In a first, Sindh to launch performance audit of university VCs
The Chief Minister of Sindh, who also serves as the controlling authority for public universities in the province, has approved a summary submitted by the Sindh HEC titled "Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Senior Academic and Non-Academic Positions in Public Sector Universities." With this approval, the decision to conduct performance audits of key university officials, including vice chancellors, has taken immediate effect. From now on, the performance of vice chancellors will be directly linked to a reward and accountability system.
According to the approved summary, the performance audit will not be limited to vice chancellors alone. Other key university officials-including pro-vice chancellors, directors of finance, deans of faculties, registrars, heads of departments, directors of ORIC and QAC, and controllers of examinations-will also be evaluated. Sindh HEC has developed specific KPIs for each of these positions, which have also received formal approval.
According to details obtained by The Express Tribune, the Sindh HEC has shared this new monitoring and evaluation framework with the higher education authorities in the other three provinces as well as with the Federal HEC. This opens the possibility for other provinces and the federal body to adopt a similar system if they choose.
It is worth noting that the Search Committee Act governing the appointment of vice chancellors in Sindh was passed three years ago. The Act includes a legal provision that allows the Search Committee to evaluate the performance of vice chancellors. The recently approved summary formalises this process, stipulating that the performance of vice chancellors and other key officials will be reviewed by the Sindh HEC and the Search Committee every two years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
4 days ago
- Business Recorder
Federalised tax reform strategy
The Constitution (Eighteenth Amend-ment) Act, 2010, [18th Amendment], became effective on April 19, 2010, brought a major shift in Pakistan's fiscal and administrative architecture. With principal objective of granting greater autonomy to provinces by devolving critical functions, the 18thAmendment transformed federal-provincial relationship, with re-sharing of taxation powers conforming to fiscal federalism and decentralized governance model. The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) retained power to collect major taxes, e.g., income tax, sales tax on goods, customs duty and federal excise duty. Provinces were empowered to collect capital gains tax, estate duty, capital value tax and wealth tax on immoveable property, as well as retaining income tax on agricultural income and self-collection of sales tax on services—an indirect tax that has since emerged as a vital source of provincial revenue. The devolution embedded in the 18th Amendment held immense potential to redefine the country's financial model envisioning a federation where provinces would act as self-sufficient units, driving competition, enabling business-friendly policies, and harmonizing fiscal discipline with regional development goals. If implemented with prudence and vision, the model could have stimulated inter-provincial competition in ease of doing business, infrastructure development, and investment attraction. Reality, however, has unfolded far differently. Having gained greater fiscal access through federal transfers under the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award, the provinces have largely failed to generate proportional revenues of their own—collectively itremains 0.7-0.8% of the GDP. The result is a pronounced fiscal disparity where spending powers have grown while revenue capacities have stagnated, increasing provinces' dependency on federal transfers. Lack of coordination between federal and provincial tax authorities has created a fragmented tax environment that burdens businesses and deters investment. Businesses operating across multiple provinces now encounter varying tax rates, legal definitions, compliance portals, audit procedures, and dispute mechanisms. The duplication and contradiction in tax regimes have raised the cost of doing business and spawned a growing number of tax disputes. In several instances, both federal and provincial authorities claim jurisdiction over the same transaction, leading to double taxation. The resulting uncertainty not only affects businesses' financial planning but also shakes investor confidence in Pakistan's regulatory environment. The most recent provincial budgets for Punjab, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for fiscal year 2025-26 [FY 2026] have further complicated the already convoluted tax framework. Introduction of a negative-list regime signifies a massive shift, wherein all services are considered taxable by default unless explicitly exempted or assigned a different rate. The Punjab Sales Tax Act, 2012is amended to tax commercial property rentals at 16%, exempting only residential rentals, under Entry 19 of the First Schedule. Similarly, the Sindh Finance Act 2025 adopted a comparable structure under which commercial property rentals are taxed at 3% pursuant to Entry 17 of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011. The new legislation in Sindh marks a key moment in the province's efforts to expand its tax base, though it also raises critical constitutional and legal questions. The previous legal position, enunciated by the Sindh High Court in Constitutional Petition No. D-2421 of 2016 (Young's Private Limited v. Province of Sindh), explicitly ruled that renting of immoveable property does not constitute service. The Court clarified that leasing property does not involve active provision or rendering of a service by the landlord and is merely the transfer of a right to use premises. Therefore, rental income, which lacks the characteristics of economic activity or facilitation by the owner, cannot be brought within the purview of sales tax on services. The Sindh Finance Act 2025 attempts to circumvent this legal clarity by amending the definition of 'service' in the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act to include 'the granting, assignment, cession or surrender of any right,' thereby legally justifying taxation of property rentals. The law has further codified this change through amended Section 2(79) and provided statutory backing to tax transactions, notwithstanding past judicial interpretations. Punjab has mirrored this approach with its new legal provision taxing commercial rentals, effectively creating a multi-jurisdictional expansion of sales tax regimes into domains previously exempt or deemed untaxable. Imposition of sales tax on property rentals, which are already subject to income tax under the federal Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, represents a severe escalation in the cost of doing business. Rental income is taxed federally at rates reaching up to 25% for individuals and associations of persons and as high as 39% for corporate entities. The additional layer of provincial sales tax now results in tax stacking, further eroding business margins. The move reflects growing financial appetite of both federal and provincial governments, which have resorted to aggressive revenue extraction from compliant sectors instead of undertaking the difficult but necessary task of broadening the tax base. The resulting tax framework is not only complex and burdensome but also fundamentally regressive. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that constitute the backbone of Pakistan's economy are most vulnerable to these cumulative tax measures. Fragmentation and overlapping of federal and provincial tax domains create an environment where formal businesses face constant regulatory uncertainty, financial unpredictability, and operational challenges. Instead of encouraging entrepreneurship and investment, the system punishes compliance and disincentivizes growth. Taxation of rental income under both income tax and sales tax frameworks violates the principles of tax neutrality and legal certainty. The notion that mere possession of a commercial property constitutes a taxable (sic) service under provincial sales tax laws defies traditional legal definitions of the term 'service'. This overreach raises constitutional issues and is likely to be challenged again in courts. The issue becomes even more concerning when considered in the light of prior judicial pronouncements that protected rental transactions from such encroachments. The fundamental role of taxation is to facilitate development, incentivize formalization, and ensure equity. However, Pakistan's tax system increasingly appears to be functioning in reverse, penalizing documented sectors whereas leaving the vast informal economy untouched. Absence of coordination between FBR and provincial revenue authorities further exacerbates the problem. Duplication of audit notices, contradictory assessments, and arbitrary application of tax laws are all symptoms of a governance system that is out of sync with the needs of a modern economy. Focus on squeezing existing taxpayers, rather than creating an enabling environment for expanding the tax net, reflects a short-term, reactive approach to revenue generation. This mindset overlooks the larger structural issues, such as outdated tax administration systems, lack of data integration between authorities, and the political reluctance to bring influential untaxed segments into the tax fold. Consequently, the formal sector continues to shrink under the weight of growing tax demands, however, informal operators flourish without oversight. Time has come to adopt a holistic and forward-looking tax reform strategy. The federal and provincial governments must first recognize the 18th Amendment's constitutional spirit, not just as a political realignment, but as a responsibility to harmonize policies for national progress. The need for an integrated tax policy framework, jointly developed by federal and provincial governments, is more pressing than ever. The policy must provide clarity on jurisdictional boundaries, eliminate overlapping taxes, and ensure that the same transaction is not subjected to dual taxation under different laws. Harmonization of definitions, rates, procedures, and audit mechanisms across federal and provincial jurisdictions would significantly reduce the cost of doing business and enhance voluntary compliance. The creation of a unified tax portal, shared audit protocols, and coordinated taxpayer databases would go a long way in restoring confidence in the tax system. The provinces must be encouraged and supported to generate their own revenues, but not through regressive and legally questionable means. Instead, focus should be on widening the tax base by formalizing real estate, retail, agriculture, and service sectors that currently escape the tax radar. The rental taxation issue should be revisited through a constitutional and economic lens. If commercial rentals are to be taxed, then the mechanism must be clear, justified, and proportionate. The burden on taxpayers must be fair and rational, and any dual taxation must be eliminated through amendments or harmonization agreements between federal and provincial entities. Moreover, existing judgments of superior courts must be respected in both letter and spirit to maintain the sanctity of judicial oversight in fiscal policy. The future of Pakistan's economy depends on its ability to move from fiscal coercion to fiscal cooperation. Governments at all levels must treat taxpayers as partners in national development rather than as easy targets for revenue collection. A simplified, harmonized, and fair tax system is not only a constitutional imperative under the 18th Amendment but a foundational requirement for economic stability, investment promotion, and social trust. Only through serious institutional reform, coordination, and legal clarity can Pakistan transform its tax regime from a deterrent into a driver of prosperity. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
4 days ago
- Business Recorder
Employees transferred from T&T to PTC, and subsequently to PTCL: SC judgement
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court by majority of 2 to 1 held that the employees transferred from T&T to PTC, and subsequently to PTCL, retained not only their right to pensionary benefits but also the character of those benefits as dynamic and evolving rights. A three-judge, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Ayesha A Malik, on Thursday, announced the judgment regarding of pension of PTCL ex-employees. Multiple judgments of various High Courts were impugned before the Court, essentially on the same subject matter being the entitlement of the employees of the erstwhile Telegraph and Telephone (T&T) Department to receive the same pension and pensionary benefits accorded to civil servants, as notified by the federal government from time to time. Justice Yahya and Justice Amin disagreed with the judgment of Justice Ayesha. Justice Yahya judgment said while employees transferred from T&T to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC), and subsequently to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) ceased to be civil servants, the statutory framework governing their transfer safeguarded their pensionary entitlements in full: not just as frozen benefits fixed at the time of transfer, but as living rights that were to progress in accordance with prevailing standards applicable to similarly situated public servants. The scheme under Section 9 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991, and Section 36 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorga-nization) Act, 1996 guarantees the continuation of these entitlements, and the administrative mechanism created under the PTCL Act, including the establishment of Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET) was intended to facilitate, not frustrate, this guarantee. PTCL and PTET are duty-bound to ensure that the full measure of these entitlements is met, and any interpretation that reduces these rights to static or discretionary payments is contrary to the legislative mandate. The majority judgment clarified that this conclusion and these dispositions, have not been reached in ignorance of the financial concerns raised by PTCL and PTET. The submissions regarding the financial burden and claims of fiscal unsustainability have been duly considered. However, financial difficulty does not absolve a statutory entity of its legal obligations. If the existing pension model is incapable of sustaining the financial burden, it is the model that must be recalibrated, not the statutory entitlements curtailed. That said, the practical challenges identified by PTCL and PTET are real, and it is recognised a rigid timeline for disbursement may not be financially viable. Accordingly, PTCL must acknowledge its continuing financial liability towards former civil servants and reflect this as a declared liability on its financial records in accordance with applicable accounting and corporate law principles. Thereafter, PTCL, through PTET, may determine a feasible disbursement schedule for revised pensionary payments, the needful be done within 90 days, and that the payment process remains transparent and equitable in addressing the rightful claims of the affected pensioners. The chief justice held; CPLA Nos. 412, 420–424, 461–463, and 506 of 2019; CPLA Nos. 424-K, 357-K, and 365-K of 2019; CPLA Nos. 6005, 6006, 6023–6030, 6087–6096, 6101–6106, 6268–6273, and 6364 of 2021, 6453-6456 of 2021; and CPLA Nos. 134–135 of 2022 are dismissed. The impugned judgments of the High Courts are upheld to the extent that they grant pensionary revisions to those transferred employees who were civil servants at the time of their transfer. Such employees are entitled to the continuation of pensionary benefits, including revisions notified by the federal government. The CPLA Nos 2107, 2140, 2141, 2143, 2144, 2145, 2146, and 2147 of 2022 are allowed. The impugned judgments are set aside. The petitioners, being civil servants at the time of transfer, are entitled to continued pensionary revisions as per federal government notifications. The CPLA Nos 2138, 2139, and 2142 of 2022 are allowed, subject to classification confirmation. The matters are remanded to the relevant High Court for factual determination of the service status of the petitioners at the time of transfer. If the petitioners are found to have been civil servants, they shall be entitled to the continuation of pensionary benefits, including revisions notified by the federal government. The CPLA Nos 6205, 6222-6225, 6332, 6333, 6358-6363, 6379, 6437, 6485, 6545-6550, 6553-6556 of 2021, and CPLA Nos 30, 112-114, 118, 139-145, 329, 330, 368-371, 465-471, 645 of 2022 are remanded for determination whether each petitioner held civil-servant status at transfer end, and if so, for corresponding pension revisions. The CPLA No 426-K of 2019; CPLA Nos 1919 and 2066 of 2019; and CPLA Nos 369, 373, and 603 of 2018 are dismissed, as the petitioners either availed VSS, were not civil servants at the time of transfer, or did not establish a statutory entitlement to pensionary revisions under the applicable legal framework. The CPLA Nos 2197, 2199, and 2200–2205 of 2022; CPLA Nos. 2563 and 2564 of 2022; and CPLA Nos 495-K and 496-K of 2023 are remanded to the relevant High Court for determination of the petitioners' employment classification and entitlement to relief in light of the legal principles laid down in this judgment. The CA No 1509 of 2021 is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Crl.O.P. No 28/2018 in Crl.O.P. No 54/2015; Crl.O.P. Nos 56/2018 and 84/2018 in C.P.L.A. No 1643/2014; Crl.O.P. No 144/2022 and Crl.O.P. No 29/2023 in C.P.L.A. No 568/2014 are dismissed as infructuous. Crl.M.A. No 139/2025 in Crl.O.P. No 56/2018 is also dismissed. CMA Nos. 5783/2022, 5641/2022, 5784/2022, 5785/2022, 5786/2022, 5624/2022, 5787/2022, 5788/2022, 5638/2022, 5789/2022, 5883/2022, 5862/2022, 6066/2022, 6075/2022, 6076/2022, 6079/2022, 6074/2022, 6601/2022, 6602/2022 (interim applications for injunctive relief in various CPLAs) are disposed of as infructuous, the main matters having been decided. CMA Nos. 1470/2020 and 7698/2022 in CPLA No. 463/2019; CMA Nos. 1636 and 1637/2022 in CPLA No. 6005/2021; CMA Nos. 1633 and 810/2022 in CPLA No. 6358/2021; and CMA No. 11521/2023 in CPLA No. 6379/2021, and CMA No. 7515/2024 in CPLA No. 6104 of 2021 all seeking impleadment, are dismissed. CMA No. 8153 of 2023 in CPLA No. 424-K of 2019, seeking de-clubbing of the petition, is dismissed. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
4 days ago
- Business Recorder
SC decision on transfer of judges to IHC challenged
ISLAMABAD: The judgment of the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on transfer of judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has been challenged. The Lahore Bar Association, Lahore High Court Bar Association on Wednesday filed intra court appeals (ICA) against the five-judge verdict under Section 5 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, read with Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The petitioners prayed that the impugned order passed by the constitutional bench dated 19-06-2025 be set aside and allow the constitution petition No27/2025. The Constitution Bench on June 19, 2025 by majority of 3 to 2 held that transfer of judges under Article 200 is within the framework of the Constitution, and transfer (permanently or temporarily) cannot be construed as a fresh appointment. The IHC five judges – Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad High Court Bar Associations had filed the petitions against the transfer of three judges namely, Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar from Lahore High Court (LHC), Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro from Sindh High Court (SHC), and Justice Muhammad Asif from Balochistan High Court (BHC) under Article 200 (1) of the Constitution. The apex court without upsetting the notification of transfer of judges in the IHC remanded the matter of seniority to the President of Pakistan to determine the seniority after examining/vetting the service record of the transferee judges as soon as possible, including the question of whether the transfer is on a permanent or temporary basis. The petitioners contended that the impugned order is against the constitution, law and all rules of fairness and thus void, without jurisdiction, coram non judice, having been passed without lawful authority and is thus of no legal effect. They submitted that all orders passed, actions taken, notifications issued, including the determination of seniority of judges and subsequent proceedings of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) in relation to the appointment of the Chief Justice of the IHC are all void and unconstitutional and of no legal effect. The said order and the notifications and the appointments were purportedly made in pursuance of the directions given the impugned order. It is the case of the Appellant that the impugned order is unconstitutional and void and thus all orders and actions taken in pursuance thereof are also void and unconstitutional and of no legal effect. They stated that a constitutional document is to be read as a whole to understand the underlying constitutional values, principles and objectives. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
