IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Present:

Syed Irshad Ali Shah, J.

Agha Faisal, J.

C. P No. D-430 of 2013                :              Mushtaque Ahmed

vs. District Council Larkano

& Others

For the petitioner                              :           Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri

                                                                        Advocate

For the respondent                          :           Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri    Additional Advocate General

Date of hearing                                :           02.02.2022

Date of announcement                  :           02.02.2022

ORDER

Agha Faisal, J.         The petitioner was employed on temporary basis in 1992 vide the pertinent order, expressly stating that the appointment is merely temporary and can be terminated at any time whatsoever. Such engagement was terminated in 1994, without any demur by the petitioner. It is averred that a colleague of the petitioner was once again employed by the respondents in July 2011, hence, the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement.

2. Learned counsel was confronted with regard to the maintainability hereof and asked to demonstrate any vested rights of the petitioner to seek reinstatement, when in fact the petitioner was never aggrieved by his termination in 1994. Learned counsel remained unable to articulate any justification in such regard. The petitioner has also been unable to demonstrate any entitlement to seek reinstatement. Furthermore the reemployment of one of his colleagues by the respondents could not be demonstrated to have conferred any entitlement upon the petitioner.

3. In addition to the foregoing, this petition appears to be hit by laches. The un-assailed termination admittedly took place in 1994 and the delay of 19 years, in preferring the present petition, could not be explained by the petitioner's counsel. Even if the extraneous issue of the colleague's employment in 2011 is considered as the starting point, even then there is no justification for having preferred this petition two years thereafter.

4. In view of the foregoing, this petition is found to be misconceived, hence, is hereby dismissed.

JUDGE

JUDGE