1988 PLP 1249 (SCMR)
POULTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD and 3 others Petitioners Versus A.G. AFZAL‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1249 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | POULTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD and 3 others Petitioners Versus A.G. AFZAL‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1249 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1249 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1249 (SCMR) (POULTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD and 3 others Petitioners Versus A.G. AFZAL‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Maajid Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 15‑2‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in W.P. No.5421 of 1987). ‑‑‑S.16‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1974‑‑Pay and emoluments for period spent on duty‑‑Employee during pendency of his departmental appeal was reinstated in service under order of Minister‑When departmental appeal of employee was dismissed, order of Minister was no more in field‑‑Employee, held, was entitled to emoluments for period he actually worked even if it resulted under orders of Minister, legality of which was not questioned at relevant time by employer‑‑Any amount due from employee to employer could be set off if otherwise legally possible.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Through this petition for leave to appeal, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Lahore High Court; whereby their Constitutional Petition, challenging a Minister's so‑called order, in a judicial matter; which falls within the jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal, was dismissed.
2. According to the learned counsel, pending departmental appeal by the respondent, the Minister had directed his re‑instatement‑‑till the disposal of the appeal. The learned counsel stated that the respondent's appeal has been dismissed and that being so, the order of the Minister is no more in the field for any further action, that the petitioners might take in accordance with law. The next question raised by the learned counsel is that, on account of the order of the Minister, the respondent had to be allowed to resume duty; and, in that behalf certain amount was claimed by him as emoluments for the relevant period. The petitioners wanted also to avoid liability about that payment, but the High Court has refused the relief in that regard as well.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, in the circumstances of this case, we do not consider it proper to permit the petitioners on whatever ground, to withhold the emoluments for the work actually done and service rendered by respondent in the course of his employment; even if it resulted from the order of the Minister, the legality of which might have been questioned. One fact which influenced us is that the petitioners should have then refused to assign duty to the respondent. Not having so acted at proper time, in the circumstances of this case, we, do not consider it fair and just to penalize the respondent for the petitioners' inaction.
4. The learned counsel next pointed out that there is likelihood that some amount might be payable by the respondent to the petitioner/department. If that is so, there would be nothing to prevent the petitioners from making the recovery of all legal dues from the) respondent and also to resort to the set off, if otherwise legally, possible.
5. With these observations we decline to grant leave to appeal in the peculiar circumstances of this case. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. M.Y.H./A‑223/S Petition dismissed.