2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
N/A
| Citation | 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Javed Iqbal, Raja Fayyaz Ahmad, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Javed Iqbal, Raja Fayyaz Ahmad, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Moulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, Attorney-General for Pakistan, Dr. Salahuddin Mengal, A.-G. Balochistan, Asadullah Chamkani, A.-G. KPK, Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, Additional A.-G., KPK, Ghulam Dastgir, Chief Secretary KPK, Khawaja Haris Ahmed, A.-G. Punjab, Ch. Khadim Hussain Qaiser, Additional A.-G. Punjab, Nasir Khosa, Chief Secretary, Punjab, Abdul Fateh Malik, A.-G. Sindh, Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record, Ghulam Nabi Shah, Secretary Law, Iqbal Ahmed Durrani, Secy. S&G, Sindh, Muhammad Tayyab, Additional Secy. S&GAD and Tariq Pirzada, Commissioner, ICT on Court Notice.
- Khurram Latif Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Former Minister Religious Affairs.
- Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Abdur Rauf Chaudhry, Estt. Secretary, Khalid Akhlaq Gillani, Additional Secy., M. Ijaz Ghani, Dy. Secy. and Muhammad Arshad, Dy. Secy. for Establishment Division.
- M. Ikram Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.M.A. No.218 of 2011).
- 2. In response to notice, the Advocates-General of all the Provinces have submitted details of the persons who have been re -employed on contract after superannuation. They are directed to deliver copy of the same to the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan who shall assist the Court. The Commissioner ICT has stated that no one is performing duties on contract in the ICT.
- 3. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court stated that on having received notice along with the order dated 7-3-2011, it has become necessary to submit reply on behalf of the Federation, as according to his version, the scope of re-employment on contract basis has been enlarged by applying Article 9 of the Constitution, which deals with a Fundamental Right of a person. We pointed out to him that the Government of Pakistan was required initially to look into the cases of the officers of the Disciplinary Forces, like Police and FIA who have been re-employed on contract for different periods after superannuation, including DG FIA. But despite repeated observations of this Court except removing/terminating the contract of some of the members of the Disciplinary Forces (Police etc.) including Provincial Police Officer Sindh and others, no further progress has been made. Mr. Wasim Ahmed, DG FIA is still continuing against the same post although, without prejudice to his case on merits, this Court has made observations against him from time to time regarding poor investigation of the case. While other members of the Disciplinary Forces have been removed, his retention, prima facie, seems to be discriminatory, i.e. against the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution because if all of them were serving on contract basis and according to the stand of the Federal Government, they were performing duties to the satisfaction, their services have been terminated but DG FIA, who is also a similarly placed person is continuing in office. He stated that according to the instructions conveyed to him by the Secretary Establishment, who is one of the members of the Committee constituted by the competent authority to examine such cases, his services are required in connection with some national security matters. When we inquired from Secretary Establishment about the basis of the same, he stated that the Secretary Interior had produced some material in the meeting, which was with him, therefore, Secretary Interior was asked to produce the same before the Court, who produced a document and claimed it to be a classified one. We have seen the document and returned the same by putting signature of the Court Associate on one of the copies thereof.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 25 & 184(3)
Employment on contract after superannuation
Disciplinary Force
Supreme Court, in a matter under suo motu jurisdiction, had made observations against a functionary employed in disciplinary force, on contract after superannuation, regarding poor investigation of the case
While other such members of the said Force had been removed, retention of specified functionary, prima facie, seemed to be discriminatory i.e. against the provisions of Art. 25 of the Constitution, because if all of them were serving on contract basis and according to the authorities they were performing duties to the satisfaction, their services had been terminated but the specified functionary who was also a similarly placed person was continuing in office. Moulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, Attorney-General for Pakistan, Dr. Salahuddin Mengal, A.-G. Balochistan, Asadullah Chamkani, A.-G. KPK, Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, Additional A.-G., KPK, Ghulam Dastgir, Chief Secretary KPK, Khawaja Haris Ahmed, A.-G. Punjab, Ch. Khadim Hussain Qaiser, Additional A.-G. Punjab, Nasir Khosa, Chief Secretary, Punjab, Abdul Fateh Malik, A.-G. Sindh, Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record, Ghulam Nabi Shah, Secretary Law, Iqbal Ahmed Durrani, Secy. S&G, Sindh, Muhammad Tayyab, Additional Secy. S&GAD and Tariq Pirzada, Commissioner, ICT on Court Notice. Nemo for Members of Committee of Parliamentarians. Nemo for Former Minister S&T. Khurram Latif Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Former Minister Religious Affairs. Shahzad Ahmed, JS Admn. (on behalf of Secretary) for M/o Religious Affairs. Nemo for Former Secretary Religious Affairs. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Abdur Rauf Chaudhry, Estt. Secretary, Khalid Akhlaq Gillani, Additional Secy., M. Ijaz Ghani, Dy. Secy. and Muhammad Arshad, Dy. Secy. for Establishment Division. Fauzi Zafar, ADPGA for NAB. Syed Jawed Ali Bukhari, Additional D.-G., Incharge Investigation, Hussain Asghar, Director, M. Azam Khan, Director (Law), Khalid Rasool, Dy. Director, FIA, Khalid Naeem, AD, FIA, Niamat Ali, AD, FIA, Liaqat Ali, S.-I. Police with Rao Shakeel, former D.-G. Hajj (in custody) for FIA. M. Ikram Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.M.A. No.218 of 2011). Nemo for Tour Operators.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
Mr. Jawed Bukhari, Additional Director-General, FIA has submitted report and stated that significant progress has been made in the investigation of the case on the basis of which further incriminating material is being collected to ascertain the involvement of the persons in the commission of offence. However, it has been pointed out to him that he has to conduct investigation independently and he should make all out efforts to bring the culprits to book, whosoever they may be, and at the same time pace of the investigation should also be accelerated by collecting evidence as early as possible.
2. In response to notice, the Advocates-General of all the Provinces have submitted details of the persons who have been re -employed on contract after superannuation. They are directed to deliver copy of the same to the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan who shall assist the Court. The Commissioner ICT has stated that no one is performing duties on contract in the ICT.
3. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court stated that on having received notice along with the order dated 7-3-2011, it has become necessary to submit reply on behalf of the Federation, as according to his version, the scope of re-employment on contract basis has been enlarged by applying Article 9 of the Constitution, which deals with a Fundamental Right of a person. We pointed out to him that the Government of Pakistan was required initially to look into the cases of the officers of the Disciplinary Forces, like Police and FIA who have been re-employed on contract for different periods after superannuation, including DG FIA. But despite repeated observations of this Court except removing/terminating the contract of some of the members of the Disciplinary Forces (Police etc.) including Provincial Police Officer Sindh and others, no further progress has been made. Mr. Wasim Ahmed, DG FIA is still continuing against the same post although, without prejudice to his case on merits, this Court has made observations against him from time to time regarding poor investigation of the case. While other members of the Disciplinary Forces have been removed, his retention, prima facie, seems to be discriminatory, i.e. against the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution because if all of them were serving on contract basis and according to the stand of the Federal Government, they were performing duties to the satisfaction, their services have been terminated but DG FIA, who is also a similarly placed person is continuing in office. He stated that according to the instructions conveyed to him by the Secretary Establishment, who is one of the members of the Committee constituted by the competent authority to examine such cases, his services are required in connection with some national security matters. When we inquired from Secretary Establishment about the basis of the same, he stated that the Secretary Interior had produced some material in the meeting, which was with him, therefore, Secretary Interior was asked to produce the same before the Court, who produced a document and claimed it to be a classified one. We have seen the document and returned the same by putting signature of the Court Associate on one of the copies thereof.
4. The learned counsel further stated that today case may be adjourned, enabling him to have some time to file reply and make submission in response to the order dated 7-3-2011 because 47 other employees whose list has been filed are working on contract basis in 22 Ministries whereas in pursuance of order dated 7-3-2011, no information has been received so far from the remaining 24 Ministries and in the meanwhile the Secretary Establishment shall collect such information from them as well.
5. In view of the request made by the learned counsel, case is postponed to 16-3-2011. Notice in the meanwhile be also issued to Attorney-General for Pakistan as the question of interpretation of the constitutional provision in this case may be involved. M.A.K./S-9/SC Order accordingly.