ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

                             C.P.No.D-  2305  of   2017

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

                                                        Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh.

                                                        Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio.

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For orders on MA 8557/2017.

3. For Katcha Peshi.

13.07.2017.

Mr. Ghulam Abbas Dalwani, Advocate for petitioner.

O R D E R

KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH,J:      This matter involving the question of payment of salary to the petitioner pertains to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant and in such view of the matter, on the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner was put on notice to satisfy the court as to the maintainability of this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the petitioner being a poor low paid government servant, could not afford to agitate his matter before the Service Tribunal at Karachi, hence, he has filed this petition before this court.

2.       Admittedly, the petitioner is a government servant and the subject matter relating to the payment of salaries pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant being barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 cannot be gone into the constitutional petition under Article 199 (ibid). In case of GOVERNMENT OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY EDUCATION & LITEEACY DEPARTMENT & OTHERS V/S NIZAKAT ALI & OTHERS (2001 SCMR 592), the Hon’able Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:-

“2. As far as, objection raised by learned Additional Advocate General Sindh with regard to jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the case under Article 199 of the Constitution pertaining to the terms and conditions is concerned, it seems to be valid prima facie, but in the instant case order has been implemented and it would create hardship for the Respondents if any adverse order against them is passed. However, it is observed that in future the High Court may determine before entertaining such writ petitions as to whether the jurisdiction to decide such cases is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution, particularly when the matter pertains to Terms and Conditions of the employees.”

3.       In view of the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that this petition being mis-conceived is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition being not maintainable is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs, alongwith the pending application.  

                                                                                      JUDGE

                                                          JUDGE