ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P. No.D-2442 of 2013.

__________________________________________________

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

__________________________________________________

1. For Katcha Peshi.

2. For hearing of Misc. No.12615/2013.

12.02.2014.

Mr. Malik Naeem Iqbal Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Moiz Ahmed, Advocate for the Respondents No.2 to 4.

Mr. Muhammad Azam Khan, advocate for the

Mr. Ainuddin Khan, D.A.G.

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

The petitioner claims that he was regularized but was not inducted as regular employee from the date of induction but regularization was made effective after two years while the services of other employee Sohail Shamsuddin were regularized with effect from the date of his induction. It was further argued that he (Sohail) was not qualified to the said post. It has been further prayed that representation submitted by the petitioner be decided in the light of dictum laid down by the apex court.

To a question raised by this court whether representation was decided or not, learned counsel firstly referred to the copy of representation which is available at page-85 and then he referred to the decision of his representation dated 29.5.2013 available at page-89. He further argued that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager with effect from 2008 while he was performing the same duties with effect from 2004. He has also pointed out Annexure-B, affidavit and rejoinder which are letter of regularization of petitioner’s service which shows that the petitioner was regularized to the post of Traffic Manager with effect from the date he was allowed regular pay scale. Even nothing has been mentioned in the order passed on representation to show that from which date the petitioner was allowed regular pay scale in terms of confirmation letter. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the Judgment reported in 1998 PLC (CS) 980 and latest Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 PLC (CS) 786 which was passed in the case of civil servants and the learned counsel argued that the principle laid down in the civil servant cases would be applicable and treated at par to the case of the petitioner. In the above judgment it has been held that the civil servant was inducted into service in BS-17, consequently he was promoted in BS-18 on current charge basis. However, at that time he was liable to be promoted, even the vacancies were available the petition for leave to appeal was converted and competent authority was directed to consider the civil servants for promotion to BS-18 with effect from the date when the vacancy accrued he was qualified for the same.

Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 referred to the parawise comments and he has argued that the petitioner was inducted as training officer and regularized at the post of Traffic Officer in BS-17 in the year 1991. He further argued that there is element of discrimination and bias against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager and it is prerogative of the competent authority to promote. The responsibility of Assistant Traffic Manager to the petitioner was given without the approval of the competent authority and it was known stop gap management made on temporary basis which the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right.

Learned counsel also referred to page-73 which is the office order relating to the promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager which shows that some officials including the petitioner were appointed as traffic officers on stop gap management. In support of his arguments he has referred 2008 SCMR 1862 in which it was held that appointment of stop gap management cannot confer any vested right.

After hearing the arguments of learned counsels, we are of the firm view that while deciding the representation all relevant facts were not considered by the appellate authority, therefore, this petition is disposed of with the directions to the Chairman of the K.P.T. to decide the representation of the petitioner filed on 09.5.2009 available at page-75 afresh and pass a speaking order after providing ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This exercise should be completed within the period of 2 months. The Chairman shall decide both the points, one is related to the regularization with effect from the date of induction and the case of promotion and its eligibility, if any.

JUDGE

Arif