Employee of Karachi Port Trust

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS)N 100 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : IQBAL SIDDIQUI
Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Ports and Shipping, Karachi
S. 2 (1) (b)---Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), Ss. 4 & 2(a)---Karachi Port Trust Act (VI of 1886), S.22---Karachi Port Trust Officers Recruitment, Appointment, seniority and Promotion Regulations, 2011, Preamble---Employee of Karachi Port Trust---Ad hoc appointment--- seniority --- Determination of--- Procedure---Promotion---Scope---Contention of petitioner-employee was that he was entitled to be promoted from the date when regular vacancy occurred---Validity---Karachi Port Trust Officers Recruitment, Appointment, seniority and Promotion Regulations, 2011 were statutory rules of service---Employees of Karachi Port Trust were not civil servants and they could not file service appeal before the Service Tribunal---Only remedy for the petitioner-employee was under Art.199 of the Constitution---Employee was appointed as Trainee Officer on ad hoc basis on 28-11-1989 and his services were regularized on 12-10-1995---Ad hoc appointment was made without adopting due process of law as a stopgap arrangement---Ad hoc employee did not carry any vested right to be regularized in service from the date of his induction---Period of ad hoc appointment could not be counted towards service---seniority in grade was to be taken from the date of regular appointment to a post and it could not be conferred retrospectively---Ad hoc appointee would only be entitled to seniority from the date of his regularization and not from the date of initial appointment---No employee could claim fundamental or vested right with regard to promotion---An acting or looking after charge could neither be construed to be an appointment by promotion on regular basis for any purpose including seniority nor did it confer any vested right for regular promotion from the date of such an appointment---Appointment on current charge basis would be temporary in nature and a stopgap arrangement---Such appointment would remain operative for a short duration till regular appointment was made against the post---Petitioner was neither entitled for retrospective seniority nor promotion---Direct recruit could claim seniority only from the date of his regular appointment and not from the date when he joined the service---Eligibility for promotion would relate to the terms and conditions of service while fitness for promotion was a subjective evaluation made on the basis of objective criteria---Promotion would depend on eligibility, fitness and availability of vacancy---Competent authority could make appointment, determine seniority , eligibility, fitness and promotion and other ancillary matters with regard to terms and conditions of employees---seniority in service cadre or post to which an official was promoted was to take effect from the date of regular promotion to that service, cadre or post and not from any ad hoc induction---Employee could not claim promotion from the date when he assumed acting charge or from the date when vacancy occurred---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS)N 71 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : PAKISTAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (CENTRE)
Side Opponent : CHANCELLOR DOW UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
Art. 204--- Contempt proceedings, initiation of---Employer/ Department was directed by High Court to complete appointment process and as a stopgap arrangement respondent was given charge of the post---Respondent moved contempt petition on account of willful and deliberate act of disobeying order of High Court---Validity---High Court had only observed that additional charge to the respondent would continue as a stopgap arrangement and would come to an end automatically on regular appointment---Respondent was directed to perform only day to day routine work without taking any major decision---No vested right would create in favour of the respondent to hold the post in question in circumstances---Stopgap arrangement was temporary in nature and under the law could be assigned to anyone on seniority basis to run day to day affairs---Department could appoint any of the officers as provided under the law in order to run the institution smoothly---No contempt of Court's order had been made out---Contempt petition was dismissed in circumstances.