Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: IKRAMULLAH VS Respondent: ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE
1998 P L C (C
1998 P L C (C.S.) 22
[Lahore High Court]
Before Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J
IKRAMULLAH
versus
ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE
Writ Petition No. 1149 of 1990, decided on 21st April, 1996.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
----Art. 199----Constitutional petition---Civil service---Petitioner's appointment as teacher with direction to resume duty after summer vacation---Petitioner was subsequently restrained from assuming duty-- Petitioner applied -to respondent (Corporation) for reinstatement on the strength of orders of High Court passed in cases of other affected employees but to no effect---Validity---Case of petitioner was not different from the case of employees pertaining to respondent Corporation---Additionally, before revoking appointment, no notice was issued to petitioner nor opportunity of hearing was granted to him, therefore, order in question, whereby petitioner's services were revoked was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Writ Petitions Nos. 10904 and 11574 rel.
Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner.
Abdullah Yousaf Warraich, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab for Respondent.
ORDER
The petitioner was appointed as P.T.C. Teacher in BS-7 vide order of the Mayor of respondent-Corporation dated 27-4-1993. This order was conveyed to the petitioner vide Annexure ' A' raid the petitioner was directed to assume to duty after summer vacation. This was done presumably because the petitioner was appointed in place of Khalil Ahmad, who was to retire after summer vacation. Vide order dated 29-8-1993, the petitioner was restrained from assuming the duty and vide order dated 14-10-1993 (Annexure C) the petitioner's appointment was revoked on the ground that the same had taken place during the period of ban. Some of the affected persons challenged the revocation of appointments in this Court and were successful. The petitioner applied to the respondent-Corporation for reinstatement on the strength of the orders of the High Court passed in the cases of other affected employees but this request was not acceded to. Hence this s petition.
2. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court dated 19-12-1995 passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 10904 and 11574 of 1994. These orders follow the judgment dated 26-6-1996 passed in another Writ Petition No. 16037 of 1993 pertaining to the 9 employees of the respondent Corporation. The case of the petitioner is not different from the case of employees involved in the above writ petition. Additionally, and it is admitted by the Additional Advocate-General, Punjab as instructed by the representative of the respondent-Corporation that before revoking the appointment, no notice was issued to the petitioner nor an opportunity of hearing granted. This also renders the impugned order as illegal.
3. In the circumstances and for the reasons above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of revocation dated 5-10-1993/14-10-1993 (Annexure C) is hereby declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect The parties are left to bear their own costs.
4. It is clarified that this order will not be a bar to proceeding in the matter in accordance with law, if so advised.
A.A./1-30/L Petition accepted