5893/2016 Const. P. Syed Salman Hasan and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)

Sindh High Court2025

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)

Share on WhatsApp
5893/2016 Const. P. Syed Salman Hasan and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) Sindh High Court Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) Order Date: 08-MAY-25 Learned AAG submitted that the petitioners' appointments are illegal, contravening KoFHA's 1988 Regulations and 1982 Ordinance. The AAG refuted allegations against the former Secretary, noting his retirement on March 25, 2017. Regarding the former MD KoFHA's appointment, it was asserted to be improper and against procedure, resulting in a stayed removal directive. The AAG maintained the petitioners' appointments violated KoFHA regulations, the Ordinance, and federal policy, justifying the Ministry's actions as the supervisory authority. The petitioners' claims were argued to be unfounded in KoFHA's rules, and the principle of locus poenitentiae was inapplicable due to the initial illegality of the appointments in KoFHA. Fundamental rights claims were dismissed due to the illegal appointments. The AAG stated the Ministry correctly conveyed policy to the former MD, who then illegally appointed the petitioners. Consequently, they cannot be considered regular employees. The actions of Respondent No. 2 were defended as compliant with regulations, and no violation of apex court rulings by Respondent No. 1 occurred. The petitioners' appointments are deemed void from inception due to legal violations. The AAG concluded by stating that the petitioners concealed facts and requested the petition's dismissal with costs on behalf of the Respondent ministry. 5. The stance of the respondent/4 KoFHA is that KoFHA, an autonomous body under the Ministry operating under the 1982 Ordinance and 1988 Regulations, acknowledges the petitioners' appointments followed due process. While Petitioner No. 1's (BPS-17) confirmation is pending Board reconstitution, Petitioners No. 2-5 (BPS-16) have completed probation and deserved confirmation.
Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error, let us know.

Related judgments

Red Notices against Foreign National Proclaimed Offender

PLJ 2024 Karachi 138 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2024

Judgment on Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act 2012

PLJ 2023 Karachi 124 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2023

Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act 2013 explained in a Judgment

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 154 · Sindh High Court · 2022

Article 140- Cross Examination of a Witness

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020

Re-Examination is more important than Examination in Chief

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020