1. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was given offer of appointment vide offer letter dated March 20th, 2004 and after codal formalities he was issued appointment order dated 8-9-2004 and he submitted duty report to District Officer, Education (Elementary), Jacobabad on 9-9-2004.
2. Service Book was accordingly prepared, which is duly signed by District Officer, Education till 2007. It is also claimed that the petitioner has been signing the attendance register and photocopy of some of pages of the attendance register till June and July, 2010 has been enclosed with the petition. It is further stated in the petition that District Officer, Education (Elementary), Jacobabad vide letter dated 24-4-2006 wrote to the Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, Jacobabad for opening salary account of the petitioner and the salary account was accordingly opened and thereafter salary was paid to him till October, 2009, when payment of salary was abruptly stopped.
3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner still continues working and is not being paid salary. Mr. Nazir Ahmed, Head Master, Govt. Middle School (Boys) Sultan Sarki, Taluka Thul, District Jacobabad admits that petitioner is still working in his school. He further states that it is within his knowledge that the petitioner is not being paid his salary. He states that he has taken up the matter regarding nonpayment of the salary to the petitioner with the E.D.O., but the issue has not been resolved.
4. Muhammad Haneef, A.D.O. Education, states that the Head Master of the school submitted list of his staff members and that list consists of six persons and the present petitioner's name was not included in that list. Such list was given on 29-3-2010. E.D.O., Azizullah, present in Court, states and it is also stated in the comments that appointment letter etc. Of the petitioner are managed documents and there are many irregularities in the so-called appointment of the petitioner.
5. ' We have considered all these submissions.
6. If there are irregularities in the appointment of the petitioner, it is available to the departmental authorities to take action under the relevant efficiency and disciplinary rules and after due process bring employment of the petitioner to an end, but it is not available to the departmental authorities to on the one hand say that appointment of the petitioner is wrong and then on the other hand take no action and continue to take work from the petitioner. Such conduct i,e,, taking work from someone and not paying him for it amounts to exploitation, which is forbidden by Article 3 of the Constitution, denial of right of life which is forbidden by Article 9 of the Constitution and slavery and forced labour which is forbidden by Article 11 of the Constitution. Therefore, as long as the petitioner is working in the school, he is entitled to be paid his salaries. There cannot be any two opinions about it.
7. ' From the trend of statements made in the Court by the E.D.O. And the Head Master, it appears that everyone is throwing responsibility on someone else and the petitioner is being kept in a state of misery. If his appointment is illegal, it is basically responsibility of E.D.O. And Head Master to take appropriate action and since the petitioner has been working, it was basically responsibility of the Head Master to initiate strong action and strong correspondence for his salary which he has not done.
8. ' Authority given to a public servant is a sacred trust and the public servant is required to perform his duties honestly and diligently. If any wrong is being committed by his subordinate, it is his duty to ensure that not only the act of wrong is brought to an end but also the delinquent officer is taken to task in accordance with the rules. On the other hand, it is also his responsibility that none of his subordinates is being unfairly treated or denied any of his service rights and if it happens it is his duty to raise hue and voice to high heavens so that the grievance of his subordinates is redressed according to law. If the public servant does not act in accordance with the above principles, either he is complicit or is merely negligent and, therefore, must be burdened with requisite consequences. This was the principle followed by a single Bench of this court in WAPDA through Superintending Engineer and another v. Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,VII and others 1998 PLC 180. In the present case, if the petitioner was working without lawful authority and without being properly appointed, ii was duty of E.D.O. To take concrete and positive steps and not mere perfunctory whimpering of a letter and if the petitioner, being lawfully appointed, was not being paid salaries it was duty of the Headmaster to raise the loudest possible voice. Both of them failed in their duties and, therefore, must bear the consequences. It is, therefore, ordered that current salary of the petitioner be paid on regular basis by deducting 50% of it from the salary of the E.D.O.
9. And the other 50% from the salary of the Head Master. The E.D.O. And the Head Master are directed to take steps for initiation of appropriate action to determine whether the appointment of the petitioner is in violation of law and if the petitioner is guilty of any misconduct, take disciplinary action against him in accordance with the law within three months. Arrears, if any, shall depend upon the final result.
10. ' This petition is disposed of in the above terms along with listed applications.