ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Constt: Pett: No:    1871 of 2010.

Date                          Order with signature of judge.

For Katcha Peshi.

21.04.2011.

Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Mahar, advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Azizul Haq Solangi, Asstt: A.G  a/w Mr.Ameer Ahmed Narejo, State Counsel.

Saidullah Bhayo, ADOE(M) Lakhi Shikarpur is present.

========

                        The petitioner was appointed  as Naib Qasid in District Shikarpur  by the then EDO Ghulam Shabir Khand on contract basis for a period of three years w.e.f 29.10.2007.   Subsequently,  the record of the appointments was verified  by the department and it was found that his name was not mentioned in the list of 246 employees who were appointed against sanctioned posts and therefore, in the inquiry it was held  that he was appointed without adopting recruitment process  and the rules and policy have been violated. 

                        In the parawise comments, it is stated that  the  person who has appointed the petitioner should be made liable  for the salaries of the petitioner on account of appointing the petitioner through unlawful means.   It is also stated  in the comments that  other employees  who are verified against the sanctioned posts   were given extension  whereas  no extension  was given to the petitioner as his appointment was illegal and the petitioner was terminated on 8.1.2011. The letter has been filed showing the termination of the petitioner  on 08.01.2011 which is taken on record.  It is stated that upon verification, 359 appointments were detected to be bogus as there  were  only 246 sanctioned posts  and  359 appointments were made in addition to 246 appointments.

            As the appointment  of the petitioner was not against the sanctioned post, no right, title  or interest  is created  in his favour for his permanent absorption in service who was initially appointed on contract basis without proper authorization.  However,  we are  of the view that the petitioner is entitled  for salaries  for the entire period during which he has worked uptill his termination  on 8.01.2011,  hence   he may be paid  all the remaining  salaries upto 08.01.2011.   At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner states  that the direction may be given to the department to pay the arrears  within stipulated period. Let arrears be paid within a period of three months.

            With the above observation, the petition is dismissed.

JUDGE

                                                                        JUDGE