IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, BENCH AT BAHAWALPUR

W.P.NO. -----------------/2020 /BWP

1. AJMAL RASHEED S/O RASHEED AHMED CASTE KORI BALOUCH R/O

UNION COUNSEL MUHAMMAD PUR QURESHIAN TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
RAHIM YAR KHAN.
2. FAYYAZ HANIF RAHI S/O MUHAMMAD HANIF CASTE ARIAN R/O STREET
NO. 6 JINNAH PARK RAHIM YAR KHAN.

… PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH, SECRETARY HELATH, CIVIL SECRITRIATE

LAHORE.
2. CHAIRMAN BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, SHEIKH ZAYED MECICAL COLLEGE
AND HOSPITAL RAHIM YAR KHAN.
3. PRINCIPAL SHEIKH ZAYED MEDICAL COLLEGE RAHIM YAR KHAN.
4. MEDICAL SUPERENTENDENT SHEIKH ZAYED HOSPITAL RAHIM YAR KHAN.
5. DIRECTOR FINANCE OFFICER, SHEIKH ZAYED MEDICAL COLLEGE AND
HOSPTIAL RAHIM YAR KHAN.
… RESPONDENTS

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC

OF PAKISTAN 1973 FOR ISSUANCE OF DIRECTON TO THE RESPONDENT
NO. 5 ABOUT RELEASING THE REMUNERATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS
IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY FROM THE MONTH OF
DECEMBER TO UP TILL NOW WITH ALL OUTSTANDING DUES i.e T/A-D/As
etc AND FURTHER DIRECTION MAY KINDLY BE ISSUED TO THE
RESPONDENT NO. 3 ABOUT SIGNING THE TWO YEARS CONTRACT OF
PETITIONERS ACCORDING TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
APPOINTEMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ADVERTISMENT NO IPB-764
FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH;
1. That the above given are the correct addresses of the parties for issuance of all
kinds of notices and summons.
2. That the petitioner No. 2 applied for the posts of Legal Advisor and Law Officer in
pursuance to the advertisement dated 6-9-2019 published in the daily Jang.
Petitioner No. 1 applied for the post of Law Officer. Petitioners issued call letters
for interview and petitioners appeared before the Special Selection Board for the
interview of these posts. After interview and fulfill the codal formalities
petitioners were appointed as Law Officers at Sheikh Zayed Medical College and
Hospital vide appointment letters dated 29-10-2019. The petitioners also taken
charge of these jobs vide charge report dated 29-10-2019. That appointment
orders were made on Adhoc Basis in the anticipation of approval from the board
of management for two years contract. The copies of advertisement dated 6-9-
2019, appointment letters with charge reports of the petitioners are attached A,
B, B-1, C, C-1 respectively.
3. That after appointment petitioners are continuously working on their job and
conducted many cases before the Hon’ able High Court, Punjab Service Tribunal
and lower courts on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4. The respondent No. 5 paid
the remuneration to the petitioners in the month of November only after that
respondent No. 5 stopped the remuneration of the petitioners orally in an illegal
and arbitrary manner without any legal justification. The copies of bank
statements of the petitioners about remuneration account of HBL SZMC/H
branch are attached as Annexure D and E for ready reference.
4. That the respondent No. 5 did not release any outstanding dues i.e. TA/DAs etc
to the petitioner up till know. The petitioner repeatedly filed applications before
the respondent No. 2 and 3 for the release of their salaries but the respondents’
No. 2 and 3 did not passed any appropriate order for releasing the remunerations
of the petitioners as well as travelling allowances. The copies of applications
dated 20-2-2020 and dated 3-3-2020 are attached as Annexure F and G.
5. That according to the advertisement dated 6-9-2019 the petitioner’s
appointment was made to be on contract basis after approval of Board of
Management. First meeting of the Board of Management was held on 14-1-
2020. Respondents No. 5 said to the petitioners that in that meeting of the BOM
contract appointment would be sanctioned and then respondent No. 5 released
their remunerations and other expenses. But in the meeting of BOM respondent
No. 5 misguided the members of the BOM and contract appointment which
should be approved by the BOM become reluctant due to the malafide of the
respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 is a part and parcel of the anti petitioners
lobby and respondent No. 5 stop the salaries of the petitioners through self
passed oral orders which are not known in the eye of law. Their appointments
are terminated through verbal order hence, not any specific order is in the field.
Respondent No. 5 stopped the remunerations of the petitioner with malafide
intention.
6. That Director Finance once again opposes the contract appointment of the
applicants in an arbitrary manner on the ground that the appointments on the
contract basis can be made subject to the approval of Law secretary Punjab,
otherwise only approval of the BOM would be illegal. Hence the approval of the
contract appointment of the applicants and others is exclusively is the
prerogative of Board of Management of SZMC/H because SZMC/H is running by
 the autonomous body of Board of Management, which is competent authority
for the appointment of the applicants.
7. That in the advertisement dated 6-9-2019 given by the respondent No. 3 on
behalf of Board of Management because the respondent No. 3 is member of the
Board of Management there is nothing mentioned regarding appointments of
Law Officers that it would be made of finalized subject to the approval of
Secretary Law. According to the law and rules the Board of Management can
changed/relaxed the terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioners.
8. That the charge of legal department of this institution still vests in the petitioners
and others and applicants are rendering their duties regularly with zeal and zest,
but Director Finance has unjustifiably withheld the remuneration of the
applicants since December 2019. By this way the petitioners are being
discriminated by the respondent’s No. 2 to 5 because other employees of the
SZMC/H are getting their salaries but the petitioners are deprived with malafide
intention of the respondents.
9. That director finance in connivance with MS. SZMH/C/RYK and Principal
SZMC/RYK verbally stop the applicants from working as Law Officers. All officials
of the SZMC/H unjustifiably declared the appointments of the applicants and
other had some procedural errors; which should be cured by the BOM and after
curing that errors DFO assured to the applicants for release of remuneration and
other expenses and after approval from the BOM two years contract
appointment as proposed in advertisement no. IPB-764 would be approved in the
upcoming BOM meeting after that Principal SZMC/RYK signed contract of the
petitioners.
10. That Legal Advisor of SZMC/H who was appointed with the petitioners also filed
W.P.No. 2245/2020/Bwp on these identical issues in which this Hon’ able Court
passed order on 30-3-2020 for the payment of outstanding remunerations to the
legal advisor. The copies of order dated 30-3-2020 and W.P. No.
2245/2020/Bwp are attached as Annexure H, H-1 for your kind perusal.
11. That the above titled writ petition is being filed before this Hon’ able Court inter
alia on the following;
Grounds
i. That the verbal termination of service is clear cut violation of section 10 of
the Punjab civil servant act 1974, hence the upholding the remunerations
and other expenses which are still pending through oral order has no legal
sanctity being not known in the eye of law.
ii. That it is settled law that once a right was accrued to a petitioner by
appointment letter after complying with all the codal formalities then
same could not be taken away on mere assumption, supposition,
whims and fancy of any executive functionary---Such right once vested
could not be destroyed or withdrawn as legal bar would come into play
under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae.
iii. That the fundamental rights of the Petitioner as embodied in Arts. 04, 10-
A 14, 19-A, 25 and 27 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
1973 have been woefully and abominably subdued without any legal
authority and justification.
iv. That in the appointment order issued by the respondent No. 2 nothing is
mentioned about termination as well as removal of service of the
petitioners hence, it would deem that the service would be continued till
the contractual appointment after approval from the Board of
Management.
v. That as the selection of the Petitioners were made with reference to
Advertisement No. IPB-764 (Annex ’A’) in which post type was ’02 year
Contract’, so petitioners seek appropriate direction to Respondent No. 03
for issuance of 02 year-Contract appointment Letter asp. As the petitioners
were selected and given charge of the law officers on ad-hoc basis of 06
months, till the arrival of contract orders from BOM, and the reasons for
doing that was stated as because of work-load and deficiency of qualified
staff. So Respondent No. 06 under the protection of highly influenced ones
of SZMC/H RYK by nefarious designs and is deliberately delaying the
Orders of Contractual Appointment to sideline the petitioners and take
the blessings from Respondent No. 06. So, in the wake of maintaining Rule
of Law, petitioner entreat this high-principled and illustrious Court to issue
appropriate directions to Respondent Nos. 02 and 03 to hand over the
Contractual Appointment Orders of the petitioners for 02 years as the
petitioners have been duly selected and recommended by Interviewing
Committee and SSB.
vi. That there is nothing in the Law & Rules which could in any manner
suggest such act of stopping the remunerations of the petitioners by
Respondent No. 05 in such an arbitrary and erratic manner, prejudicial to
the petitioner. In this context S. 24-A of The General Clauses Act X of 1897
expressly prohibits such kind of arbitrary action taken under the cover of
authority.
vii. That the petitioners neither received any notice as well as did not receive
any removal, termination or dismissal letter up till know and petitioner is
continuously going to office for work but the respondent No. 5 did not
paying the salaries and TA/DA to the petitioner on the instructions of
respondent No. 6. Hence principal laid down in the W.P. No.
898/2020/Bwp decided on 19-2-2020 by this August Court by His Lordship
Mr. J. Shahid Jameel Khan which is approved for reporting observed that
after insertion of article 10-A and 19-A in the Constitution of Islamic
Republic Of Pakistan 1973,
Due process and disclosure of necessary information in a notice or
show cause notice is fundamental right of the recipient of any
notice. Any action taken, on a notice or show cause notice, lacking
due process or necessary information, shall be susceptible to
judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction and liable to be set
aside for not adhering to the guaranteed fundamental rights.
But the authority neither given any notice to the petitioners nor
adopted the due process of law, hence the respondent No. 6 is duty
bound to issue the all pending dues to the petitioners with
immediate effect. Copy of order dated 19-2-2020 passed by this
Hon’ able Court is attached herewith as Annex ‘J’.
 viii. That the petitioner has no any other efficacious and speedy remedy except
to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ able Court.
ix. That further submissions would be made at the time of arguments.
x. That the affidavit and court fee is attached with the petition.
PRAYERS.
1. It is, therefore, respectfully and humbly prayed that
the respondent No. 3 and 5 may kindly be directed
to release the salaries of the petitioners with all
outstanding dues i.e. T/A-D/A up till now, in the
interest of justice.
2. It is, therefore, respectfully and humbly prayed that
the respondents No. 2 and 3 may kindly directed to
sign the two year contact appointment letter with
the petitioners according to the appointment letter
of the petitioners, in the interest of justice.
Or
Any other consequential relief may kindly be
granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ able Court
may deems it fit, in the in the interest of justice.

Dated. -------------------

Petitioners

Petitioner No. 1

Ajmal Rasheed

Petitioner No. 2

Muhammad Fayyaz Hanif

NOTE: No such petition has earlier been filed by the petitioner before
this Hon’ able Court.
Certificate: Certified that this petition has arisen from the violation of the
articles of the Constitution and that no alternate remedy has been
available provided under the law to the petitioner.
Counsel