ISLAMABAD: President Dr. Arif Alvi has called upon the Auditor General of Pakistan (AGP) to assess the current system of granting loans to government employees, emphasizing the importance of transparency, merit, and equitable treatment.
President Alvi expressed concerns regarding the lack of adherence to criteria, noting the existence of two separate lists for loan allocation: the “regular list” and the “out of turn list/priority.” He highlighted the absence of clear criteria for transitioning employees from the regular list to the priority list, prompting him to address these issues in a letter to the AGP.
An official statement from the President Secretariat issued on Monday revealed that these concerns emerged during the review of representations filed by various government officers and organizations. Instances of preferential treatment and violations of merit were reported, indicating deviations from General Financial Rules (GFR) and approved criteria established on December 7, 2015, for loan allocations.
READ ALSO — Upcoming Government Faces IMF Pressure, Regardless of Election Result: Bloomberg Report
President Alvi also noted discrepancies in the submission of employee lists by Principal Accounting Officers (PAOs) of different ministries to the AGP, leading to grievances and legal disputes over out-of-turn loans.
In 2015, a mechanism was devised in collaboration with the Finance Division and AGP, allocating 10% of funds for hardship cases, 25% for priority cases, and 65% for the general waiting list. However, the AGP’s special study revealed deviations from this mechanism, with loans being granted without committee approval, and priority and general waiting lists not being publicly disclosed as mandated.
Furthermore, the study highlighted instances of disproportionate allocation of funds for hardship and priority cases, as well as manual processing of applications instead of utilizing the SAP system. It recommended strict adherence to the approved mechanism, particularly in processing hardship cases through the hardship committee’s recommendations.
The study emphasized the need to eliminate the separate priority list, strictly adhere to the 10% quota for hardship cases, and process such cases according to the 2015 approved mechanism.