| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 313 2015 SLD 313 2015 PLC 283 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-2646 of 2011, decided on 2nd October, 2014
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI AND AFTAB AHMED GORAR, JJ
Inayatullah G. Morio for Petitioner. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, A.A,G. for
Respondent
Constitutional Petition No. D-2646 of 2011, decided on 2nd October, 2014
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI AND AFTAB AHMED GORAR, JJ
Inayatullah G. Morio for Petitioner. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, A.A,G. for
Respondent
IRSHAD ALI
VS
PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Secretary and 3 others
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 4,25,199
(a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 4, 25 & 199---Constitutional petition---Civil service---Determination of seniority---Discrimination---Estoppel---Applicability---Public functionaries---Duty of--Petitioner was appointed as Prosecuting Sub-Inspector and subsequently his cadre was changed from prosecution side to executive side along with other colleagues---Grievance of the petitioner was that after absorption of the Prosecuting Sub-Inspectors, seniority to others was allowed from the date of their initial appointment but the petitioner had been discriminated by awarding him seniority from the date of his absorption---Validity---Under Arts.25 & 4 of the Constitution, equal protection of law to all the citizens and equal treatment to the citizens similarly placed had been guaranteed---All the statutory functionaries in a democratic set-up were bound to act in public matters justly, fairly and in accordance with rules and instructions on the subject and individual distinction for extraneous reasons was not permissible---`Equality before law' meant that like should be treated alike and it forbade discrimination between person, who were substantially in similar circumstances or conditions, however, it did not forbid different treatment of unequals and classification could be made between two groups which were substantially not placed in similar circumstances or conditions---Petitioner was subjected to hostile discrimination forbidden by Art.25 of the Constitution---High Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner equally and on the same line as other officers had been treated and assigned seniority to the petitioner from the date of his substantive appointment in the rank of Prosecuting Sub-Inspector with all service benefits---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. (b) Estoppel--- ----No estoppel against statute/law---If a person had been bestowed some legal right by law/statute, and he omitted to claim such legal right for a considerable time, it did not mean that he had waived his legal right and subsequently he could not claim such right. (c) Public Functionary--- ----All the statutory functionaries in a democratic set-up…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492