PLC(CS) 2001

2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SARFRAZ Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB,

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore High Court
Decided Date
Writ Petition No. 10272 of 1999, decided on 8th June, 1999.
Honorable Judges
Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Lahore High Court
Bench Members Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J
Parties SARFRAZ Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB,
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan(1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan(1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SARFRAZ Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan(1973)

Representation

  • Dr. Ehsan-iil-Haqt s Khan for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Art.199

Civil service

Transfer

Petitioner, claiming to be a social worker had filed Constitutional petition as pro bono publico questioning the legality of the order whereby the earlier order of transfer of a civil servant was cancelled

Petitioner alleged that said civil servant was transferred due to lot of complaints against her, but her transfer had been undone under the influence of the Minister

Validity

Matter was purely administrative and it was doubtful if the petitioner had the locus standi to file Constitutional petition as he could not be an aggrieved person

Petitioner could make representation to concerned Authority which could decide the matter in accordance with law after providing him an opportunity to substantiate his point of view.

Judgment & Decree

Writ Petition No. 10272 of 1999, decided on 8th June, 1999.

Art.199

Civil service

Transfer

Petitioner, claiming to be a social worker had filed Constitutional petition as pro bono publico questioning the legality of the order whereby the earlier order of transfer of a civil servant was cancelled

Petitioner alleged that said civil servant was transferred due to lot of complaints against her, but her transfer had been undone under the influence of the Minister

Validity

Matter was purely administrative and it was doubtful if the petitioner had the locus standi to file Constitutional petition as he could not be an aggrieved person

Petitioner could make representation to concerned Authority which could decide the matter in accordance with law after providing him an opportunity to substantiate his point of view. Dr. Ehsan-iil-Haqt s Khan for Petitioner. Petitioner, claiming to be a social worker, has filed this petition as pro bono publico to question the legality of the order, dated 12-5-1999 whereby the earlier order of transfer of respondent No.5. a civil servant was cancelled.

2. It is contended that there were lot of complaints against respondent No.5 as a result of which she was transferred but now she has been successful in utilizing the influence of the Minister to have the transfer undone. Reliance is placed on endorsement made on the impugned order.

3. The matter is purely administrative and it is doubtful if the petitioner has the locus standi as he may not be an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution. Learned counsel, however is correct that in the scheme of things and in view of number of judgments of the Supreme Court, a Minister and for that matter MNAs/MPAs can hardly interfere in matters of postings and transfers. If so advised, the petitioner may make a representation to Secretary Health, who is directed to decide the same in accordance with law, after providing him an opportunity to substantiate his point of view. It is expected that while deciding representation, the learned Secretary will keep in view the pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the subject.

4. With the above observation/direction, this petition is disposed of. H.B.T./S-252/L Order accordingly.