Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199(1)(b)(ii)

Law: Sindh Market Committee Unified Code Service Rules, 1983

Section: 14(6)

Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199(1)(b)(ii)--- Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Quo warranto--Scope---Transfer of pension fund consequent to transfer of service---Regulatory framework---Constitutional petition would not be maintainable on mere apprehensions of likelihood of happening of a future event---Misjoinder or nonjoinder of proper/necessary parties---High Court did not exercise discretion against a party not impleaded in the lis---The petitioners who were employees of the Market Committee Karachi in BPS-13, BPS-10, and BPS-11 challenged the transfer of respondent No.4 (employee of Market Committee Larkana in BPS-11) to Market Committee Karachi shortly before his retirement, alleging that his post-retirement benefits had not yet been transferred from Larkana and would financially burden Karachi's funds---Petitioners sought relief under Art. 199(1)(b)(ii) on the basis of quo warranto, but did not allege any lack of eligibility, disqualification, or unlawful appointment of respondent No.4---Held: As per the law applicable to the Market Committee employees every Market Committee was required to have a separate pension fund and maintain an account under the title "Pension Fund Account of Market Committee" for the members of service---Where a member of service retired, the Market Committee concerned was to be responsible for payment of all post-retirement benefits to the member by collecting the outstanding amount of the pension fund, if any, against the other Market Committee---On transfer of a member of service, the relieving Market Committee was to also transfer his pension fund contribution to the successor Market Committee for the period he has rendered his services in the said Committee---With regards to the plea of quo warranto taken by the petitioners, none of the grounds (a) to (d) provided under Art. 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution were made against the respondents Nos.3 and 4---It cannot be argued that respondent No. 4 had no authority to hold public office in the Market Committee Karachi in BPS-11---Nor could it be argued that respondent No.1 and the Market Committee Larkana did not have the authority to transfer respondent…