KARACHI, Nov 16: The High Court was requested on Wednesday to institute a judicial inquiry into the incident of manhandling of a girls hostel administrator and inmates in April as proposed by the provincial government.
In the alternative, petitioner Ghazala Shafiq prayed through her counsel, Khwaja Naveed Ahmed, that the report of additional inspector of police Naiyer Hasnain, who conducted a departmental inquiry into the incident, should be made public and its recommendations implemented. Another suggestion she made was registration of an FIR on the basis of the complaint lodged by her.
Ms Ghazala, former administrator of Brenton Carey Gils Hostel (Darul Khusgnood), alleged that she and about 20 of the hostel inmates who sympathized with her were beaten up by a rival group led by Bishop Daniel Sadiq in complicity with certain police officials. Instead of registering her complaint, an FIR was registered against her. The police high-ups held an inquiry but its report was being hushed up.
The provincial government, meanwhile, requested the chief justice of the Sindh High Court to institute a judicial inquiry into the incident.
Advocate Dr Farogh Nasim, meanwhile, appeared for Bishop Daniel Sadiq and denied the allegations. He requested the court to implead his client as an intervener before passing any order against him. He said the bishop has a right to be heard when baseless allegations were being made against him.
Justices Ghulam Rabbani and Munib Ahmed Khan, who constitute the bench seized of the petition, put the petitioner’s counsel on notice and adjourned further hearing to Nov 24.
COUNCILLORS ARREARS: The Sindh High Court asked the city district government on Wednesday to pay six former councillors arrears of their honorarium from August 2001 to October 2003 within four months.
Advocate Raana Khan and five other members of the previous city council submitted that they took oath and started working as councillors in August 2001. Despite clear-cut provisions of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001, they were not paid any honorarium or allowances and the city council had to pass a resolution recommending an honorarium of Rs 10,000 per month.
The recommendation was not acceptable to the provincial local government department and after initial hesitation, it agreed to pay Rs 7000 per month.
A notification for payment of honorarium was issued in October 2003. The petitioners said they received the honorarium from November 2003 but their request for payment of arrears was turned down and they had to approach the high court.
The city district government contested the petition and said the October 2003 notification could not be given retrospective effect under the rules. Additional funds would be required for payment of arrears to 255 council members. The budgetary provision was
not made in the 2001 budget, it said.
The petition was heard by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Athar Saeed. Following a Supreme Court dictum laid down in a 1997 case, it observed that beneficial executive orders/notifications issued by an executive functionary can be given retrospective effect. It asked the city district government to pay arrears for 26 months to the six petitioner councillors within four months.
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.