BEFORE THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

In Re:

Writ Petition No._______/2010

Muhammad Anwar Swati S/O Muhammad Afzal,

Ex-Area Manager, (Category-C), Code No.2462
SLIC Zone Swat, Area Office at Dir District Dir Upper. . 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-C) w.e.f 01.07.1996 vide letter dated

11.10.1996. (Copy of appointment order is attached as

annexure “B”).

3. That the petitioner was posted at District Dir Upper and

performed his duties with due diligence and never acted

prejudicial to good order.

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”).

5. That feeling aggrieved 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 08.07.2002. (Copy is

attached as annexure “D”).

 3

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

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:

“These petitions are barred by time. Application has been

moved for condonation of delay, but without assigning
any cogent reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner
stated that the High Court had decided the case without
providing opportunity of hearing. We called upon him to
point out anything from the impugned judgment
adversely operating against the petitioner because as per
its contents, the petitioner Department has only been
advised to adopt transparent policy for the purpose of
allotments of the plots and nothing else. In our opinion,
instead of approaching this Court, the petitioner
Department may have prepared a fresh transparent
policy for the auction and transfer of plots so that no
body could have raised objections in respect of fairness
of the Department. Both the petitions are dismissed.
Leave refused.”

7. 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;

 4

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.

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.

 5

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, 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,

though the petitioner was not in service in 1994 and 1995

his period was less than assessed.

H. That evaluation of performance of Category-A Manager

was also illegal, the petitioner being Category-C 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.

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

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

 6

It is, therefore, prayed that on acceptance of this

Writ Petition, the impugned order dated 11.06.1998,

whereby 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 reinstate

the petitioner in service with all back benefits.

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

Muhammad Anwar Swati. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Petitioner

Versus

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

AFFIDAVIT
I, Muhammad Anwar Swati S/O Muhammad Afzal, Ex-Area

Manager, Code No.0462 SLIC Zone Swat, Area Office at Dir

District Dir Upper, 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

Muhammad Anwar Swati. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Petitioner

Versus

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

ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES

P E T I T I O N E R:

Muhammad Anwar Swati S/O Muhammad Afzal,

Ex-Area Manager, (Category-C), Code No.2462
SLIC Zone Swat, Area Office at Dir District Dir Upper.

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

Muhammad Anwar Swati. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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” 52-67
6. Appointment Order dated 01.07.1996 “C” 68-73
7. Letter of termination dt: 11.06.1998 “D” 74-75
8. Schedule of business figure “E” 76-79
9. Copy of judgment of Supreme Court “F” 80
dated 04.03.2010
10. Court Fee
11. Wakalatnama

Petitioner
Through

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