 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
( Appellate Jurisdiction ) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE NASIR-UL-MULK, HCJ. 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.404/2011 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 2.4.2011 passed by the High  
Court of Sindh, Karachi in CP.D-932/2009) 
Ali Hassan Brohi 
 
Vs. Province of Sindh thr. Chief 
Secy. and others 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.405/2011 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 2.4.2011 passed by the High  
Court of Sindh, Karachi in CP.D-932/2009) 
Ali Azhar Baloch 
 
Vs. 
Province of Sindh and others  
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.407/2011 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 2.4.2011 passed by the High  
Court of Sindh, Karachi in CP.D-932/2009) 
Abdul Ghani Jukhio 
 
Vs. 
Province of Sindh, thr. Chief 
Secy. and others  
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.409/2011 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 2.4.2011 passed by the High  
Court of Sindh, Karachi in CP.D-932/2009) 
Syed Abid Ali Shah 
 
Vs. 
Province of Sindh, thr. Chief 
Secy. and others. 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.411/2011 AND CMA. NO.4339/2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 2.4.2011 passed by the High  
Court of Sindh, Karachi in CP.D-932/2009) 
 
Dr. Aftab Ahmed Mallah 
 
Vs. Dr. Nasimul Ghani Sahito etc 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.412/2011 AND CMA. NO.4340/2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 2.4.2011 passed by the High  
Court of Sindh, Karachi in CP.D-932/2009) 
Dr. Muhammad Ali 
 
Vs. Dr. Nasimul Ghani Sahito etc 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.413/2011 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 2.4.2011 passed by the High  
Court of Sindh, Karachi in CP.D-932/2009) 
Ahmed Hussain 
 
Vs. Dr. Nasimul Ghani Sahito etc 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.495/2011 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 2.4.2011 passed by the High  
Court of Sindh, Karachi in CP.D-932/2009) 
Rasool Bux Phulphoto 
 
Vs. 
Province of Sindh thr. Chiefr 
Secy. and others  
 
 
2 
 
 
 
ATTENDANCE  
 
For the Appellant(s) 
 
(in CA.404 & 405/11) 
: 
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Sr. ASC 
(in CA.407/11) 
: 
Mr. Adnan Iqbal Ch,  ASC 
(in CA.409/11) 
: 
Mr. Asim Mansoor Khan, ASC 
(in CA.411 & 412/11) 
: 
Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC 
(in CA.413/11) 
: 
Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, ASC 
(in CA.495/11) 
: 
Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, ASC 
 
 
 
For Respondent(s) 
 
For Govt. of Sindh. 
: 
Sarwar Khan Add. A.G Sindh 
Abdul Fateh Malik A.G. Sindh 
Rafique Mustafa Shaikh,  
Add. Secretary Services(S&GAD) 
Ghulam Ali Bharmani,  
Dy. Secretary Services(S&GAD) 
 
CAs. 404, 405, 407, 409 & 
411 TO 413/2011 
3-13,15,16,18-25,27-41,43-49, 
51 & 52:  
CA.495/2011 
3-12,14,15,17-24,26-31,33-
40,42-48, 50,51 
 
: 
Ch. Afrasiab Khan ASC 
Date of hearings  
: 
5th, 6th, 10th June, 2014,  
15th to 17th & 21st to 24th October, 2014. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.- 
C.A. No.413 of 2011 
Ahmed Hussain vs. Dr. Naseem ul Ghani Sahito 
by Mr. Adbul Rahim Bhatti, ASC  
 
1.  
 
Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, learned ASC submitted that 
on 24.10.1994, the Appellant was appointed as Protocol Officer in  
BS-17 in CM Secretariat. The post of Protocol Officer falls outside 
the purview of the Public Service Commission and in 2007 the post 
was upgraded to BS-18. Thereafter, on 03.01.2009 he was 
 
3 
absorbed as Deputy Secretary in Provincial Secretariat Service 
(PSS) with backdated seniority.  
2. 
 
The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that 
the writ filed by the Respondent was not in the nature of quo-
warranto. According to him, a writ of quo-warranto could not be 
filed on opaque technicalities. He next contented was that the 
subject matter of the writ relates to the terms and contention of 
service, therefore, a writ in the nature of quo-warranto did not lie.  
In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case of Khalid 
Mahmud Advocate v. Muhammad Yaseen (1991 SCMR 1041). The 
learned counsel has contended that the view in the case of Khalid 
Mahmud (supra) has consistently been followed by this Court. He 
submitted that if a Civil Servant is aggrieved by an order of the 
Departmental Authority, he is required to file an Appeal before the 
Service Tribunal. According to him, the jurisdiction of the Service 
Tribunal cannot be bypassed by the Respondents claiming relief 
from the High Court under the garb of fundamental rights. He 
relied upon the case of Khalid Mahmood Wattoo v. Government of 
Punjab (1998 SCMR 2280) by submitting that a distinction has 
been drawn by this Court between the exercise of jurisdiction of 
the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution and the bar 
placed on such an exercise by Article 212 of the Constitution.  He 
contended that the Respondent could not have filed a Petition, 
which pertains to the term and condition of their service before the 
High Court. The learned Counsel has relied upon the case of 
Muhammad Liaquat Munir Rao vs Shams ud Din and others (2004 
PLC (CS) 1328) and contended that a writ in the nature of quo-
warranto could only be filed before the Tribunal and contended 
 
4 
that the issue pertaining to the terms and conditions could not be 
gone into by the High Court for want of jurisdiction, which falls 
within the purview of the Services Tribunal. He also cited case Dr. 
Azim-ur-Rehman Khan Meo vs Government of Sindh (2004 PLC (CS) 
1142) in support of his contention.  
3.  
 
The learned Counsel submitted that the judgment 
under review, should apply prospectively. He further contended 
that the judgment is discriminatory, as in some cases, the question 
of absorption has been saved by the High Court of Sindh under 
Rule 9-A. The learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioner was 
appointed under Rule 9(1) as he satisfied all the requirements of 
qualification, experience and Grade.  
4.  
 
According to the learned Counsel, the appointment of 
the Appellant was made by the Competent Authority on following 
the codal formalities.  He submitted that the Appellant could not 
be penalized for the act of the Government functionaries. He 
submitted that those officers, who have appointed the Appellant in 
violation of the rules may be proceeded against. Counsel relied 
upon the cases (1996 SCMR 1350), Iqbal Hussain Sheikh and 2 
others v. Chairman FBR (2013 SCMR 281), Fahd Asadullah Khan v. 
Federation of Pakistan (2009 SCMR 412) and (2006 SCMR 678) to 
establish that if an order is passed by an authority erroneously or 
in violation of rules, it should firstly be determined which authority 
is responsible for the order. The learned Counsel has relied upon 
the case of Dr. Nighat Bibi vs Secretary, Ministry of Health (2009 
SCMR 775) in support of his contention, wherein absorption was 
saved. He cited the case of Najam Abbas vs Superintendent of 
 
5 
Police (2006 SCMR 496) in support of his contention that no officer 
should be penalized for the act of functionaries.  
 
C.A. No.404, 405 of 2011 
Ali Hassan Brohi  
(CA404/2011) 
Ali Azhar Baloch 
(CA.405/2011) v. Province of Sindh etc 
by Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Sr.ASC 
 
5.  
 
The learned Counsel contended that he is in complete 
agreement with the judgment striking down the legislative 
instruments, however, the Sindh Government has misled this 
Court, and the Court believed the submissions made and passed 
the order. The Counsel submitted that this petition challenges para 
No.175 of the judgment under review. 
6.  
 
The learned Counsel contended that on 19.09.1989, 
the Appellant Ali Hassan Brohi was appointed in BS-18 as Director 
in Ministry of Sports and Tourism, Government of Pakistan. After 5 
years, on 02.03.1994, the Government of Sindh requisitioned his 
services on deputation in BS-18. On 07.11.1995, he was absorbed 
as Deputy Secretary in Provincial Secretariat Service (PSS). 
7.  
 
The learned Counsel contended that the issue before 
the Court relates to the legality of initial absorption of the 
Appellant. He submitted that this Court assumed jurisdiction in 
the matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, to examine the 
vires of the legislative instruments, therefore, this Court could not 
strike down the provisions which were not challenged before it. He 
further 
contended 
that 
the 
judgment 
should 
be 
applied 
prospectively.  
8.  
 
The learned Counsel submitted that the instruments 
struck down were enacted to protect absorptions, however, the job 
 
6 
of the Court is to strike down the instruments and not to deal with 
the cases of absorptions that have already taken place. He next 
contended that the date of 1994 was not in the mind of the author 
judge and there is no proof as to how the AG Sindh arrived at this 
cut off date. Counsel submitted that the constitutional duty of this 
Court ends the moment the law is struck down and what happens 
afterwards would not be the concern of this Court. The Counsel 
placed reliance on the case of (PLD 2013 SC 829) in support of his 
contention that the judgment has to be prospective.  
9.  
 
The learned Counsel next referred to the Sindh Civil 
Servants (Regularization of Absorption) Act, Act 17 of 2011, and 
submitted that the cut off date of 1994 is arbitrary, based on the 
statement made by the learned AG Sindh. All illegal absorptions 
should be declared invalid, and not only those made post-1994. 
The Counsel contended that the Provincial Government has misled 
the Court and out of 1161 employees who were absorbed, in the 
similar manner, the action has only been taken against 278 
Officers.   
 
C.A. No.495 of 2013 
Rasool Baksh Phulpoto v. Province of Sindh  
by Mr. Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, ASC 
 
10.  
 
The Counsel submitted that the Appellant has retired 
five months ago but his pension has been stopped. He contended 
that when the judgment under review was pronounced, the 
Appellant was MD of Pakistan Housing Authority and had been 
appointed in the Federal Government on deputation.  
11.  
 
The Counsel contended that, in 1973, he was 
appointed as a teacher in the Directorate of Technical Education, 
 
7 
Government of Sindh in BS-16. In May 1988, he was transferred 
and posted as Additional Private Secretary to CM Sindh in BS-16. 
He next contended that on 26.06.1988, the Federal Government 
requisitioned his services and he was sent on deputation as PS to 
Federal Minister Housing. The Appellant applied for the position of 
Deputy Director, Directorate of Special Education, a fresh 
appointment on ad hoc basis in BS-18. Then, in 1990, he was 
selected as Additional DG, Peoples Works Program and was 
transferred to the Local Government in the same grade. The 
Counsel contended that the department was devolved to the 
provinces, thus he became surplus. Thereafter, the CM Sindh 
wrote a letter to the Establishment Division stating that the 
Appellant has been absorbed w.e.f 25.05.1991 in the Sindh 
Government. The Counsel submitted that the Appellant was duly 
regularized in Provincial Government but has been reverted to the 
Federal Government under the impugned judgment and is not 
receiving any pension.  
 
C.A. No.407 of 2011 
Abdul Ghani Jukhio v. Province of Sindh  
by Mr. Adnan Iqbal Ch., ASC 
 
12.  
 
The learned Counsel submitted that on 22.11.1989, 
the Appellant was appointed as PRO in Directorate of Sindh Kachi 
Abadi Authority (SKAA) in BS-16. In 1995, he was appointed PRO 
to Minister Population Welfare in SKAA and the post was upgraded 
to BS-17 in May 1994. On 18.02.1996, he was appointed PS to 
Minister for Excise on deputation. He subsequently came back to 
his parent department from 1997 to 1999 as PRO. On 01.09.1997, 
he was promoted to BS-18 and was then appointed as Deputy 
 
8 
Director Coordination in SKAA. On 16.12.2002, he was appointed 
Town Municipal Officer in S&GAD and was reverted to his parent 
department in 2003 as Deputy Director Administration. Thereafter, 
in 2004, he was appointed Director, Field Office of SKAA in BS-19. 
On 31.01.2007, the Appellant was promoted to BS-19 and on 
30.04.2007, he was appointed EDO Jamshoro in Ex PCS cadre. 
The Counsel contended that on 18.11.2008, the Appellant was 
absorbed as Additional Secretary in Provincial Secretariat Service 
(PSS) in BS-19 and his name was placed at the bottom of the 
seniority list. On 07.03.2011, he was appointed Secretary Mines 
and Minerals in BS-20.  
13.  
 
The Counsel submitted that the Appellant is not 
posted anywhere and his lien with the SKAA has been terminated. 
He contended that the Appellant is not a beneficiary of any 
legislative instruments which protect absorptions. These statutes 
were limited to protect the officers who were on deputation and 
were 
subsequently 
absorbed 
under 
the 
statutes 
and 
the 
Appellant‟s absorption does not fall under it.  
14.  
 
The learned Counsel submitted that absorption of the 
Petitioner is valid not only under Rule 9-A but under Rule 9(1) as 
well and the appointment procedure provided in these Rules was 
duly followed. He contended that the Appellant was a Civil Servant 
since his first appointment and service Rules of SKAA were not 
framed at that time. He contended that there are two parallel 
structures: one is the Civil Services and the other posts in 
connection with affairs of the Province. He contended that he 
Sindh Kachi Abadi Act was meant for both these servants and if 
those in Civil Services are allowed to move laterally to Government 
 
9 
departments, those holding posts in relation to affairs of the 
province should also be allowed to do the same.  
15.  
 
He next contended that section 26 of the Composition 
and Cadre Rules of 1954 allows for appointment by transfer of 
private persons as well. He further contended that Section 7(2)(a) 
of Public Service Commission Act, 1989, envisages movement from 
Government Service to Civil Service and he relied on Hadi Buksh v. 
Sindh (1994 PLC (CS) 924) to submit that such movement has 
been endorsed by this Court. He lastly contended that in Nemat 
Ullah Butt v. Government of Punjab (1988 SCMR 1453), this Court 
held that there is nothing in the Act that prevents Government 
from creating additional, separate cadres for Government servants 
after absorption.  
 
C.A. No.409 of 2011 
Syed Abid Ali Shah vs. Province of Sindh 
by Mr. Asim Mansoor Khan, ASC 
 
16.  
 
The Counsel submitted that in 1976, the Appellant 
was appointed as Management Trainee in the Board of 
Management, 
Sindh 
for 
nationalized 
Ghee 
Industries. 
On 
16.8.1997, he was appointed as Managing Director at Maqbool Co. 
Ltd. when the Sindh Government requisitioned his services. On 
24.10.1997, the Appellant was sent on deputation for 3 years to 
the Ministry of Industries and Production. On 15.11.1997, he was 
appointed Cane Commissioner in BS-19. Then on 05.04.1998, he 
was transferred as DG, Bureau of Supply and Prices, Sindh. 
Subsequently, on 15.11.1998, he was repatriated to Ghee Corp. 
and on 14.01.1999, his services were placed at the disposal of 
Population Welfare department (PWD). On 18.01.1999, he was 
 
10 
appointed as Additional Secretary, PWD and on 09.08.1999, he 
was absorbed in PWD in relaxation of rules. Then, on 30.09.1999, 
Ghee Corp. relieved him but, on 18.12.1999, the Government sent 
a notification for repatriation of the Appellant. However, on 
21.12.1999, the Secretary, Sindh Government, submitted that the 
Appellant has been absorbed therefore he cannot be repatriated.  
17.  
 
The Counsel submitted that under an amendment to 
section 8 of the governing statute, the employees of PWD were 
declared Civil Servants. At the time of the judgment, the Appellant 
was appointed Secretary Livestock in BS-20. Counsel contended 
that he was de-notified on 02.07.2013 and repatriated to Ghee 
Corp. even though he had been merged in the Government of 
Sindh in PSS and Ghee Corp. was declared defunct. The Appellant 
retired one year after de-notification on 01.06.2014.  
 
C.A. No.411 of 2011 
Dr. Aftab Ahmad Malah v. Dr. Naseem ul Ghani 
by Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC 
 
18.  
 
The learned Counsel contended that in the year 2000, 
the Appellant Dr. Aftab was appointed Dental surgeon in BS-17 in 
the Ministry of Health. On 05.09.2008, he was promoted as Senior 
Dental Surgeon in BS-18 on the recommendations of committee 
and with approval of the competent authority. On 07.10.2008, he 
was transferred and posted as Deputy Secretary in BS-18 in the 
Health Department, Government of Sind. Subsequently, on 
18.11.2008, he was absorbed and inducted in PSS cadre in the 
same grade and his name was placed at the bottom of the seniority 
list.  
 
11 
19.  
 
The Counsel contended that competitive examination 
is not the only channel available for induction of officers, citing 
Rule 9(1) as an example.  
 
C.A. No.412 of 2011 
Dr. Muhammad Ali v. Dr. Naseem ul Ghani  
by Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC 
 
20.  
 
The Counsel contended that the Appellant holds a 
degree of MSc Economics from Bradford University and in Sept. 
2003, he received a Doctorate in Business Administration from 
Florida. He attended National Management Course from NIPA, 
Lahore and courses at Royal Institute of Public Administration, 
London.  
21.  
 
The Counsel contended that on 18.06.1981, the 
Appellant was appointed as Staff Officer in BS-17 in Agriculture 
Development Bank of Pakistan (ADBP) and was prompted as 
Assistant Director ADBP in BS-18. In 1993, he was promoted as 
Joint Director in BS-19 and in 2001, the post was upgraded to 
Director. In 2002, Governor of Sindh recommended the Appellant 
for absorption in the Provincial Government as Secretary Food and 
Cooperatives. On 12.07.2004, he was posted as Additional 
Secretary in BS-19 in CM Secretariat on deputation. On 
18.02.2005, he was appointed as Special Secretary (BS-20) 
Implementation in CM Secretariat, w.e.f 17.7.2004 and on 
14.03.2006, he was absorbed in PSS. The Counsel contended that 
at the time of the judgment, the Appellant was on deputation to 
the Federal Government as Joint Secretary, Drug Regulatory 
Authority in BS-21. On 20.03.2013, he was promoted to BS-21 on 
the recommendations of the Provincial Selection Board. The 
 
12 
learned Counsel contended that on 21.12.2006, he was relived by 
ADBP due to his absorption in the Provincial Secretariat.  
22.  
 
The learned Counsel submitted that the subject matter 
of the writ petition pertains to the terms and conditions of service, 
therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 
212 of Constitution, read with section 4 of Sindh Service Tribunal 
Act. By filing a writ of quo-warranto, a question relating to terms 
and conditions of service can only be determined by the Tribunal.   
23.  
 
The learned Counsel submitted that the Learned 
Judges of High Court of Sindh ignored Rule 9(1). He contended 
that the appointment of Dr. Aftab Malah was validly made under 
Rule 9(1) and that of Dr. Muhammad Ali was also validly made 
under section 24, as their services were requisitioned with the 
approval of the competent authority. Counsel submitted that 
appointment of Dr. Aftab Malah satisfied all three conditions laid 
down under Rule 9(1) and that Rule 6A relates to promotion and 
not appointment by transfer. Counsel submitted that lateral 
movement is permitted but it is governed by certain rules, which 
have been followed.  
24.  
 
The learned Counsel contended that their remedy lies 
before the Service Tribunal, and not before the High Court; and 
this judgment goes beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court. 
While placing reliance on Superintendent Engineer Highways v. 
Muhammad Khurshid (2003 SCMR 1241), Counsel submitted that 
exclusive jurisdiction pertaining to terms and conditions of service 
lies with the Tribunal. He next contended that in Managing 
 
13 
Director v. Ghulam Abbas (2003 PLC (CS) 796), it was held that 
Service Tribunal could hear matters of absorption.  
25.  
 
The Counsel contended that a writ of quo warranto is 
not available to one set of Civil Servants against another set of Civil 
Servants. He submitted that if a colleague is allowed to challenge 
another colleague‟s appointment, there would be no end to this; 
there will be anarchy in the Civil Service structure. He placed 
reliance on Dr. Azeem ur Rehman v. Government of Sindh (2004 
SCMR 1299) and contended that if an appointment has been made 
and there is something wrong with such appointment, the Tribunal 
is the appropriate forum to challenge it.  
26.  
 
The learned Counsel submitted that when they filed a 
writ of quo warranto, the Petitioners were bound to show as to how 
they were aggrieved, which they have failed to do. The learned 
Counsel contended that these writ petitions were hit by the 
principle of laches. Dr. Aftaf Malah was transferred in 2008 and 
Dr. M. Ali was appointed in 2006, while these petitions were filed 
in May 2009. He placed reliance on the case reported as (2012 
SCMR 280).  
27.  
 
The learned Counsel referred to section 24 of the Civil 
Servants Act. The Counsel contended that the Appellant was highly 
qualified and talented and there is always an exception available in 
the Rules. The Counsel next contended that the principle of locus 
poententiae is attracted as the appointment was validly made, he 
was qualified and the appointment had taken effect, and he placed 
reliance on Sarosh Haidar v. Muhammad Javaid (PLD 2014 SC 
338). He further relied on the case reported as (PLD 1969 SC 407) 
 
14 
where it was held that the matter relating to salaries was against 
law but since it had taken effect, it could not be taken back. 
28.  
 
The learned Counsel submitted that the High Court 
could not consider Rule 9(1) since appointment could also be made 
under it. The learned Counsel relied on Raunaq Ali’s case (PLD 
1973 SC 236) in which a distinction was made between acts done 
without jurisdiction and those done improperly or with some 
irregularity. The Counsel contended that appointments have been 
made and have taken effect. In such instances, jurisdiction should 
be exercised very carefully. He also relied on Muhammad Hussain 
Munir v. Sikandar (PLD 1974 SC 139). The Counsel lastly 
submitted that legal principles laid down by this Court must 
operate prospectively and he placed reliance on (2009 SCMR 
1169). 
 
29.  
 
The learned Counsel, Ch. Afrasiab Khan, contended 
that the cutoff date of 1994 was not determined in vacuum and 
was based on data. The notification, dated 02.11.1994, at para. 6 
of the Sindh High Court judgment, stated that 10% of 
appointments shall be made by transfer from other departments. 
This is why the learned AG Sindh submitted the date of 1994. 
Furthermore, the appointments placed on record before the Court 
were those made in 1994 and onwards, that is why the judgment 
relates to the appointments made after 1994.  
30.  
 
The Counsel next contended that the judgment should 
operate retrospectively as there are at least four conclusive 
judgments of this Court in support of this point, including             
Dr. Mobashir Hassan’s case.  (supra). 
 
15 
31.  
 
The Counsel lastly contended that the nomenclature of 
the legislative instruments which were challenged manifestly admit 
in their content that all absorptions were illegal, that is why it was 
called “Regularization of Absorption”. Regularization is only done of 
that which is wrong, illegal and void.  
32.  
 
Mr. Sarwar Khan, learned Addl. Advocate General 
while referring to para. 2 of the judgment of the High Court, has 
contended that there was no absorption in PSS group prior to 
1994. He next submitted that his contentions are the same which 
were made before the High Court, and are given in para. 25 of the 
judgment. 
33. 
 
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants 
and have perused the record. The Appellants were absorbed on 
different dates in Sindh Government. During the pendency of the 
Appeals, the issue of absorption in service, post and cadre was 
agitated in Constitution Petition No.71 of 2011 and other Petitions, 
which were heard and decided by the judgment dated 12.6.2013, 
whereby the „absorption‟ has been declared unconstitutional, 
therefore, these Appeals will have no bearing which have been 
preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 
2.4.2011 in CP.D-932/2009 (Dr. Nasimul Ghani Sahito vs. Province 
of Sindh etc) in which the learned High Court while examining the 
scope of Section 24 of the Act has held that the authority was not 
authorized, in law, to absorb the Appellants in different cadres, 
service or posts. Since we have already decided the issues raised in 
these Appeals in the aforesaid judgment, review of which has also 
been dismissed, holding that absorption can neither be ordered 
under Section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973, nor under 
 
16 
Rule 9(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and 
Transfer) Rules, 1974, and is violative of the fundamental rights of 
the Civil Servants, consequently, these Appeals have lost their 
significance and are accordingly dismissed.   
 
 
Approved for reporting 
Sohail/Saeed/** 
 
Announced in open Court on 05.01.2015 at Karachi. 
