SHC issues notices to registrar, others for fresh hearing of plea

The Sindh High Court has issued intimation notices to its registrar and the counsel for 58 employees of the court for a fresh hearing of a petition seeking consideration for promotions to the vacant posts of the assistant registrar and the reader. 

The petitioners, including Mohammad Saleem Baloch, said they were working as senior office associates and entitled to be considered for promotions to posts lying vacant. 

The stated that promotions to the posts of the assistant registrar and the reader were last carried out in 2011 under the high court establishment’s rules. However, with the retirement of several judicial officers, 31 posts were lying vacant, they said, adding that business affairs in various branches were being looked after by senior office associates, and that too, on an own-pay structure basis. 

They petitioners further submitted that the SHC had already observed in its judgment that efforts to fill up the permanent vacant posts needed to be enhanced within a reasonable period of time. 

Their counsel noted that they were waiting for their promotions strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions; however, they came to know of the SHC’s decision to create 40 posts for junior court associates of grade 16. To add to that, the counsel argued, 50 percent of the posts would be filled up through initial appointments. 

He said the SHC’s administration committee had the powers to create posts in accordance with the rules, but subject to the amendment carried out in accordance with the rules, another change in the clause was needed in order for the created posts to be declared null and void. 

The counsel said the petitioners’ right to be considered for promotions was in accordance with the laws; therefore, they could not be deprived of them even by amending the rules as amendments could not be made with retrospective effect. 

The court was requested to declare the exercise as the one initiated to “deprive the petitioners of their lawful rights” to be considered for promotions by the committee as unauthorised modus operandi and unlawful and to direct the administration committee to start the process of promotions under Rule 7 of the high court establishment rules 2006.  The petitioners also sought an injunction setting aside the impugned creation of posts for junior court associates. 

The high court had earlier reserved its judgment on the petition; however, the petitioners’ counsel filed a statement along with a copy of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court. 

The counsel said the Supreme Court judgment covered the bar contained under Article 199(5) of the constitution. 

The court observed that in order to give a fair opportunity of hearing to the parties on the latest development, it would be appropriate that the matter be re-heard. It directed the office to fix the matter for a re-hearing before the service bench as earlier the matter was heard by Justice Mohammad Iqbal Mahar.

The court also issued notices to the counsel for the petitioners and the registrar for October 18 for a re-hearing.

Transport fares

The Sindh High Court on Monday issued notices to the chief secretary, transport secretary and others on a petition seeking implementation of a government notification for reduction of transport fares.

Petitioner Abdul Hakim Quaid has submitted that the federal government reduced the prices of petroleum products time and again from 2015-2016 while also revising the fares for passenger buses and school transport vehicles.

The petitioner’s counsel, Khurrum Lakhani, submitted that the Sindh government had, on January 2, 2015, issued a notification in which fares of public buses were reduced by 7 to 12 percent. 

However, he contended that despite the notification, transporters did not reduce the fares. He submitted that 90 percent of buses and coaches, as well as mini-buses, have already been converted to CNG but were still charging inflated fares.

Lakhani submitted that the regional transport authority had completely failed to implement its notification regarding reduction of fares.

The court was requested to ensure that fares were reduced and it issued notices to the secretary transport, regional transport authority and others to submit their comments.