SHAHID MEHMOOD vs BENAZIR INCOME SUPPORT PROGRAMME (BISP) art — 2024 PLC(CS) 1103 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SHAHID MEHMOOD VS BENAZIR INCOME SUPPORT PROGRAMME (BISP) art. 199(1)(b)(ii)---Benazir Income Support Programme act (XVIII of 2010), Ss. 2 (f), 2(h), 5 & 8---Writ of quo warranto, issuance of---Scope---Post of "the Director" at Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP)---Subordinate/support-posts or Public offices---Scope---Petitioner (former employee of BISP) prayed for issuance of writ of quo warranto regarding two posts the respondents were holding by the designation of "the Director" (Payments and Director Waseela-e-Taleem) with the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP)---Contention of the petitioner was that as the BISP was constituted under the Benazir Income Support Programme act, 2010 (the act 2010), the said two offices were public offices for the purposes of art.199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution---Validity---Proceedings by information in the nature of quo warranto will lie for the office of a public nature and a substantive office and not merely for the function or employment of a deputy or servant held at will and pleasure of others---Posts-in-question (Directors) were not ones created directly by the statute, but were created subsequently by subordinate legislation (statutory or non-statutory) to assist the statutorily created public offices to discharge the sovereign functions delegated to such public offices---To distinguish such subordinate posts from the statutorily created public offices, and to highlight this distinction for the purposes of present judgement, the High Court labelled such posts as support-posts---Perusal of the Benazir Income Support Programme act, 2010 ('the act, 2010') revealed that the public offices created by the act, 2010 are those of the Members of the Board including the Chairperson, the Secretary, the Chief Patron, the Executive Patron and the Council under Ss. 5 & 8 of the act, 2010, who devise the policies and the direction of BISP---although the expression "Management " as defined under S.2(h) of the act, 2010, includes the Secretary and the administrative and technical staff of BISP, the latter two categories are of general description of what have been labelled or as 'support-posts' and qualify under S.2(f) of the act, 2010 as "employees" of BISP---Posts-in-question were though designated as "Directors", but they were not directors in the sense of being members of the governing body of BISP; the designation "Director" is only a job description as employees reporting to the Director General ,who reports to the Secretary, who then reports to the Board---It is a common designation found in public and private sectors in various manifestations and one has to see whether the designation is for a subordinate "support post", and in the present matter, it was so---Therefore, being 3rd -tier administrative or management posts, they did not qualify as public offices for the purposes of a writ of quo warranto---Constitutional petition filed by former/terminated employee of BISP, being frivolous, was dismissed with costs.

SHAHID MEHMOOD vs BENAZIR INCOME SUPPORT PROGRAMME (BISP) art — 2024 PLC(CS) 1103 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC