1990 PLP 1420 (SCMR)
AMIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1420 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | AMIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1420 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1420 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1420 (SCMR) (AMIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 18‑3‑1986 in Appeal No. 90‑R of 1986). ‑‑‑‑R. 7‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil servant's appeal before Service Tribunal was dismissed because he had failed to implead over two hundred officers who were likely to be adversely affected, if his claim for seniority had succeeded‑‑‑Civil Servant appearing in person before Supreme Court was not able to show any cogent reason for non‑joinder of necessary parties‑‑‑Petition being without merit was dismissed in circumstances. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑This is a petition by Amir Ahmad, petitioner, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 15‑5‑1989.
2. The petitioner's appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was dismissed under rule 7 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, because the petitioner failed to implead over 200 officers who were likely to be adversely affected, if the petitioner's claim for seniority had succeeded.
3. The petitioner who appears in person has not been able to show any cogent reason for the non‑joinder of the necessary parties. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. AA./A‑713/S Petition dismissed.