' S. ALI ASLAM JAFRI, J---This petition is directed against the order dated 14th March, 2002 passed by Election Tribunal for Lyari District, South Karachi/Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi-East, in Election Petition No,50/2001 whereby the election of present petitioner Mst. Shahzina Perveen as Councillor of Union Council-8 for Peasants Workers (Women) for Rangiwara, Lyari District, South Karachi, has been annulled on the ground that at the time of contesting the election she was working as Lady Health Visitor in Health Department which comes under Federal Government as such she was disqualified to contest the Sindh Local Government Elections, 2001 in view of the bar contained under section 14(g) of Sindh Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000.
2. The fact that the petitioner was working as a Lady Health Worker after having been selected and appointed against the said post is not disputed. The only point which needs consideration is as to whether a Lady Health Worker selected and appointed under the Prime Minister's Programme for Family Planning and Basic Health Order on a contract basis stands disqualified under section 14(g) of the Sindh Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 to contest the said elections.
3. The petitioner who has appeared in person has argued that she having been employed on contract basis, which is evident from her selection/appointment order shall not be deemed to be in service of Federal, a Provincial or a local Government or any statutory body or a body which is controlled by any such Government or in which any of such Government has a controlled share or interest, because the holder of elected public office and part-time officials remunerated either by salary or fee stand excluded from such disqualification. She has further pointed out that according to the terms and conditions mentioned in her appointment letter, she was appointed on contract basis for a period of fifteen months as per Condition No,1 and as per Condition No,8 the contract could be renewed from time to time. Condition 4 shows that Rs,50 per day were to be paid to the petitioner during the twelve weeks period training and thereafter a honorarium Rs,1,200 was to be paid. She has, therefore, vehemently urged that the impugned order is illegal and unwarranted and the petitioner does not stand disqualified under the said provisions of law.
4. Mr. Suleman Habibullah, learned Additional Advocate-General Sindh, has not supported the impugned order and argued that the same is based on misinterpretation of the relevant provisions of law.
5. Mr. Mahmood Hassan, learned counsel for respondent No,4, has supported the impugned order and argued that the petitioner is a Government servant for all intents and purposes. Merely the fact that the word 'honorarium' has been used instead of 'salary' shall not make any difference in the nature of appointment and the disqualification as envisaged in section 14(g) of the Ordinance stands fully attracted under the circumstances of the case.
6. We have considered the arguments of the petitioner, the learned A.A.-G. And Mr. Mahmood Hassan and gone through the record placed before us.
7. In order to appreciate the respective contentions, we feel , it necessary to reproduce section 14(g) of the Ordinance for ready reference as below:-- "A person shall qualify to be elected or to hold an elective office or membership of a local Government, if he is not in service of the Federal, a Provincial or a local Government or any statutory body or a body which is controlled by any such Government or in which any of such Government has a controlled share or interest, except the holders of elected public office and part- time officials remunerated either by salary or fee, provided that in case of a person who has resigned or retired from such service, a period of not less than six months has elapsed since his retirement."
8. We find force in the submission of the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh that "the holders of elected public office and part-time officials remunerated either by salary or fee" have been excluded from the disqualification as envisaged in section 14(g) of the Ordinance. The conditions for selection of the petitioner as a Lady Health Worker in her selection/appointment order clearly show that her selection for the said post was a part-time job and the contract which was initially for a period of fifteen months was subject to renewal and a honorarium at a fixed rate of Rs,1,200 per month was to be paid to her. Before the Election Tribunal one Muhammad Hanif, Accountant of District Health Officer, Karachi-South, was examined on behalf of respondent Sajida Malik who was petitioner in that election petition. He has placed on record some letters including letter dated 24-11-2001 from the Provincial Coordinator National Program for PP and PHC, Sindh, Hyderabad showing that decision was taken to terminate the services of those LHVs who contested the Local Government Elections and were elected whereas those LHVs who were not elected were allowed to perform their duties as LHVs. Another letter dated 26-6-2001 has also been placed on record from the same officer prohibiting the LHVs. LHV Supervisor. Accounts Supervisors and Drivers from participating or contesting the Local Government Elections or to take part in any sort of political activities failing which disciplinary action was to be taken. However, there is another letter dated 3-1-2002 from the same officer stating therein that the earlier letter dated 24-11-2001 has been withdrawn till further orders as desired by the higher authorities. All these letters supported the case of the petitioner that there was no bar disqualifying the Lady Health Visitors from contesting the Local. Government Elections.
The department in the first instance desired that they should not take part/contest the said elections but subsequently that letters/instructions have been withdrawn. Be that as it may, the disciplinary action is a matter purely between the employer and the employees. If an employee violates any directions or rules, the concerned employer may or may not take any action against the said employee.
9. After examining the case from all angles we have come to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner being a Lady Health Worker on contract basis and being paid a fixed honoraria does not stand covered under the disqualification as envisaged by section 14(g) of the Sindh Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000. We would, therefore, allow this petition and set aside the order of the Election Tribunal and restore the decision of the Returning Officer declaring the petitioner as successful candidates in the said elections. There will be no order as to cost.