ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has convened meeting of the Federal Cabinet today (Monday) afternoon which besides taking up other matters, will also discuss and approve the Haj Policy-2025.
The federal government, previously had withdrawn its decision to get the Haj Policy 2025 passed by the Federal Cabinet through circulation of and is now being presented at Cabinet meeting.
The Saudi Government had allotted a quota of 179,210 Hujjaj for Pakistan which would be bifurcated equally (89,605 each) between the government and private Haj schemes. Out of the government Haj scheme, at least 5,000 seats would be reserved for sponsorship scheme, under which applicants would require to deposit their Haj dues in foreign exchange remitted from abroad through banking channels. The intending pilgrims of the government sponsorship quota would be exempted from balloting and extended on the first-come-first-served basis.
Quota of 25,000 of private Haj scheme would be reserved for sponsorship scheme. For the government Haj scheme, there would be the traditional long package of 38 to 42 days and a short package of 20 to 25 days.
Ministry of Interior will place a summary for establishment of the Islamabad Central Business District Development Authority. The meeting will also approve appointment of Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC).
The cabinet will also accord approval to signing of protocols of Force Labour Convention 1985 and Maritime Labour Convention 200. The meeting will also approve signing of five years programme for cooperation between ministries of foreign affairs of Pakistan and Turkmenistan. The meeting will approve Jammu and Kashmir Estate Property Budget for the fiscal year 2024-25.
“Karachi-like situation prevails in Islamabad too,” says IHC CJ
Meeting will be attended by senior judges including Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar
Officers stress importance of this correction to safeguard promotion opportunities for eligible officers
Justice Mansoor of view that there were no significant constitutional or legal questions in this particular case