P L D 2002 Supreme Court 319 (PLP)
ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, BAHAWALPUR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HAMEED BHATTI and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2002 Supreme Court 319 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Javed Iqbal |
| Parties | ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, BAHAWALPUR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HAMEED BHATTI and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Islamia University Bahawalpur Act (IV of 1975)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2002 Supreme Court 319 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Islamia University Bahawalpur Act (IV of 1975)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2002 Supreme Court 319 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Javed Iqbal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2002 Supreme Court 319 (PLP) (ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, BAHAWALPUR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HAMEED BHATTI and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions).
- Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 2001
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 22‑2‑2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in C.R. Nos. 306‑D and 305‑D of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 43‑‑‑Islamic University Employees (Pension) Statutes, 1979 ‑‑‑ Islamia University Bahawalpur Officers (Appointment) Statutes, 1977), ESTACODE, page 309, Instruction No.36‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Re‑employment of employee‑‑‑Entitlement to move‑over, pension and other ancillary benefits‑‑‑Leave to. appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider, whether re‑employment constituted a bar for grant of pension, move‑over and ancillary benefits in view of relevant provisions as contained in Islamia University Bahawalpur Act, 1975 and Islamic University Employees (Pension) Statutes, 1979; whether the provisions as contained in Islamia University Bahawalpur Act, 1975 and Islamic University Employees (Pension) Statutes, 1979, could be superseded by Instruction No.36 published in ESTACODE at page 309, which provided that a person who had been re‑employed could take full benefits of service and pension; and whether High Court had ignored the relevant provisions of Islamia University Bahawalpur Officers (Appointment) Statutes, 1977, and resultantly the exact nature of service of respondents could not be determined having a substantial bearing to set the controversy at naught.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions). Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in both Petitions). Date of hearing: 29th November, 2001 JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑Two petitions (C.P. No.1148/2001 and C.P. No.1185/2001) for leave to appeal have been preferred on behalf of Islamia University Bahawalpur {petitioner in both petitions) assailing the judgment dated 22‑2‑2001 passed by learned Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench) whereby judgment/decree dated 3‑4‑1993 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, was kept intact dismissing the appeals of petitioners against judgment/decree dated 29‑2‑1992 passed by learned Civil Judge whereby the suit of respondent was decreed. The above‑captioned two petitions involving common questions of law and facts are being disposed of by this‑order.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case detailed history whereof has been given in the impugned judgment are that the respondents preferred two suits and sought declaration to the effect that being permanent employees they were entitled to move‑over in the next scale as well as pension and other ancillary benefits, contested hardly by the petitioner but the same were decreed in favour of respondents and appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed, hence these petitions.
3. After hearing Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner and Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the caveators and having gone through the entire record we are inclined to grant leave on the following points:‑
(i) Whether re‑employment constitutes a bar fox the grant of pension, move‑over and ancillary benefits in view of the relevant provisions as contained in the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act, 1975 and the Islamia University Employees (Pension) Statutes, 1979. (ii) Whether the provisions as contained in the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act, 1975 and the Islamia University Employees (Pension) Statutes, 1979 can be superseded by Instruction No.36 published in ESTACODE at page 309 which provides that a person who has been re‑employed can take full benefits of service and pension. (iii) Whether the Lahore High Court, has ignored the relevant provisions of Islamia University Bahawalpur Officers (Appointment) Statutes, 1977 and resultantly the exact nature of the service of respondents could not be determined having a substantial bearing to set the controvery at naught. S.A.K/I‑40/S Order accordingly.