1976 PLP 381 (SCMR)
Moulvi GHULAM RASOOL‑Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF, SIND AND ANOTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1976 PLP 381 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑ Re‑instatement‑specific performance‑Petitioner employed as Kharib arid Pesh Imam by a Registered Society for a mosque but mosque subsequently taken over by Auqaf Department and petitioner appointed as Pesh Imam of mosque by such department on purely temporary basis liable to removal on one month's notice‑ Petitioner' services terminated and one month's salary paid in lieu of notice‑Contention that petitioner having been continuously employed as Kharib and Pesh Imam for the last 22 years he acquired status of permanency held, misconceived ‑Petitioners service with Auqaf Department being a new engagement on purely temporary basis, he could be removed according to terms of his engagement particularly when there was nothing to show that his previous employment was a permanent basis.‑Specific performance. |
| Bench Members | Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Gul, JJ |
| Parties | Moulvi GHULAM RASOOL‑Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF, SIND AND ANOTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Master and Servant --‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 381 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Master and Servant --‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 381 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑ Re‑instatement‑specific performance‑Petitioner employed as Kharib arid Pesh Imam by a Registered Society for a mosque but mosque subsequently taken over by Auqaf Department and petitioner appointed as Pesh Imam of mosque by such department on purely temporary basis liable to removal on one month's notice‑ Petitioner' services terminated and one month's salary paid in lieu of notice‑Contention that petitioner having been continuously employed as Kharib and Pesh Imam for the last 22 years he acquired status of permanency held, misconceived ‑Petitioners service with Auqaf Department being a new engagement on purely temporary basis, he could be removed according to terms of his engagement particularly when there was nothing to show that his previous employment was a permanent basis.‑Specific performance. bench comprising: Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Gul, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 381 (SCMR) (Moulvi GHULAM RASOOL‑Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF, SIND AND ANOTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing.: 24th October 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sindh Baluchistan dated 27‑5‑1975. in Writ Petition No. 284 of 1975). ‑‑‑ Re‑instatement‑specific performance‑Petitioner employed as Kharib arid Pesh Imam by a Registered Society for a mosque but mosque subsequently taken over by Auqaf Department and petitioner appointed as Pesh Imam of mosque by such department on purely temporary basis liable to removal on one month's notice‑ Petitioner' services terminated and one month's salary paid in lieu of notice‑Contention that petitioner having been continuously employed as Kharib and Pesh Imam for the last 22 years he acquired status of permanency held, misconceived ‑Petitioners service with Auqaf Department being a new engagement on purely temporary basis, he could be removed according to terms of his engagement particularly when there was nothing to show that his previous employment was a permanent basis.‑[Specific performance]. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑‑The petitioner was employed a Kharib and Posh imam, as from 1952 by a religious society registered under the Registration of Societies Act 1860, for Masjid Lobar in Larkana. The Masjid. It appeals, was taken over by Auqaf Department and the Adminis trator issued to the petitioner a fresh letter of appointment on 18‑11‑1969 informing him that his future service will be "purely temporary and his services may be terminated on one month's notice or in lieu thereof one month's pay shall be paid." It appears that the petitioner accepted this condition. Later the Administrator by a letter issued to him terminated petitioner's appointment with effect from 1‑7‑1974 and informed him that in lieu of one month's notice he shall be paid salary for a month. Aggrieved by the above order the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 294 of 1975 in the High Court at Karachi to case. In question the legality of the order. He also complained that he has of so far been paid one month's salary in lieu of the notice. The High Court, however, dismissed his writ petition in limine on the short ground that under the terms of his employment with the Auqaf Department, his service wag purely temporary terminable on one month's notice. The petitioner who appeared in person, however, submitted that he had been Kharib and Pesh Imam of the mosque continuously from 1952 and, therefore, had acquired the status of permanency. This is plainly misconceived. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, the petitioner's service with the Auqaf Department was new engagement which was on purely temporary basis. Moreover, there is nothing whatever to show that the petitioner' previous employment with Society was on permanent basis. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.