2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary Sindh, Karachi and 4 others Versus GUL MUHAMMAD HAJANO
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary Sindh, Karachi and 4 others Versus GUL MUHAMMAD HAJANO |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary Sindh, Karachi and 4 others Versus GUL MUHAMMAD HAJANO). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Suleman Habibuilah, Additional Advocate‑General, Sindh and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing 17th July, 2002.
- 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent, who was, working as District Education Officer, District East Malir, Karachi, filed Constitutional Petition No.D‑641 of 2001, in the High Court of Sindh. Karachi, praying that Secretary Finance, Government of Sind/petitioner No.3, may be directed to issue the Minutes of Meetings held or. 26‑3‑1995 and 8‑3‑2001; that the petitioners may be directed to enforce the minutes of the then Chief Secretary, Sindh, dated 21‑8‑1995 in letter and, spirit; that respondent No.3 may be directed to implement the orders of High Court in C.P. No.D‑1426 of 1991, dated 7‑2‑1995, and allow benefit of Revision of Pay Scales of 1974 and allow Grade‑19/20 to the respondent, as given to his counterparts, Principals, Government Comprehensive High School; that petitioner No.4‑Director General, K.D.A., Karachi, be directed to comply with the orders of the High Court in C.P. No.D‑1335 of 1994, dated 27‑10‑1994, that petitioners Nos. l and 2 may be directed to implement the order of the High Court dated 12‑4‑1994, in C.P.C. No.D‑421 of 1993 and undertakings and D.O. Letter from the Additional Advocate‑General, Sindh, or the interest of justice, fairness and equity; that the respondent may be paid damages by the Government/petitioners according to his official status. The petitioners contested the petition. After hearing the parties and gone Trough the record, the learned Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the petition with certain observations vide impugned judgment dated 1‑2‑2002. Hence, this petition:
- 3. Mr. Suleman Habibullah, learned Additional Advocate‑General, inter alia, contended that the impugned judgment is violative of .the provisions of law and Article 199 of the Constitution; that the respondent was a civil servant and he should have approached the Service Tribunal; that the respondent could not file writ petition in the disputed matter relating to terms and conditions of service.
- "Having heard the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General Sindh and having gone through the record it appears, as has indeed been acknowledged by the learned A.A. -G that the summary was approved by the then Chief Minister for protection of seniority and fixation of pay of the petitioner in BS‑19 w.e.f. 28‑8‑1991 i.e. the date when his junior was promoted. It, therefore, goes without saying that he would be entitled to all the benefits arising therefrom if not already granted. At this stage it may be added that the learned A.A.‑G. attempted to argue that this matter related to the terms and conditions of service and was outside from our jurisdiction but we are of the opinion that since no order of the Government is being called in question and only an obligation to perform its duties to pass orders within a reasonable time is being invoked, this Court has jurisdiction to grant redress".
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment dated 21‑2‑2002, passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, in Constitutional Petition No.D‑641 of 2001). ‑‑S. 8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑ .onstitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Seniority Implementation of summary approved by Chief Minister for protection of seniority and fixation of pay‑‑‑High Court directed the authorities to implement the summary‑‑‑Plea raised by the authorities was that as the matter elated to terms and conditions of service, therefore, it was outside the jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed by the civil servants ,vas allowed on the ground that no order of Government was being called in question and only an obligation to perform its duties to pass orders within a reasonable time was being invoked‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Judgment passed by High court was based on sound valid and legal grounds and was in accordance with the law laid down by Supreme Court‑‑‑No misreading, non‑reading of material placed before the High Court existed and there was no misconstruction of facts and law‑‑‑No question of general public importance being involved in the case leave to appeal was refused. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.
‑‑Petitioners seek leave to appeal against judgment dated 21‑2‑2002, passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, in Constitutional Petition No.D‑641 of 2001.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent, who was, working as District Education Officer, District East Malir, Karachi, filed Constitutional Petition No.D‑641 of 2001, in the High Court of Sindh. Karachi, praying that Secretary Finance, Government of Sind/petitioner No.3, may be directed to issue the Minutes of Meetings held or. 26‑3‑1995 and 8‑3‑2001; that the petitioners may be directed to enforce the minutes of the then Chief Secretary, Sindh, dated 21‑8‑1995 in letter and, spirit; that respondent No.3 may be directed to implement the orders of High Court in C.P. No.D‑1426 of 1991, dated 7‑2‑1995, and allow benefit of Revision of Pay Scales of 1974 and allow Grade‑19/20 to the respondent, as given to his counterparts, Principals, Government Comprehensive High School; that petitioner No.4‑Director General, K.D.A., Karachi, be directed to comply with the orders of the High Court in C.P. No.D‑1335 of 1994, dated 27‑10‑1994, that petitioners Nos. l and 2 may be directed to implement the order of the High Court dated 12‑4‑1994, in C.P.C. No.D‑421 of 1993 and undertakings and D.O. Letter from the Additional Advocate‑General, Sindh, or the interest of justice, fairness and equity; that the respondent may be paid damages by the Government/petitioners according to his official status. The petitioners contested the petition. After hearing the parties and gone Trough the record, the learned Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the petition with certain observations vide impugned judgment dated 1‑2‑2002. Hence, this petition:
3. Mr. Suleman Habibullah, learned Additional Advocate‑General, inter alia, contended that the impugned judgment is violative of .the provisions of law and Article 199 of the Constitution; that the respondent was a civil servant and he should have approached the Service Tribunal; that the respondent could not file writ petition in the disputed matter relating to terms and conditions of service.
4. The respondent appeared in person and supported the impugned judgment.
5. We have considered the contentions of the parties and minutely perused the material available on record. It appears from the record that the summary was approved by the then Chief Minister for protection of seniority d fixation of pay of the respondent in BS‑19 w.e.f. 28‑8‑1991 i.e. the date when respondent's junior was promoted, therefore, the respondent is entitled all the benefits arising therefrom. In our humble opinion, the learned High Court has already dealt with each and every aspect of the case, and it would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:‑‑ "Having heard the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General Sindh and having gone through the record it appears, as has indeed been acknowledged by the learned A.A. -G that the summary was approved by the then Chief Minister for protection of seniority and fixation of pay of the petitioner in BS‑19 w.e.f. 28‑8‑1991 i.e. the date when his junior was promoted. It, therefore, goes without saying that he would be entitled to all the benefits arising therefrom if not already granted. At this stage it may be added that the learned A.A.‑G. attempted to argue that this matter related to the terms and conditions of service and was outside from our jurisdiction but we are of the opinion that since no order of the Government is being called in question and only an obligation to perform its duties to pass orders within a reasonable time is being invoked, this Court has jurisdiction to grant redress".
6. The impugned judgment is based on sound, valid, legal grounds and in accordance with the law laid down by this Court. We do not find misreading, non‑reading of material placed before the Court. Furthermore, there is no misconstruction of facts and law. The question of general public importance is also not involved in this matter.
7. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./P‑74/S Petition dismissed.