| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3677 2025 SLD 3677 = 2025 SHC 1337 |
CP. No. D-1406 of 2024
Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha Mr. Justice Adnan-ul_Karim Memon
Malik Altaf Jawed advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Faizan Hussain Memon, advocate for the respondent No.6 Nemo for respondent No.3/Secretary Worker Welfare Board. Mr. Ali Safdar Depar, Assistant Advocate General
(Manzoor Ahmed v province of Sindh & others )
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 189,10-A,187(2),185,204
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973 (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2024
Section: 202A
Summary
The petitioner challenged the illegal re-appointment and rapid promotions of Respondent No. 6, who was initially absorbed under questionable circumstances and whose repatriation was directed by the Supreme Court. Despite clear Supreme Court orders mandating repatriation and nullification of appointments, Respondent No. 6 continued to hold posts and receive promotions. The petitioner sought to set aside these actions and initiate contempt proceedings. The court noted that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over review and enforcement of its orders under the Constitution, and lower courts cannot re-open or interfere with such matters. The court ordered the immediate repatriation of Respondent No. 6 to his parent department and underscored non-compliance as contempt. The petition was disposed of, affirming compliance with Supreme Court judgments.
Core Points
- Petitioner alleges illegal reappointment and promotions of Respondent No. 6, in violation of Supreme Court orders.
- Supreme Court judgments (2013 SCMR 1752 and 2015 SCMR 456) mandated repatriation of Respondent No. 6.
- Respondent No. 6 continued to work in promoted posts despite repatriation orders.
- The Sindh High Court’s jurisdiction over constitutional matters requires hearing by a Constitutional Bench per the 26th Amendment.
- Islamabad High Court orders on related repatriation matters do not override Supreme Court directions.
- Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction bars lower courts from revisiting already decided cases without its recall or review.
- The only remedy for Respondent No. 6 is to file a Review Petition before the Supreme Court.
- Respondent No. 6’s continued appointments and promotions are prima facie illegal and inconsistent with Supreme Court directions.
- Immediate repatriation of Respondent No. 6 to his parent department was ordered.
- Contempt proceedings against delinquent officials and departments advised due to violation of Supreme Court judgments.
Law & Section Table
| Law / Section | Description / Relevance |
|---|---|
| Article 189, Constitution | Obliges officials to implement the Supreme Court's decisions as binding. |
| Article 10-A, Constitution | Guarantees due process of law; violated according to petitioner in repatriation without proper hearing. |
| Article 187(2), Constitution | Empowers the Supreme Court to enforce its judgments and provide remedies in employment disputes. |
| Article 185, Constitution | Provides for the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction to review its own judgments. |
| Article 204, Constitution | Authorizes contempt proceedings for willful disobedience of court orders. |
| Article 202A, Constitution (26th Amendment) | Establishes the exclusive jurisdiction of Constitutional Benches for fundamental rights and constitutional interpretation cases. |
| Service Rules 2001 | Referenced for promotion and appointment legitimacy by respondent department. |
O R D E R