Biometric Attendance Sparks Institutional Crisis at NIRM: Doctors, Directors, and Data Under Parliamentary Scrutiny

Biometric Attendance Sparks Institutional Crisis at NIRM: Doctors, Directors, and Data Under Parliamentary Scrutiny

Nadeem Tanoli

Islamabad: A routine policy to enforce biometric attendance at Islamabad’s National Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine (NIRM) has triggered a full-blown crisis, drawing in senior doctors, top administrators, and a National Assembly sub-committee. What began as a standard reform to improve punctuality has morphed into a volatile clash involving salary cuts, absenteeism allegations, and workplace harassment claims—exposing deep fractures within Pakistan’s federal health governance.

The biometric system, introduced in 2020 under the leadership of NIRM Executive Director Dr. Shaista, required all staff to log both entry and exit times daily. Deputy Director Dr. Mazhar Hussain spearheaded its implementation, linking compliance to Key Performance Indicator (KPI) allowances and staff Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). While the first six months saw no penalties, by November, deductions were applied retroactively for July through September—resulting in losses of Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 50,000 for several doctors.

NIRM Case Uncovers ‘Systemic Failure’ in Health Ministry as Parliament Slams Illegal Suspension and Chaotic Transfers

Testifying before the National Assembly’s Sub-Committee on National Health Services, Dr. Mazhar alleged that the deductions triggered a retaliatory campaign against him. He presented biometric records indicating serious attendance irregularities. According to the data, Dr. Asma Kiyani had incomplete or missing entries for 128 out of 292 duty days in 2024, while Dr. Mohammad Ali recorded 175 short days out of 298. Other doctors named for chronic shortfalls included Dr. Firdous, Dr. Rizwan, Dr. Sumaila Malik, Dr. Kashif, and Dr. Faridullah Zewari.

Reinforcing Dr. Mazhar’s stance, Dr. Shaista acknowledged during the hearing that the root of the unrest was the biometric system itself, stating clearly: “The issue started on the basis of attendance, from the biometrics.” She also confirmed that NIRM had no parallel manual attendance records, making biometric logs the sole official system for tracking staff presence.

However, the accused doctors have mounted a forceful defense. They argue that the biometric system is technologically flawed, often failing to register exits or misrecording days entirely if a staff member forgot to clock out. Additionally, they cite inconsistencies in the application of a 30-minute grace period for late arrivals. These alleged glitches, they claim, were selectively used by Dr. Mazhar to build a narrative of absenteeism and justify punitive actions.

Parliament Probes Management Irregularities at NIRM and Polyclinic Hospital Amid Healthcare Oversight Drive

Beyond data disputes, the conflict has expanded into serious allegations of misconduct. Dr. Asma Kiyani filed a harassment complaint against Dr. Mazhar on December 23 with the Federal Ombudsman Secretariat for Protection Against Harassment (FOSPA), asserting that her grievance preceded any salary deductions and was unrelated to the biometric enforcement. Her position has been echoed by other staff who allege a pattern of intimidation and targeted reprisals.

In response, the parliamentary sub-committee has demanded full, unedited biometric records, official duty rosters, and attendance logs for all implicated staff. Their goal is to determine whether disciplinary measures were justified or whether biometric enforcement served as a cover for workplace harassment and internal retaliation.

The NIRM dispute has grown into a test case for institutional reform in Pakistan’s public healthcare system. It raises questions about how accountability tools are implemented, who controls them, and whether resistance to reform stems from systemic dysfunction or valid concerns over misuse of power. The committee’s forthcoming report is expected to clarify the extent of both absenteeism and administrative abuse—and whether biometric oversight can serve its intended purpose without enabling selective victimization.