| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 4704 2025 SLD 4704 = 2025 PLC 683 |
Sindh High Court, Larkana Bench
Constitutional Petition No.D-260 of 2018, decided on 8th January, 2025.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, JJ
Petitioner in person. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional Advocate General, Sindh along with Shoaib Ahmed, ADLG Ratodero, on behalf of RDLG Larkana for
Respondents Nos.1 to 3. Rafique Ahmed K. Abro for
Respondent No.4.
Constitutional Petition No.D-260 of 2018, decided on 8th January, 2025.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, JJ
Petitioner in person. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional Advocate General, Sindh along with Shoaib Ahmed, ADLG Ratodero, on behalf of RDLG Larkana for
Respondents Nos.1 to 3. Rafique Ahmed K. Abro for
Respondent No.4.
MAZHAR ALI KALHORO
VERSUS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and 3 others
Law: Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract, Employees) Act, 2013
Section: XXV,2(d),2(b),2(e),3
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 25,204
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 151
Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act (XXV of 2013)-------Ss.2(b), 2(d), 2(e) & 3---Constitution of Pakistan---Arts. 25 & 204---Contract employee---Regularization of service in terms of Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013---Permanent vacant post---Recommendations for regularization of petitioner in view of his satisfactory long service--Undertaking before the court qua regularization upon lifting of ban---Contention of petitioner was that he was treated discriminately and was not being regularized in disregard of the undertaking given before the court---Validity---Respondents on various occasions made statements before the Court that the petitioner's services should be regularized, however, the needful had not been done on one pretext or the other---Petition was filed in 2018 and more than six years had passed; he had been roaming from pillar to post to achieve his legitimate right, accrued pursuant to the undertaking and assurance by the respondents---When an order is passed, direction given or process issued by a court on the basis of an undertaking, the person in whose favour such assurance is given acquires a valuable right and the person(s) who violate such orders make themselves liable for prosecution for contempt in terms of Art.204 of the Constitution---High Court, to overcome the miseries and agonies suffered by the petitioner, converted the contempt application into one under S. 151, C.P.C. and directed respondents to regularize petitioner's services as per their undertaking---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.Dr. Iqbal Jan and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2014 PLC (C.S.) 1153; Hakim Ali Ujjan and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2012 PLC (C.S.) 127; Chairman, Pakistan Railways and others v. Arif Hussain and others 2008 PLC(C.S.) 240 and Ayaz Ahmed Memon v. Pakistan Railways, Ministry of Railway, Islamabad through Chairman and another 2011 PLC (C.S.) 281 rel.Date of hearing: 20th December, 2024.ORDERMUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.---By means of this constitutional petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:"That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to…