Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
C.M.P. No. 103‑R of 1986 in Civil Review Petition No. 27 of 1984, decided on 28th June, 1984.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑Review petition‑‑No merit appearing in case after re‑hearing‑‑Review petition dismissed.
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 17th June, 1986.
At the request of the petitioner his Civil Review Petition directed against the judgment of this Court, dated 29th of February, 1984 has been re‑heard at greater length.
The submission of the petitioner on the legal plane remains the same, namely, that Ordinance No. XIV of 1981 covered the cases of only those employees whose appointments had been made by the Council between 3‑4‑1977 and 30‑6‑1977 because it was the appointments made during this period which suffered from a taint and had to be dealt with. The petitioner claims that he and others who were employees of a prior date and had been recruited into Government service on the strength of the letters that issued in July, 1977 were neither sought to be covered by this Ordinance nor were in fact covered because their appointments were in order as and when made and they were paid not from the funds of the Council or the Board but from the consolidated funds of the Federation as from 1‑7‑1977 or the date of their appointment as civil servants. There was no question of their appointment or induction into service being scrutinised afresh. According to the petitioner, the Council notwithstanding the fact that it stood abolished on 30‑4‑1977 had been making certain appointments which it had no authority even otherwise to make, it being an advisory body, and it was such illegal appointments which were sought to the scrutinised under the provisions of the Ordinance.
We find that this contention of the petitioner does not take up to account the definition of the 'Council' and 'Boards' provided in clauses (d) and (b), respectively of section 2 of Ordinance XIV of 1981 and also of the definition of 'employee' and 'Population Programme' as contained in clauses (f) and (g) of section 2. All the employees of the Council and the Boards were brought within the purview of the Ordinance. The Council and the Boards were defined so as to trace back their origin to the notification of 1971 in the case of Board and to 1965 in the case of Council. The 'employee' was defined to be "an employee of the Council or a Board" so defined and appointed on temporary or ad hoe basis in the Population Programme on or after 30‑4‑1977. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he was appointed temporarily in the Population Programme under the Population Planning Division, in July, 1977. Even the Condition No.4 of the letter of his appointment provided as follows:‑
"This appointment is made on temporary basis and is subject to such changes as may become necessary and are effected as a result of the new structure and organization which the Government may sanction for the Population Planning Programme."
The petitioner before the temporary induction into such a service was receiving his pay from the funds of the Board or Council and was clearly covered by the definition of 'employee'.
In the circumstances, we find that there is no merit in the petition for review and after re‑hearing, we maintain our earlier order rejecting the review petition.
We may, however, point out that the petitioner has, by way of alternative, showed his willingness to accept the offer of the Government contained in our judgment in para. 8. Though his option is. Somewhat delayed, we expect that it shall be considered by the Government on its own merits.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer