2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ADMINISTRATOR, DISTRICT COUNCIL, LARKANA and another Versus GHULAB KHAN and 5 others
| Citation | 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwan Das and Javed Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ADMINISTRATOR, DISTRICT COUNCIL, LARKANA and another Versus GHULAB KHAN and 5 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwan Das and Javed Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ADMINISTRATOR, DISTRICT COUNCIL, LARKANA and another Versus GHULAB KHAN and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmedullah Faruqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th July, 2000
- 2. Heard Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court who mainly contended that the High Court had absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain the petition to determine the question of their salary being related to the terms and conditions of their employment in view of the bar imposed under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is also contended that due to financial constraints it was beyond the competency of the Government to make payment of salaries which otherwise was not permissible.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 10‑3‑2000 of the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Larkana, passed in C.P. No.D‑24 of 2000). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition before High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution‑‑‑Salaries of employees, withholding of‑‑‑High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, directed the Authorities .to pay the salaries of the employees‑‑Contention by the Authroities was that the appointments of employees was illegal and made in violation of relevant recruitment rules‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Salaries could not be withheld on such ground‑‑‑Action should have been initiated against those who were sitting at the helm of affairs for such irregularities‑‑‑Employees could not be held responsible for the same‑‑‑Where substantial justice had been done, the same could not be disturbed on mere technicalities‑‑‑Direction to withhold the salaries of the employees suffered from inherent vice, same was void ab initio and could not be given effect to‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. (b) Administration of justice‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Legal formalities‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Principal object behind all such formalities is to safeguard the paramount interest of justice‑‑‑Legal precepts are devised with a view to impart certainty, consistency and uniformity to, the administration of justice and to secure same against arbitrariness, errors of individual judgment and mala fides. 2000 SCMR 556 ref.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against order dated 10‑3‑2000 passed by learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Larkana, with the direction that payment of salaries be made to the petitioners w.e.f. 1‑7‑1998 till the date of termination of their services which were terminated on the pretext that their employment was not lawful.
2. Heard Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court who mainly contended that the High Court had absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain the petition to determine the question of their salary being related to the terms and conditions of their employment in view of the bar imposed under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is also contended that due to financial constraints it was beyond the competency of the Government to make payment of salaries which otherwise was not permissible.
3. We have not been persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that due to financial crises the requisite amount could not be. paid as it would not be a valid ground to deprive the respondents from their salaries who are low‑paid employees and their services have already been terminated. In our considered opinion their salaries cannot be withheld on the ground that their appointment was illegal being made in violation of the relevant recruitment rules and in fact action should have been initiated against those who are sitting the helm of affairs for such irregularities. The respondents cannot be held responsible in any manner whatsoever. In our view substantial justice has been done vide impugned order which cannot be disturbed on mere technicalities. The direction to withhold their salaries in fact suffers from inherent vice, it is void ab initio and cannot be given effect to. It is well‑settled by now that the "Principal object behind all legal formalities is to safeguard the paramount interest of justice‑‑‑Legal precepts were devised with a view to impart certainty, consistency and uniformity to the administration of justice and to secure same against arbitrariness, errors of individual judgment and mala fides." (2060 SCMR 556 at 561‑C).
4. In these circumstances we find absolutely no substance in this leave petition which is accordingly dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑130/S??????? Petition dismissed.