The Lahore High Court chief justice on Wednesday summoned the deputy attorney general for assistance in a petition seeking the disqualification of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani on account of non-payment of Rs 380 billion in bank loans by his wife.
In the petition, filed by Advocate Shahid Perveez Jami, it was alleged that the loans were written off by misusing political influence. The court adjourned the hearing till April 26. The petition also contending that under the constitution no one is eligible to hold a public office if his or her family member or blood relatives are bank defaulters or involved in corruption.
A federal government law officer told the court that the disqualification of an office holder on basis of bank default can only be sought through the Election Commission, therefore the petition should be dismissed. However the petitioner contended that the court has the power to declare the prime minister disqualified.
After hearing the arguments, the LHC CJ summoned the deputy attorney and the federal government law officer on April 26, to decide the maintainability of the petition.
LHC reinstates 17 PTCL employees: The Lahore High Court on Wednesday, reinstated 17 PTCL employees after declaring the notification of their termination illegal.
The order was passed by Justice Muhammad Khalid Mehmood on identical petitions filed by Rana Hassan Muhammad and sixteen others through their counsel Liaqat Ali Butt.
The petitioners submitted they employed by the PTCL employees and were union members as well and were terminated for demanding a raise in salaries.
They said they demanded a 50 percent increase in their salaries, after the federal government announced the same for all government employees.
However, the PTCL refused to increase their salaries which resulted in unrest among employees; demonstrations were staged, forcing the company to allow the increase, they added.
They said they also took part in the protests and after which the PTCL issued show cause notices to them and their services were suspended. Later, they were terminated. The petitioners contended that they were not given the opportunity of a personal hearing.
They requested the court to issue directions for the restoration of their services after declaring the termination illegal. The court, after hearing the arguments of both the parties, set aside the termination orders, declaring them illegal.
The court held that the petitioners (employees) were not heard, no charge sheet was issued and their services were terminated without any lawful authority.
