ORDER SHEET

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

Constitutional Petition No.D- 106 of 2019.  

Date of hearing                                Order with signature of Judge.

1.For orders on office objections as flag A.

2.For orders on M.A No.2795 of 2019.

3.For orders on maintainability of main case.

26.3.2024.

                        Mr. Oshaque Ali Sangi, Asstt: Attorney General for Pakistan.

Mr. Abid Hussain Qadri, counsel for the official respondents/ SEPCO.  

======

                        None present for the petitioner. Mr.Abid Hussain Qadri, counsel for the respondents submits that respondents have submitted their respective comments and draws  attention of the court  towards Para No.3  to 6 of the comments  which reads as under:

                        “3. The case of petitioner falls under category “E” in pursuance of office order No. AD(E.11.A) 07781 /PR /Chairman /21812- 22461 dated:08.04.2004 (Annex-A) which transpires A child of retired employee, therefore, as and when SEPCO announces posts under direct recruitment the petitioner will be at liberty to apply against post advertised and application would be processed as per rule / policy in light of office order No. DG(S&GA)/AD(EDB) /07781/PR/Chairman/7154-B10 dated: 24.12.2005 (Annex-B).

4. The case of petitioner falls under 20 % quota reserved for children of employees as per PEPCO O.M dated: 21.04.2009 (Annex-C).

5. The case of petitioner does not falls under said category, “C’” category is designated for children / widow of employees who died during service, the cases of “C” category are dealt as per PEPCO Office Memorandum No. GM(HR)/HRD/A-693/2261-99 dated: 03.07.2015 (Annex-D).

6. The request of petitioner does not cover under prevailing rules/ policies as the same falls under 20 % quota as per PEPCO O.M dated: 21.04.2009 (Annex-D) being retired employee.”

            Mr.Qadri submits that as and when department may invite  applications for recruitment  the petitioner or his nominee should apply for the same which shall be considered in terms of the policy as mentioned in aforementioned  Paras of the comments.  Since the petitioner and his counsel have not been appearing since long, the purpose of the petition, in view of above comments, seems to have achieved, which is hereby disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                                            JUDGE

                                                                                    JUDGE