Who Watches the Workplace Watchdogs?
Pakistan has a peculiar relationship with workplace merit.
We talk about it constantly.
Government departments are criticised for delaying promotions. Corporations are questioned over favouritism. Universities are urged to reward academic performance. Employers are told to retain talent. Media organisations routinely expose nepotism, extensions, political appointments and institutional injustice.
But there is a question that is rarely asked:
Do the organisations making these arguments follow the same standards inside their own walls?
The question is particularly relevant to Pakistan’s media industry.
Newspapers and television channels have considerable influence over how society understands fairness at work. They report on workers denied promotions, bureaucrats given extensions, senior officials superseded and institutions accused of favouritism.
But journalism cannot demand accountability from everyone else while exempting itself from scrutiny.
That is where the conversation around employee retention, promotions and extensions becomes uncomfortable.
The Extension That Blocks an Entire Career Ladder
In any hierarchical organisation, one senior position can determine the careers of dozens of people below it.
When a person occupying a senior position retires, the organisation has several choices.
It can promote someone from within.
It can recruit externally.
It can restructure the position.
Or, where there is a genuine institutional requirement, it can retain the individual for a defined period.
The problem begins when an exception becomes a culture.
A six-month extension becomes another year.
A temporary arrangement becomes a permanent arrangement.
A retired employee is brought back.
Another extension follows.
Meanwhile, people below continue waiting.
For them, the issue is not merely that someone has been allowed to continue working.
It is that their own careers may have been placed on hold to accommodate someone else’s continued career.
That distinction is often ignored in Pakistan.
Even Dawn Has Written About This Problem
Dawn itself has been among the publications highlighting the damage caused by prolonged temporary arrangements.
In a May 2026 editorial titled “Ad hoc culture,” Dawn criticised the practice of keeping people in higher positions through prolonged temporary arrangements, noting that such practices can leave employees without formal promotion, financial benefits or recognition of seniority. It specifically highlighted the frustration of employees whose seniority is bypassed.
That position is difficult to disagree with.
In fact, it is precisely the position that responsible journalism should take.
But it also raises a more uncomfortable question:
What happens when the same principles are applied to the media organisations themselves?
The Dawn Question
Dawn has long presented itself as an institution committed to professional journalism, institutional accountability and workers’ rights.
Its pages have repeatedly carried arguments in favour of merit-based promotions and against prolonged ad-hoc arrangements.
A January 2026 Dawn editorial page contribution on academic promotions, for example, argued that delayed promotions erode meritocracy, demotivate employees and can drive talented professionals towards private institutions or overseas opportunities.
In another recent editorial, Dawn argued that prolonged temporary arrangements can stagnate careers and deprive employees of financial progression and recognition.
These are sound principles.
But principles become meaningful only when they are applied consistently.
And this is where, based on my own knowledge of the organisation, an uncomfortable contradiction deserves examination.
Dawn’s senior management structure has itself seen prolonged extensions, while retired managers have, according to my knowledge, been brought back into employment in Lahore and elsewhere.
That raises a straightforward question:
If retaining retired or extended senior personnel is justified by institutional necessity, why should the same practice be criticised when governments or other organisations do it?
And if prolonged extensions are capable of blocking the careers of younger employees in government departments, why would the principle suddenly cease to apply inside a media organisation?
This is not an argument against experience.
Nor is it an argument that every retired employee should automatically be removed.
Experience has value.
Institutional memory has value.
A highly experienced editor or manager can be extremely difficult to replace.
But institutional value cannot become a permanent justification for blocking succession.
Fifteen Years Is a Long Time in Any Profession
The question becomes even more significant when a senior position remains occupied for an exceptionally long period.
From my own knowledge of Dawn, its editor has remained in the position for nearly 15 years through extensions.
Again, the question is not whether an individual is competent.
The question is whether an institution that advocates professional advancement should also have a mechanism for developing and promoting the next generation of leadership.
Fifteen years is enough time for an entire generation of journalists to enter an organisation, build careers, become senior reporters, become editors and eventually expect to take on greater responsibility.
If the top positions remain occupied indefinitely, where does that generation go?
There is a very real distinction between retaining talent and preventing succession.
A healthy institution must know the difference.
The Supreme Court Has Now Entered This Conversation
This is no longer merely an HR theory.
Pakistan’s Supreme Court has recently addressed the issue in remarkably strong terms.
In January 2026, the court ruled that government departments could not use administrative inefficiency and procedural delays as an excuse for denying employees timely consideration for promotion. It held that promotion is connected to merit, performance and operational requirements, and said employees should not suffer because a department failed to convene promotion committees or relied excessively on acting arrangements.
Four months later, in May 2026, the Supreme Court went further.
It held that prolonged ad-hoc, look-after, current-charge, acting-charge and additional-charge arrangements can amount to exploitation. The case involved a Pakistan Railways employee who had performed duties of a higher post for nearly eight years before receiving regular promotion.
The court’s reasoning is important because it moves the debate beyond bureaucratic procedure.
It is about human beings and their careers.
A person who spends years doing higher-level work without receiving corresponding recognition, seniority or financial benefits is not merely dealing with an administrative inconvenience.
Their career is being affected.
What Happens to the Person Waiting Below?
This is the part of the Pakistani workplace debate we often ignore.
We discuss the person receiving the extension.
We discuss their experience.
We discuss their importance.
We discuss how difficult they would be to replace.
But we rarely discuss the person sitting below them.
The deputy who cannot become director.
The assistant manager who cannot become manager.
The reporter who cannot move into editorial management.
The professor waiting for promotion.
The civil servant waiting for the next grade.
The employee who has spent ten years preparing for a position that never becomes available.
That person also has a career.
That person also has a family.
That person also has ambitions.
And that person eventually has a choice.
Wait—or leave.
When “Retention” Becomes an Excuse
Pakistani organisations frequently say they want to retain experienced employees.
There is nothing wrong with that.
But retention should not become a magic word that ends every discussion.
If an organisation genuinely needs a retired employee’s expertise, it can retain them as a consultant.
It can appoint them for a defined project.
It can create an advisory role.
It can establish a fixed-term arrangement with transparent terms.
But if the same person continues occupying the position that should logically become part of a succession plan, the organisation needs to explain why.
Otherwise, “we need his experience” becomes indistinguishable from:
“We don’t want anyone else to have the position.”
The Media Industry Cannot Be Exempt
This is particularly important for media organisations.
Journalists routinely question government departments about:
– extensions;
– delayed promotions;
– acting appointments;
– supersession;
– nepotism;
– favouritism;
– lack of transparency;
– and the treatment of retired officials.
They should.
But journalism also has an internal obligation.
The same standard of scrutiny must apply inside the newsroom.
A newspaper cannot argue that a government department should promote deserving employees while maintaining opaque career structures of its own.
A television channel cannot criticise corporate nepotism while refusing to explain how senior appointments are made internally.
A media house cannot demand transparency from public institutions while treating questions about its own management practices as inappropriate.
The press should not be above accountability.
Its credibility depends on it.
The Irony of Dawn
There is therefore an unavoidable irony in the case of Dawn.
Its journalism has frequently exposed precisely the institutional behaviours that employees across Pakistan complain about.
Dawn has reported cases where prolonged extensions affected promotion prospects.
It has highlighted the consequences of ad-hocism.
It has carried arguments that merit and performance should determine advancement.
And its reporting on the Supreme Court’s recent rulings has brought renewed attention to the injustice that can arise when temporary arrangements continue indefinitely.
All of that is legitimate and important journalism.
But if these principles are to have credibility, they must also survive an examination of the institution that publishes them.
That does not mean every allegation against a media organisation is true.
It does mean that media organisations should be willing to answer questions about themselves with the same seriousness with which they ask questions of others.
If Dawn believes that prolonged extensions can frustrate promotion and create institutional stagnation, it should be able to explain how its own senior management and succession practices reconcile with that principle.
If retired managers are retained or rehired, there should be a clear explanation of why, for how long and under what criteria.
If senior positions are extended repeatedly, there should be a transparent explanation of the institutional reasoning.
And if there is a genuine succession plan, employees should know what it is.
That is not hostility towards Dawn.
That is exactly the kind of accountability that a newspaper should welcome.
Retired Does Not Mean Useless
There is another point worth making.
The argument should never be reduced to “retired people should leave.”
That would be unfair and simplistic.
Pakistan has an enormous pool of experienced professionals whose expertise remains valuable after retirement.
The issue is not age.
The issue is opportunity and structure.
An organisation can benefit from an experienced retired employee while simultaneously creating opportunities for younger employees.
A consultancy role can transfer institutional knowledge.
A mentoring role can develop younger staff.
A fixed-term project can utilise specialist expertise.
A board or advisory position can preserve institutional memory.
The problem arises when experience is used as a reason to permanently occupy the career ladder.
The Real Cost Is Paid by the Next Generation
When senior positions remain blocked, the damage is not always immediately visible.
The employee does not necessarily resign tomorrow.
Instead, motivation gradually disappears.
They stop volunteering for additional responsibilities.
They stop believing promises about promotion.
They begin looking outside.
Some move to competitors.
Some join international organisations.
Some move abroad.
Others simply become disengaged.
The organisation then complains about a lack of loyalty.
But loyalty cannot survive indefinitely without opportunity.
Pakistan’s Best Employees Have Options
This is especially true in today’s economy.
A talented Pakistani professional no longer has to depend exclusively on the organisation where they started.
LinkedIn has changed professional networking.
Remote work has changed geography.
International companies can recruit Pakistani professionals.
Freelancing has created alternative income streams.
Startups provide new career paths.
The best employees therefore have more choices than previous generations.
If an organisation repeatedly tells them to wait while senior positions remain occupied indefinitely, eventually they will stop waiting.
And when they leave, another company benefits from the investment that the original employer made in developing them.
The Question Every Organisation Should Ask
Every organisation—government, corporate, media, academic or otherwise—should ask itself five questions:
How long should a temporary appointment last?
When does an extension become institutional stagnation?
What happens to the people waiting below?
What is our succession plan?
And perhaps the most important question:
Are we retaining experienced people—or preventing the next generation from advancing?
These are not anti-seniority questions.
They are pro-institution questions.
An institution that depends permanently on one person is not necessarily strong.
It may actually be fragile.
A strong institution creates successors.
A strong institution transfers knowledge.
A strong institution rewards performance.
A strong institution makes room for younger leadership.
And a strong institution can survive when one person eventually leaves.
Who Watches the Watchdogs?
Pakistan needs better workplace cultures.
Government departments need transparent promotion systems.
Private companies need meaningful career paths.
Media organisations need internal accountability.
Universities need timely promotions.
And managers need to understand that employees are not simply resources to be retained.
They are professionals building careers.
The irony is that some of the strongest voices demanding these reforms are themselves part of institutions that must answer the same questions.
That is not a reason to silence criticism.
It is a reason to make the criticism more honest.
Dawn has every right to scrutinise Pakistan’s bureaucrats, corporations and governments.
But Dawn, like every other institution, must also accept scrutiny.
The standard should be simple:
If it is wrong when someone else does it, it should at least require an explanation when we do it ourselves.
Pakistan does not need workplaces where people remain in positions forever because they are experienced.
It needs workplaces where experience is transferred, merit is rewarded and succession is planned.
Because retaining one person indefinitely may protect an individual’s position.
But creating opportunities for the next generation is what protects an institution.
And ultimately, the credibility of any organisation—including a newspaper—is measured not only by what it says about fairness, but by how fairly it treats the people who work inside it.
