1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE
| Citation | 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | 1976 P L C C. S. T. 28(1) |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Chairman, Ashfaq Ali Khan and Khalid Farooq Akbar, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the 1976 P L C C. S. T. 28(1) bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Chairman, Ashfaq Ali Khan and Khalid Farooq Akbar,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
S.4‑Appellant seeking redress against Order of departmental authority rejecting prayer for status quo pending decision on depart mental appeal‑Appeal, held, without substance being not against final order of departmental authority hence dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE Case No. 361 of 1974, decided on 1st October 1974. --S.4‑Appellant seeking redress against Order of departmental authority rejecting prayer for status quo pending decision on depart mental appeal‑Appeal, held, without substance being not against final order of departmental authority hence dismissed in limine. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad for Appellant. SAAD SAOOD JAN (CHAIRMAN).‑This appeal is directed against the order dated 14‑9‑74 of Commissioner, Lahore Division whereby his prayer for status quo was rejected by the Commissioner during the pendency of his appeal from the order of his dismissal. Apart from the fact that the order of the Commissioner is not a final one we do not see how the appellant will suffer an irreparable loss if the status quo order was not granted to him. It is clear, that in case his appeal is accepted by the Commissioner the appellant will become entitled to all the privileges which have been denied to him, on account of the order of dismissal. We therefore, do not find any substance in this appeal which is hereby dismissed in limine.