IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 

Present:

Irshad Ali Shah, J.

Agha Faisal, J.

 

CP D1219 of 2010               :           Nisar Ahmed &Others vs.

Province of Sindh &)thers

 

For the Petitioners               :           Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro

Advocate

 

For the Respondents          :           Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar, Addl. A.G.

                                                           

Dates of hearing                  :           25.01.2022

 

Date of announcement      :           25.01.2022

 

ORDER

 

Agha Faisal, J.         This petition was filed in 2010 seeking release of salary of the petitioners from May, 2010 till date, however, the para-wise comments available on file state that the petitioners were never employed.

 

2.            The learned counsel for petitioners was confronted at the very outset in respect of maintainability hereof, as it had been claimed that the petitioners were employed on contract basis, which contract has since long expired. Learned counsel was asked to address the Court as to how the recovery of contractual dues could be sought in the writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel admitted that the purported three years contract had admittedly never been renewed, yet it was the right of the petitioners to seek their contractual dues for services rendered.

 

3.            Learned Addl. A.G. submits that out of 246 petitioners 245 were never employed and the claim for the remaining petitioner was unmerited, as there was no amount outstanding for any services that may have been rendered. It was argued that in any event recovery of contractual dues cannot be sought in writ jurisdiction.

 

4.            Heard and perused. The question whether the petitioners were employed at all or otherwise is of a factual nature, requiring enquiries of a factual nature, appraisal of evidence / record and conflicting claims, which are not amenable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction[1].Even otherwise the quantification and recovery of any contractual dues was better addressed before the courts of plenary jurisdiction.

 

5.            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

 



[1]2016 CLC 1; 2015 PLC 45; 2015 CLD 257; 2011 SCMR 1990; 2001 SCMR 574; PLD 2001 Supreme Court 415.

[2]Per Ijaz Ul Ahsan J. in Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani vs. PBC & Others reported as 2021 SCMR 425; Muhammad Fiaz Khan vs. Ajmer Khan & Another reported as 2010 SCMR 105.