| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 1800 2006 SLD 1800 2006 PLC 955 |
Sindh High Court
Constitution Petition No.D-64 of 2005, decision dated: 13-06-2006.
MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Constitution Petition No.D-64 of 2005, decision dated: 13-06-2006.
MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SHABBIR JAN SARHANDI
VS
PROVINCE OF SINDH through CHIEF SECRETARY and 3 others SHABBIR JAN SARHANDI vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through CHIEF SECRETARY and 3 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973-------R. 8(a)---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), Ss. 21 & 24-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Removal from service---Superintendent of Jail (BS-18)---Sentenced for committing contempt of Court---Reinstatement of petitioner in service through notification issued by Home Secretary with approval of Chief Minister---Issuance of subsequent notification by Home Secretary cancelling/withdrawing notification of reinstatement---Plea of department was that issuance of notification of reinstatement was result of mistake, misinterpretation, misrepresentation or misguidance---Validity---Appointing authority in respect of a civil servant in BS-17 & BS-18 was Chief Minister, who was competent in law to remove him from service---Notification of reinstatement in service could be cancelled again with approval of competent authority (Chief Minister) as result of its cancellation would be removal of civil servant from service---Notification of reinstatement could be rescinded and corrected on alleged pleas with approval of Chief Minister, but not by Home Secretary for not being a competent authority---Section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 would be read with S.24-A thereof---Impugned notification was bad for having been issued without any reason---High Court accepted constitutional petition and declared impugned notification to be illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. Shah Nawaz v. Umar Daraz 1999 CLC 1883 fol. (b) Jurisdiction--- ----Objection to---Duty of Court first to decide question pertaining to its own jurisdiction and then consider the merits of case. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Arts. 199 & 212---Matter pertaining to terms and conditions of service---Such matter exclusively falls within jurisdiction of Service Tribunal---Jurisdiction of High Court in such matter is barred. (d) General Clauses Act (X of 1897)--- ---S. 21---Notification or executive order---Authority competent to issue notification/order in like manner is competent to amend, modify, cancel, withdraw or rescind same subject to like sanction and conditions. (e)…
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