2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
BUSHRA IMRAN Versus WAPDA and others
| Citation | 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, J |
| Parties | BUSHRA IMRAN Versus WAPDA and others |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (BUSHRA IMRAN Versus WAPDA and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Muhammad Ali for Petitioner.
- Munawar Iqbal Dugal for Respondents Nos.2 and 4.
- Aurengzeb Mirza for Respondent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 18
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Grievance of petitioner, a WAPDA employee, was that the condition of qualifying departmental promotion examination imposed by WAPDA should be waived to be in line with the policy of Federal Government
Provisions of S.18, Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 had conferred exclusive authority upon WAPDA to determine the terms and conditions of service of its employees
Policy of Federal Government did not have binding effect on the terms and conditions of employees of WAPDA
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution in the present case was exercised to promote justice and taking executive measures that promoted merit and transparency
Petitioner's effort to avoid objective reassessment of candidate for promotion, therefore, did not meet with success
Constitutional petitioner was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the condition of a qualifying departmental promotion exam imposed by WAPDA should be waived in line with the policy of the Federal Government. This policy is contained in a directive dated 6-8-2003 and is sought to be enforced by the petitioner pursuant to the terms of section 3(3) of the WAPDA Act, 1958.
2. On the other hand the counsel for WAPDA has explained that the condition of a qualifying exam is meant to promote objectivity and transparency in promotions by furnishing the latest objective assessment of a candidate's merit for the consideration of the Promotion Committee. Accordingly, on that ground the respondent authorities have declined to implement the policy decision of the Government dated 6-8-2003. In this respect, the Federal Government has approved the stand of WAPDA vide letter, dated 19-1-2004 by the Cabinet Division stating that the instructions are not meant for employees of autonomous organization and only for employees of Ministries/Divisions and Attached Departments.
3. The provisions of section 18 of the WAPDA Act, 1958 confer exclusive authority upon WAPDA to determine the terms and conditions of service of its employees. The clarification given by the Federal Government exempting autonomous organizations from the directive reinforces the statutory mandate. As such, therefore, the policy of the Federal Government, dated 6-8-2003 does not having binding effect on the terms and conditions of employees of WAPDA. In any event, the writ jurisdiction is exercised to promote justice. An, executive measure that promotes merit and transparency obviously finds support from the Court. Accordingly, the petitioner's effort to avoid objective reassessment of candidates for promotion, therefore, does not meet with success. Petition dismissed. M.B.A./B-23/L Petition dismissed.