ISLAMABAD, Nov 1: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday sought reply from Federal Shariat Court (FSC) Chief Justice Agha Mohammad Rafique on a contempt petition filed by a sacked stenographer of the FSC.

Amjad Ali filed a contempt petition with the IHC against the FSC chief justice, registrar Ahmed Dildar and deputy registrars Nadeem Haider and Bashir Ahmed for not complying with the IHC order of February 7, 2013.

In the order, Justice Noorul Haq N. Qureshi had restrained the FSC authorities from taking any adverse action against the stenographer.

According to the case, Mr Ali was working in the FSC Lahore registry and also pursuing an LLB degree from the Punjab University after getting a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the FSC chief justice.

On February 2, when he completed one year of his three-year LLB course, the FSC administration transferred him from the Lahore registry to Islamabad.

However, Mr Ali challenged the transfer orders in the IHC on February 4.

When the court took up the matter on February 7, the petitioner argued that in order to complete his LLB programme, he had requested the FSC authorities to grant him two years study leave or reverse his transfer orders. However, his request was turned down, he added.

On February 14, Justice Qureshi dismissed the petition.

The FSC administration after holding a departmental inquiry terminated the services of the stenographer on September 26 for not complying with the transfer orders and remaining absent from duty.

In the contempt petition filed with the IHC, Mr Ali contended that the FSC had terminated him from service for remaining absent from February 7 to February 14 when the IHC restraining order was effective.

He said his termination was tantamount to the contempt of court and requested the court to pass an appropriate order against the FSC authorities.

After hearing the arguments, Justice Qureshi observed that the petitioner had levelled serious allegations against the FSC chief justice and other officials.

He issued notices to them but warned that in case the petitioner failed to prove the allegations, he would be burdened with “a heavy cost or of like action.”

The court put off further hearing of the matter for seven days.