1984 PLP 701 (SCMR)
SIRAJUDDIN KHAN-Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION), SUKKUR AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 701 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Dorab Patel, Muhammad Haleem and Aslam Riaz, Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | SIRAJUDDIN KHAN-Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION), SUKKUR AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 701 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 701 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Dorab Patel, Muhammad Haleem and Aslam Riaz, Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 701 (SCMR) (SIRAJUDDIN KHAN-Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION), SUKKUR AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rashid Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Memo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 23rd January, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment and Order dated 11th March, 1976 of the Sind Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 119 of 1974). -- Art. 212 (3)-Petition for leave to appeal filed beyond prescribed period of 60 days-Condonation of delay sought on plea of delay having not been caused due to any negligence on petitioner's part but on being due to filing of review petition before Service Tribunal under mistaken impression-Such explanation found not impressive-Held, ignorance of law no justification for delay in filing petition before Supreme Court-Petition dismissed as barred by times-.Limitation Act (1X of 1908), S. 5-Service Tribunal Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSAIN, J.‑‑This petition by Sirajuddin Khan is direct6d against the Order dated 11th March, 1976 of the Sind Service Tribunal dismissing his appeal and another Order dated 12th November, 1977 dismissing his Review. The facts giving rise to the present petition are briefly as follows: The petitioner was employed as a Store‑keeper in the Mechanical Division (Guddu Barrage Project for running Pumping Machine at SAMM). He was‑involved in a corruption case, and his services were terminated on 1st January, 1959 but he was re‑instated w. e. f. 23rd December, 1960. Subsequently his services were again terminated on 23rd July, 1971 without any show‑cause notice but he was again re‑instated on 10th December, 1972. He felt that he was entitled to the payment of arrears of pay from 1st January, 1959‑ to 22nd December, 1960 and also from 23rd July, 1971 to 9th December, 1972. Since he did not get any relief from his Department: he filed a civil suit at Sukkur. The suit, however, abated on the constitution of the Sind Service Tribunal under Article 212 (2) of the Conn. He then filed an appeal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tril6unal Act, 1973. The same was, however, dismissed by the Sind Service Tribunal on 11th March, 1976. Instead of filing an appeal before the Supreme ,Court as provided by sub‑article (3) of article 212 of the Constitution the petitioner filed a Review petition before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 12th November, 1977 on the ground that it had no power of Review. Hence the present petition. The petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay along-with the present petition on the ground that he had filed the application for Review before the Tribunal due to a mis taken impression that a Review lay before it. The petition is time barred in as much as he should have filed the same within 60 days of the dismissal of his appeal by the Service Tribunal. It has, however, been pleaded on his behalf that the delay had not been caused due to any negligence on his part but was due to a mistaken impression that the Tribunal had the power to review its own orders: We are, however, not impressed by this explanation. Ignorance of law is no justification for delay in filing a petition before this Court. The peti tion is, therefore, dismissed as barred by time. Petition dismissed.