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.
Writ Petition No. 817 of 1980, heard on 9th March, 1983.
‑‑‑S. 17(1‑A) & (1‑C)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 WAPDA employees‑‑Termination of services‑‑Power of Authority to terminate‑ Water and Power Development Authority having been invested with powers under S. 17(1‑A) of the Act to dispense with services of its employees without assigning any reason, held, could terminate same notwithstanding any Rules to the contrary‑‑ Rules, if any framed contrary to the provisions of Act XXXI of 1958 would have no force of law Constitutional petition against termination of services of employee of WAPDA would be incompetent especially where plea of mala fide had not been substantiated.
Shabbir Ahmad v. WAPDA etc. 1982 PLC (C.S.) 613; Raja Muhammad Sadiq v. WAPDA etc. 1982 P L C (C.S.) 709 and Shabbir Ahmad v. WAPDA etc. 1982 S C M R 375 ref.
Ch. Khurshid Ahmed for Petitioner.
Muhammad Shafi for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 9th March, 1983.
‑ The petitioner was working as a Junior Accountant with respondent No.1, when his services were terminated vide order dated 10‑12‑1977, under section 17(1‑A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, by respondent No.1. He challenged the order before the N.I.R.C. After promulgation of Ordinance LXXII of 1979, on 29‑12‑1979, respondent No.1 passed another order under section 17 (1‑C) on 2‑1‑1980. The petitioner has challenged these orders through this writ petition.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the orders were passed for mala fide reasons by the respondent as he had been making complaints against some officers. It is further contended that the WAPDA has framed some rules that the service of its employees shall not be terminated under section 17(1‑A) or 17(1‑C) without inquiries and without affording an opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel has, however, not shown us any such rules.
Be that as it may, the rules cannot take the place of law. Since the respondent has been invested with powers under section 17(1‑A) of the aforesaid Act, to dispense with the services of its employees without assigning any reason, we do not think any rule framed contrary to that can have any force of law. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders were the result of some mala fide, is not substantiated. It is not mentioned in the petition as to who was the officer who was biased against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Shabbir Ahmad v. WAPDA, etc. 1982 P L C (C.S.) 613, Raja Muhammad Sadiq v. WAPDA etc. 1982 P L C (C.S.) 709 and Shabbir Ahmad v. WAPDA etc. 1982 S C M R 375, wherein petitions moved on similar grounds were dismissed.
4. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
A.A./A‑25/Lb/S
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer