PLC(CS) 1993

1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore High Court
Decided Date
Writ Petition No. 4853 of 1992, decided on 16th May, 1993.
Honorable Judges
Irshad Hasan Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Lahore High Court
Bench Members Irshad Hasan Khan, J
Parties MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others
Primary Law Civil service‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil service‑

Representation

  • Kh. Saeed‑uz‑Zafar for Petitioner.
  • Irfan Qadir, Addl. A: G. for Respondent No. 3

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Civil service ‑‑‑Termination‑‑ Petitioner's appointment as a school teacher was purely temporary terminable on one month's notice from either side with no claim or title for permanent appointment‑‑‑Petitioner's relieving order stated in terms, that his salary and all other dues, stood fully paid up‑‑‑Validity of termination‑‑‑Appointment of petitioner was neither governed by any statutory rules, nor in terminating his services violation of any statutory rules or instructions amenable to correction in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction had been pointed out‑‑‑Related question as to whether or not petitioner had been paid the arrears of his salary, being a disputed question of fact could not be examined in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Appointment of petitioner being purely contractual, termination of same could not be questioned in Constitutional jurisdiction.

Judgment & Decree

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeks a direction to the respondents to treat him in accordance with law by absorbing him as a Primary School Teacher.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a teacher by the Literacy and Mass Education Commission vide appointment Letter No. Estt 2(33)/87; dated 24‑6‑1987, on purely temporary basis. However, vide Letter No. F.3‑3/89‑NFE, dated 4‑5‑1989, the Nai Roshni Schools Programme was directed to be disbanded with effect from 30‑6‑1989. Consequently, the petitioner was relieved from service vide relieving order dated 18‑11‑1989. The relieving order required the petitioner to report to the Directorate of Education concerned in the Provincial Education Department for his future posting. It was further stated therein that all his connections with Nai Roshani Schools Project, Literacy and Mass Education Commission, stood severed with effect from 30‑6‑1989 and his salary and all other dues stood fully paid up to 30‑6‑1989.

3. It is stated that vide Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education Memorandum No. F.1‑10/89‑NFE, dated 14‑9‑1989, the requisite funds were also released to the Provincial Education Department during 1989‑90 for Nai Roshani Schools for the purpose of spending on payment of salaries and other allowances etc. to the Teachers, Master Trainers and Supervisors of defunct‑Nai Roshani, Schools Project absorbed by the Provincial Education Department as primary school teachers. However, the Government of Punjab, Education Department, vide Memorandum No. S.O.(P.E.)3‑39/89, dated 2‑5‑1990, made another reference to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education, Islamabad, on the subject of release of funds to the Provincial Education Department during 1989‑90, Nai Roshni Schools. The operative part of the memo. reads thus:‑‑ "

2. As there has been no response from your end regarding the provision of funds for a period of 5 years, the time required for the adjustment of the New Roshini School Teachers and Supervisors in the Provincial. Education Department, the Government of Punjab expresses its inability to pay the salaries to the New Roshini School Teachers without properly absorbing them in the Education Department. Accordingly, the funds amounting to Rs. 36,460,000 (Rupees Thirty‑six million, four hundred and sixty thousand only) issued vide Ministry of Education's Letter No. F.1‑10‑89‑NFE, dated 14‑9‑1989 are returned herewith unutilised (copy of letter enclosed).

3. The Nai Roshini School Teachers have been agitating for the payment of their salaries, which may now please be paid out of the amount being returned unspent to the Federal Ministry of Education."

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the fact that the, Government of Pakistan got an advertisement published in the press wherein the affectees of the Nai Roshini Schools Project were directed to file applications for payment of their dues till 30‑6‑1991, the petitioner had not .been paid his dues from 1‑7‑1991.

5. Kh. Saeed‑uz‑Zafar, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the action of the respondents in not putting the petitioner to perform his duties as school teacher and not paying his salaries tentamounts to non‑exercise of jurisdiction vested in them and the petitioner has a vested right to demand that his case dealt with in accordance with law.

6. I am not persuaded with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of clause (1) of the appointment letter relied upon by the petitioner itself shows that his appointment was purely temporary terminable on one month's notice from either side and would not confer on him claim or title for permanent appointment. The relieving order, a copy which has been placed on record as Annexure `C', itself states: "Your salary and all other dues stand fully paid up to 30‑6‑1989". Thus visualized, the question as to whether or not the petitioner has been paid the arrears of his salary, is a disputed question of fact which cannot be examined in these proceedings. In any event, the appointment of the petitioner was purely contractual. The Government of Pakistan, through a Cabinet Resolution for the purpose of dissemination of Literacy and Mass Education established a Commission known as "Literacy and Mass Education Commission". To achieve this object "Nai Roshini Schools" were set up and the petitioner, among others, was appointed on purely temporary basis. The appointment of the petitioner is not governed by any statutory rules, neither the learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to point out violation of any statutory rules or instructions amenable to correction in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, ICA No. 108/89 involving somewhat identical controversy has already been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 4‑2‑1990. In view of the above, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. A.A./M‑1143/L Petition dismissed.