1989SCMR330 (PLP)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Additional Inspector‑General, Police, Punjab, Lahore‑‑Petitioner Versus RAO ABDUL JALIL KHAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR330 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Additional Inspector‑General, Police, Punjab, Lahore‑‑Petitioner Versus RAO ABDUL JALIL KHAN‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR330 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR330 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR330 (PLP) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Additional Inspector‑General, Police, Punjab, Lahore‑‑Petitioner Versus RAO ABDUL JALIL KHAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khalil Ramdey, Advocate‑General, Punjab and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1988.
- Mr. Khalil Ramdey, learned Advocate‑General has appeared in support of the Petition but he is not able to show any ground on which the respondent could be denied the benefit of War Service or the seniority after granting it to him. The pro forma promotion and the pay following it were within the discretion of the competent authority because for pro forma promotion his suitability had to be determined and for pay his entitlement had to be made out. When the power possessed by the Government was duly exercised in favour of the Respondent and there is no legal defect or infirmity noticeable in the exercise of the discretion, the locus Poenitentiae is not available to the Petitioner to revoke it only because someone thinks that the discretion should not have been exercised in the manner in which it was in fact exercised.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 28‑6‑1982 passed in Case No. 221/1111 of 1981). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Civil service‑‑Benefit of War Service seniority‑‑Grant of pro forma promotion and pay following it within discretion of competent, authority because for pro forma promotion his suitability had to be determined and for pay his entitlement had to be made out‑‑When power possessed by Government was duly exercised in favour of Government servant and there being no legal defect or infirmity noticeable in exercise of discretion, locus penitential was not available to Government to revoke it only because someone would think that discretion should not have been exercised in the manner in which it was in fact exercised. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal raising no question of law on which an appeal under Art. 212(3) might be competent‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The Government of the Punjab, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 28‑6‑1982 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed. The respondent joined the Police Department as an A.S.I. on 10‑7‑1949. He had rendered war service and sought the benefit of it. The Administrative Department, i.e. the Home Department in consultation with the Services and General Administration Department granted the War Service benefit and he was given the presumptive seniority from 1‑4‑1945. He was given pro forma promotion on the principle of next below rule and was also allowed pay according to the Scale of the promoted post. It was subsequently that the Provincial Government in the Finance Department decided to revoke all the benefits and conveyed it to the administrative department and the Additional Inspector General of Police implemented it after allowing an opportunity of showing cause to the Petitioner. The Tribunal has held that it was not shown that the Petitioner was not entitled to the War Service benefits or to the seniority following the grant of such benefit or to the pro forma promotion. The pay having already been granted for the promoted post, it could not be withdrawn. Mr. Khalil Ramdey, learned Advocate‑General has appeared in support of the Petition but he is not able to show any ground on which the respondent could be denied the benefit of War Service or the seniority after granting it to him. The pro forma promotion and the pay following it were within the discretion of the competent authority because for pro forma promotion his suitability had to be determined and for pay his entitlement had to be made out. When the power possessed by the Government was duly exercised in favour of the Respondent and there is no legal defect or infirmity noticeable in the exercise of the discretion, the locus Poenitentiae is not available to the Petitioner to revoke it only because someone thinks that the discretion should not have been exercised in the manner in which it was in fact exercised. The Petition raises no such question of law on which an appeal under Article 212(3) may be competent. Hence leave to appeal is refused. M.Y.H./P‑58/S Petition dismissed.