2011 SCMR 592 (PLP)
GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Education and Literacy Department and others — Petitioners Versus NIZAKAT ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 592 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J. and Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Education and Literacy Department and others — Petitioners Versus NIZAKAT ALI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 592 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 592 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J. and Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 592 (PLP) (GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Education and Literacy Department and others — Petitioners Versus NIZAKAT ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Mr. Abdul Fattah Malik, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh states that grievance of the petitioner only relates to the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution in view of the complete ouster contemplated under Article 212 of the Constitution. According to him non-payment of salary is one of the Terms and Conditions of service therefore, respondents could have availed their remedy before the Tribunal and the High Court may have not entertained the writ petition. However, he stated that order of the High Court has been implemented and salaries of respondents are being paid to them regularly.
- 2. As far as, objection raised by learned Additional Advocate-General Sindh with regard to jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the case under Article 199 of the Constitution pertaining to the Terms and Conditions is concerned, it seems to be valid prima facie, but in the instant case order has been implemented and it would create hardship for the respondents if any adverse order against them is passed. However, it is observed that in future the High Court may determine before entertaining such writ petitions as to whether the jurisdiction to decide such cases is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution, particularly when the matter pertains to Terms and Conditions of the employees.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 13-8-2010 passed by the High Court of Sindh Circuit Bench at Hyderabad in C.P. No. D-1012 of 2010).
Arts. 199 & 212
Constitutional petition
Matter relating to terms and conditions of civil servant
Scope of jurisdiction of High Court
High Court, before entertaining such constitutional petition, may determine as to whether jurisdiction to decide such a case was barred. Abdul Fattah Malik, Additional A.-G. Sindh along with Muhammad Ramzan Parhiyaar, EDO Education, Matiari for. Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
Mr. Abdul Fattah Malik, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh states that grievance of the petitioner only relates to the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution in view of the complete ouster contemplated under Article 212 of the Constitution. According to him non-payment of salary is one of the Terms and Conditions of service therefore, respondents could have availed their remedy before the Tribunal and the High Court may have not entertained the writ petition. However, he stated that order of the High Court has been implemented and salaries of respondents are being paid to them regularly.
2. As far as, objection raised by learned Additional Advocate-General Sindh with regard to jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the case under Article 199 of the Constitution pertaining to the Terms and Conditions is concerned, it seems to be valid prima facie, but in the instant case order has been implemented and it would create hardship for the respondents if any adverse order against them is passed. However, it is observed that in future the High Court may determine before entertaining such writ petitions as to whether the jurisdiction to decide such cases is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution, particularly when the matter pertains to Terms and Conditions of the employees. Thus with the above observations petition stands dismissed. Leave declined. M.A.K./G-1/SC Petition dismissed.