ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P. No.D-3762 of 2012.

__________________________________________________

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

__________________________________________________

1. For orders on Misc. No.4835/2014.

2. For orders on C.M.A. No.11687/2013.

3. For Katcha Peshi.

07.3.2014.

Mr. Mansoorul Haq Solangi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sameer Ghazanfar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

Mr. Abdul Sadiq Tanoli, Standing Counsel.

--------------------

Through this petition, the petitioner has prayed for declaration that he is entitled to purchase the car as per service rules of the respondents which policy is in vogue. To a question raised by this court whether any policy has been submitted along with memo of petition, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that other persons who retired as General Manager from different departments have been accommodated so the petitioner should not be made victim of discrimination and he is also entitled to be treated alike. Learned counsel further argued that appeal under Rule 29 of the PIDC Service Rules was preferred on 7^th May, 2012 which has not been decided by the competent authority.

2. In the constitution petition we do not want to indulge in factual controversy or disputed question of facts, we also cannot make an inquiry whether the petitioner is entitled to purchase the car or not and what is the general policy in vogue but we can see whether he has been retired from the post of General Manager or not which can be examined through the available documents/record without any inquiry.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner attached a service certificate dated April 10, 2012 which is annexed with the rejoinder which shows that the petitioner served the respondent No.2 in a permanent cadre who was lastly held the post of General Manager (Coord.). He was relieved from service on 9^th April, 2012 and according this certificate he served at least 37 years, 09 month and 09 days to the respondent No.2. It is further stated that the petitioner was retired on the superannuation age of 60 years.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 pointed out the Memo dated 3^rd December, 2009 to show that the petitioner was given acting charge of General Manager. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out annexure-3 of the Memo. of Petition which is a Memo dated April 26, 2011 which shows that in order to revamp and rationalize the existing managerial organizational set-up approved by the Ministry of Industries and Production, the posts of Deputy General Manager/Incharge (Coord.) and Deputy General Manager/Incharge (A&P) held by the petitioner and another person have been upgraded and re-designated as General Manager (Coord.) and General Manager (A&P) in Grade-III and as a consequence the above named incumbents stood up-graded and re-designated accordingly.

5. In view of the above letter it is clear that the post was re-designated and this letter attached with the Memo. of Petition was never denied or challenged by the respondent No.2, so we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that at the time of retirement the petitioner was General Manager (Coord.) in view of up-gradation letter. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he has already been paid all benefits except the facility of purchasing car which favour/benefit has been given to all other General Managers of the same group and cadre retired from service.

6. So far as the appeal is concerned, we are of the firm view that provision of appeal does not lie for the purpose mentioned in the petition but it is only against the punishment and misconduct which is not a case here. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the Management will reconsider the case of the petitioner and he will be treated alike. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent No.2 and 3 to re-consider the case of the petitioner so that he may be allowed same retirement benefits which were granted to the other persons placed in the similar circumstances.

JUDGE