeframe and granted a final three-day deadline.
