1986 PLP 92 (SCMR)
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 5 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 92 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 5 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 92 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 92 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 92 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 5 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Munir A. Sheikh, Deputy Advocate‑General instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 7th May, 1985. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The Government of Pakistan seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against orders of the Service Tribunal on miscellaneous applications explaining the real import of its earlier orders while allowing the appeals. By judgments which have attained finality, as none challenged them, the respondent civil servants were held entitled to the pay and allowances admissible to them in Grade‑18 for the period they performed the duties of that post irrespective of the stipulation in their appointment order that they would receive the pay in their own grade. The pay was also to include the increments accruing to them from time to time during the period of officiation. The concerned respondents were denied the full benefits whereupon clarification was sought from the Tribunal which passed the following operative order in one such case which governed other cases as well:‑ "It was stated at the bar that certain officers, whose cases were on all fours with that of the appellant, had been paid on the basis of length of service formula. This was not controverted by the departmental representative. Also, the appellant has cited the cases of F. A. Barlas and A. H. Gilani to support his contention which the respondents have not controverted in their written reply. In view of the foregoing analysis, we accept the miscellaneous petition and order that the appellant shall be paid on the length of service formula. His claim of Rs.23,505.65 be looked into and paid immediately but not beyond the three months reckoning from the date of receipt of this order so that this sad chapter is brought to a close." The learned Deputy Attorney‑General contended that leave to appeal has already been granted in a number of cases to examine similar question of law, e.g. Civil Petition No. 655‑R of 1983. We find that the principal orders adjudicating the entitlement of the respondents have not been appealed against and have, therefore, attained finality. The clarification does not go beyond the ambit of the principal orders and cannot, therefore, be a subject‑matter of appeal independently of the principal orders. No question of law of public importance` arises in these cases. Leave to appeal is refused. M.Y.H Leave refused.