1988 PLP 1318 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMID SAQFI‑‑Petitioner Versus SERVICE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN and 22 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1318 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID SAQFI‑‑Petitioner Versus SERVICE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN and 22 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1318 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1318 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1318 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMID SAQFI‑‑Petitioner Versus SERVICE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN and 22 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh.Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner (in Civil Review Petition No.22‑R of 1987).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Civil Review Petition No.22‑R of 1987). Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Civil Appeal No.151‑R of 1987).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Civil Misc. Petition No.151‑R of 1987). Petitioner in person (in Civil Misc. Petition No.94‑R of 1987). Nemo for Respondent (in Civil Misc. Petition No.94‑R of 1987). Date of hearing: 19th December, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review of this Court's judgment dated 22‑12‑1986 in Civil Appeal No.82 of 1982). ‑‑‑Art.188‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1‑‑Review‑ Questions raised already dealt with in judgment sought to be reviewed‑‑Petitioner seeking rehearing and not correction of an error apparent on face of record‑‑Review power not meant for getting matter reheard‑‑Review petition dismissed. (b) Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑ ‑‑‑O.XXVII, R.1‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑Delayed and incorrect implementation of decision of Supreme Court‑‑Petitioner moving contempt application for proceeding against respondent functionaries‑ Held: Delay of five months or so in consultation and implementation of a judgment of Supreme Court was not such as to call for proceeding in contempt‑‑If any of the vested rights of petitioner had been violated in implementing the decision, he had his remedy in law‑‑Contempt application being misconceived, dismissed. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Arts.188 & 190‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1‑‑Review/ clarification of Supreme Court judgment‑‑Petitioner seeking review for clarification of judgment so as to limit its operation and effect on a question of law to parties to the proceedings protecting those not parties from its consequential effects‑‑Held: Such a clarification could not be granted for "all executive and Judicial authorities throughout Pakistan" were placed under a Constitutional duty to "act in aid of the Supreme Court"‑‑Application for review having no merit dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑A Review petition has been moved to reiterate the following points arising out of and dealt with in the judgment in Civil Appeal No.82 of 1982‑‑ (i) The seniority list of Selection Grade Clerks was required to be maintained separately and "to be acted upon as such for further promotion." (ii) The respondents who were senior had failed to achieve selection grade in competition with the petitioners and therefore lost their preferential right on account of seniority also. A contempt application (C.M. S4‑R of 1987) has also been moved by one of the petitioners before us for proceeding against the respondent functionaries in delaying the implementation of the decision of this Court and for incorrectly implementing it. Yet another application (C.M. No.151‑R of 1987) has been filed by the petitioner seeking review for clarification of our judgment so as to limit its operation and effect on a question of law to parties to the proceedings protecting those not parties from its consequential effects. So far as the review petition is concerned, we find that what is claimed is a rehearing and not correction of an error apparent on the face of the record. The two main questions raised in the review petition were indeed the subject‑matter of detailed discussion and finding was recorded after considering every aspect of the ,problem. The review power is not meant for getting the matter reheard. Hence it is dismissed. The delay of five months or so in consultation and implementation of a judgment of this Court is not such as to call for proceeding in contempt. If any of the vested rights of the petitioner has been violated in implementing the decision he has his remedy in law. Hence the contempt application is misconceived and is dismissed. The sort of clarification sought for by the petitioner cannot) be granted for "all executive and judicial authorities throughout, Pakistan" have been placed under a constitutional duty to "act in aid' of the Supreme Court" (Art.190). This application too has no merit and is dismissed. M.I./A‑229/S Petitions dismissed.