PLC(CS) 1992

1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD SAGHIR ANWAR Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and 5 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Service Tribunal Punjab
Decided Date
Appeal No. 677 of 1988, decided on 26th May, 1991.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Service Tribunal Punjab
Bench Members Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman
Parties MUHAMMAD SAGHIR ANWAR Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and 5 others
Primary Law Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SAGHIR ANWAR Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)

Representation

  • Muhammad Hussain Khan and Malik Ghulam Yasin for Appellant.
  • Ch. Manzoor Hussain, District Attorney for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 30th April, 1991.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 4

Civil servant's inclusion in seniority list and subsequent order of deconfirmation and removal of his name from such list

Validity

Civil servant's appointment in the office of Additional Commissioner Consolidation was purely for the establishment of that office which could not be merged in the establishment of Commissioner, which was of permanent nature-- Appointing authority in case of employees of Commissioner's office was separate whereas competent authority in case of appointment of staff of consolidation office was separate

Authority after considering merits of case as well as hearing civil servant had correctly passed the order in question, in accordance with law

No illegality or irregularity on point of law or fact in the order in question, having been pointed out, civil servant's name was rightly removed from the seniority list and he was deconfirmed in accordance with the Government instructions received in the context

Appeal being without merit was dismissed in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and 5 others Appeal No. 677 of 1988, decided on 26th May, 1991.

S. 4

Civil servant's inclusion in seniority list and subsequent order of deconfirmation and removal of his name from such list

Validity

Civil servant's appointment in the office of Additional Commissioner Consolidation was purely for the establishment of that office which could not be merged in the establishment of Commissioner, which was of permanent nature-- Appointing authority in case of employees of Commissioner's office was separate whereas competent authority in case of appointment of staff of consolidation office was separate

Authority after considering merits of case as well as hearing civil servant had correctly passed the order in question, in accordance with law

No illegality or irregularity on point of law or fact in the order in question, having been pointed out, civil servant's name was rightly removed from the seniority list and he was deconfirmed in accordance with the Government instructions received in the context

Appeal being without merit was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Hussain Khan and Malik Ghulam Yasin for Appellant. Ch. Manzoor Hussain, District Attorney for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th April, 1991.