| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 3494 2016 SLD 3494 2016 PLC 1267 |
Balochistan High Court
MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, CHIEF, JUSTICE AND MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, JUSTICE
Baz Muhammad Kakar for Petitioners.Shai Haq Baloch, Assistant Advocate General, Rizwan Mehmood, Secretary, Services and General Administration Department, Abdul Rehman Buzdar, Secretary, Agricultural Department, Noor Hussain Baloch, Deputy Director (Jud
MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, CHIEF, JUSTICE AND MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, JUSTICE
Baz Muhammad Kakar for Petitioners.Shai Haq Baloch, Assistant Advocate General, Rizwan Mehmood, Secretary, Services and General Administration Department, Abdul Rehman Buzdar, Secretary, Agricultural Department, Noor Hussain Baloch, Deputy Director (Jud
MUJEEBULLAH GHARSHEEN AND ANOTHERVSGOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Balochistan Civil Servants Act (IX of 1974)--- --------Sections 15 & 16---Balochistan Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, Rr.30, 27-B, 31, 2(r) & 3---Civil service---Strike by civil servants---Misconduct---Public functionaries---Fundamental rights---Scope---Formation of association had not been prohibited however restriction had been imposed by law in the interest of public order---Every right would correspond to a duty and if there was no duty then there was no right---Government/civil servants and employees of statutory bodies owed some duties to the State as well as public-at-large---Holding demonstration or observance of strike and/or sit-in (dharna) would attract provisions of relevant law and any civil servant or employee of statutory body except those who fell within the definition of workmen indulged in such activity should be held guilty of "misconduct" and should be proceeded against departmentally---Fundamental rights in essence were restrained on the arbitrary exercise of power by the State in relation to any activity that an individual could engage---Freedom of association was not absolute or unfettered and it would be subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law and morality and decency---Word "subject to reasonable restrictions" did not admit and permit total denial of right---Association of employees observed strike not recognized by any law rather such strikes had been prohibited under the law---Authorities concerned had been remiss in discharging its obligations under the Constitution or the law---Competent authorities were under constitutional and moral duty to take action against those indulged in illegal strikes---Executive was bound to enforce fundamental rights of individuals and they could not be allowed to defeat any provision of Constitution---Strikes in educational institutions and health-care centers and holding demonstrations on public thoroughfare by sit-in (dharna) was infringement of fundamental rights of every citizen---Civil servants and employees of statutory bodies were at liberty to form association or to be a member of such association but strictly in accordance with law---Chief Secretary of the…