Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAFQAT ALI VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, Sindh and 3 others
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Munib Akhtar, Muhammad Ather Saeed Title:SHAFQAT ALI vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, Sindh and
3 others Case No.: Constitutional Petition No,D-542 of 2009 C.M.A. NO.670 of 2010 Date of Judgment:2010-11-29 Reported As: 2012 PLC (C.S.) 630 Result: Review application dismissed. Judgment ORDER ' MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.--- This review application has been filed by the Provincial Government for review of the order of this Court dated 2-2-2010 whereby we had allowed the petition filed by the present petitioner and had cancelled the order and summary passed by the Chief Minister and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as JST if he possesses basic qualifications necessary for such appointment, within thirty days of that order. This order was passed on the basis of Notification dated 2nd September, 2002 whereby certain benefits of appointment were given to children of deceased personnel of the department it they meet the basic qualifications. The petitioner's father had died somewhere in 1986 and we had after reading the Notification consciously held that the Notification not only applies to the children of those government personnel who died after coming in force of this Notification but also to children of all the government servants who died even before coming in force of the Notification. The only point now canvassed by the learned Assistant Advocate-General is that the Notification does not have retrospective effect and therefore this Court committed an error of law by holding that, the Notification has not respective effect. Without going into the merits of this case we are of the considered view that we had declared the Notification to have retrospective operation, after carefully considering its implication and it is our considered view that the Notification had retrospective effect and therefore if the law had not been properly applied by us the only remedy A available to the respondent is to file a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal before the honourable Supreme Court as this point does not fall within the three basic ingredients on which review can be filed.
---
## Page 2
' For the above reasons we declare the review application to be misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. Review .