2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
KHALID HASAN Versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER EDUCATION, CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and 2 others
| Citation | 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Sabihuddin Ahmed C.J and Maqbool Baqar, J |
| Parties | KHALID HASAN Versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER EDUCATION, CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed C.J and Maqbool Baqar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (KHALID HASAN Versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER EDUCATION, CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor Ahmad and Iftikhar Ali for Respondents along with Muhammad Iqbal, HST/DDO, Abdul Wahab Abbasi, DOE (S/HS), Sh. Bashiruddin, H.M. GBSS Sitara-e-Hydri, Moin Akbar, Ex. H.M. GBSS Sitara-e-Hydri.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Entitlement to payment of salary
Department had alleged that petitioner who had not performed his duties from 14-1991 to 8-12-1991 was not entitled to payment of salary for said period
No documentary material in support of allegation was placed before the Court except a loose sheet purporting to be duplication of relevant entries from Muster Roll for the month of August, 1991
If petitioner was absent from duty during said period, proper course was to initiate disciplinary action against petitioner and pass appropriate order
Petitioner could not be treated as a daily wages employee
Petitioner was entitled to salary for said period
Department was directed to disburse salary due to the petitioner within specified period. Petitioner in person. Sarwar Khan, A.A.-G.
Judgment & Decree
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J.
It was alleged on behalf of respondents that the petitioner had not performed duties from 1-7-1991 to 8-12-1991 and was therefore, not entitled to payment of salary for the aforesaid period. However, no documentary material in support of the allegations was placed before the Court except a loose sheet purporting to be duplicate of the relevant entries from Muster Roll for the month of A August, 1991 which, surprisingly was recovered from the custody of one .Mr. Moin Akbar, Headmaster of the schools, where the petitioner was working during the relevant period who was transferred from that, school in September, 1991 and retired from service in January, 1994. Incidentally specific allegations of mala fide against the aforesaid Moin Akbar have been made in the memo. of petition. In is indeed contended that the petitioner had himself torn the school muster roll in May, 1991, but it is not shown however, attendance were recorded between September to December, 1991. In any event even if the petitioner was absent from duty during the aforesaid period the proper course, as has been candidly admitted by the learned Executive District Officer was to initiate disciplinary action and pass an appropriate order. Admittedly this was not done and the petitioner continues to, remain in service working in another school. He could certainly not to be treated as a daily wages employee and we therefore, find it impossible to uphold the plea that the petitioner was not entitled to salary from 1st July, 1991 to 8th December, 1991. We cannot resist observing that the affairs of schools managed by the City District Government appear to be `in a terrible state of affairs. Indeed the present administration cannot be held liable for what was done in the past but the EDO may be well advised to make extra efforts and effectively monitor affairs to put things in order. The petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents will disburse the salary then due to the petitioner within three months. We expect that the provincial Government and the office of the Accountant General will not cause unnecessary delay. H.B.T./K-67/K Petition allowed.