IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Present:

Syed Irshad Ali Shah, J.

Agha Faisal, J.

C. P No. D-644 of 2012                :              Ghulam Mustafa & Others

vs. District Council Larkano

& Other.

For the petitioner                              :           Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri

                                                                        Advocate

For the respondent                          :           Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri    Additional Advocate General

Date of hearing                                :           02.02.2022

Date of announcement                  :           02.02.2022

ORDER

Agha Faisal, J.         The petitioners were employed on temporary basis in 1992 vide the pertinent orders, expressly stating that the appointment is merely temporary and can be terminated at any time whatsoever. Such engagement was terminated in 1994, without any demur by the petitioners. It is averred that a colleague of the petitioners was once again employed by the respondents in July 2011, hence, the petitioners were entitled to reinstatement.

2. Learned counsel was confronted with regard to the maintainability hereof and asked to demonstrate any vested rights of the petitioners to seek reinstatement, when in fact the petitioners were never aggrieved by their termination in 1994. Learned counsel remained unable to articulate any justification in such regard. The petitioners have also been unable to demonstrate any entitlement to seek reinstatement. Furthermore the reemployment of one of their colleagues by the respondents could not be demonstrated to have conferred any entitlement upon the respective petitioners.

3. In addition to the foregoing, this petition appears to be hit by laches. The un-assailed termination admittedly took place in 1994 and the delay of 18 years, in preferring the present petition, could not be explained by the petitioners' counsel. Even if the extraneous issue of the colleague's employment in 2011 is considered as the starting point, even then there is no justification for having preferred this petition one year thereafter.

4. In view of the foregoing, this petition is found to be misconceived, hence, is hereby dismissed.

JUDGE

JUDGE