Pakistan Case Law← Search
2006 PLC (C.S.) 1

KHALID HASAN vs EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER EDUCATION, CITY DISTRICT

Citation2006 PLC (C.S.) 1
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Constitutional Petition No,1100 of 2004
Date2005-06-02
Judge(s)Sabihuddin Ahmed, Maqbool Baqar
ResultPetition allowed

ORDER

1. ' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J.---It was alleged on behalf of respondents that the petitioner had not performed duties from 1-7-1991 to 8-12-1991 and was therefore, not entitled to payment of salary for the aforesaid period. However, no documentary material in support of the allegations was placed before the Court except a loose sheet purporting to be duplicate of the relevant entries from Muster Roll for the month of A August, 1991 which, surprisingly was recovered from the custody of one .Mr. Moin Akbar, Headmaster of the schools, where the petitioner was working during the relevant period who was transferred from that school in. September, 1991 and retired from service in January, 1994. Incidentally specific allegations of mala fide against the aforesaid Moin Akbar have been made in the memo. Of petition.

2. ' In is indeed contended that the petitioner had himself torn the school muster roll in May, 1991, but it is not shown however, attendance were recorded between September to December, 1991. In any event even if the petitioner was absent from duty during the aforesaid period the proper course, as has been candidly admitted by the learned Executive District Officer was to initiate disciplinary action and pass an appropriate order. Admittedly this was not done and the petitioner continues to remain in service working in another school. He could certainly not to be treated as a daily wages employee and we therefore, find it impossible to uphold the plea that the petitioner was not entitled to salary from 1st July, 1991 to 8th December, 1991.

3. ' We cannot resist observing that the affairs of schools managed by the City District Government appear to be in a terrible state of affairs. Indeed the present administration cannot be held liable for what was done in the past but the EDO may be well advised to make extra efforts and effectively monitor affairs to put things in order.

4. ' The petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents will disburse the salary then due to the petitioner within three months. We expect that the provincial Government and the office of the Accountant General will not cause unnecessary delay.

Cited by 2 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search