ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

HYDERABAD.

C.P. D – 653 of 2010.

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

23.04.2015.

FOR KATCHA PESHI.

Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. S. Tariq Ahmed Shah, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Addl. A.G. Sindh.

The case of the petitioners is that they were employed on temporary/contract basis by the respondent No.4. However, on 4^th May of 2010 the petitioners were called in the office of the D.C.O. and they were verbally ordered that under the instructions of Provincial Government they are no more required and were removed from service in the month of June 2010. It is also the case of the petitioners that while terminating their service contracts no show cause notice was issued but they were verbally terminated from the jobs. Prior to their termination they had time and again approached the respondents for the regularization of their service contracts. Against their termination they also submitted a representation to respondents No.1 and 2 but no action was taken and their representation which is pending.

The learned counsel argued that the petitioners have been deprived from their jobs which is their fundamental right. It is further argued that at the time of termination no allegation of any misconduct was leveled nor any stigma or inefficiency in performance of the duties but all the petitioners were ousted by an unlawful verbal termination order. Different appointment letters are on record which were issued in the year 2005 to 2010 to different petitioners some of them were appointed on probationary period for one year while there are also appointment letters available to show three months probationary period with the caution that if the work is found unsatisfactory during probationary period their services will be dispensed with without any notice.

In the parawise comments of the respondent No.1 it is stated that the petitioners were appointed for the period of three months or for one year on contract/daily wages basis and their jobs were temporary in nature. These appointments were made by Taluka Nazim and or T.M.A. without getting approval from the Government and in violation of Government’s instructions the appointments were made. It is further submitted that the appointment letters were bogus and issued after abolishing Nazim system. Again it is stated that all appointments were made illegally without observing the codal formalities.

The respondent No.4 also took the same plea that appointments are illegal and without approval of the competent authority. It is further stated that most of the appointment letters were issued for three years but the Nazim system was terminated/expired after 19^th February 2010, how the Taluka Nazim could make any appointment in the last days for a period of three years in which he was no more the part of system and administration.

This petition is pending since 2010 without any progress and the petitioners are also waiting for the decision of their representation and/or the grievances. After arguing at some length the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned A.A.G. agreed to the following modality for disposal of this petition.

(a) That the Secretary Local Government shall constitute a committee for holding inquiry in the matter of appointment of the petitioners. The committee shall summon the petitioners to appear in person and place all relevant documents of their appointments before the committee and the committee will decide whether these appointment letters were issued genuinely after completing codal formalities or not.

(b) The representation submitted by the petitioners to the respondent No.1 shall also be decided by the committee during course of inquiry.

(c) The inquiry shall be completed within a period of three months and during inquiry ample opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to all the petitioners.

(d) In case the petitioners appointments are found genuine they will be appointed in the same manner in which they were earlier appointed.

(e) It is expected that the committee will consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Judge