Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2026 SHC 591. In this matter between Const. P. 667/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Zahid (Petitioner) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 667/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 591 PARTIES: Zahid (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 11-MAR-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI. C.P. No. D-667 of 2026 (Zahid v Federation of Pakistan & others) ____________________________________________________________ Dated Order with signature of Judge. ____________________________________________________________ Before:- Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi

Date of hearing and order:-11.03.2026. Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Abid Jatoi, Special Prosecutor for ANF. Ms. Wajiha M. Mehdi, Assistant Attorney General. ---------------

O R D E R Adnan-ul-Karim Memon Petitioner Zahid challenged the Transfer Order dated 22.12.2025, claiming it violated his fundamental rights. It is avered by him that he was appointed as Naib Qasid in the Anti -Narcotics Force in 2010, however, dismissed from service in 2015 on unproven allegations, and reinstated by the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) on 11.10.2017. he added that despite a previous transfer to Baluchistan being set aside by this Court on 21.10.2025 in earlier round of litigation, he was again transferred to Sukkur, which trigured the cause to him to file the instant petition. 2. The petitioner’s counsel argued that, due to financial constraints, he could not afford to relocate in Sukkur and sought posting in Karachi. 3. The respondents’ counsel contended that his appointment letter allows transfer anywhere in Pakistan, making the transfer lawful under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. He prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. We have heard the le arned counsel for the parties on the issue of transfer and posting and perused the record with their assistance. 5. This Court noted that the petitioner had agreed to serve anywhere in Pakistan as per his appointment order and the statutory provisions supp ort his transfer to Sukkur, now. While acknowledging the petitioner’s financial difficulties, this Court hold that petitioner cannot demand a specific posting at particular place. 6. The petition is therefore dismissed, along with pending application(s) with a note of caution that the petitioner should not be harassed by the department in the future. JUDGE JUDGE Jamil

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant