1985 PLP 878 (SCMR)
SHAMIM AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 878 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | SHAMIM AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 878 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 878 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 878 (SCMR) (SHAMIM AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th October, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 212 (3)‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑ Determination of seniority‑‑Petitioner being under suspension, ignored for promotion‑‑Claiming seniority and pro forma promotion with retrospec tive effect on ground of having been exonerated by High Court‑ Tribunal declined to adjudicate‑‑Petitioner having failed to establish from record that he would have been promoted but for suspension, order of Tribunal, held, unexceptionable‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th October, 1984. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 30‑5‑1984 by which petitioner's appeal was dismissed and his prayer that the seniority list showing him "as junior to respondents 2 to 7 be stuck down" was rejected. The main reasons which prevailed with the Tribunal in rejecting petitioner's claim may usefully be stated by reproducing the relevant portion of the impugned judgment. It reads: "While examining the case of other two contesting respondents (Nos.2 and 6 of E and M Wing) we find that it is established on the record that they were promoted in the year 1966 in a prescribed manner on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission by the Government of Punjab. The appellant, according to the record of this case, was promoted in the year 1974, in Marketing Wing, where he has been working since the rejection of his appeal in the year 1971. If the appellant had any grievance against the promotion of the said contesting respondents, he was within his rights to agitate the same before the proper forum at the relevant time. His claim that he has been exonerated by the Hon'ble High Court, therefore he should be considered senior to the contesting respondents, cannot be adjudicated by us as we are not permitted to do so under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974". Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition referred to the instructions issued by the Government under S 6 G A Department letter No.SO‑XII (S & G A D)‑2‑145/60, dated 4‑12‑1962 that if a Government servant would have been otherwise promoted but for suspension, then after honourable acquittal he can be given pro forma promotion retrospectively against a vacancy which occurred during his suspension. Reference to these instructions was made by the learned counsel in support of the submission that at the relevant time petitioner was under suspension and he should have been granted the benefit of promotion after his honourable acquittal in certain cases. Learned counsel was however unable to refer to any document on record that petitioner would have but for the suspension been duly promoted at the time when respondents 3 to 7 were actually promoted. No exception can therefore be taken against the impugned order of the, Tribunal. The petition is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed