LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) issued notices to Defence Secretary Nargis Sethi and Director General Airport Security Force (ASF) Muhammad Azeem on Friday to submit a reply with regards to a contempt of court petition.
The petition, filed by former ASF security officer Chaudhry Sikandar Ali, states that the accused were in contempt of a Supreme Court order requiring his reinstatement, which was not implemented, instead he was barred from joining his post. Ali named Sethi, Azeem and ASF Faisalabad chief security officer Nazir Ahmed as the respondents in the petition and said that by not reinstating him to his former position, the concerned officers have committed contempt of court.
Petitioner Ali submitted that he was serving as a security officer under the respondents and was illegally removed from his post on December 10, 2001 while he was away to perform Umra. He said he appealed before the concerned authorities but failed to make his point.
He further said that he had challenged his forced retirement before the LHC and then the Supreme Court of Pakistan. “A two judge bench of the SC comprising Justice Jawwad S Khawaja and Justice Amir Hani Muslim ordered my reinstatement on March 07, 2012,” Ali stated.
The former security officer told the bench that he had submitted a certified copy of the SC order regarding his reinstatement to the respondents on March 30, but to no use. He prayed the court to issue directions to the respondents to allow him to rejoin service.
The bench also heard the ASF counsel who said that Ali was appointed in accordance with the rules of the Army Act and that his retirement issue should be dealt under those laws. The bench however responded that as the petitioner was a practicing lawyer since his retirement from ASF, the petitioner was entitled to the procedural safeguard set out in Section 13 of the Civil Servants Act 1973. The bench further added that Ali shall not be entitled to the benefits for the period after December 10, 2011 - the date of his retirement till the date to this judgment.
The hearing was adjourned till May 25.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ