Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AFTAB IQBAL JANJUA VS Respondent: MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD., LAHORE
1998 P L C (C
1998 P L C (C. S.) 44
[Lahore High Court]
Before Raja Muhammad Khurshid, J
AFTAB IQBAL JANJUA
versus
MANAGING-DIRECTOR, SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. LAHORE and 2 others
Writ Petition No. 2002 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 3580 and 3581 of 1997, decided on 18ih'September, 1997.
Service Rules of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines (Limited) for Subordinate Staff--
---- R. 67---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 199---Constitutional petition---Restriction placed on medical attendant for supply of medicines to employees of company except in cases of emergency---Validity---Rule 67 of Service Rules of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines (Limited) for Subordinate Staff showed that medicines would normally be supplied by company doctor, but there was also provision in the Rules that those be procured from market, by employee who would purchase them against cash payment which amount would be reimbursed to employee subject to respondent's doctor countersigning cash memos, and accompanied by prescription---Impugned office memo. (placing restriction on supply of medicine) also showed that medicines would be provided to employees and entitled family members in cases of emergency but in other cases prescription for purchase of medicines would be issued which would be reimbursed---No conflicting material, thus, was found between R. 67 of Service Rules and impugned memo. so as to call for interference by Court in its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction.
Muhammad Arshad Cheema for Petitioner
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to challenge the contents of Office Memo dated 28-8-1997 issued by the Managing Director, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited whereby a restriction is placed on the Medical Attendant for the supply of medicines to- the employees of the company except in cases of emergency. In other cases the Medical Officer appointed by the company will issue prescription and the employee will be entitled to purchase the medicines prescribed therein. The amount so spent shall be reimbursed to him.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that medical treatment is to be given to an employee of the company under rule 67 of the Service Rules of Sui-Northern Gas Pipelines Limited for Subordinate Staff. Clause (e) of the aforesaid rule runs as under:-
"Medicines will normally be supplied by the Company doctor, where advised to procure them from the market, employees will purchase them against cash. The amount, thus, spent will be reimbursed to them subject to the Company doctor countersigning the cash memos and accompanied by the prescription."
3. It is submitted that the impugned Office Memo is contrary to the above quoted clause of rule 67 inasmuch as that the medicines shall only be provided in cases of emergency and in other cases those would be available on prescription, to be issued by the authorised Medical Officer.
4. It is further submitted that petitioner is working as Driver and if medicines are not supplied by the Medical Officer and those have to be purchased of cash payment and to be later on reimbursed would cause hardship to such a low paid employee. It is; therefore, contended that the Office Memo in question is bad in the eye of law.
5. I have considered the foregoing submissions and have also gone through impugned Office Memo as well as relevant clause of the rule ibid. It is true that aforesaid rule shows that medicine will normally be supplied by the company doctor, but it also makes a provision that those can be procured from the market by the employee who will purchase them against cash -the company doctor, but it also makes a provision that those cart be procured from the market by the employee who will purchase them against cash payment. The amount, thus spent will be reimbursed to the employee subject to the company's doctor countersigning the cash memos and accompanied by the prescription. The impugned Office Memo also shows that the medicines shall be provided to the employees and the entitled family members in cases of emergency but in other cases prescription for purchase of medicines will be issued which will be reimbursable. As such, there is no material conflict between the aforesaid rule and the impugned Memo so as to call for interference by this Court on its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. The writ petition being meritless is dismissed in limine.
Civil Miscellaneous No. 3580 of 1997.
Civil Miscellaneous No. 3581 of 1997.
With the dismissal of main writ petition, these miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.
A.A./A-184/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.