Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AFZAL, PATWARI CIRCLE SALAMATPURA, LAHORE CANTT. LAHORE and 6 others VS Respondent: DISTRICT CO-ORDINATION OFFICER, DISTRICT LAHORE and 9 others
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Hafiz Tariq Nasim Title:MUHAMMAD AFZAL, PATWARI CIRCLE SALAMATPURA, LAHORE CANTT. LAHORE
and 6 others vs DISTRICT CO-ORDINATION OFFICER, DISTRICT LAHORE and 9 others Case No.: W.P. No, 2334 of 2009 Date of Judgment:2009-02-09 Reported As: PLJ 2009 Lahore 300 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:-- "In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that an appropriate writ may kindly be issued, the impugned order dated 04.02.2009 may very kindly be set aside declaring the same as illegal, unlawful, void abinitio and without lawful authority. Writ petition may very kindly be accepted. Any other relief, which this Honourable Court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also very kindly be granted to the petitioners." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued the case at length and submits with vehemence that the impugned order is violative of the provisions of C.S.R. 3.13 and F.R. 49. Further submits that it is well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Govt. of Punjab Food Department vs. United Sugar Mills Ltd. (2008 SCM R 1148),'wherein it is held that "if law requires to do a thing in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner only and not otherwise", whereas in the present case while passing the impugned order the law (supra) is altogether violated. Further submits that through the impugned order practically the petitioners are victimized and there is apprehension that they shall be victimized with no fault of them, rather on extraneous consideration. 3. After hearing the learned counsel at length, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be termed an adverse order against the petitioners because its plain language reveals that certain Patwaris are entrusted the additional charge of certain Patwar Circles where the petitioners are
---
## Page 2
already performing their duties. 4. It is held that by entrusting additional charge to some employee, the incumbent of the post cannot be termed as an aggrieved person particularly when the incumbent is not put in any less favourable condition or to any disadvantageous stage. 5. So far the apprehension of the petitioners that they shall be victimized due to the impugned order is concerned, suffice it to say that if any adverse action is to be taken against them that cannot be finalized without resorting to the procedure envisaged under the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006. 6. The present writ petition being without any substance is dismissed.