ABDUL JABBAR Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB

ORDER

Common question, which arises for resolution in Writ Petitions Nos.1582, 1652, 1671. 1890, 2205, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 3180 and 3243 of 1994 relates to the legality or otherwise of termination orders passed by the respondent‑authorities in relation to all the writ petitioners, and therefore, the same shall be decided by this joint order.

2. It is alleged inn behalf of the petitioners that the impugned orders are violative of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Human Rights Case No.104/92 titled "Irregularities in appointments" brought to the notice of the learned Court by one Abdul Jabbar Memon and two others, rendered on 19‑1‑1993. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners have also relied upon judgment dated 19‑1‑1994 made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13647 of 1993 wherein it was held that petitioners in all the causes disposed of jointly alongwith the said Writ Petition No. 13647 of 1993 were not afforded an opportunity of hearing and as the said assertion was not controverted on behalf of the respondent‑authorities therein, they were allowed to continue in service.

3. Mr. Abdul 4attar Najam, Advocate‑General has checked up the position with the respondent‑authorities in relation to the respondent Government not taking the matter resolved in Writ Petition No, 13647 of 1993 and others any further and states that the case of the writ petitioners is akin to the case of petitioners in the afore-referred writ petitions and the orders impugned herein namely orders dated 17‑8‑1993 and dated 26‑8‑1993 and 12‑9‑1993 made by Senior Most Staff Officer, Irrigation Faisalabad Zone, Faisalabad and Executive Engineer, T/Well Operation Division (North) Sheikhupura, respectively and orders dated 21‑8‑1993 and 18‑9‑1993 made by Land Reclamation officer, LCC: East Circle, Faisalabad, and Land Reclamation Officer, LCC West Circle, Faisalabad respectively, are also violative of the principles of natural justice. According to him, some of the petitioners are T/well Operators while others are Sub‑Engineers, Canal-Patwaris and Draftsmen. In case of the latter category, the appointing/competent authority is not the respondent‑Executive Engineer. According to him, the Cases of Tubewell Operators are governed in relation to their employment under the provisions contained in Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969) and after an order within the departmental-?hierarchy is made against them, they would be entitled to make resort to Section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He, however, was not in a position to deny the fact that the initial defect in the making of the orders both in relation to the Draftsman and Sub‑Engineers as also the Tubewell Operators cannot be justified. He was of the view that the respondent‑authorities may be provided an opportunity to call upon the writ petitioners individually to show cause against any action to be taken by them against the writ petitioners, anew.

In view of the stand taken by the respondent‑authorities in these cases, I am inclined to dispose of these petitions as having borne fruit with the observation that this order shall not stand in the way of the respondent ?authorities to take up the matter and decide the causes of all the petitioners individually in accordance with law after providing them an opportunity of hearing.

H.B.T./A‑718/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.