LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Thursday disposed of a petition regarding unfulfilled demands of visuallychallenged people in light of a report submitted by the provincial government.

A law officer filed a report on behalf of the provincial secretary (social welfare) along with a copy of an agreement signed between the government and the protesting visually-challenged persons.

Justice Rasaal Hassan Syed disposed of the petition and observed that the petitioner was free to approach the court again if the government failed to honour its agreement.

Advocate Rana Sikander argued onbehalf of the petitioner that visuallychallenged persons had been protesting on The Mall for two weeks, but their concerns had not been addressed by the authorities.

He said the visually-impaired individuals had repeatedly been deceived in the name of negotiations, and despite clear court orders, they had not been provided employment according to the designated quota.

He further mentioned that some of the protesters attempted self-immolation in their desperation.

He asked the court to issue orders for the approval of lawful demands put forth by the visually-impaired persons and to ensure security arrangements for them as well.

REPLY SOUGHT: The Lahore HighCourt has sought replies from Punjab chief secretary and other respondents on a petition filed by the head of intelligence and vigilance wing under Punjab Land Records Authority (PLRA), challenging his removal from the office.

The petitioner, retired Col Khalid Rehman Saqib, was originally appointed on a contract against the post on Jan 2, 2018 and served till June 30, 2019. His contract was later extended from time to time.

Advocate Malik Awais Khalid argued on behalf of the petitioner that the PLRA (Appointment and Conditions of Service), Regulations, 2020 were amended on April 29, 2022, and the period of the contract employees appointed before Oct 1, 2019, was extended up to the age of 60 years unlessterminated earlier.

He stated that after the amendment, the petitioner`s contract was extended till60 years of age and he had stillfour more years of service before his `illegal` termination.

The lawyer said the clause of the contract was not applicable to petitioner after amendment in the regulations and even otherwise the competent authority for the petitioner was the board.

However, he argued, that neither the board meeting was held, nor the petitioner`s matter was discussed or confirmed by the board. He said the impugned order of the petitioner`s termination was not sustainable.

Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh issued notices to the respondents for a date to be fixed by the registrar`s office.