1978 PLP [C (PLC(CS))
Syed ASGHAR ALI SHAH Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, S&GAD, KARACHI AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1978 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | 1978 P L C C. S. T 77 |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Chairman, Abdul Kadir and G. A. Mughal, Members |
| Parties | Syed ASGHAR ALI SHAH Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, S&GAD, KARACHI AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the 1978 P L C C. S. T 77 bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Chairman, Abdul Kadir and G. A. Mughal, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) (Syed ASGHAR ALI SHAH Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, S&GAD, KARACHI AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Additional Advocate‑General for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 4‑Appeal‑Limitation‑Appeal filed beyond 120 days of original order‑No application for condonation of delay made‑Appeal dismissed as time‑barred.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN.)‑--The appeal is time‑barred. The order of removal from service was passed by Government on 7‑4‑75 after a show‑cause notice dated 14‑t2‑
74. The appeal in this Tribunal against above order had to be filed within 30 days but in case an appeal to the Department was provided, appeal could not be filed in this Tribunal unless an appeal to the Department was preferred and 90 days were allowed to expire. So the appeal could be filed against the original order within a period of 120 days or in the alternative the aggrieved employee could wait and file the appeal in this Tribunal against the final order within one month of that order. So there were two alternatives. The appellant chose the first alternative and filed appeal in this Tribunal and did not wait to avail of the second alternative. According to law the appeal against the original was required to be filed by 5‑8‑75 i. e. within 120 days of the original order but it was filed on 30‑8‑
73. So it is ‑time barred by 25 days, no application for condonation of the delay hag been made despite the fact a plea of limitation was taken in the W. S. In the result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed