2008 PLC 327 (PLP)
WAHEED AHMED Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others
| Citation | 2008 PLC 327 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Hafiz Tariq Nasim, J |
| Parties | WAHEED AHMED Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLC 327 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLC 327 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Hafiz Tariq Nasim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLC 327 (PLP) (WAHEED AHMED Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Petitioner.
- Qamar-uz-Zaman for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Case related to controversial facts i.e. whether petitioner performed his duties with the employer Authority from the years 1991 to 1999 and whether similarly placed persons were accommodated by the Authority for regularization of their service and petitioner was being discriminated
High Court, in the interest of justice, referred the case to the Director-General of the Authority, with a direction to depute a responsible officer to examine the contentions of the petitioner; and if it was found that his colleagues, who were at par with him had been benefited on the strength of directions of National Industrial Relations Commission, then the petitioner should not be dragged into litigation, and he should also be allowed the same benefit which was granted to the similarly placed persons.
Judgment & Decree
HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.
Petitioner submits that he was appointed as Junior Clerk through order, dated 18-7-1991 in the L.D.A. as work charge employee, however, due to continuous performance of his duties without any break he became a permanent workman. The petitioner was stopped to work in December, 1999 when the salaries were stopped to be paid to him as well as to his colleagues. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since then the petitioner is persuading for redressal of his grievance but with no result, however, his certain colleagues approached N.I.R.C. where a judgment was passed directing the L.D.A. to regularize all the employees like the petitioner but unfortunately the petitioner could not associate his colleagues before the N.I.R.C. Further submits that similarly placed persons have been accommodated by L.D.A., whereas the petitioner is singled out.
2. The learned Legal Advisor for L.D.A. submits that the petitioner was not a party to the litigation before N.I.R.C. and as such he cannot be granted the benefit, which was extended to the other employees who invoked the jurisdiction of N.I.R.C. Further submits that even at this moment there is no record available with L.D.A., which could confirm the petitioner's contention in respect of his continuous service with L.D.A. from 1991 to 1999.
3. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
4. After hearing both the parties, it transpires that practically the matter relates to controversial facts i.e. whether the petitioner performed his duties with L.D.A. from the years 1991 to 1999 and whether similarly placed persons were accommodated by the L.D.A. whereas the petitioner is being discriminated, but in the interest of justice, I am inclined to refer the matter to the Director-General, L.D.A., with a direction to depute a responsible officer who shall examine the petitioner's contentions and if it is found that his colleagues who were at par with him have been benefited on the strength of directions of N.I.R.C. then keeping in view the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court reported as Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secretary, Establishment Division 1996 SCMR 1185, the petitioner should not be dragged into litigation rather he be also allowed the same benefit, which was granted to the similarly placed persons. Disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./W-8/L Order accordingly.