IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.

Nasir Abbas S/o Malik Muhammad Bakhsh, caste Jat Bosan, Goods
Exit Tax Naib Qasid, Zila Council, Multan, R/o Mauza Bosan,
Tehsil & District Multan.
……Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Zila Council, Multan, through its administrator.
2. Administrator, Zila Council, (Capt. Khalid Sultan)/Deputy
Commissioner, Multan.
3. Muhammad Saeed Khan S/o Muhammad Hanif Khan, Naib
Qasid, Zila Council, Multan.
……Defendants

Note: -
Suit relating to similar matter, titled “Muhammad Asif Ghani
etc. Vs. Zila Council etc.” is already pending in the Court of
Rai Shafiq Ahmad Bhatti, Civil Judge Ist Class, Multan.

AMENDED SUIT for declaration to the

effect that the plaintiff is employee of the
defendant Zila Council and his
appointment is lawful and valid; and the
defendants are not entitled to fill in the
post (held by the plaintiff by fresh
recruitment and the impugned exercise of
fresh recruitment is the result of malafide,
illegal, unwarranted and without lawful
authority and that the impugned notice
dated 28.9.1993 issued by defendants is
illegal, unlawful, malafide, inoperative
and ineffective qua the rights of the
 plaintiff as an employee of defendant Zila
Council;
AND suit for perpetual injunction, as a
consequential relief, restraining the
defendants from taking any proceedings
for fresh recruitment in respect of the
post held and occupied by the plaintiff
and to refrain the defendants or their
agents permanently from taking any
action prejudicial to the service rights of
the plaintiff.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That certain posts of Goods Exit Tax Naib Qasids had become

available with the defendants in due course of time for which

advertisement was published in the newspapers. Plaintiff also

applied for one of the said posts.

2. That the defendants constituted a Selection Committee for the

purpose of recruitments. Said Selection Committee after

holding interviews, made recommendations as a consequence

of which an appointment order was issued to the plaintiff on

13.1.1993 and he was appointed as Goods Exit Tax Naib

Qasid in Zila Council, Multan. The plaintiff joined his post

and has been performing his duties honestly, diligently and to

the entire satisfaction of his superiors. There has been no

complaint against him either from the public sector or

otherwise. Plaintiff has also been drawing his salary from the

defendants.
3. That in due course of time, it appears that the care-taker

Punjab Government took a decision by which it was declared

that all appointments made during the imposition of ban or for

political reasons may be cancelled and these posts may be

advertised for fresh recruitment. Defendant No. 2 directed the

defendant No. 1 to carry out the exercise in implementation of

the policy of the care-taker Government and the defendant

No. 2 advertised these posts through citation in newspaper

dated 28.9.1993 and 30.9.1993 inviting fresh applications and

simultaneously issued a notice dated 28.9.1993 to bound

down the plaintiff and others to appears before the defendant

No. 1 to relinquish the charge. This was, in fact, a device to

frustrate the process of law, that nobody could have an access

to the Court of law for the redress of his grievance.

4. That the impugned exercise by the defendants for fresh

recruitment without taking any proceedings under the

Efficiency & Discipline Rules & the issuance of notice dated

28.9.1993 is an act of malafide besides being clearly unlawful.

The defendants do not enjoy any power to oust the plaintiff

from service without prior notice. The impugned exercise by

the defendants is nothing but perversity of procedure.

5. That as a matter of fact, the care-taker Government is under a

statutory duty to confine themselves only to the question of

taking care of the day to day administration of the state. They

can take decisions requiring immediate attention or action,

may be having far reaching effect, such as, in respect of war

 or peace and flood etc. But, they can neither forget the

predominant position of their being care-taker nor can they

take undue advantage of their position either for themselves or

for the benefit of any political party. The decision on the basis

of which the impugned exercise is being taken is undoubtedly

beyond the mandate of the care-taker Government.

6. That the post of Naib Qasid is held and occupied by the

plaintiff in the Zila Council, Multan and he is entitled to be

confirmed against that post. The defendants are behaving in

bad faith and the impugned exercise is not the result of their

independent application of mind; rather the intended act of

defendants is unwarranted, unlawful and result of malafides.

7. That the plaintiff has requested the defendants time and again

to desist from taking proceedings for fresh recruitment on the

post held and occupied by the plaintiff and taking any action

prejudicial to his right, but they are adamant to do so, which

has necessitated to bring the present suit.

7-A. That defendant Zila Council in place of plaintiff has illegally

appointed defendant No. 3 vide order of the Govt. dated

1.4.2003, defendant No. 3 is impleaded and plaint is

submitted.

8. That the cause of action firstly accrued in favour of the

plaintiff on 28.9.93 when the impugned notice was issued and
simultaneously advertisement was published inviting fresh
applications and secondly on 30.9.1993 when second
 advertisement appeared in the newspaper. The cause of action
is continuing ever since.

9. That the parties are living at Multan and cause of action also
arose here at Multan. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court has got
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.

10. That value of suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction
is fixed at Rs. 200/-, which is exempted from payment of
court fee.

IT IS, THEREFORE, respectfully prayed that a

decree in the nature of declaration and perpetual
injunction, as mentioned in the head-note of this plaint,
may kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants with costs.

Any other relief to which the plaintiff is entitled

in the circumstances of the case, may also kindly be
granted.

Humble Plaintiff,

Dated: _________

(NASIR ABBAS)

Through: -
ZAFAR IQBAL KHAN,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts, Multan.
Verification: -

Verified on oath at Multan this _____

day of October, 1993 that paragraphs
No. 1 to 7 and 11 of the plaint are
correct to the best of my knowledge
and rest of the paras are correct to the
best of my information & belief.

Plaintiff