2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Ch. HUMAYUN AKHTAR Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Population Welfare, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. HUMAYUN AKHTAR Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Population Welfare, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 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 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Ch. HUMAYUN AKHTAR Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Population Welfare, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Nawaz Bhatti, Dy. A.G. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 26-4-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No.6143 of 1996).
Art.199
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4
Question of implementation of judgment of Service Tribunal, which had been set aside by Supreme Court. would not arise. Federation of Pakistan and another v. Riaz Ahmad Baig and another 1984 SCMR 759 ref. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
Federation of Pakistan and another v. Riaz Ahmad Baig and another 1984 SCMR 759 ref. Petitioner in person. M. Nawaz Bhatti, Dy. A.G. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th June, 2002. The petitioner has been litigating since 1982. In Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1984 and Civil Petition No.121-R of 1983 (and 367 other petitions), titled "Federation of Pakistan and another v. Riaz Ahmad Baig and another, reported in 1984 SCMR 759, in para. 22, this Court with regard to the petitioner, observed as under:-- "Humayun Akhtar, petitioner in C.P.S.L.A. No.740 of 1983 and respondent in Federation's C.P.S.L.A. Nos.300-R of 1983 and 64-R of 1984, had been under suspension from 19-9-1979 in a disciplinary proceeding against him. While still under suspension, his case had been referred to the Commission under the Ordinance but not approved, and in the result his services were terminated with effect from 17-9-1981. His appeal No.5(R) of 1982, before the Tribunal, was partly accepted on 23-2-1982 in the same terms as described in paragraph 7 above. C.P.S.L.A. No.740 of .1983 filed by him and No.300-R of 0983 by the Federation are directed against the Tribunal's order passed in that -appeal. He, however, tiled another Appeal No.91(R) of 1983 before the tribunal raising the question of the effect of his automatic reinstatement in 1979 and challenging the legality of the suspension, which appeal was accepted by the Tribunal vide order, dated 20-12-1983 and in the result the suspension was held to be void, his reinstatement into service with effect from 19-9-1979 was ordered and it was further held that his case was not covered by the Ordinance and as such the Tribunal's decision in the earlier Appeal No.5(R) of 1982 directing that his case be referred to the Commission was to that extent superseded. Federation's C.P.S.L.A. No.64-R of 1984 is directed against this latter order. Humayun Akhtar contends that as he had been under a disciplinary enquiry at the relevant time, his case ought not to have been referred to the Commission until the completion of that enquiry. He, however. is unable to cite any rule to support him in this regard. We thus find no merit in his case". A review petition (C.R.P. No.28-R of 1984) was filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid reported judgment which was dismissed by this Court on 25-2-1986.
2. The learned High Court in the impugned judgment after going through the previous judgments rightly held that the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal passed in Appeal No.91(R) of 1983 on 20-12-1983, was set aside by this Court, therefore, the question of its implementation does not arise.
3. This petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./H-66/S Leave refused.