PLC(CS) 1992

1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Mrs. NASEEM SADIQ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and another

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi High Court
Decided Date
Revision Application No. '7 of 1989, decided on 29th January, 1992.
Honorable Judges
Imam Ali G. Kazi, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Karachi High Court
Bench Members Imam Ali G. Kazi, J
Parties Mrs. NASEEM SADIQ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and another
Primary Law (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (a) Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (a) Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877) 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 Karachi High Court bench comprising: Imam Ali G. Kazi, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Mrs. NASEEM SADIQ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) (a) Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877)

Representation

  • Ch. Rashid Ahmed for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 8th September, 1991.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 42

Suit for declaration and injunction against removal from service

Petitioner, a Railway employee was removed from service on charge of misconduct

Civil suit

Competency

Plaintiff was not employed on basis of contract freely entered into by parties to attract principle of "Master and Servant" but her appointment order was issued under Regulations framed by Pakistan Railway

Principle of "Master and Servant" being not applicable, plaintiff was competent to bring action for wrongful dismissal before Court of law

Plaintiff had no way out to seek relief except by way of filing civil suit-- -Civil suit against removal from service was thus, competently filed. PLD 1984 SC 194 and PLD 1973 SC 236 rel.

S.42

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115

Removal from service-- Suit for declaration and injunction

Trial Court decreed plaintiff's suit declaring her removal from service as illegal and ordered her reinstatement-- First Appellate Court's finding, that plaintiff was not person possessed of any legal character within meaning of S.42, Specific Relief Act 1877, being erroneous deserved to be set aside in revisional jurisdiction

Plaintiff in the meantime having crossed age of superannuation, was entitled to back benefits accruing to her as a result of decision till actual date of her retirement from service. Applicant in person.

Judgment & Decree

(a) Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877)

S. 42

Suit for declaration and injunction against removal from service

Petitioner, a Railway employee was removed from service on charge of misconduct

Civil suit

Competency

Plaintiff was not employed on basis of contract freely entered into by parties to attract principle of "Master and Servant" but her appointment order was issued under Regulations framed by Pakistan Railway

Principle of "Master and Servant" being not applicable, plaintiff was competent to bring action for wrongful dismissal before Court of law

Plaintiff had no way out to seek relief except by way of filing civil suit-- -Civil suit against removal from service was thus, competently filed. PLD 1984 SC 194 and PLD 1973 SC 236 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

S.42

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115

Removal from service-- Suit for declaration and injunction

Trial Court decreed plaintiff's suit declaring her removal from service as illegal and ordered her reinstatement-- First Appellate Court's finding, that plaintiff was not person possessed of any legal character within meaning of S.42, Specific Relief Act 1877, being erroneous deserved to be set aside in revisional jurisdiction

Plaintiff in the meantime having crossed age of superannuation, was entitled to back benefits accruing to her as a result of decision till actual date of her retirement from service. Applicant in person. Ch. Rashid Ahmed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th September, 1991.