Non-regularization of employees: SHC warns SMIU VC of contempt proceedings

KARACHI: Sindh High Court (SHC) on Thursday warned Vice Chancellor Sindh Madressatul Islam University (SMIU) to comply with its orders or face contempt proceedings for not considering cases of SMIU contract employees for regularization.

A division bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar was seized with the hearing of a contempt of court application that sought contempt proceedings against SMIU VC for disobeying the SHC’s earlier orders.

Akbar Ali Chandio and 13 other employees filed a contempt of court application against VC SMUI for not complying with the court order regarding consideration of their cases for regularization. The petitioners submitted that the SHC had directed the university administration on October 13, 2011, to consider their cases for regularization without any discrimination prior to the expiry of their contract. They said that despite lapse of three years no consideration had been made.

The SMIU submitted that the petitioners’ cases were considered at a meeting of the selection board but later it was decided that all the vacancies should be advertised and filled under the university rules.

The two-judge bench observed that prima facie the court order was not placed before the selection board as the minutes of the meeting did not reflect that the court order passed on 13 October 2011 was placed before the meeting for consideration.

The bench said that orders of this court has not been complied with and contempt proceedings may be initiated right now but at the request of counsel of VC SMIU one more opportunity may be given to alleged contemnors to place the cases of petitioners before selection board for regularization.

Khalid Javed counsel representing SMIU VC said that meeting of selection board would be convened within two weeks and case of petitioners will be considered. The bench granted two weeks to VC for complying with the court orders and submitting the report.

The bench directed VC to appear before it and warned that if any further violation of the court order was found, the contempt proceedings would be initiated against him. The hearing was adjourned by February 12.

Leave a Reply