1995 PLP 46 (SCMR)
YAR MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and 2 others ‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 46 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court Of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial. JJ |
| Parties | YAR MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and 2 others ‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 46 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 46 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court Of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial. JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 46 (SCMR) (YAR MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and 2 others ‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th March, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 30‑8‑1992 in Appeal No. 229(L) of 1991). Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑R. 12‑‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S.18‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑ Competency to amend R.12, Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, on the touchstone of S.18, West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958‑‑‑Provision of S.18 of the Act deals specifically with the terms and conditions of service of employees of the Authority‑‑‑Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, while regulating disciplinary proceedings relate to terms and conditions of service of employees of Authority, therefore, Authority was competent to make or amend them under S.18 of the Act‑‑‑Amendment by Authority in R.12 Rules 1978, thus, could not be assailed on ground of competency‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Deputy Attorney‑General.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is the second time that this‑petition for special leave to appeal has come up for consideration. The question that now requires determination has been formulated by Sajjad Ali Shah, J. It reads as follows: "Contention is that the' Managing Director and Authority are not competent to amend Rule ‑12 of the said Rules as such power is beyond the scope of section 18 of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act XXXI of 1958 and section 29 thereof envisages framing of regulations and not rules by the Authority with the approval of the Government." The provisions having a bearing on the question are sections 18 and 29, Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958. Section 18 reads as follows: "The Authority shall prescribe the procedure for appointment, and terms and conditions of service of its officers and servants, and shah be competent to 'take disciplinary action against its officers and servants." Section 29, ibid, is in the following terms: "For the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act, the Authority may with the approval of the Government, frame such Regulations as it may consider necessary or expedient." It will be noticed that section 29, ibid, is of a general nature while section 18, ibid, deals specifically with the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Authority. As the rules regulating the disciplinary proceedings are concerned, they relate to the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Authority and as such it is the Authority which is competent to make or amend them under section 18, ibid. Thus, the amendment by the Authority in‑ rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 cannot be assailed on the ground of competency. The petition is therefore dismissed. AA./Y‑28/S Leave refused.