2001 PLP 1967 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IDREES ALVI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus EMPLOYEES' OLD‑AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1967 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Rana Bhagwan Das, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IDREES ALVI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus EMPLOYEES' OLD‑AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1967 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1967 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Rana Bhagwan Das, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1967 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IDREES ALVI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus EMPLOYEES' OLD‑AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 24th April, 2000.
- Syed Zaki Muhammad, Deputy Attorney‑General and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Official Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 1‑3‑1999 of Federal Service Tribunal, passed in Appeal No. 154 (K)/98). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑Time‑barred petition for leave to appeal‑‑ Effect‑‑‑Where the petition was barred by six days and no explanation had been furnished regarding the delay, leave to appeal was refused. Petitioner in person. Syed Zaki Muhammad, Deputy Attorney‑General and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Official Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑Petitioner Muhammad Idrees, under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 1‑3‑1999 of Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner and respondent No.4 Iqtidar Rahim Khan are the employees of Old‑Age benefits Institution. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had impugned the approval of promotion order of said respondent from the post of Assistant Director to Deputy Director with effect from 12‑5‑1998 assigning him seniority over the petitioner. Learned Tribunal held that the petitioner had not preferred any appeal/representation to the departmental authority against the impugned order before approaching the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.
3. Admittedly, the petition is time‑barred by 6 days. No valid explanation has been furnished in this regard. On this ground alone, the petition 'is liable to be dismissed. Besides Syed Zaki Muhammad, learned Deputy Attorney‑General states that the petitioner has also been promoted and the petition has become infructuous. The factum of promotion has not been denied by the petitioner. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. The petitioner may, if aggrieved, claim his seniority before the competent Authority according to law. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑256/S Petition dismissed.