2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Syed NASIR ABBAS ABIDI Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY and another
| Citation | 2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ |
| Parties | Syed NASIR ABBAS ABIDI Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY and another |
| Primary Law | Service Rules of Employees of Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, 2008 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Rules of Employees of Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, 2008 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Syed NASIR ABBAS ABIDI Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ehsanullah for Petitioner.
- Malik Naeem Iqbal and Talha Abbasi for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 8 (b) (i)
Employee of Pakistan Defence Housing Authority
Services, dispensing of
Powers
Grievance of the petitioner, who was holding contract position of UDC in the Pakistan Defence Housing Authority (PDHA), was that his services were wrongly dispensed with
At the time services of the petitioner were dispensed with through the impugned letter, R. 8b(i) of Service Rules of Employees of Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, 2008 was in field ; which Rule reads that the Administrator may dispense with the services of an employee by giving him one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof
Similarly, an employee may resign from service by giving one month's notice by paying one month's pay in lieu thereof
Thus, the services of the petitioner were legally dispensed with under R. 8(b)(i) of the Service Rules for Employees of PDOHA-2008
No illegality in the dispensment of the services of the petitioner was found
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Mrs. Itrat Sajjad Khan and others 2017 SCMR 2010 and C.P. No.D-838 of 2014 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA, J.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was holding contract position of UDC in the Pakistan Defence Housing Authority ('PDHA') and his services were dispensed with on 08th July, 2011 under Rule 8b(i) of Service Rules of Employees of Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority-2008 (`PDOHA-2008`), with one month pay in lieu of one month notice period in writing (the impugned letter) and he now seeks re-instatement as according to him the impugned letter was passed without lawful authority.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. It is noted that the petitioner s services were dispensed with on 08th July, 2011. At that time, the service rules of employees of PDOHA-2008 and in particular Rule 8 (b) (i) thereof was in the field.
4. Rule 8b(i) of Service Rules of Employees of PDOHA-2008 is reproduced below for ease of reference: b. Rules for Governing Termination / Dismissal/Resignation (1) The Administrator may dispense with the services of an employee by giving him one month s notice or one month s pay in lieu thereof. Similarly, an employee may resign from service by giving one month s notice by paying one month s pay in lieu thereof.
5. We find that the services of the petitioner were legally dispensed with under Rule 8(b)(i) of the Service Rules for Employees of PDOHA, 2008, which was in the field at the time his services were dispensed with through the impugned letter which does not suffice from any legal infirmity.
6. Accordingly, we find no illegality in the dispensment of the services of the petitioner. We note that the petitioner has relied upon the case of Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Mrs. Itrat Sajjad Khan and others (2017 SCMR 2010) and unreported judgment dated 22.01.2020 passed in C.P. No.D-838 of 2014; however, both judgments do not have retrospective effect, therefore, will not be helpful to him as the services of the petitioner were dispensed with under the Rule 8 (b) (i) (ibid) which also in the field at the time of his services being dispensed with. The petition stands dismissed along with pending application(s). MQ/N-43/Sindh Petition dismissed.