1999SCMR 1121 (PLP)
Haji NASEER AHMED — Petitioner Versus The SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI
| Citation | 1999SCMR 1121 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | Haji NASEER AHMED — Petitioner Versus The SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999SCMR 1121 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999SCMR 1121 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999SCMR 1121 (PLP) (Haji NASEER AHMED — Petitioner Versus The SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th July, 1998
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 10-9-1997 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 138-L of 1991).
S. 4
Consitution of Pakistan (1973), Art, 212(3)
Re instatement
Appeal filed by civil servant was resolved by Service Tribunal with a direction to re-instate civil servant and decide question of his benefits for intervening period
Authorities implemented directions of Service Tribunal, including payment for benefits for half of intervening period
Civil servant in his miscellaneous petition had contended that decision in appeal did not talk about full payment to civil servant for intervening period
Service Tribunal disposed of miscellaneous petition with observation that order made in appeal had been implemented and civil servant had no right to ask Service Tribunal to re-do entire case and that civil servant could seek other remedy if so advised-- Petition for leave to appeal which was also barred by eight days and no plausible explanation was made for condonation of such delay, was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.
The petitioner has made this petition with a view to challenge the order, dated 10-9-1997 passed by the Service Tribunal in a Miscellaneous Application No.40 of 1997 in Appeal No. 138-L of 1991 mainly on the ground that the order made in the main appeal had been implemented and the petitioner had .no right to ask the Tribunal to re-do the entire case.
2. Only ground taken on merits is that the application of the petitioner in Appeal No. 138-L of 1991 was competent as the decision in the main appeal did not talk about full payment to the petitioner for the intervening period. We are afraid the plea being raised is sans merit. The main appeal was resolved by Service Tribunal with a direction to re-instate the petitioner and decide the question of benefits for the intervening period `The respondents implemented the above directions, including payment of benefits for half of the intervening period. The Tribunal is quite right in disposing of petitioner's Miscellaneous Application with the observation that he may seek other remedy, if so advised.
3. The instant application' is also beyond time by 8 days and the plea taken by the petitioner for condonation of delay is that copy of the impugned order was not despatched to the petitioner by the Service Tribunal. This circumstance is of little help to him in that the decision in Miscellaneous Application was made in the presence of his learned counsel. No ground has even so much as been urged to explain the delay of each day. Looked at from whatever angle, no case for grant of leave has been made out. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave refused. H.B.T./N-35/S Petition dismissed.