Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Haji KHAN LASHARI VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTANHonorable Justice NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 814
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ
Haji KHAN LASHARI and others
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
Civil Petitions Nos. 575 to 685 and 697 to 701‑K of 2000, decided on 26th December‑ 2000.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑-
‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Ad hoc salaries, payment of‑‑‑Civil servants were terminated from service‑‑‑Review Committee constituted by the Authorities gave interim relief to the terminated civil servants and allowed ad hoc salaries up to May, 2000‑‑‑Service Tribunal admitted appeals filed by the civil servants but declined interim relief‑‑‑One of the civil servants was extended such relief by consent order passed by Supreme Court‑‑ Authorities, in the present case were not willing to extend such concession to the civil servants‑‑‑Contention of the civil servants was that similar relief be allowed to them as was given to the other civil servant‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of the civil servant was a consent order and since the Authorities were not willing to consent in the present petitions the relief given to the other civil servant could not be given to the present civil servants‑‑‑Petition was disposed of accordingly.
Petitioners in person.
A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26th December, 2000.
ORDER
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑This order will dispose of petitions Nos.575 to 685 and 697 to 701‑K of 2000 as, common questions are involved in these matters.
The petitioners were employees of Pakistan Steel Mills and their services, en bloc, were terminated on 1‑2‑2000. They approached Management of the respondents and a Review Committee was constituted, which gave them interim relief in the way that they were allowed ad hoc salaries up to May, 2000. Thereafter, they approached Federal Service Tribunal for redress of their grievance. The Tribunal admitted their appeals, but declined any interim relief and fixed the matter for hearing on 16‑4‑2.000, which date later on was changed to 18‑1‑2001. Against above order, the petitioners have approached this Court.
It is pertinent to point out here that in a similar petition (C.P.L.C. No. 427‑K of 2000) this Court, by consent, had passed an order whereby interim relief was granted to petitioner Pasha Ahmed Gul, with regard to payment of ad hoc salary and the petition was disposed of in terms thereof.
The petitioners contend that similar relief be allowed to them as was given to said Pasha Ahmed Gul. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed above plea and stated that the prosecution are not willing to extend said concession to the petitioners and that even the respondents have filed a review petition for withdrawal of said order. It was a consent order and since the respondents are not willing to consent in these petitions, the relief given to said Pasha Ahmed Gul cannot be given to these petitions. Order It is lying with the respondents and they are entitled td receive said dues, to completion of legal formalities, rights, they will be entitled to drawback their final dues from the respondents who shall pay the same to them as early as possible.
The appeals of the petitioners are already fixed before Federal Service Tribunal on 18th January, 2001, which may be disposed of on that particular date or on subsequent ate not later than three weeks thereafter. In above terms, the petitions stand disposed of.
Q. M. H. /M. A. K./K‑46/S Order accordingly.