ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Constt. Petition No.D-864 of 2010
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
Present:
Mr. Justice Nadeem
Akhtar, &
Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
1. For katcha peshi
2. For hearing of CMA No.3500/2010(rule 5)
Date of
hearing 29-11-2017
Mr. Ali Raza
Balouch, Advocate fore the petitioner
Mr.
Muhammad Aslam Jatoi, Assistant Attorney General
Mr.
Ghulam Hassan Law Officer of NADRA
.-.-.-. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
O R D E R
MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J. Subject constitution petition is filed with
the prayer that the petitioner may be reinstated in service in the respondent
National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), where he was lastly
working as Assistant Manager in grade 0-6 under the five years contract
program, but vide impugned letter of
04.02.2008, his services were dispensed with, on the ground that respondent organization
was undergoing ‘rightsizing’.
Mr. Ali
Raza Balouch the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that
petitioner’s employment was illegally terminated which caused him immense
hardship. He further contended that after passage of some time many other
former employees of respondents NADRA were taken back into the service /
employment under a Reinstatement Policy dated 04.6.2009 (at page 115), but in this regard too,
petitioner has been discriminated against. He has referred to other undisputed
documents appended with the petition in order to substantiate petitioner’s plea
that he made representation to respondent No.1 Chairman NADRA, but no heed was
paid to his genuine grievance.
Mr.
Ghulam Hassan Law Officer NADRA along with Mr. Muhammad Aslam Jatoi Assistant
Attorney General representing the respondents have filed their parawise
comments and argued that no discrimination was meted out to petitioner, as his case was not covered by
the afore-mentioned Reinstatement Policy, as, inter alia, the petitioner during
his employment with respondents was
issued couple of explanation letters and warnings for ill disciplined attitude
towards work and thus his reinstatement could not be considered under paragraph
(b) of the afore-mentioned Reinstatement Policy. The respondents with their
parawise comments appended few explanation letters which were issued to the
present petitioner, in order to substantiate their defence. The learned counsel
for respondents NADRA have also relied upon his Statement dated 05.4.2017 under
which the decision dated 04.04.2017 of the respondent’s competent authority has
been placed on record, whereby the representation of present petitioner was
turned down, primarily on the ground of poor service record. It was further
argued that present petition is hit by laches as the impugned Termination Order
is of 04.2.2008 (ibid) whereas, the present petition has been filed on
22.4.2010, that is after more than two years. Lastly, the respondents side
relied upon the unreported judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court handed down in
Civil Appeals No.1252 of 2009 (Yousif Ali v/s Government of Pakistan through
Secretary Interior) and C.A. No.1132 of 2014 - Chairman NADRA and others versus Muhammad Ali Shah and others.
In
rebuttal the learned counsel representing the petitioner states that since petitioner
was agitating his grievance before the respondents, therefore, his case is not
adversely affected by principle of laches. He further argued by referring to
his rejoinder that respondents have promulgated another Policy dated 21.6.2011,
whereby the above mentioned Reinstatement Policy has been overridden.
Arguments
heard and record perused.
The
second decision (supra) is of much relevance as it pertains to present
respondents NADRA. The respondents in the referred case were contractual
employees of NADRA. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, that constitutional
jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 (of the Constitution of Pakistan) could
not be invoked by contractual employees of a statutory organization, such as
NADRA and hence the appeal of NADRA was accepted and the impugned decision in
the cited case was set aside. In the first case of Yousuf Ali, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has maintained the decision of learned Peshawar High Court, which
has dismissed the petition of employees of NADRA on the ground that the said
employees were appointed on the contract basis and their services were
terminable in the manner mentioned in their service contract.
Adverting
to the plea of petitioner about the subsequent Policy of 21.6.2011; this plea is
hardly of any assistant to him / petitioner, for the reasons that
The
upshot of the above is that present petition is devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Suleman Khan/PA