ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Constt: Pett: No.D- 45 of 2017.

Date                            Order with signature of Hon’ble Judge

1. For orders on office objection as flag A.

2.For orders on M.A No. 248/2017.

3.For orders on M.A No. 249/2017.

4.For katcha peshi.                         

25.01.2017.

                        Mr. Riaz Hussain Khoso, advocate for the petitioner.

=====

                        The petitioner has sought the following relief:

a.         That this Hon’ble Court be pleased  to direct the respondents to release outstanding salaries of the petitioner w.e.f 01.7.2012 to 25.11.2012 and 01.7.2013 to 31.5.2014, which become an amount to the tune of Rs.2,73,122/- (Two lacs, seventy three thousands, one hundred twenty)  without any further delay.

b.         That, the Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondents not to create any hurdle in respect of release of salary of petitioners in future.

c.         ……….

            The petitioner is relying on the  document  dated 07.05.2014 to claim his salary amounting to Rs.2,73,122/= for the period of service spent  sometime in 2012 and 2014.  The petitioner has not offered any justification for not filing this petition or even making a request in writing to the higher authority for release of salary for said period. However, he has filed annexure B  which is a letter of Town Committee Bakrani but it does not bear signatures of any of the officers i.e. Accounts Officer, Administrative Officer and Town Officer and it does not show even date  of its preparation. The petitioner has also filed another document as Annexure B-1 which is almost an original copy with initial of Deputy Commissioner, Larkana.  This is also undated and does not bear signatures of any of the officers whose designations are mentioned on it. On this dubious document, the learned counsel has referred to note of Deputy Commissioner which reads:

“AC Bakrani.

Pl. release in installments keeping in view.

Sd/-

17.02.2016.”

2

It is also not clear that how this unsigned document was placed before the worthy Deputy Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner, who had no authority to come in the picture, has directed to release claim of the petitioner in installments and left the note incomplete since note says    “keeping in view” but does not refer to any rule/regulation to be viewed by AC.  This document is also one 100% doubtful and cannot be considered by this Court for any benefit for the petitioner. All other documents produced as  Annexures A, A-1, B-2, B-3 and C are also undated and unsigned except  Annexure A which is dated 17^th March, 2014.

            This petition, on the face of it, has been filed on the basis of documents which do not inspire confidence for even seeking comments from the respondents and this petition suffers from latches. These dubious documents cannot  control  latches for a period of two years or more.  The petition is therefore, dismissed.

            Copy of this order may be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Larkana with annexures with direction to hold a discreet inquiry that annexure B-1 carries a note in the handwriting and initial of the then Deputy Commissioner dated 17.02.2016. And how the Deputy Commissioner can order for payment of bill in installments which has never been passed. At least there was no bill duly passed. If these documents are found false/fabricated, a departmental proceeding may be initiated against the petitioner for attempting to obtain order of the Court to influence the respondents to illegally claim release of Rs.2,73,122/=.  Such inquiry or its proceeding be placed in Court through Additional Registrar for perusal in chamber on fortnightly basis.

JUDGE

                                                                        JUDGE