Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 693 2016 SLD 693 2016 PLC 728
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-277 of 2013, decided on 14thNovember, 2014. Date of hearing: 14th October, 2014.
SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI AND AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, JJ
Malik Naim Iqbal for Petitioners.Abdul Sadiq Tanoli, Standing Counsel for
Respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4.Ansari Abdul Lateef for
Respondent No. 7.Ghulam Haider Shaikh for
Respondent No. 8.Nemo for
Respondents Nos.2, 5 and 6.

Syed SAQIB JAHANGIR and 19 othersVSFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Water and Power and 7 others

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

(a) Civil service--- ----Withdrawal of Special Engineering Allowance---Promotion---Misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties---Effect---Petitioners were aggrieved of quota set forth by the authorities for graduate and non-graduate engineers as well as mandatory condition of training and passing of Departmental Promotion Examination by the already registered engineers for induction in the "Upper Technical Staff" graduate-engineers in BPS-17---'Professional engineering work'---Determination and scope---Contentions of the petitioners were that they were entitled for promotion to BS-17 on the analogy of employees of PEPCO and WAPDA; that approval of conversion of 10 posts from `Matric quota' of UTS (BS-16) to 'Graduate quota' for the accommodation of qualified UTS as Junior Engineers in the Electric Company was illegal and against the law---Plea of the authorities was that Electric Supply Company being a separate entity, had no statutory rules and the rules adopted by the Electric Supply Company had been borrowed from WAPDA, thus, constitutional petition was not maintainable and petitioners were not entitled to claim the 'Special Graduate Allowance' as neither they were working in BPS-17, nor were the employees of WAPDA---Validity---Electric Supply Company was a separate legal entity having no statutory rules and its affairs were run and managed by its Board of Directors---Where terms and conditions of service of the employees of a statutory body were not regulated by rules/regulations framed under the statute, but only under the rules or instructions issued for its internal use, in such like situation, a writ normally could not be issued---Electric Supply Company, being a separate entity having its own Board of Directors for running of its management and affairs, was not ipso facto bound by the decisions of WAPDA and/or PEPCO until and unless the same were properly approved by the Board of Directors of the company---Petitioners were Company's employees in the capacities of Sub-Station Operators SSO-I, SSO-II and Line Superintendents (LS-I) in BPS-13---Upper Technical Subordinates (UTS) in the Company had been allocated 5% quota for promotion against the post…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register