| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2245 2026 SLD 2245 = 2026 SHC 57 = 2026 MLD 1285 |
Sindh High Court
Const. Petition No.D- 4515 of 2025
Presented By: Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, J.
15.01.2026. Mr. Ali Asadullah Bullo, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for
Respondent No.2. Mr. Abdul Jalil Zubedi, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.
Const. Petition No.D- 4515 of 2025
Presented By: Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, J.
15.01.2026. Mr. Ali Asadullah Bullo, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for
Respondent No.2. Mr. Abdul Jalil Zubedi, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.
(Javed Iqbal Arain
VS
Province of Sindh & Another)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199, 4, 9, 14
Summary The petitioner challenged a transfer order dated 28.08.2025 issued by STEVTA, whereby he was transferred from Thatta to Shaheed Benazirabad shortly before his retirement (due in April 2026). He argued that the transfer was arbitrary, unlawful, and violative of Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution, as it would disrupt his pension and post-retirement benefits. The respondents contended that the petitioner, being an employee of STEVTA (an autonomous body), was governed by STEVTA Act, 2009 and its Rules, and the transfer was within lawful administrative discretion. The Court held that although transfers are generally within departmental discretion, such discretion must be exercised fairly. Transferring an employee at the verge of retirement without justification was arbitrary and caused hardship. The Court found the impugned order unlawful and set it aside. Sections / Provisions Used Article 199 – Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Article 4 – Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Article 9 – Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Article 14 – Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Section 15 – STEVTA Act, 2009 Section 19 – STEVTA Act, 2009 Section 22 – STEVTA Act, 2009 2 Two-Word Description Retirement Transfer Administrative Discretion O R D E R Through this petition petitioner has challenged the transfer notification/order dated 28.08.2025 (Impugned order) issued by Respondent No.2, whereby he was transferred from Thatta to district Shaheed Benaizrabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner will retire in the month of April, 2026, within a period of three and a half months, hence the displacement of the petitioner at this juncture through the impugned order is ultra vires the provisions of law, as it caused hurdles in the smooth disbursement of the petitioner’s pensionary benefits and tantamount violation of fundamental rights enshrined under article 4 & 9 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973( the Constitution). Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside by allowing this petition. Contrary to the submissions, Learned…