HYDERABAD: A division bench of the Sindh High Court’s Hyderabad circuit has suspended a notification repatriating the director of Planning and Development Control (P&DC) at the Sehwan Development Authority (SDA).
Comprising Justice Amjad Ali Bohio and Justice Mohammad Hasan Akber, bench court has fixed the matter for a hearing on Aug 20.
The petitioner, Mohammad Shabbir Ahmed, represented by advocates Jawad Ahmed Qureshi and Osama Yusuf, challenged the April 2, 2026 notification that repatriated him to his purported parent department, the Taluka Municipal Administration (TMA) Kotri. Mr Ahmed argued that he is only two years away from superannuation and maintained that the administrative controversy regarding his parent department had been conclusively settled in 2024.
According to the petition, Mr Ahmed’s services were regularised within the SDA following scrutiny by a special committee. The government subsequently issued an order on Aug 30, 2003, regularising his service as assistant director planning (BS-17) with effect from Sept 1, 2003. This order was forwarded to the DCO Dadu and the project director of the SDA for payroll integration and implementation. Mr Ahmed noted that TMA Kotri never received this order, as it held no administrative role or connection to his regularisation.
He further informed the court that two colleagues regularised under identical outward series were never subjected to repatriation. He alleged that the respondent director general (DG) of the SDA had unlawfully issued a notification on Jan 25, 2023 arbitrarily repatriating him to TMA Kotri, alongside a “malicious” order on Jan 24, 2023 demoting him to BS-17. This forced him to challenge the decisions in the high court.
The SDA management subsequently acknowledged the illegality of their actions; the DG issued a notification on July 1, 2024 cancelling the Jan 25, 2023 repatriation order, and the Jan 24 reversion order was rescinded on July 3, 2024.
Consequently, Mr Ahmed withdrew his petition on Sept 4, 2025. He was later promoted to BS-19 as the director of the P&DC on April 16, 2025, a move notified on Dec 9, 2025.
Mr Ahmed stated that the DG acted with malice by issuing the April 2, 2026 order to reopen a closed transaction and directing him to join TMA Kotri. He added that his detailed administrative representations to the respondents had fallen on deaf ears.
His legal counsel termed the April 2, 2026 order a violation of legal principles, arguing that the parent-department controversy had been conclusively settled by the DG via the July 1, 2024 order. They argued that once a competent authority scrutinises facts and reaches a decision, it is legally barred from recalling that decision years later without a formal inquiry.
The counsels claimed the respondents acted with severe deceit, violating the petitioner’s legitimate rights. They stated that Mr Ahmed’s regularisation order of Aug 30, 2003 explicitly subjected his terms of service to the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. Under Rule 4(1) of the Appointing Authority Table, the competent authority for a BS-19 officer is the chief minister, and under Rule 9(2), the authority competent to transfer a BS-19 officer is the chief secretary. They maintained that the respondent DG lacks the jurisdiction to unilaterally transfer or repatriate him.
The impugned order, the counsels argued, was a calculated attempt to jeopardise Mr Ahmed’s pensionary benefits through “malicious administrative ping-pong.” They added that the order lacks legal sanctity as it was signed by a respondent deputy secretary of the SDA whom they described as a “self-styled” official.
Published in Dawn, July 9th, 2026