1997 PLP 1363 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SALEEM SADDOZAI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, P.O.F., WAH and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997 PLP 1363 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM SADDOZAI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, P.O.F., WAH and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Compulsory Service in Armed Forces Ordinance (XXXI of 1971)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 1363 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Compulsory Service in Armed Forces Ordinance (XXXI of 1971)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 1363 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 1363 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM SADDOZAI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, P.O.F., WAH and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Riazul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Raja Muhammad Bashir, Deputy Attorney‑General and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 7‑5‑1995 passed in Appeals Nos.388 and 391/94). ‑‑‑‑S. 9‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Seniority of civil servants inter se‑‑‑Civil servant's claim to seniority over respondent was not accepted by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑While seeking leave to appeal civil servant contended that S.9‑A, Compulsory Service in Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971, applied only to employment under Federal and Provincial Government and the same did not apply to service under the establishment which was neither service under Federal Government nor Provincial Government‑‑‑Contention raised by petitioner required examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine contention raised by petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI; J.‑‑‑The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 7‑5‑1995 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the service appeal of the petitioner. The dispute before the learned Tribunal in the service appeal related to seniority. between the petitioner and respondent No.3. The learned Tribunal held that in view of section 9‑A of the Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971, respondent No.3 was entitled to count the period from 6‑3‑1982 to 12‑12‑1984 when he was called for compulsory service of army towards his seniority in service in P.O.F. The learned Tribunal, accordingly, held that Departmental Authority rightly treated respondent No.3 as senior to the petitioner. In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that section 9‑A (ibid) which was added subsequently, applied only to the employment under the Federal and Provincial Government in Pakistan. This section did not apply to the service under P.O. F. which was neither a service under the Federal Government nor Provincial Government. The contention raised by the learned counsel requires examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same. A.A./M‑3287/S Leave granted.