| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 854 2011 SLD 854 2011 PLD 22 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 42, 48, 50 and 62 of 2009, decision dated: 4-11-2010
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., TARIQ PARVEZ KHAN AND GHULAM RABBANI, JJ
Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record (in Constitutional Petition No. 62 of 2009). Abdur Rehman Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court.
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 42, 48, 50 and 62 of 2009, decision dated: 4-11-2010
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., TARIQ PARVEZ KHAN AND GHULAM RABBANI, JJ
Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record (in Constitutional Petition No. 62 of 2009). Abdur Rehman Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court.
EJAZ AKBAR KASI and others
VS
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING and others
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 9,25,184(3)
Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 184(3), 9 & 25---Constitutional Petition before Supreme Court under Art.184(3) of the Constitution---Contentions of the petitioners (Pakistan Television employees on contract basis) were that the organization be directed to protect their period of service as they had served the organization for the last more than ten years with performance more than satisfactory, therefore, their case was clearly covered under Art.9 of the Constitution; it was further pointed out that some of the resourceful persons whose names were mentioned, who had joined the organization after petitioners' appointment and despite the fact that they were junior to the petitioners, their services had been regularized which clearly indicated that Art.25 of the Constitution was violated---Held, there was no doubt that policy in respect of such employees for regularization of service was to be framed by the organization, but at the same time it was to be borne in mind that there should not be any discrimination and such like employees who were on contract basis for a period of more than 10 years etc. deserved to be considered for regularization as they were working against the existing sanctioned vacancy for which budgetary allocations were also made annually out of -which they were being paid regularly---Board of Directors of the organization might not have declined the petitioners' regularization, however, it was a fact that regularization of contract employees, if it all was to be made was to depend upon the performance---Petitioners, in the present case, had qualified the test and their performance as well was up to the mark which was evident that for the last more than 10 years they had been allowed to continue work against the vacancies which they were holding without any interference and there was, now, no question of performance at all as they had already shown their performance---Petitioners, in circumstances, could not be discriminated without any cogent reason by violating the provisions of Art.25 of the Constitution and it was the duty of the organization to protect their fundamental rights enshrined in Art.9 of the Constitution---Petitions…
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