Agha Shoaib Abbas and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)

Order Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH KARACHI

Constitutional Petition No. D –527 of 2018

Before:

Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon

Agha Shoaib Abbas and 10 others Versus The Province of Sindh and 04 others

For hearing of CMA No.22890 of 2019 (Contempt)

Date of hearing & order : 15.12.2020 Syed Ali Ahmed Zaidi, advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ali Safdar Depar, AAG.

ORDER

ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J. Through the listed application, the petitioners have prayed that contempt of court proceedings may be initiated against the alleged contemnors for willful defiance of the judgment dated 11.10.2018 passed by this Court.

2.This petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 11.10.2018 with the following observations:

“14. In the light of facts and circumstances of the case discussed above the instant Petition is hereby disposed of with directions to the Competent Authority of the Respondent-department to take a fresh decision so far as the matter of the Petitioners is concerned for regularization of their service, without any discrimination, in accordance with law subject to the budgetary sanction, qualifications, and eligibility of the Petitioners and this exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of this Judgment.

15.Petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with the listed application(s).”

3.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the listed application viz. CMA No. 22890 of 2019 and perused the compliance report available on record.

4.The compliance report prima-facie suggests that the Scrutiny Committee No.1 found only seven contract employees eligible for regularization and the same were notified vide office order dated 11th March 2020. The reasons

assigned by the committee with regard to 10 petitioners except petitioner No.1 are as under:

SR. FULL NAME QUALIFICATION REQUIRED DESIGNATION AGE REMARKS

NO. AT THE TIME OF QUALIFICATION WITH

APPOINTMENT & AGE AS PER REMUNERATION

THE

ADVERTISEMENT

01.Mr. Agha Intermediate i) Graduation Editorial At the time He was not having Ahsan S/o ii) Having 3 Assistant of contract / require academic Mumtaz Ali years Rs.20,000/- appointment qualification as Shaikh experience of his age was well as experience working in Print 30 years for the post of Media. (DOB 20th Editorial Assistant

iii)25-40 years December, at the time of 1982) appointment.

Hence, not recommended for regularization.

02 Pir Shoaib Bachelor of i) Graduation Columnist- At the time Proof of relevant Ahmed S/o Arts ii) Having Contributor of contract / experience not Pir Shabbir knowledge of Rs.30,000/- appointment available on Ahmed current his age was record. Hence, not political, social 37 years recommended for & economical (DOB 12th regularization.

issues. March,

iii)Having 3 1975) years experience of working in Print Media.

iv)25-40 years 03 Faraz Intermediate i) Graduation Columnist- At the time He was not having Ahmed S/o ii) Having Contributor of contract / the required Fayyaz knowledge of Rs.30,000/- appointment academic Ahmed current his age was qualification as political, social 24 years well as experience & economical (DOB 6th for the post of issues. March 1988) Columnist &

iii)Having 3 Contributor at the years time of experience of appointment.

working in Print Hence, his case is Media. not recommended.

iv)25-40 years

04.Ms. Hina BSC (Micro i) Graduation Columnist- At the time Proof of relevant D/O Anis ur Biology) ii) Having Contributor of contract / experience not Rehman knowledge of Rs.30,000/- appointment available on current his age was record. Hence, not political, social 26 years recommended for & economical (DOB 10th regularization.

issues. November,

iii)Having 3 1986) years experience of working in Print Media.

iv)25-40 years

05.Ms. B.Ed i) Graduation Columnist- At the time Proof of relevant Mussarat ii) Having Contributor of contract / experience not Shaheen knowledge of Rs.30,000/- appointment available on D/O Hafiz current his age was record. Hence, not Gul M. political, social 37 years recommended for Memon & economical (DOB 12th regularization.

issues. April, 1975)

iii)Having 3 years experience of working in Print Media.

iv)25-40 years

06.Mr. M.A (Sindhi) i) Graduation Copy Editor At the time He is Sanaullah ii) Having 2 Rs.20,000/- of contract / recommended for Soomro S/o years appointment regularization Haji Ali experience of against the post of

Page 2 of 4

Sher working in his age was Sindhi Typist Soomro Newspapers. 38 years (BPS-08). To be

iii)25-40 years (DOB 1st adjusted against August available vacancy 1974) with the Department.

07 Syed Talha i) Matriculation Telephone Expired.

Gilani ii) Having 6 Operator Months Rs.17,000/- working experience

iii)18-30 Years 08 Sohail Intermediate i) Matriculation Telephone At the time He is Ahmed S/O ii) Having 6 Operator of contract / recommended for Abdul Months Rs.17,000/- appointment regularization Ghafoor working his age was against the post of Rajper experience 22 years Telephone

iii)18-30 Years (DOB 15th Operator (BPS- August 05). (To be 1991) adjusted against available vacancy with the Department)

09 Ghulam Primary i) Matriculation Office Boy At the time He was not having Murtaza ii) 18-30 years Rs.14,000/- of contract / the required S/O appointment academic Muhammad his age was qualification for the Amro 26 years post of Office Boy (DOB 1st at the time of January, appointment.

1986) Hence, not recommended for regularization.

10 Mr. Middle i) Literate Sanitary At the time He is Muhammad (8th Class ii) 18-30 years Worker of contract / recommended for Rafiq S/O Passed from Rs.14,000/- appointment regularization Muhammad Madressah , his age was against the post of Shoaib Landhi Area) 30 years Naib Qasid (BPS- (DOB 20th 01) May 1982) (To be adjusted against available vacancy with the Department)

5.The aforesaid compliance report submitted by alleged contemnors has been objected to by the applicants on the ground that the case of petitioners was considered vide summary dated 28.11.2018 and the same was approved for regularization of their services, thus their case ought not to have been reopened by the respondents as a vested right created in their favour; that the stance of respondents has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2020. Accordingly, floating the fresh summary is contradictory to the orders passed by this Court and as such of no legal effect. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to paragraph 7 of the objections and argued that the cases of petitioners have been wrongly rejected due to lack of academic qualification and work experience. Learned counsel further argued that the Scrutiny Committee is not authorized to reassess the eligibility under Section 3 of the Act 2013. He further pointed out that the exercise conducted pursuant to a fresh summary dated 16.1.2020 is contrary to the order dated 21.1.2020. He prayed for drastic action against alleged contemnors.

Page 3 of 4

6.Primarily substantial compliance of the judgment passed by this Court has been made. Prima-facie, the question of not considering some of the petitioners in the regularization process cannot be decided in contempt proceedings, which is a separate cause of action and it is for the aggrieved petitioners to avail their remedy as provided under the law against the purported action on the part of respondents, if any, for the reasons that the respondent-department was directed to take a fresh decision for regularization of their service, without any discrimination, in accordance with law subject to the budgetary sanction, qualifications, and eligibility of the petitioners, which compliance report has now been submitted. Prima-facie the reasons assigned in the aforesaid report cannot be dilated upon for and against in contempt proceedings.

7.In view of the above the listed application stands disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Shahzad*

Page 4 of 4