1976 PLP 73 (SCMR)
Maulvi GHULAM RASOOL‑Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, SIND AND ANOTHER ‑Respondents
| Citation | 1976 PLP 73 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑ S. 5 read with S. 21 (1) (d)‑Pesh Imam of mosque appointed afresh on mosque being taken over by Auqaf Department and petitioner Posh Imam informed of his service being temporary and terminable on one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof and petitioner appearing to have accepted such condition‑Contention that since petitioner had been Pesh Imam of mosque continuously for about 22 years he had acquired status of permanency, held, misconceived‑Petitioner's service with Auqaf Department being new engagement and purely temporary and there being nothing to show that his previous employment was on permanent basis, petition dismissed.‑Civil services |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Maulvi GHULAM RASOOL‑Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, SIND AND ANOTHER ‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 73 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 73 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑ S. 5 read with S. 21 (1) (d)‑Pesh Imam of mosque appointed afresh on mosque being taken over by Auqaf Department and petitioner Posh Imam informed of his service being temporary and terminable on one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof and petitioner appearing to have accepted such condition‑Contention that since petitioner had been Pesh Imam of mosque continuously for about 22 years he had acquired status of permanency, held, misconceived‑Petitioner's service with Auqaf Department being new engagement and purely temporary and there being nothing to show that his previous employment was on permanent basis, petition dismissed.‑Civil services bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 73 (SCMR) (Maulvi GHULAM RASOOL‑Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, SIND AND ANOTHER ‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents. _
- Date of hearing : 24th October 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan dated 27‑5‑1975 in Writ Petition No. 284 of 1975). West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance (XXVIII of 1961)‑ ‑‑‑ S. 5 read with S. 21 (1) (d)‑Pesh Imam of mosque appointed afresh on mosque being taken over by Auqaf Department and petitioner Posh Imam informed of his service being temporary and terminable on one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof and petitioner appearing to have accepted such condition‑Contention that since petitioner had been Pesh Imam of mosque continuously for about 22 years he had acquired status of permanency, held, misconceived‑Petitioner's service with Auqaf Department being new engagement and purely temporary and there being nothing to show that his previous employment was on permanent basis, petition dismissed.‑[Civil services] Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑‑‑‑The petitioner was employed as Khatib and Pesh Imam, as from 1952 by a religious society registered under the Registration of Societies Act 18(61. for Masjid Lobar to Larkana. The Masjid, it appears, was taken over by Auqaf Department and the Administrator 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 month's pay shall be paid." It appears that the petitioner accepted this condition. Later the Administrator by a letter issued to him terminated the 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 call in question the legality of the order. He also complained that he has no‑ 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 employ ment with the Auqaf Department, his service was purely temporary terminable on one month's notice. The petitioner who appeared in person however, submitted that he has been Khatib and Pesh Imam of the mosque continuously, from 1952 ands therefore had acquired the status of permanency. This is plainly misconceived. As rightly pointed 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's previous employment with the Society was or permanent basis. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.