2021 PLP 855 (SCMR)
WALI JAN — Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary Agriculture, Livestock Cooperative Department, Peshawar and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 855 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed, C.J., Ijaz ul Ahsan and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ |
| Parties | WALI JAN — Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary Agriculture, Livestock Cooperative Department, Peshawar and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 855 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 855 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed, C.J., Ijaz ul Ahsan and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 855 (SCMR) (WALI JAN — Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary Agriculture, Livestock Cooperative Department, Peshawar and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Ali (Mardan), Advocate Supreme Court (via video link from Peshawar) and Haji Muhammad Zahir, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Addl. A.G., Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 8.9.2015, passed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar, in Appeal No.1681 of 2011)
Arts. 187(1) & 212(3)
Service appeal before the Supreme Court
Scope
Party (civil servant) had no right to raise an absolutely new plea before the Supreme Court and seek a decision on it, nor could such plea be allowed to be raised as a matter of course or right on the pretext of doing complete justice
Besides, the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction would not generally determine a question of fact that had not been pleaded or raised by the party in the lower forum. Sarhad Development Authority N.W.F.P. (Now KPK) v. Nawab Ali Khan 2020 SCMR 265 ref.
Judgment & Decree
GULZAR AHMED, C.J.
The service appeal filed by the appellant in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar (the Tribunal) was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 08.09.2015. The operative part of which is as follows: "
7. From perusal of the record it transpired that at the time of consideration for promotion anti-corruption proceedings for two different cases Nos.191 of 2001 and 29 of 2002 were pending adjudication in the Court of Special Judge Anti-corruption which were decided on 14.10.2003 and 26.02.2004 respectively and appellant was acquitted on the benefit of doubt. The deferment of the appellant on the relevant time was thus in accordance with the provision as contained in the promotion policy of the Provincial Government. Moreso, the appellant failed to agitate his deferment in time but took up the matter on 12.05.2011 after abnormal delay of almost 9 years. It is also ironical to observe that assessment of suitability and fitness for the higher post is a pre-requisite for promotion, it entails assumption of higher responsibilities and actualization of charge in the higher post which is not possible under the existing law/rules on promotion. The prayer of the appellant for promotion to the higher post after a long time of his retirement carries no weight and cannot be entertained. The cases cited by the appellant were also not identical, hence no discrimination against him. For these reasons the appeal being devoid of any merits is dismissed. "
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the last acquittal of the appellant took place on 15.04.2011, which the Tribunal did not take into consideration.
3. We have asked the learned counsel for the appellant to show from the Memo of Appeal filed before the Tribunal about the appellant's acquittal on 15.04.2011, the learned counsel was unable to show that any such acquittal was relied upon by the appellant in the service appeal filed before the Tribunal.
4. We have also asked the learned counsel to show from the very departmental appeal as to whether the acquittal on 15.04.2011 was mentioned in it. No such mention was found even in the departmental appeal filed by the appellant.
5. It is settled law that a party has no right to raise an absolutely new plea before this Court and seek a decision on it, nor could such plea be allowed to be raised as a matter of course or right on the pretext of doing complete justice. Besides, this Court in its appellate jurisdiction will not generally determine a question of fact that has not been pleaded or raised by the party in the lower forum. Reliance in this regard may be made to the case of Sarhad Development Authority N.W.F.P. (Now KPK) v. Nawab Ali Khan (2020 SCMR 265).
6. The Tribunal has already dealt with the matter and no illegality has been pointed out in the impugned judgment. The same is, therefore, maintained. The appeal is dismissed. MWA/W-1/SC Appeal dismissed.