The continuation of a temporary administrative arrangement for a senior federal government position has raised important questions about legal authority, appointment procedures, and institutional accountability.

Temporary arrangements within the federal administration cannot automatically substitute for regular appointments. Similarly, the phrase “until further orders” does not, by itself, establish a legal basis for maintaining an arrangement indefinitely.

The issue concerning the “look-after charge” for the post of Secretary Communications, which emerged in November 2023, has therefore raised a fundamental question: nearly three years later, what is the current legal basis for this arrangement, and which authorities are responsible for ensuring compliance with the applicable rules?

According to a report published by The News on November 3, 2023, Ali Sher Mehsud, a Grade-22 officer of the Pakistan Administrative Service (PAS), was assigned responsibility for looking after the affairs of the Ministry of Communications with immediate effect and until further orders.

As of October 2026, the federal government, particularly the Establishment Division and the Ministry of Communications, needs to clarify whether the temporary arrangement was subsequently replaced by a regular appointment or an appropriate order issued under the applicable rules.

If no such action was taken, the reasons for leaving the legal and administrative status of such an important federal position unclear for an extended period require explanation.

The matter is not about an individual officer's personality or professional performance. It concerns the lawful exercise of public authority, prescribed appointment procedures, administrative transparency, and accountability within federal institutions.

Public offices must operate under applicable laws and rules rather than relying on discretionary decisions or temporary arrangements whose legal status remains uncertain.

ESTA Code: A Temporary Arrangement Is Not a Substitute for Regular Appointment

The Establishment Division's Establishment Code, commonly known as the ESTA Code, contains provisions governing additional charge, current charge, and other temporary administrative arrangements.

Separately, according to a clarification issued by the Establishment Division in April 2021, a “look-after charge” is not a formally recognised mode of appointment under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, or the rules framed under it.

Under this clarification, such an arrangement may serve as a temporary internal measure to ensure the continuation of routine official business in exceptional circumstances. However, it cannot be treated as a substitute for a lawful appointment when the exercise of the full powers of a senior position is involved.

An important distinction must be maintained between a lawful additional-charge or current-charge arrangement authorised by the competent authority under the applicable rules and an informal look-after arrangement.

An administrative order assigning responsibility to an officer does not, by itself, establish that the officer has been legally authorised to exercise all the powers associated with the position.

Consequently, the government cannot adequately address the issue merely by stating that official business continued without interruption. It must also clarify the relevant rules, the competent authority's order, and the legal basis for delegating the powers exercised during the period in question.

If a valid legal order exists, it should be made available for scrutiny. If no such order exists, the government must explain the legal basis for continuing the arrangement and determine where responsibility lies.

Nearly Three Years Later: Why Has the Appointment Procedure Not Been Clarified?

Although the original arrangement in November 2023 was reportedly issued “until further orders,” this wording cannot automatically be interpreted as authorisation for an arrangement to continue indefinitely.

The duration, scope, and continuation of any temporary administrative arrangement must be supported by the applicable rules and any subsequent orders issued by the competent authority.

The Establishment Division and the Ministry of Communications should provide documented answers to the following questions:


  • Has a regular appointment been made to the post of Secretary Communications?
  • If not, which order currently authorises the officer concerned to perform the duties associated with the position?
  • Was the original arrangement extended, or was it replaced by a legally authorised additional-charge or current-charge order?
  • Were administrative, financial, and policy-making powers formally delegated to the officer concerned?
  • What steps did the competent authority take to initiate a regular appointment, and, if the matter remains pending, what are the reasons for the delay?

These are not merely procedural questions. Establishing the legal status of a public office and identifying the authority under which its powers are exercised are fundamental requirements of federal administration.

Where a temporary arrangement continues for an extended period, the relevant authorities should be able to demonstrate its legal basis and explain how the prescribed procedures have been followed.

Institutional Responsibility of the Establishment Division and Ministry of Communications

According to the contemporaneous media report, the initial notification was issued by the Establishment Division.

The Establishment Division, the Ministry of Communications, and the competent appointing authority should therefore place the complete administrative record of the arrangement on record.

They should clarify whether timely steps were taken to fill the position in accordance with the applicable rules, review the temporary arrangement, and ensure that the officer concerned was exercising only those powers that had been lawfully assigned.

Institutional accountability requires the relevant files, notifications, approvals, and service records to be examined so that the facts can be established.

Speculation about an individual's intentions or personal conduct would neither resolve the issue nor replace the need for documentary clarification.

The central questions remain straightforward: Were the prescribed legal procedures followed? Which authority delegated the relevant powers? And which operative order currently provides the legal basis for the arrangement?

Additional Charge of NHA Chief Executive Raises Further Legal Questions

A report in September 2026 that the additional charge of Chief Executive Officer of the National Highway Authority (NHA) had been assigned has further increased the importance of clarifying the matter.

The government should explain the administrative and legal relationship, if any, between the arrangement concerning the Secretary Communications position and the additional responsibilities associated with the NHA chief executive's office.

The relevant authorities should identify the orders under which these responsibilities were assigned, the competent authority that approved them, and the legal basis on which administrative and financial powers were exercised during the relevant periods.

The NHA oversees major responsibilities relating to national highways and motorways, including infrastructure development, procurement, toll revenue, development projects, and substantial public expenditure.

In an organisation with such extensive responsibilities, uncertainty about the legal authority of its chief executive would raise legitimate questions about administrative transparency and accountability.

Continuity of government business is undoubtedly important. However, it cannot be separated from lawful appointments, competent approvals, and compliance with the applicable rules.

Administrative convenience alone cannot automatically justify the indefinite continuation of an arrangement whose legal foundation has not been clearly established.

Government Urged to Disclose Relevant Official Records

In the interest of public accountability, administrative transparency, and compliance with the law, the Establishment Division and the Ministry of Communications should make the following records available, subject to applicable disclosure requirements:

1. Original notification

A copy of the November 2023 look-after charge order, together with all subsequent notifications, extension orders, and replacement appointments relating to the Secretary Communications position.

2. Legal basis of authority

The relevant statutory provisions, service rules, and orders of the competent authority under which the duties and powers associated with the position were exercised.

3. Progress towards a regular appointment

The date on which the process for a regular appointment was initiated, the progress made so far, and the reasons for any delay or continued vacancy.

4. Additional charge of NHA chief executive

The relevant notification issued in September 2026, the approval authorising the arrangement, and the orders governing the delegation of administrative and financial powers.

5. Legal authority behind official decisions

Confirmation that significant administrative, financial, and policy decisions during the relevant periods were made by officers legally authorised to exercise the corresponding powers under the applicable rules.

These documents are not merely matters of internal office procedure. They relate directly to the legal discipline of the federal administration and the transparent exercise of public authority.

Compliance With the Law Is Not Optional

The ESTA Code and the relevant service rules are intended to regulate the functioning of the federal administration. Their purpose extends beyond serving as reference documents; compliance must be reflected in actual administrative decisions.

If the current arrangement is supported by valid legal orders, the government should have no difficulty explaining its documentary basis.

If the prescribed procedures were not followed, the relevant authorities should explain the reasons, identify where responsibility lies, and outline the corrective measures required.

A temporary arrangement should remain temporary not merely in name, but also in its legal character and duration.

The federal government, the Establishment Division, and the Ministry of Communications must now address several fundamental questions.

What is the current legal authority governing the Secretary Communications position? Which order provides the basis for the additional charge of NHA chief executive? And which institution is responsible for ensuring compliance with the prescribed appointment procedures?

These questions should be answered through the relevant laws, service rules, and authenticated official records, rather than speculation, general assurances, or claims that administrative business has continued uninterrupted.

Clarity about the legal authority exercised within the federal administration is not an optional concession. It is an essential requirement of transparent governance and institutional accountability.