2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus D.H.O. VEHARI
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Mian Hamid Farooq and Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus D.H.O. VEHARI |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 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 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Mian Hamid Farooq and Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus D.H.O. VEHARI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iqbal Hussain Pawar Hajwari and Muhammad Zawar Shah for Appellant.
- Zafarullah Khan Khakwani, A.A.-G. with Dr. Muhammad Amjad Abid, D.H.O. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th January, 2007.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 25, 199 & 212
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Appellants, who were selected and appointed as dispensers and vaccinators by Recruitment Committee on orders of District Health Officer, served the Department for more than 13 years, but their services were terminated
Appellants challenged their termination in their constitutional petition before High Court alleging that District Health Officer, who had terminated their services, had neither authority nor was competent officer to pass impugned order
High Court dismissed constitutional petition declaring that matter pertained to terms and conditions of service and bar contained in Art.212 of the Constitution was fully applicable to the case
High Court (Single Judge) had not appreciated that person who passed impugned termination order, had no authority to pass said order as he himself was a suspended person and could not be considered as competent authority
Orders passed by District Health Officer, in circumstances were void ab initio and illegal and in such circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the High Court to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction in striking down such an illegal order
Impugned orders had already been held to be illegal, not only by the Service Tribunal, but also by the Supreme Court
Exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in the matter would have been fully justified and appropriate
When services of other colleagues of appellants had already been regularized, appellants were also to be treated on the same footing and treating appellants as such was a clear violation of Art.25 of the Constitution on the part of Department and such discrimination, should have been safeguarded by the High Court by exercising its constitutional jurisdiction
Intra-Court appeal was accepted, impugned order of Single Judge of the High Court was set aside with directions to the Department to reinstate appellants in services on the same basis as other colleagues of appellants had been regularized.
Judgment & Decree
IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, J.
The instant appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 proceeds against the judgment, dated 31-5-2006, whereby the learned Single Judge in Chambers dismissed the appellants' constitutional petition (Writ Petition No.2962 of 1997) in limine.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants were selected and appointed as dispensers and vaccinators by the Recruitment Committee on the orders of the respondent No.1 District Health Officer, Vehari. Thereafter, the appellants served the Health Department for more than 13 years. The services of the appellants and others had been denotified/terminated by respondent No.1 vide his order dated 15-3-1997. The services of respondent No.1, Dr. Qamar-ud-Din Kadri, at that time were also suspended vide order, dated 26-2-1997 by the Chief Minister. It is, therefore, urged by the appellants that respondent No. 1 was neither the authority nor competent officer to pass the impugned order, dated 15-3-1997 by denotification/termination of the services of the appellants.
3. Various categories of dispensers working in various seats of the department were terminated and denotified, some of them filed Writ Petition No.1048 of 1997 and the same was later on withdrawn as they were reinstated and regularized from the date of termination and denotification. Some other dispensers filed service appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which were accepted vide judgment, dated 5-12-2001. The Department filed C.Ps. Nos.555 to 587-L of 2002 before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and the same were dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court vide judgment, dated 26-4-2002 and the judgment dated 5-12-2001 of the Service Tribunal was upheld and maintained by the Honourable Supreme Court, which had declared that the termination/denotification of other dispensers terminated through the impugned order dated 15-3-1997 being illegal and directed the respondents to reinstate the terminated employees.
4. The appellants filed Writ Petition No.2962 of 1997 and the learned Single Judge in Chambers dismissed the same vide his order, dated 31-5-2006, declaring that the matter pertains to the terms and conditions of service and bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is fully applicable to the instant case. Hence the present appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned A.A.-G. and also perused the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, order of this Court and the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court as well as the comments submitted by respondents Nos.1 and 2.
6. The learned Single Judge in Chambers did not appreciate that the person, who passed the impugned orders, had no authority as he himself was suspended on 26-2-1997, therefore, he could not be considered as the competent authority. Thus, the orders passed by respondent No.1 were void ab initio and illegal.
7. We feel that in the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the Nigh Court to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction in striking down such an illegal order. It may be noted that the said orders have already been held to be illegal not only by the Punjab Service Tribunal but also by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. To our mind, the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in these matters would have been fully justified and appropriate. Further when the other colleagues of the appellants have already been regularized, the appellants were also to be treated on the same footing. Even the comments submitted by respondents Nos.1 and 2 also support the claim of the appellants. It was a clear violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 on the part of the Department and such discrimination should be safeguarded by this Court by exercising its constitutional jurisdiction.
8. In view of the above circumstances, this I.C.A. is accepted and the impugned order dated 31-5-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellants in service on the same basis as other colleagues of the appellants have been reinstated. H.B.T./M-31/L I.C. Appeal accepted.