BEFORE THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

In Re:

Writ Petition No._______/2010

Aurangzeb S/O Abdul Wahab,

Ex-Area Manager, (Category-B), Code No.0451
SLIC Zone Swat, at Area Office Batkhela. . . . . . . . . . .Petitioner

Versus

1. State Life Insurance Corporation through its Chairman

State Life Building No.9 Dr. Zia-ud-Din Road, Karachi.
2. D.G.M (P&GS) SLIC of Pakistan State Life
Building No.9 Dr. Zia-ud-Din Road, Karachi.
3. Regional Chief SLIC of Pakistan,
Blue Area at Islamabad.
4. Regional Incharge (P&GS) SLIC of Pakistan,
Blue Area at Islamabad.
5. Zonal Head SLIC Swat Zone at Dean Plaza
Saidu Sharif Swat.
6. Deputy Manager, (P&GS) SLIC Swat Zone at
Dean Plaza Saidu Sharif, Swat. . . . . . . . . . . .Respondents

<=><==><==><=>

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF

PAKISTAN, 1973.

<=><==><==><=>

Respectfully Sheweth:

Compendium of facts out of which the present

constitutional petition arises are as under:

 2

1. That the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan is a

statutory body, having its statutory, Service Rules

Regulations to be called, the State Life Employees

(Service) Regulations, 1973 framed under article 49 of the

life insurance (nationalization) order 1972 (PO No.X of

1972) notified on the 1st January, 1973. (Copy of

Regulation is attached as annexure “A”).

2. That the petitioner was appointed as Area Manager

(Category-B) w.e.f 01.12.1992 vide letter dated

14.01.1993. (Copy of appointment order is attached as

annexure “B”).

3. That the petitioner was posted at area Office Batkhela and

performed his duties with due diligence and never acted

prejudicial to good order it is worth mentioning that due to

extraordinary performance and achievements of the

petitioner and other Area Manager of Malakand Division in

the year 1995, the Regional Manager and others were

promoted and work of the petitioner and other Area

Manager of Malakand Division was highly appreciated.

4. That all of a sudden the petitioner received a show cause

notice from the respondent No.5 on 12.05.1998, wherein

it was alleged that he failed to achieve annual FYP quota of

his category, which was replied accordingly, however, the

service of the petitioner was terminated vide impugned

order dated 11.06.1998. (Copy of order is attached as

annexure “C”).
 3

5. That feeling aggrieved from the impugned order the

petitioner, after serving grievance notice upon the

respondent, filed grievance petition before the learned

labour court at Swat, which was allowed vide judgment

dated 31.05.2003. (Copy is attached as annexure “D”).

6. That dissatisfied with the same the respondents filed

appeal before the learned labour Appellate Tribunal,

Peshawar, which was allowed vide judgment dated

08.12.2006, holding that the petitioner is neither worker

nor workman, hence the learned labour court had no

jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, the judgment of

the learned labour Appellate Tribunal was assailed before

the August Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was

dismissed as withdrawn with the permission to seek relief

before the appropriate forum, the order of the apex court

is reproduced below:

“Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that

permission may be accorded to him to withdraw these

petitions enabling him to approach the appropriate

forum for redressal of their grievances. Otherside has no

objection. Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.

Needless to observe that if any legal remedy, available to

the petitioners for redressal of their grievance, availed

by them, the impugned decision proceeded on technical

grounds, shall not carried as resjudicate against them”.

 4

7. That the petitioner reached at the age of superannuation

on 02.11.2006.

8. That the petitioner feeling aggrieved from the termination

of service order dated 11.06.1998, having no efficacious

remedy under the law now approaches this Honourable

Court, inter alia, on the following grounds;

G R O U N D S:

A. That the order dated 11.06.1998 impugned herein is

manifestly, illegal, without lawful authority, without

jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, malafide, discriminatory and

ineffective upon the rights of the petitioner, therefore, not

maintainable in the eye of law.

B. That the petitioner had been pursuing the relief upto Apex

Court under a bonafide belief, with due diligence, hence,

the petition is not hit by laches.

C. That the standing committee consisting of the Chairman

ED(S&A) &ED(S&D) considered the appeals received from

Area Managers (from different Districts of Pakistan) whose

services were terminated in terms of regulation 4(11)(C)

(2) of the State Life Employees Service Regulation 1973

for not meeting the revised minimum criteria approved by

the Board, were reinstated in service as Area Manager,

except the petitioner, though he falls under the same

category, hence he was discriminated, therefore, warrants

interference.
 5

D. That the impugned termination order is violative of article

4, 8 & 25 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of

Pakistan, 1973.

E. That neither the inquiry was conducted by the respondent

nor opportunity of hearing has given to the petitioner

before passing the impugned order, it is a cardinal

principle of law that any order passed in violation of the

principles of natural justice is nullity in the eye of law.

F. That the petitioner has not been dealt with in accordance

with the provisions of State Life Employees (Service)

Regulations 1973.

G. That the respondent did not count performance of the

petitioner of the year 1995, though it was excellent, which

too speaks of malafide and volumes on their part, the

evaluation of his performance was based for the year

1994, 1996 & 1997.

H. That evaluation of performance of petitioner in Category-A

Manager was also illegal, the petitioner being Category-B

Manager had rendered best service to the corporation, the

schedule of business figure (attached herewith as

annexure “D”), reflects true picture, which falsifies the

allegation of the respondents in toto.

I. That during the days of petitioner’s posting, the law and

order situation of Malakand Division was very critical on

account of Sharia movement, particularly a massive

propagation against interest and state life, however, the

petitioner had given more business to the respondent then

required.
 6

J. That the petitioner seeks leave of this Honourable Court to

raise/ argue any additional point at the time of arguments.

It is, therefore, prayed that on acceptance of this

Writ Petition, the impugned order dated 11.06.1998,

whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated be

declared as illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority,

without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, malafide, discriminatory

and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioner, therefore,

not maintainable in the eye of law and the same may be

laid to rest and the respondents be directed to grant

pensionary benefit/ all pecuniary benefits being given to

the employees of state life as permissible under the law.

Petitioner
Through

SHAKEEL AHMAD
Dated: 27.03.2010 Advocate, Peshawar

C E R T I F I C A T E:

As per instructions of my client, certified that no such like Writ

Petition has earlier been filed by the petitioner before this
Honourable Court.

Advocate
LIST OF BOOKS:

1. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973.

2. Case Law according to need.
Advocate
 7

BEFORE THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

In Re:

Writ Petition No._______/2010

Aurangzeb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Petitioner

Versus

State Life Insurance Corporation & others. . . . . . . .Respondents

AFFIDAVIT
I, Aurangzeb S/O Abdul Wahab, Ex-Area Manager, Code No.0451

SLIC Zone Swat, at Area Office Batkhela, do hereby solemnly

affirm and declare on oath that contents of the accompanying

Writ Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge

and belief and nothing has been concealed from this Honourable

Court.

Identified By: DEPONENT

SHAKEEL AHMAD
Advocate, Peshawar
 8

BEFORE THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

In Re:

Writ Petition No._______/2010

Aurangzeb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Petitioner

Versus

State Life Insurance Corporation & others. . . . . . . .Respondents

ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES

P E T I T I O N E R:

Aurangzeb S/O Abdul Wahab,

Ex-Area Manager, (Category-B), Code No.0451
SLIC Zone Swat, at Area Office Batkhela.

R E S P O N D E N T S:

1. State Life Insurance Corporation through its Chairman

State Life Building No.9 Dr. Zia-ud-Din Road, Karachi.
2. D.G.M (P&GS) SLIC of Pakistan State Life
Building No.9 Dr. Zia-ud-Din Road, Karachi.
3. Regional Chief SLIC of Pakistan,
Blue Area at Islamabad.
4. Regional Incharge (P&GS) SLIC of Pakistan,
Blue Area at Islamabad.
5. Zonal Head SLIC Swat Zone at Dean Plaza
Saidu Sharif Swat.
6. Deputy Manager, (P&GS) SLIC Swat Zone at
Dean Plaza Saidu Sharif, Swat.

Petitioner
Through

SHAKEEL AHMAD
Dated: 27.03.2010 Advocate, Peshawar
 BEFORE THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

In Re:

Writ Petition No._______/2010

Aurangzeb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Petitioner

Versus

State Life Insurance Corporation & others. . . . . . . .Respondents

I N D E X

S.No Description of Documents Annex Pages

1. Writ Petition 1-6
2. Affidavit 7
3. Addresses of the parties 8
4. Copy of Regulation “A” 9-51
5. Copy of judgment dated 08.12.2006 “B” 52-60
6. Appointment Order dated 14.01.1993 “C” 61-63
7. Show cause notice dated 12.05.1998 “D” 64
8. Letter of termination dt: 11.06.1998 “E” 65
9. Minutes of meeting “F” 66-68
10. Copy of judgment of Supreme Court “G” 69
dated 04.03.2010
11. Court Fee
12. Wakalatnama

Petitioner
Through

SHAKEEL AHMAD
Advocate, Peshawar
Office: FR-28, 4th Floor Bilour
Plaza Peshawar Cantt
Dated: 27.03.2010 Cell #:0321-9179188