1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ABDUL GHANI Versus SECRETARY HEALTH, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and Abdul Aziz Malik, Member-I |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI Versus SECRETARY HEALTH, LAHORE and 2 others |
| Primary Law | (c) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), (b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), (a) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), (b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), (a) Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and Abdul Aziz Malik, Member-I.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL GHANI Versus SECRETARY HEALTH, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar-ul-Haq, D.D.A. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th February, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
Appellant having submitted resignation, sought, to withdraw same
Appellant's departmental appeal for withdrawal of resignation was rejected
Final appellate order was never passed by competent Departmental Appellate Authority; such departmental appeal was thus, yet to be considered by competent Departmental Authority; and appellant was never given any opportunity of personal hearing
Departmental final order was, thus, illegal, ultra vices, void ab initio and therefore of no legal consequence as against appellant.
S.4
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3
Limitation-- Departmental final order being initially void and illegal, provisions of Limitation Act, 1908, would not apply to it
Appeal was competent in circumstances.
S.4
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5
Appellant had been pursuing his case throughout diligently, and without any undue delay on his part
Delay, if any, in filing appeal was condoned in interest of justice--Appeal was allowed and order passed in departmental appeal was set aside
Case was remanded to competent Authority for decision afresh on merits in accordance with law, after affording appellant opportunity of personal hearing/leading evidence. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
Appellant having submitted resignation, sought, to withdraw same
Appellant's departmental appeal for withdrawal of resignation was rejected
Final appellate order was never passed by competent Departmental Appellate Authority; such departmental appeal was thus, yet to be considered by competent Departmental Authority; and appellant was never given any opportunity of personal hearing
Departmental final order was, thus, illegal, ultra vices, void ab initio and therefore of no legal consequence as against appellant. (b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)
S.4
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3
Limitation-- Departmental final order being initially void and illegal, provisions of Limitation Act, 1908, would not apply to it
Appeal was competent in circumstances. (c) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)
S.4
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5
Appellant had been pursuing his case throughout diligently, and without any undue delay on his part
Delay, if any, in filing appeal was condoned in interest of justice--Appeal was allowed and order passed in departmental appeal was set aside
Case was remanded to competent Authority for decision afresh on merits in accordance with law, after affording appellant opportunity of personal hearing/leading evidence. Appellant in person. Muhammad Anwar-ul-Haq, D.D.A. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th February, 1992.