1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ARIF ALI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
| Citation | 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, J |
| Parties | ARIF ALI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ARIF ALI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 14th February, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation whether civil servants‑‑‑Employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, had not been treated as civil servants for purpose of Service Tribunal, notwithstanding their transfer from Telegraph and Telephone Department to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation. Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Dy. A.‑G. and Ahmad Fazal for the Telecommunication Corporation.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Petitioner. Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Dy. A.‑G. and Ahmad Fazal for the Telecommunication Corporation. Date of hearing: 14th February, 1993. The petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents for giving him Class‑I status and BPS‑17 with effect from 30‑12‑1974 when the petitioner was appointed in service, in that, his batch-mates similarly placed were allowed this status with all consequential benefits of service.
2. Ch. Mushtaq Masud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner, who is M.Sc. Physics and some others having B.Sc. Engineering Degrees were appointed as Assistant Engineers (Grade‑16) in Telegraph and Telephone Department, Government of Pakistan, in the year 1974. The Government made a policy decision that the Assistant Engineers having B.Sc. Engineering degree should be placed in Grade‑
17. According to this decision, co‑appointees of the petitioner, who had B.Sc. Engineering degree, were given Grade‑17 from the date of their appointment. It is submitted that the petitioner had all along been clamouring for being treated at par with his co‑appointees. His request has finally been turned down on 28th March, 1990, on the ground that it could not be entertained being time‑barred.
3. It is further submitted that the grievance of the petitioner being of a recurring nature, it should have been redressed irrespective of the time lag. He further points out that in numerous other Government Departments/Corporations, officers with M.Sc. Physics have also been placed in Grade‑17 alongwith those possessing the degree of B.Sc. Engineering.
4. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. Suffice it to say that in view of the unreported judgments of the Supreme Court delivered in the General Manager, Lahore Telecommunication, Lahore Region, Lahore v. Muhammad Aslam Khan etc. (C P L A No. 226 and 227/1991, decided on 7‑10‑1992 and Abid Mahmood v. Government of Pakistan (CPLA No.292‑L/1992, decided on 18‑5‑1992, the employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation were not treated as civil servants for the purposes of Service Tribunal, notwithstanding their transfer from Telegraph and Telephone Department to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation. Resultantly, the writ petition is not competent and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑495/L Petition dismissed.