| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 1286 2025 SLD 1286 = 2025 PLJ 100 |
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
C.P. No. D-812 of 2018, decided on 3.4.2025. Date of hearing. 17.3.2025.
AUTHOR(S): ARBAB ALI HAKRO AND RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, JJ.
Mian Taj Muhammad Keerio, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Baloch, Asst. Attorney General and Mr. Muhammad Daud, Asst. Manager SSGC (Legal Service) for
Respondents.
C.P. No. D-812 of 2018, decided on 3.4.2025. Date of hearing. 17.3.2025.
AUTHOR(S): ARBAB ALI HAKRO AND RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, JJ.
Mian Taj Muhammad Keerio, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Baloch, Asst. Attorney General and Mr. Muhammad Daud, Asst. Manager SSGC (Legal Service) for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD SIBTAIN MIRZA AND ANOTHER--PETITIONERS
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS--RESPONDENTS
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973------Art. 199--Contractual appointment--Denial for regularization--Constitutional petitions--Allowed--Direction to consider claim for regularization--Appeal—Dismissed--Amended recruitment policy--Non-statutory rules--Principle of master and servant--Contractual obligations--Maintainability--No writ petition was maintainable against an employer under Article 199 of Constitution where employment rules were non-statutory, and employer-employee relationship was governed by principle of master and servant--That position was reinforced by apex Court in Saeed Ahmed Khoso’s case, which affirmed that contractual obligations are beyond enforceability of writ jurisdiction--It is a settled principle that equitable relief is circumscribed by specific factual and legal milieu of each case--Employment rules of SSGCL were non-statutory, and relationship between petitioners and SSGCL was governed by principle of master and servant--Petitioners’ regularisation claims did not fall within ambit of Article 199 of Constitution--Petitions dismissed.2022 SCMR 1256 & 2023 PLC (CS) 961 ref.ORDER:ARBAB ALI HAKRO, JUSTICE:---.---Through this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (‘the Constitution’), the petitioners seek regularization of their services in Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. (‘SSGCL’).2. The petitioners, through the memo. of the petition, assert that they were appointed as contractual employees by Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. (SSGCL) approximately two years prior to the filing of the instant petition. They contend that they diligently performed their duties in strict compliance with the office memorandums issued by the respondents at their respective assignments, with utmost dedication and without any cause for complaint. Petitioner No. 1 is engaged at the Emergency Complaint Centre, Hyderabad (1199), on daily wages, while Petitioner No. 2 serves at the Customer Facilitation Centre, Hyderabad. They further aver that SSGCL issued Certificates of Training to them upon completion of their training. However, despite fulfilling all requisite obligations and having approached the respondents to regularise…