IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Present:

Irshad Ali Shah, J.

Agha Faisal, J.

CP D116 of 2021                 :           Ghulam Qadir Khuhawar vs.

Federation of Pakistan & others

For the Petitioner                 :           Mr. Zubair Ahmed Khuhawar, Advocate

For the Respondents          :           Mr.Muhammad Imran Abbasi, Assistant

Attorney General for Pakistan.

Dates of hearing                  :           10.03.2022

Date of announcement      :           10.03.2022

ORDER

Agha Faisal, J.         (1) Granted; subject to all just exceptions. (2) The petitioner, being an employee of respondent No.2company, has filed this petition with respect to the terms and conditions of his service.  On the last date of hearing, counsel was specifically asked as to whether the subject respondent company had any statutory rules, so as to warrant interference in service matters by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.  Learned counsel had sought time in such regard and today it was submitted that the respondent company was devoid of any statutory rules of service. It is a general principle of law that in the absence of statutory rules of service a writ petition ought not to be entertained[1] in service matters. Since the petitioner’s counsel has admitted the absence of statutory rules of service, therefore, no further deliberation is merited in such regard.Numerous pronouncements[2] of Division benches of this Court have declined writ jurisdiction on account of the manifest absence of statutory rules. In the Araincase, Gulzar Ahmed J observed that in the absence of statutory rules, service was to be governed by the rule of master and servant and that recourse to remedy may be had before the civil courts. The law enunciated remains binding precedent in view of the Multiline[3]principles. In view hereof, this petition is found to be misconceived, hence, hereby dismissed in limine.

                                                                   JUDGE

JUDGE

---

[1]2021 SCMR 609 (SSGC case); 2019 SCMR 278 (PALPA case); PLD 2010 Supreme Court 676 (PIAC case).

[2]Jamil Ahmed Arain vs. Pakistan (CP D 1557 of 2009) Judgment dated 20.09.2011 and the order in review dated 24.10.2012 (“Arain”).

[3]Multiline Associates vs. ArdeshirCowasjee reported as 1995 SCMR 362.