ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

H.C.A. No.279 of 2022

___________________________________________________________________ Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________________

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi

Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain

HEARING / PRIORITY CASE:

1. For order on office objection a/w reply as at ‘A’

2. For order on CMA No.2616/2022 (Exemption).

3. For hearing of main case.

4. For order on CMA No.2617/2022 (Stay).

-----------

Dated; 5^th September 2022

Mr. Taha Alizai alongwith M/s. Fawad Syed and Shaezer Azmat, Advocate for Appellant.

-*-*-*-*-*-

1. Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to comply with office objection(s) before next date of hearing.

2. Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

3&4. Instant High Court Appeal has been filed against impugned order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.10 of 2020 filed by the respondent No.1, whereby, according to learned counsel for the appellant, on a proposal submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 on the faithful date while referring to Para 6 of such proposal, the suit against the appellant has been disposed of in terms of such para, according to which, plaintiff/respondent No.1 had reached the age of superannuation, therefore, disciplinary proceedings against him stands abated and he is entitled for all pensionary benefits including the back benefits withheld on account of pending disciplinary proceedings. According to learned counsel, the counsel for the respondent No.1 has consented only to the extent of simplicitor withdrawal of the suit, however, through impugned order it appears that consent by the counsel for the appellant was related to the disposal of the suit in terms of the aforesaid proposal, which is likely to effect the pendency of the inquiry against other three employees, who have already been issued similar show-cause notices and charge-sheets as were subject matter of the Suit filed by the respondent No.1, whereas, those employees have filed separate suits, wherein, restraining orders were operating, whereby, appellants have been restrained from conducting of further inquiry, however, the subject matter has been disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Per learned counsel, the appellant will be satisfied and will not press instant High Court Appeal, provided that position of the counsel for the appellant with regard to his consent for disposal of the suit in the aforesaid terms may be clarified and the appellant may be allowed to proceed against other three employees pursuant to the inquiry pending against them in accordance with law and also to decide the issue relating to the post-retirement benefits/entitlement, if any, of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 Shahbaz Khan, which will be determined strictly in accordance with law and the prevailing rules and regulations. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of MUHAMMAD SHOAIB AHMED v. The CONTROLLER GENERAL OF ACCOUNTS, ISLAMABAD (2020 SCMR 1018).

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the record and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as referred to hereinabove, which prima facie reflects that the suit has been disposed of in view of the Proposal submitted by the counsel for the respondent, the plaintiff in the suit, and the learned counsel for appellant instant High Court Appeal appears to have shown his consent for disposal of the suit accordingly. However, it has been noted that the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the suit, has also recorded the objection of learned counsel for appellant, according to which, disposal of the suit may be made subject to condition that post-retirement benefits/entitlement, if any, of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 Shahbaz shall be determined strictly in accordance with law and the prevailing rules and regulations. It appears that contention of the appellant relating to treatment to be meted out to the respondent No.1 relating to the condition of post-retirement benefits/entitlement has also been recorded, and the right of the appellant in this regard has been protected. Accordingly, with hereinabove clarification instant High Court Appeal stands disposed of. We may further observe that disposal of the suit in the aforesaid terms in respect of the respondent No.1 will not have any adverse effect or bearing upon the disposal of other pending suits, which may be decided in accordance with law.

J U D G E

*Farhan/PS*