Case Details

Citation(s)
1996 SLG 536 1996 SLD 536 1996 PLC 501
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 112 of 1980, decision dated: 16-11-1995, hearing DATE : 6-11-1995
SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF SOOMRO

VS

SINDH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, HOUSING TOWN. PLANNING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chairman, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 4 others MUHAMMAD ASHRAF SOOMRO Vs SINDH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, HOUS

Law:

Section:

Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)- ----S. 3 [as amended by Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act (XXXI of 1994]---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212---Effect of amendment in S. 3, Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 by Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction whereby plaintiff (employee of Local Council Service) had claimed seniority over defendants and had sought perpetual injunction against their seniority---Local Council Service employee was deemed to be civil servant by amendment of S. 3, Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 by the Amending Act XXXI of 1994----Amendment in S. 3 of the Act also envisaged abatement of pending cases of any employee of local council---Plaintiff having acquired status of civil servant, remedy available to him under law would be to approach Service Tribunal, as provided in Art. 212 of the Constitution---Plaintiff's suit would stand abated in circumstances. Abdul Bari v. Government of Pakistan and 2 others PLD 1981 Karachi 290 and Syed Tanweer Ahmed Naqvi v. The Administrator, K.M.C. and 2 others C.P.D. 1384 of 1995 ref. JUDGMENT Plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant. 2. The prayer clause of the plaint is as follows:-- "(1) Declare that the appointment of defendant 4 in Grade-17 and fixing his seniority in Grade-16 with effect from 8-1-1968 is illegal and ultra vires and fixing of defendant 5 in Grade-16 with effect from 7-9-1965 is also illegal and ultra vires. (2) Declare that plaintiff is senior to defendants 4 and 5 as he is holding continuous appointment in Grade-16 with effect from 1-5-1968 and is confirmed in the same scale of pay prior to defendants 4 and 5. (3) Declare that the orders of defendants 1 and 3 pertaining to defendants 4 and 5 regarding fixing the seniority of defendants 4 and 5 and allowing promotions as such are illegal, mala fide, ultra vires and of no legal consequences. (4) Declare that the acts/orders of defendants 1 to 3, doing illegal favours to defendants 4 and 5 are mala fide, illegal and of no legal consequences. (5) Grant and issue permanent…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492