Faheem and Ors (Petitioner) VS L.D.A and Ors (Respondent)

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Date Order with signature of Judge

Present

Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.

Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi.

C.P. No.D-3114 of 2016

Faheem & others ................

Petitioners

V

E R S U S

Province of Sindh & others ................ Respondents

C.P. No.D-4651 of 2016

Muhammad Bux & another ................ Petitioners

V

E R S U S

Province of Sindh & others ................ Respondents

Date of hearing 27.10.2016

Syed Nadeem ul Haq,

Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr.

Ali Asadullah Bullo,

Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

Mr.

Irfan Ali Abro,

Law Officer for the Lyari Development Authority.

Mr.

Abdul Jalil Zubedi,

A.A.G.

Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J: The petitioners through aforesaid petitions have approached this court for directions against the Respondents that after promulgation of Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, they have attained the status of regular employees. Earlier they were performing their duties on temporary basis. The details of the appointment on temporary basis of the petitioners in both the petitions are as under:-

C.P No.D-3114 of 2016

Sr No.

Name of Employee

Post/ Designation

Date of Appointment

Date of extension

Faheem s/o Abdul Rasheed

Naib Qasid

Waheed Ali s/o Mukhtar Ali Shaikh

Jr. Clerk

M. Umair s/o Muhammad Jamal

Naib Qasid

Jibran Ali Khan s/o Arshad Ali Khan

Naib Qasid

Muhammad Furqan S/o Muhammad Ayyub

Jr. Clerk

Haider Abbas s/o Syed Jaffer Ali

Khalasi

Muhammad Anwar s/o Mazar Khan

Driver

C.P No.D-4651 of 2016

Sr No.

Name of Employee

Post/ Designation

Date of Appointment

Date of extension

Muhammad Bux s/o Rasool Bux

Naib Qasid

Noor Muhammad s/o Muhammad Juma

Naib Qasid

2.Learned counsel argued that the tenure of petitioners’ temporary engagement as mentioned above do show that all petitioners were performing their duties to the best satisfaction of the Respondents and this was the reason that their contract of temporary engagement was being extended from time to time and the last contract was extended up to April, 2015 and in some cases till July, 2015 while the Act came into force in the year 2013. He further argued that some other junior employees have been considered and their services have been regularized but the petitioners have been discriminated.

3.On last date of hearing, Mr. Ali Asadullah Bullo, advocate undertook to file Vakalatnama but today again he undertakes to file the same in the office but according to the directions issued earlier, he has called the Law Officer of Lyari Development Authority (“LDA”) who is present in court.

4.The notice was issued to the Respondents in the month of May, 2016 but no comments have been filed. The Law Officers submits that on directions to the Director General, LDA, a committee has already been constituted to consider the cases of employees for regularization but in this case he submits that the petitioners are not in job which fact is clearly manifesting from the expiry of their last contract. While learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are performing their duties without salaries. Earlier in the similar circumstances, this court disposed of the C.P Nos. D-1216 and 1230 of 2013 vide order dated 26.02.2016 in which clear statement was given by the counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3 that the cases of the petitioners in said petitions will be considered by the D.G., LDA who will constitute a committee to consider the regularization in fair and transparent manner and strictly on merits.

5.The learned Law Officer of the LDA submits that the names of the petitioners will be sent to the Committee after issuing notices to the petitioners and they will also be given right of hearing before the committee members, thereafter, the committee will decide the fate of the petitioners on merits, in accordance with law.

6.In view of above, both the petitions are disposed of along with pending applications. The Respondents will consider and decide the petitioners’ regularization cases within two months and submit the compliance report to the court through MIT-II.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Aadil Arab