Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 3025 = 2001 SLD 3025 = 2001 CLC 28
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.21940 of 1997, decided on 7th April, 2000.
Presented By: Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J
Muhammad Amin Javed for Petitioner. Muhammad Saleem Sehgal for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

IJAZ AHMAD---Appellant

VERSUS

GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL), SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED, LAHORE and 3 others---Respondents

Law: Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981

Section: 10, 11

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance (XL of 1981) Ss. 10 & 11---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Appointment of disabled person---Petitioner/disabled person had prayed for a writ of mandamus to appoint him against one of the posts reserved for disabled persons---Contention of company was that at present no vacancy being available for disabled persons, It was unable to accommodate the petitioner-----In face of stand taken by respondent-company that no vacancy against disabled quota was available, onus to prove otherwise fell upon petitioner, but petitioner could not bring on record anything to disprove Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, but could invoke jurisdiction of National or Provincial Council which was proper forum to see that the relevant law was duly implemented. Date of hearing: 14th March, 2000.                                                                                                                                                           JUDGMENT It is asserted by the petitioner that he is a disabled person and applied in 1994 to respondent No .l for a job as helper against the disabled quota, but this job has been illegally denied. Petitioner earlier filed writ petition in this Court, in which respondent assured that petitioner will be duly accommodated but that assurance never materialised. Petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus to appoint the petitioner against one of the posts reserved for disabled persons. 2. In the initial comments filed by respondents Nos.l and 2, position taken by them was that in lieu of non-employment of disabled person, the company has been making contribution as required under section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981 and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register