IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

C.P.L.A No. _________/2012 Deputy Director, Human Resource Management Directorate, PMO & others ...Appellants Versus Habib-Ullah, Ex-Technician-I (SMW) PMO ...Respondent

I.

Subject Matter

II. III. IV.

Law Who filed this CPLA Court Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench (Single) Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench (Single)

CONCISE STATEMENT CPLA under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 against order dated 06-11-2012 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Writ Petition No. 858/2011 a) National Command Authority Act, 2010 b) Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010 Appellants Who filed it and with what results? That the Respondent filed a Writ Petition 858/2011, which was fixed for hearing on 08-11-2012. That the Respondent then filed CM No. 1633/2012 to withdraw the Writ Petition 858/2011. The CM along with the Writ Petition 858/2011 was disposed of vide order dated 06-112012 (the Impugned Order)

a)Date of filing b)Date of decision a) .... b) .... a) .... b) 06.11.2012

V.

Points raised before the High Court That the Honourable High Court passed the Impugned Order without hearing arguments of the Appellants. That in disposing of the Petition the Honourable High Court effectively granted the Respondent the relief prayed for despite that the Respondent did not wish to press the Petition. That the Court below ignored the fact that Impugned Letter of reinstatement is issued by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Regularization of Contract, Daily Wages Employees/Re-instatement of Sacked Employees; which is a stranger to the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010 and lacked legal basis to make recommendations for reinstatement That the Appellants is a nonstatutory body governed under the

Treatment of the Points in the Impugned Order

2. Submits, under instructions, that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed inasmuch as through letter N.3/5/2011-Admn-I, dated 20-09-2012, the petitioner has been directed to be reinstated by Cabinet Sub-Committee...Further submits that in view thereof, the petitioner does not wish to press the petition. Prays that a direction may, however, be issued to respondents No. 1, 3 & 4 t implement the order dated 20.09.2012 in letter and spirit. 3. Disposed of accordingly.

NCA Act, 2010, therefore the Petition was not maintainable in the first place and should have been dismissed by the Honourable High Court That the Honourable High Court disregarded the fact that the Reinstatement Act, 2010 is not applicable to the present facts since the Respondent was discharged and not dismissed, removed or terminated from his service. That the Honourable High Court has ignored the settled principle of law that discharge of an employee from service during his period of probation does not amount to termination, dismissal or removal from service. That the Court below ignored the fact that after coming into force of the National Command Authority Act, 2010, the Cabinet SubCommittee on Regularization of Contract, Daily Wages Employees/Re-instatement of Sacked Employees has no jurisdiction and authority to address a direction to the NCA neither has the Committee jurisdiction to enter upon and entertain matters of the NCA whatsoever. VI. Case law on the point to be cited at the Bar For Against

Certified that I myself prepared this concise statement which is correct