SHC issues contempt notices over teachers’ promotions

Seeks report over practice of forcing children to beg from Sindh IGP

KARACHI:

The Sindh High Court (SHC) issued on Friday contempt of court notices to the Sindh chief secretary as well as the college education secretary and additional secretary for failing to promote over 10,000 teachers.

A two-member bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, issued the notices during the hearing of a contempt of court plea pertaining to more than 10,000 teachers not being given timescale promotions.

Irked at the delay, the court remarked that it wanted to give government institutions an extension in this regard, but their conduct in the matter had been improper.

The court further warned of contempt of court action against relevant authorities if they failed to implement court orders to promote teachers on the basis of timescale.

"Show-cause notices will be issued and contempt charges will be frames against all [relevant entities]," remarked Justice Mazhar, adding that the issue would not have become so serious had the teachers been promoted in the past few years.

Issuing contempt notices to the Sindh chief secretary, and college education secretary and additional secretary, the court summoned them in their personal capacities at the next hearing on December 18.

Beggar mafia

Separately, the court sought replies from Sindh IGP Mushtaq Mahar and the Sindh government on a plea filed against beggar mafia, which forced children into beggary.

The court sought a report from the police chief on those involved in the practice.

"We must be informed who [forces children to beg], what actions have been taken against them, how many cases have been registered for the violation of the Child Protection Act and what efforts the Sindh government has made to protect children," elaborated Justice Mazhar.

The Child Protection Authority (CPA) director general (DG) informed the court that his department had received 92 complaints pertaining to the violation of the Child Protection Act, all of which had been referred to the police.

The court then questioned the police focal person on steps taken by the department in this regard.