1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ALLAH DITTA KHAN Versus M. S. LADY WILLINGDON HOSPITAL
| Citation | 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA KHAN Versus M. S. LADY WILLINGDON HOSPITAL |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ALLAH DITTA KHAN Versus M. S. LADY WILLINGDON HOSPITAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2 & 4 read with Punjab Financial Rules, Vol. I, r. 84, Note 1 Chaukidar paid out of Hostel Students Fund in Lady Willingdon Hospital‑Not a civil servant hence not entitled to remedy under S. 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974‑Rule 8. 4, Note 1 of Punjab Financial Rules, Vol. I only lays down a guideline and does not prevent Chaukidars and Sweepers from not being paid out of Hostel funds though they can be paid out of Provincial Revenues.
Judgment & Decree
M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑
This is an appeal filed under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 for the grant of allowance sanctioned by the Provincial Government from time to time. Briefly the facts of the case are that Allah Ditta Khan was appointed as a Chaukidar vide letter dated 19‑2‑1972 issued by the Deputy Medical Superintendent, Lady Willingdon Hospital. The appellant has contended that he has not been paid his annual increments and the various allowances in accord ance with Government rules. It has been contended on behalf of the Govern ment that the appellant was not appointed as a civil servant and that he has not been paid out of the provincial revenues. It is contented that he was appointed as a Chaukidar and was paid his salary out of the Hostel Students Funds. Except for the appointment letter which is riot clear as to whether the appellant was appointed against a vacant post of the, Hospital or the Hostel, the Hospital authorities have always contented that the appellant was not a civil servant and made proposals to the competent authorities to bring the appellant on the strength of the establishment of the Government. This proposal has still today not been approved. The appellant's counsel has relied on Note 1 of rule 8.4 of the Punjab Financial Rules, Volume I to prove that Chaukidars and Sweepers of the Boarding House attached to Government Schools and Colleges should be paid from Provincial Revenues. Note 1 of rule 8.4 reads as follows :‑ "Note 1.‑No servant of the Boarding Houses attached to Government Schools and Colleges, except Chaukidars and sweepers, should be paid from Provincial Revenues," In our opinion the Note is not of much help to the appellant as it only lays down a guideline. It is not worded in such a way as to prevent Chaukidars and Sweepers from not being paid their salary from Hostel Funds although it says that Chaukidars and Sweepers can be paid from provincial's Revenues. The fact remains that the appellant applied for a post in the Hostel was aid his salary out of Hostel Students Funds and, therefore, he cannot be considered it civil servant the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.