IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Present:
Irshad Ali Shah, J.
Agha Faisal, J.
CP D815 of 2018 : Zahid Hussain &Others vs.
Chairman Municipal Committee
K.N. Shah &Others
For the Petitioners : Mr. Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Muhammad AshiqueDhamraho
Advocate
For rest of Respondents : Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar, Addl. A.G.
Dates of hearing : 25.01.2022.
Date of announcement : 25.01.2022.
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. Present petition has been filed seeking release of salary from June, 2013, till date, notwithstanding the para-wise comments of the respondents stating that the appointment documentation of the petitioners was found to be fake, forged and bogus.
2. Petitioners’ learned counsel adverted to an order dated 21.11.2012, to suggest that the entitlement of the petitioners was established. It is considered appropriate to reproduce the relevant order herein below:
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner receives monthly salary regularly. He further submits that he withdraws the petition, direction may be given to the respondent No.1 for payment of the salary to the petitioner through Bank. Mr. Muhammad Ashique Dhamrah appearing for the respondent No.1 states that monthly salary shall be paid to the petitioner through concerned Bank in accordance with law. In these circumstances, Mr. Ghouri, does not press this petition more. The constitutional petition is disposed of accordingly.”
3. Learned Addl. A.G. submitted that no case is made out for recovery of salary when the appointment itself of the petitioners was found to be non-existent / illegal.
4. Heard and perused. Since the very existence of the petitioners' employment is in dispute, the question of unpaid salary could only be determined subsequent to decision of whether any relationship existed / subsisted. The said exercise would require enquiries of a factual nature, appraisal of evidence / record and conflicting claims, which are not amenable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction[1].
5. In so far as the earlier petition is concerned, the order under reference does not determine any entitlement of any person whatsoever, for purposes hereof. The order merely records the contentions of the respective counsel and no judicial ascertainment of relationship is manifest at all. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the petitioners (in the earlier petition) are of the view that orders therein have not been complied with then they remained at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in the very petition and the subsequent petition would prima facie be unwarranted.
6. In view hereof, this Court is constrained to observe that no case has been set forth for the invocation of the discretionary[2] writ jurisdiction of this Court, hence, this petition is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE
JUDGE