Pakistan Case Law← Search
2006 PLC (C.S.) 1143

GHULAM UMAR KAZI vs GENERAL MANAGER and others

Citation2006 PLC (C.S.) 1143
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.C.P. No,D-1064 of 2005
Date-
Judge(s)Sabihuddin Ahmed, Muhammad Ather Saeed
ResultPetition allowed

ORDER

1. ' The petitioners were initially employed by the State Petroleum Refining and Petrochemical Corporation (PERAC) posted in Petroman Division, which was engaged in running various Institutes in imparting courses in Engineering and Computer Sciences, Petroman, which was "originally being run under the administrative control of the Federal Minister of Industries and Production, was transferred to the "Ministry of Information Technology in September, 2000 together with all its assets, liabilities and staff. The authority exercisable by Chairman PERAC was delegated to a Joint Secretary in the Information Technology and Telecommunication Division. On 4-11-2004, a summary was put up before Honourable Prime Minister seeking transfer of Petroman from the Ministry of Information Technology to COMSATS (Respondent No,6) a statutory body established and owned by the Federal Government administered through the Ministry of Science and Technology. On 22-12-2004, the Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology, who also happens to be a Member of the Board of Governors to the respondent No,6, put up a note to the Honourable Prime Minister that faculty members who are possessing qualifications prescribed for appointment in the awarding institutions and all other staff including non-teaching employees will be absorbed by the respondent No,6 upon terms and conditions not less favourable than those available to them in Petroman. It was further proposed that the Higher Education Commission or the Finance Division might grant an amount of Rs,30.00 million as onetime dispensation of existing liabilities.

2. Para 9 of the note expressly records that the above proposal was submitted with the authority of the Federal Minister, who happens to be the Chancellor of the respondent No,6.

3. ' Be that as it may, it is evident that non-payment of living salary to low paid employees prima facie amounts to deprivation of right to life guaranteed by Article 9 of the Constitution. It is extremely disturbing to note that delay in disbursement of funds or settlement of liability between different arms of the government have brought them to this state of affairs. Evidently, the services of the petitioners have not been terminated in accordance with law and, as such, they are required to be paid their salaries. The fact that funds could not be obtained is only a matter of inefficiency of different departments and obviously the petitioners could not be made to suffer on this account.

4. We would, accordingly, allow this petition holding all the Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the salaries of the petitioners within one month from today. Failure to comply with this order might amount to contempt of the authority of the Court.

Cited by 2 cases

For educational and research use only β€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerΒ·PrivacyΒ·TermsΒ·Search