• Federal health ministry has chargesheeted some women doctors over ‘frequent litigation against Sindh govt policies’
• Lawyer Hassan Mandviwalla says seeking legal recourse is every citizen’s fundamental right

KARACHI: Some senior women doctors at the Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC) are facing backlash from both the provincial and federal governments for being part of a group of over two dozen federal employees who have moved courts to seek legal recourse against what they believed a gross violation of their service rights.

On Aug 8, 2023, the ministry of national health services had handed over the “management, operational control and financial liabilities” of the JPMC, the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD) and National Institute of Child Health (NICH) to the Sindh government following an agreement between the Centre and provincial authorities.

However, in September 2023, several JPMC doctors/teachers and employees, including women, had challenged before the Sindh High Court the agreement to hand over the federal teaching institute to the provincial government.

Moreover, in late 2024, the Sindh government had extended the tenure of the incumbent executive director of the JPMC until June 24, 2026, and this decision was also challenged before the SHC.

A JPMC official, who is one of the many petitioners against the provincial government, told Dawn that the Sindh government had written to the federal government for taking action against JPMC employees, including lady doctors/teachers, for “filing petitions in the high court for their service rights”.

Inquiry over ‘frequent litigation’

Official documents reviewed by Dawn show that acting on the Sindh government’s complaint against some senior women doctors of the JPMC, the federal government instituted an inquiry under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 2020 and issued charge sheets.

One of the doctors has been charged with “frequent litigation against Sindh government policies, filing case against appointment of contractual employees of JPMC and challenging the extension of the executive director’s tenure”.

Another doctor has been charged with “harassing” new JPMC faculty members recruited by JSMU, creating an environment of “hostility” and “refusing to cooperate with their integration into the hospital”.

“Your said acts are prejudicial to service discipline and unbecoming of an office. By reasons thereof, you appear to be guilty of ‘Inefficiency & Misconduct’ within the meaning of Rule 2(1) (h) & (k) and 3 (a) & (b) of the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 2020,” says one of the charge sheets.

The concerned federal officials have also been threatened with “major penalty of dismissal from service” and told to appear before an inquiry officer for an in-person hearing, that too in Islamabad.

There has been a sense of resentment against the federal government and the PPP-led government in Sindh for their attempt to silence those raising voice for their rights.

The JPMC employees, who got the employment after passing the Federal Public Service Commission exams, feel that the federal and provincial governments should have first considered them for executive director and other important posts rather than appointing some Sindh government official.

“What is the point of merit and seniority when the government appoints its favourites on key posts? And when we move courts, they accuse us of misconduct, initiate inquiries and threaten us, especially women, of dismissal from services,” one of the doctors said.

The concerned employees have now appealed to the prime minister and PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari to take notice of the vindictive actions against them.

They also appealed to rights organisations, especially those raising their voice for women rights, to play their role to stop government harassment against women doctors of the JPMC.

‘Civil servants can’t be penalised for litigating’

Talking to Dawn, senior lawyer Hassan Mandviwalla said: “Civil servants cannot be penalised for litigating. Seeking legal recourse is a fundamental right, and any retaliation for doing so would be a violation of constitutional protections.”

He said that the fundamental rights of all citizens are protected under Part II, Chapter 1, of the Constitution.

He explained that “Article 25 (1) provides that all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law, which means that there can be no distinction under law between those who litigate or those who are perceived to habitually litigate against their department as they ought to be provided equal protection to safeguard their fundamental rights.

“Section 22 of the Civil Servants Act 1974 provides recourse for a civil servant to challenge an order affecting the terms and conditions of their employment, with an appeal lying to the Federal Services Tribunal established under Article 212 of the Constitution, and a final appeal to the Supreme Court.

“For matters beyond the terms and conditions of employment and where no alternate remedy is available, a civil servant may approach the high court in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 seeking extraordinary relief, against a departmental charge sheet or order,” he said, adding: “This framework ensures that civil servants have access to legal remedies and safeguards against any punitive action taken in response to their pursuit of justice.”

Published in Dawn, April 7th, 2025