P L D 1990 Lahore 17 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE AKBAR‑‑Appellant Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
| Citation | P L D 1990 Lahore 17 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Mahboob Ahmad and Muhammad Qayyum, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE AKBAR‑‑Appellant Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1990 Lahore 17 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1990 Lahore 17 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Mahboob Ahmad and Muhammad Qayyum, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1990 Lahore 17 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE AKBAR‑‑Appellant Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Jamashid Ali for Appellant.
- Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Employee of Health Department was promoted to officiate as Assistant Superintendent vaccination‑‑‑Employee's promotion being out of turn and in violation of the rules of promotion was later recalled by the Authority‑‑ Legality‑‑‑Employee's promotion being violative of rules governing the subject and he having been promoted only to officiate, he cannot raise any legitimate grievance against the cancellation of his promotion‑‑‑Other employees entitled to promotion being not in any manner disqualified to be promoted to the post in question employee's order of promotion had been recalled lawfully and on valid and equitable consideration‑‑‑Order of cancellation which promotes equitable consideration and‑washes out injustice inflicted on no less than forty‑four persons of the department cannot be held to be illegal, especially when no right of employee had been infringed by passing of said order‑‑‑Such an order cannot be allowed to be questioned in the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Jamashid Ali for Appellant. Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents. MAHBOOB AHMAD, J.‑‑This Infra‑Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 calls in question order dated 24‑9‑1989 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 5817 of 1989 whereby he dismissed the same in limine.
2. The basic grievance of the appellant as has been also canvassed at the Bar by the learned counsel is that the order of his promotion as Assistant Superintendent Vaccination passed by the Chief Minister, Punjab has been recalled by a subordinate functionary vii. the respondent without reference to the Chief Minister,
3. We had called for the Addl. A.‑G. and on his request the case was adjourned for today to enbale him to obtain necessary instructions. He has today appeared alongwith an officer of the Health Department who has brought with him the original record. It appears from the record that after the order of promotion of the appellant to officiate as Assistant Superintendent Vaccination was passed, the Punjab (EPI) Vaccinator Welfare Federation through its representation dated 16‑8‑1989 addressed to the Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab, requested for cancellation of the illegal promotion of the appellant It was brought to the notice of the authorities that the appellant who was at serial No. 44 of the seniority list had been given promotion under political pressure which is highly unjustified and against rules. A photostat of this representation has been placed on record today. This representation was brought to the notice of the Chief Minister who has approved cancellation of promotion order of the appellant. A copy of the summary prepared in the Chief Minister's Secretariat has also been placed on record.
4. Alter having given consideration to the controversy, we are of the view that there is no merit in the case of the appellant. It is not denied that the promotion of the appellant was out of turn. It has also been pointed out by the learned Addl. A.‑G. that the other persons entitled to promotion were not in any manner disqualified to be promoted to the post in question. It was further stated that the promotion of appellant was in fact violative of the rules governing the subject. That being so, the appellant cannot raise any legitimate grievance against the cancellation of his promotion'
5. We also find that the promotion order in favour of the appellant was only to officiate as Assistant Superintendent Vaccination which officiation could and has been re‑called lawfully and on valid and equitable consideration. An order which promotes equitable consideration and washes out injustice inflicted on no less than 44 persons of the department cannot be held to be illegal especially when no right of the appellant has been infringed by passing of the said order. Such an order can obviously be not allowed to be questioned in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. There being no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed. AA./M‑1613/L Appeal dismissed.