2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
CH. MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and 2 others
| Citation | 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Sohail Nasir, J |
| Parties | CH. MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and 2 others |
| Primary Law | State Life Employees (Service) Regulation, 1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: State Life Employees (Service) Regulation, 1973 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Sohail Nasir, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (CH. MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yafis Naveed Hashmi for Petitioner.
- Tariq Rajwana for Respondents.
- 3. On the other hand learned counsel for petitioner contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case "Chairman, State Life Insurance Corporation and others v. Hamayun Irfan and 2 others 2010 SCMR 1495" has already been pleased to declare that the rules (ibid) are statutory in nature, therefore, despite the fact that these are silent with regard to promotion criteria, petitioner has a legitimate right to knock the door of this court seeking his promotion as Manager Marketing.
Headnotes / Summary
Pt.III
Employee of State Life Insurance Corporation
Criteria for promotion not given in rules of service
Effect
Petitioner, holding the post of Area Manager in the respondent-Corporation, claimed that despite the fact that his juniors were promoted to Manager Marketing, he was being denied such right
Contention of respondent-Corporation was that State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973 although were statutory but as these were silent about the promotion criteria, therefore, to that extent these were non-statutory and could not govern promotion of the petitioner
When the statutory rules were completely silent, it was impossible for the High Court to find out that how petitioner could meet the relevant merit for the purpose of promotion, so the jurisdiction exercised by the respondents while refusing the relief could not be interfered with
No case in favour of petitioner was made out
Constitutional petition was dismissed. Chairman, State Life Insurance Corporation and others v. Hamayun Irfan and 2 others 2010 SCMR 1495 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SOHAIL NASIR, J.
Muhammad Hanif (petitioner) right now is holding the position of Area Manager in State Life Insurance Corporation at its office at Dera Ghazi Khan and through the instant writ petition his case is that despite the fact that his junior were promoted to Manager Marketing, said right has been denied to him.
2. In the writ comments filed by respondents, certain objections were taken including that the State Life Employees Service Regulations, 1973 although are statutory rules but as these are silent about the promotion criteria, therefore, to that extent these are non-statutory and cannot govern of the promotion of petitioner.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for petitioner contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case "Chairman, State Life Insurance Corporation and others v. Hamayun Irfan and 2 others 2010 SCMR 1495" has already been pleased to declare that the rules (ibid) are statutory in nature, therefore, despite the fact that these are silent with regard to promotion criteria, petitioner has a legitimate right to knock the door of this court seeking his promotion as Manager Marketing.
4. HEAD.
5. The only controversy involved in this case is that whether this Court can issue any direction to respondents for grant of promotion to the petitioner? With the able assistance of both side I have gone through the relevant Rules and I find no difficulty to hold that even by strech of imaginations there is any reference about the criteria for promotion or the merit thereof. When the statutory rules are completely silent, it is impossible for this court to fine out that how petitioner can meet the relevant merit for the purpose of promotion so the jurisdiction exercised by the respondents while refusing the said relief cannot be interfered.
6. No case in favour of petitioner is made out hence this writ petition is dismissed.
7. It is made clear that if any alternate remedy is available to petitioner, he may avail the same and certainly this order shall not prejudice his rights. SA/M-91/L Petition dismissed.