IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

C.M. No. ________/2000

In
W.P. No. 2220/Misc/1998

In re:
Abdul Rehman Vs. M.D.A.

M.D.A. through its Director General.

……….PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
Abdul Rehman S/o Ghulam Muhammad, caste Khawaja Saddiqui,
R/o H. No. 1269, Street Kamangran Wali, Mohallah Qaleen Bafan,
Multan.
……..RESPONDEN/PETITIONER

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151

OF C.P.C. FOR RECALLING OF STAY
ORDER IN ABOVE-TITLED CASE.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That above-titled writ petition is pending before this Hon’ble
Court.

2. That brief facts leading to the instant application are that

respondent/ petitioner was employed by Director Engineering
M.D.A. on contract basis as Imam Masjid vide order dated
8.5.1995. The period of employment as per contract was 14
months, till 7.7.1996. On expiry of contract of employment, it
was extended for another year with effect from 8.7.1996 to
7.7.1997. Respondent/petitioner vide application dated

Contd. to page 2
 -2-

26.6.1997 applied for extension period of contract of

employment but same was rejected by the competent authority
and respondent/petitioner was informed about expiry of his
contract of employment and rejection of application, as such he
was relieved from contract service with effect from 8.7.1997.

3. That respondent/petitioner challenged the termination of

contract employment before this Hon’ble Court through above
titled writ petitioner, wherein this Hon’ble Court directed the
respondent to allow the petitioner to work against his post.

4. That contract of employment of petitioner expired on 7.7.1997

and same was not extended as his services were no more longer
required. However, in compliance of order of this Hon’ble
Court, respondent/ petitioner Abdul Rehman was taken on duty
and from July 1997 to September 2000, M.D.A. paid to him
about Rs. 135,000/- in the head of salary which is just liability
on M.D.A. as due to short of funds for salaries, etc. M.D.A. can
not pay in time salaries to its regular employees. Petitioner
succeeded in obtaining stay from this Hon’ble Court and is
enjoying the same from the last three years, despite, his contract
of employment expired.

5. That M.D.A. is facing financial crises and in such circumstances

M.D.A. is being unnecessarily burdened by paying salary to
such person whose contract of employment expired and his
services are no more required. Therefore, it is very much
appropriate in the present case, that stay order granted by this
Hon’ble Court may be recalled as M.D.A. cannot afford extra
employment of petitioner.

6. That there is no possibility of early re-listing of W.P. No.

2220/Misc./98, therefore, an application is being moved for
recalling of stay order as M.D.A. is suffering great financial loss
due the pendency of above-titled case. It is well-settled principle
of law that contract employees have no vested right to challenge
Contd. to page 3
 -3-

the termination of contract of employment, even on this score,

writ petition is not maintainable.

7. That M.D.A. is statutory body but so far Govt.

of Punjab has not framed rules for its employees
as provided in S. 43 of Punjab Development of
Cities Act, 1976, as such principles of Master
and Servant is applicable to
petitioner/respondent’s establishment. Besides
this, respondent/petitioner was appointed on
contract basis, on expiry of contract period he
had been left with no vested right to serve and
cannot challenge the termination of service on
expiry of contract period. Affidavit attached.

8. That respondent/petitioner’s case is lacking of

three necessary ingredients for grant of
temporary injunction, therefore, stay order dated
22.7.1997 my be recalled.

In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed

that present application may very kindly be accepted
and stay order issued by this Hon’ble Court in above
titled writ petition may very kindly be recalled in the
interest of justice.

Humble Petitioner/respondent,

Dated: ___________

For Multan Development Authority.

Through: -
Muhammad Amin Malik
Advocate High Court,
38-Muhammadan Block
District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20038
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _________/2000

In
W.P. No. 2220/Misc/1998

In re:
Abdul Rehman Vs. M.D.A.

M.D.A. through its Director General.

……….PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
Abdul Rehman S/o Ghulam Muhammad, caste Khawaja Saddiqui,
R/o H. No. 1269, Street Kamangran Wali, Mohallah Qaleen Bafan,
Multan.
……..RESPONDEN/PETITIONER

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151

OF C.P.C. FOR RECALLING OF STAY
ORDER IN ABOVE-TITLED CASE.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Tayyab, Director Engineering, M.D.A.
Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
has been kept concealed thereto.
DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of December 2000 that the contents of this
 affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

C.M. No. __________/2000

In
W.P. No. 5556/Misc/1997

In re:
Muneer Ahmad etc. Vs. M.D.A.

M.D.A. through its Director General.

……….PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
Muneer Ahmad S/o Sultan Muhammad Khan, Security Guard,
Resident of Al-Khair Colony, Nawabpur Road, Multan and 11
others.
……..RESPONDEN/PETITIONER

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151

OF C.P.C. FOR RECALLING OF STAY
ORDER IN ABOVE-TITLED CASE.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Tayyab, Director Engineering, M.D.A.
Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
has been kept concealed thereto.
DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of December 2000 that the contents of this
 affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

C.M. No. __________/2000

In
W.P. No. 5556/Misc/1997

In re:
Muneer Ahmad etc. Vs. M.D.A.

M.D.A. through its Director General.

……….PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
Muneer Ahmad S/o Sultan Muhammad Khan, Security Guard,
Resident of Al-Khair Colony, Nawabpur Road, Multan and 11
others.
……..RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151

OF C.P.C. FOR RECALLING OF STAY
ORDER IN ABOVE-TITLED CASE.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That above-titled writ petition is pending before this Hon’ble
Court.

2. That brief facts leading to the instant application are that

respondents/petitioners were employed by Director Engineering
M.D.A. on contract basis against different jobs in Shah Shamas
Park, Multan. Initially, the duration of contract was 14 months,
w.e.f. 8.5.95. On expiry of contract of employment, it was

Contd. to page 2
 -2-

extended for another year with effect from 8.7.1996 to 7.7.1997

vide order dated 22.7.1997. The respondents/petitioners moved -2-
an application dated 26.6.1997 for extension of contract of
employment but same was rejected by the competent authority
as such respondents/ petitioners’ contract of employment expired
with effect from 8.7.1997.

3. That on 21.7.1997, respondents/petitioners filed a writ petition

No. 5556/1997 before this Hon’ble Court and alleged that
petitioner/respondent illegally stopped them from the
performance of their duties and sought declaration from this
Hon’ble Court that the act/action/order through which the
petitioners have been deprived from their services may kindly be
declared illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. On
22.7.1997, the aforesaid writ petition was fixed for preliminary
arguments before this Hon’ble Court. After hearing the learned
counsel for petitioner, this Hon’ble Court directed respondent to
“submit his report and parawsie comments to this petition so as
to reach this court on a date in the second week of September,
1997. Till then, they are allowed to work against their respective
posts”.

4. That contract of employment of petitioners expired on 7.7.1997

and same was not extended as their services were no longer
required. However, in compliance of order dated 22.7.1997
passed by this Hon’ble Court, respondents/ petitioners were
taken on duty and from July 1997 to September 2000, M.D.A.
paid to them about Rs. 11,00,000/- in the head of salary. M.D.A.
has to pay heavy amount to the respondents/petitioners each
month. Besides this, due to stay granted by this Hon’ble Court,
petitioner/respondent cannot stop the respondents/ petitioners
from the performance of their duty. Further due to stay order of
this Hon’ble Court, respondent/petitioner do not perform their
duties properly and misbehave with public.

5. That M.D.A. is facing financial crises and in such circumstances

when M.D.A. has no money to pay salaries to its regular staff,
department is being unnecessarily burdened by paying salary to

Contd. to page 3
 such persons whose contract of employment expired and their
-3-
services are no more required. Therefore, it is very much
appropriate in the present case that stay granted to the
respondents/petitioners may very kindly be recalled as M.D.A.
cannot afford extra employment.

6. That there is no possibility of early re-listing of W.P. No.

5556/Misc./97, therefore, an application is being moved for
recalling of stay order, as M.D.A. is suffering great financial loss
due the pendency of above-titled case. Besides this, it is well-
settled principle of law that contract employees have no vested
right to challenge the termination of contract of employment.

7. That M.D.A. is statutory body but so far Govt. of Punjab has not
framed rules for its employees as provided in S. 43 of Punjab
Development of Cities Act, 1976, as such principles of Master
and Servant is applicable to petitioner’s/ respondent’s
establishment. Besides this, respondents/ petitioners were
appointed on contract basis, on expiry of contract period they
had been left with no vested right to serve and cannot challenge
the termination of service on expiry of contract period. Affidavit
attached.

8. That respondent/petitioner’s case is lacking three necessary

ingredients for grant of temporary injunction, therefore, stay
order dated 22.7.1997 my be recalled.

In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed

that present application may very kindly be accepted
and stay order dated 22.7.1997 granted in above titled
writ petition may very kindly be recalled in the interest
of justice.
Humble Petitioner/respondent,
Dated: ___________

For Multan Development Authority.

Through: -
Muhammad Amin Malik
Advocate High Court,
38-Muhammadan Block
District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20038