Summary: joining, seniority and qualification

Summary: The petitioners have called in question, their suspension from the service order dated 01.04.2020 and subsequent order dated 18.08.2020, whereby their reinstatement in service order dated 22.7.2020 was cancelled/withdrawn by the respondent-Secretary, Health Department, Government of Sindh.

Summary: The petitioner challenged an office order issued by HESCO, which imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner. The petitioner's lawyer argued that the order was based on malafide intentions and lacked legal justification. The petitioner claimed that he replied to a show cause notice but was penalized without a proper inquiry. The court addressed the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. It discussed the nature of HESCO as a state enterprise and whether it can be considered a "person" under Article 199 for judicial review. The court determined that HESCO can be regarded as a "person" for the purpose of judicial review. The court examined the merits of the case and found that the petitioner had been charged with poor performance, which did not necessarily fall within the category of misconduct as defined in the relevant rules. The court noted that the punishment of compulsory retirement without a proper inquiry was harsh, especially considering that the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation. As a result, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the competent authority to re-calculate the petitioner's pension benefits and other entitlements as per the law. The court ordered the payment of these benefits to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of the order.

Summary: Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)--- [ Act, 2005 (Sections 3, 4, 7 & 8)]----Ss. 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 10A---Illegal dispossession---"Offender" as defined in S.3, Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Scope--- Dismissal of complaint---Petitioner, who was tenant in shop in question, was forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed by the landlords on the pretext that petitioner had not paid utility bills of the shop in question---Respondents after dispossessing the petitioner, locked the shop---Trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner against his illegal and unlawful dispossession, without even going for the trial simply on the ground that petitioner did not fall within the definition of offender as given in S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Trial Court while passing impugned order failed to assign any reason---If respondents were of the view that, the petitioner was guilty of non-payment of utility bills of the shop, they were not supposed to take law in their hands---Respondents could file case for ejectment of the petitioner/tenant in terms of S.15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, but, instead they chose to apply force to dispossess the petitioner---Petitioner, was deprived of fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Arts.4 & 10-A of the Constitution---Order passed by Trial Court, was set aside and case was remitted, with directions that complaint filed by the petitioner, be disposed of after framing charge, and recording evidence of all the parties, mentioned in the Police report or any other witness, that parties could choose to bring in support of their case---Pending proceedings, possession of shop in question should be handed over to the petitioner, in circumstances.

Summary: [Amenity Plot (Conversion of amenity plot into Residential / commercial)] The property in question being a public amenity cannot be encroached upon and as per the dicta laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, an area earmarked and reserved for an amenity like Massan/Graveyard and Aasaish, cannot be used for any other purposes

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC (Territorial Jurisdiction)] Territorial jurisdiction of Sindh High Court was questioned by Defendant, primarily on the ground that Defendant-Company has been shifted from Karachi to Lahore, therefore, a foreign company / Plaintiff cannot enforce an International Arbitral Award by filing a suit in Sindh High Court. The crucial documentary evidence shows that when the suit proceeding was filed for enforcement of the Award under Section 6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, the Defendant had its registered office in Karachi and even Annual Report of the Company also shows that the Management notice for convening the Annual General Meeting was also to be held at Karachi. Consequently, it has been held, that Sindh High Court has jurisdiction in the matter.

Summary: Constitutional Petition No. D-3238 of 2013 involves the petitioner, Ghulam Ali Gopang, who sought appointment as an Inspector in the Sindh Police under the "Shaheed Quota," following the death of his brother, Sher Muhammad Gopang, a police inspector who was killed in the line of duty in 2006. The petitioner argued that he was eligible for the position based on various government notifications and standing orders that allow for appointments under the Shaheed Quota, without needing to go through the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC).However, the respondents, representing the government, contended that appointments to the positions of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) or Inspector must be made through a competitive process conducted by the SPSC, and no such posts under the Shaheed Quota had been advertised or requisitioned by the Police Department.The court examined relevant laws, including Section 12 of the Police Act 1861, Section 7 (3) of Police Order 2002, and the Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act, 2014, to determine the legality of the petitioner's claim. The judgment highlighted that standing orders issued by the Inspector General of Police without the approval of the Provincial Government have been declared to have no legal sanctity by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in previous cases. Moreover, the court found that the petitioner had not been assessed or declared a successful candidate by the SPSC and thus could not claim the right to an appointment letter for the ASI post under the Shaheed Quota.Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for the post of ASI as provided under the Police Rules 1934 and that the respondents could not circumvent the law to make appointments in the Police Department against the Shaheed quota without a competitive process. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal and procedural requirements for such appointments.

Summary: Enforcement of Board Resolution of Karachi Dock Labor Board

Summary: The petitioners' main arguments were that their termination was without jurisdiction and against the law. They sought to declare the termination order as unlawful and requested reinstatement. The petitioners were appointed as Lecturers at the university but were suspended and eventually terminated due to alleged unsatisfactory performance during their probationary period. The court analyzed various aspects of the case, including the terms of appointment, the absence of specific statutory rules, the jurisdiction of the court, and the procedure for termination during probationary periods. The court held that the petitioners' termination, based on unsatisfactory performance during their probation, did not amount to dismissal or removal and was in accordance with the terms of their appointment. The court also highlighted that in the absence of statutory rules and considering the nature of the termination, the petitioners did not have a valid cause to invoke the jurisdiction of the court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The court referred to relevant case law and concluded that the petition was not maintainable, ultimately dismissing the petition.

Summary: Service Matter; mere fact that petitioners were selected for appointment to vacancies, pursuant to an advertisement did not confer any right to be appointed to the post in question or to entitle the selectees to a writ of mandamus or any other writ compelling the authority to make the appointmentEven if an appointment order has been issued, and subsequently, it transpires that there is some irregularity or the same has been issued in contravention of the rules or the advertisement, the same also does not create any vested right and can always be revoked.