KARACHI: Notices issued in plea against ex-secretary
KARACHI, June 3: A division bench of the Sindh High Court consisting of Justices Munib Ahmed Khan and Syed Pir Ali Shah issued notices in a petition filed by Haji Gul Muhammad Hajano, chairman of the Pakistan Government Servants and Pensioners Association, questioning the status of former chief minister Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim’s special secretary as a civil servant.
He prayed for a writ of quo warranto against Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, who held a number of important positions as a civil servant under the former chief minister. The petitioner, who appeared in person, alleged that Mr Ali was originally an employee of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and could not be inducted in the civil service.
The petitioner said the position was further clarified in 2006 by a nine-member bench of the Supreme Court, which ruled that the employees of autonomous corporations and banks were not civil servants in contemplation of Section 2 of the Civil Servants Act and were not, therefore, competent to invoke the federal service tribunal’s jurisdiction. He said the respondent was given a number of assignments as a civil servant, endorsed for an advance course at the Pakistan Administrative Staff College and promoted to grade 21 despite objections by the chief secretary.
Child custody
Justice Mahmood Alam Rizvi of the Sindh High Court, meanwhile, suspended an interim order passed by former CJ Mohammad Afzal Soomro setting aside a guardian court’s decision requiring a divorced woman to send her minor son to his father’s residence every Sunday from 11am to 6pm.
The judge also allowed the mother, Asifa Arif, to take the child to the United States and Europe on a 30-day holiday trip subject to her furnishing solvent surety for Rs10 million to the satisfaction of the SHC nazir. The child was produced by the mother in the course of proceedings for a meeting with his father, Kashif Ahmed.
Asifa and Kashif were married in 2003 and separated earlier this year. A guardian court granted Asifa custody of their minor child, Raahim, subject to his weekly meetings with Kashif at the latter’s residence. The order was upheld in appeal by an additional district judge. It was, however, suspended by the high court pending a petition moved by Asifa, who, meanwhile, sought permission to take the child abroad for 30 days. Kashif responded with the allegation that she intended to settle abroad and keep the child away from him.
Justice Rizvi restored the visitation order in Kashif’s favour and allowed Asifa plea for a sojourn abroad together with the child subject to her furnishing surety for Rs 10 million. The child’s passport would be re-deposited with the guardian court and he would not be removed from the court’s territorial jurisdiction without its permission on his return. Advocate M. Ahmed Pirzada appeared for Kashif and Advocate Raza Hashmi for Asifa.
Encashment barred
The judge also restrained the defendants in a suit instituted by a bankrupt trader from presenting for encashment 183 cheques issued by him for supply of raw material. Plaintiff Anwar Mahmood submitted through Advocate Haider Imam Rizvi that he issued over 183 cheques to Rehman Khan and his brothers for supply of raw material from China. The defendants, however, defaulted on supply of the material as a result of which he failed to market finished goods and service his debts to the banks. The banks started harassing him and he approached the high court for relief.
Despite their failure to supply raw material, the defendants, the plaintiff alleged, were presenting cheques for encashment and lodging criminal complaints when they were dishonored.
Case remanded
On a petition moved by Farzad Sibtain through Advocate Mushaffay Ahmed, the bench comprising Justices Munib Ahmed Khan and Pir Ali Shah remanded a case to the seventh senior civil judge (east) for hearing on merit and in accordance with law. The lawyer said his client was in possession of an apartment in Gulshan Gala, Gulshan-i-Iqbal, since 1990 as owner-purchaser. He received a notice recently to vacate the apartment as the builder had sold it to another purchaser. He applied to the civil court seized of the builder’s plea to implead him as the necessary party but the court issued a writ of possession against him. The high court granted him a stay order and directed the civil court to hear the case afresh.