2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others
| Citation | 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Hamid Ali Mirza |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Hamid Ali Mirza.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Uns, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th January, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 21‑10‑2000 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Quetta in Service Appeal No.98(K) C.E./2000). ‑‑
S.4 ‑‑‑ Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, R.21 ‑‑‑ Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XIII, R.1‑‑‑General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 27‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Presumption‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal barred by 23 days ‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑‑Contention of petitioner was that judgment was passed on 21‑10‑2000, but after waiting for its certified copy from Service Tribunal, he himself applied for its copy on 6‑12‑2000 and after obtaining the same filed the present petition‑‑‑Validity ‑ Tribunal after signing the judgment was bound to send certified copy thereof to parties concerned under registered cover as provided by R. 21 'of Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974‑‑‑As per endorsement on copy of the judgment annexed with memo. of appeal the Tribunal had issued its copy to petitioner on 6‑11‑2000 and it would be deemed that its copy having been sent under registered cover had been duly received by him‑‑‑If petitioner contended otherwise, then burden shifted on him to satisfy that Tribunal had not sent copy of the judgment under registered cover and he had not received the same‑‑‑Ground urged by petitioner that in spite of said endorsement on Judgment, he had not received the same, was not legally acceptable because under S.27 of General Clauses Act, 1897, presumption was that service had been effected upon him under a registered cover envelope containing the judgment and had been received by him‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed the petition being‑ barred by time.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Aslam Uns, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th January, 2002. IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21st October, 2000 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Quetta, whereby service appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. This petition is barred by 23 days. An application has been filed for condonation of the delay on the ground that judgment was announced by the Tribunal on 21st October, 2000 and after having waited for copy of the A judgment from the Federal Service Tribunal, petitioner himself applied for its copy on 6th December, 2000 because in the meanwhile he did not receive certified copy of the judgment of Tribunal according to Rules and thereafter on obtaining other documents, filed instant petition before this Court.
3. We pointed out to the learned counsel that under Rule 21 of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974, Tribunal, after signing of the judgment, is bound to send certified copy of the judgment to the parties concerned under registered cover and according to endorsement on copy of 6 the judgment annexed with the memo. of petition, Tribunal has issued copy of the judgment to petitioner on 6th November 2000. Therefore, it would be deemed that copy of the judgment was duly received by the petitioner Because it was sent under the registered cover and if petitioner contends otherwise, then the burden shifts upon him to satisfy That Tribunal has not sent copy of the judgment under registered cover, therefore, petitioner did not receive it. Learned counsel stated that although there is endorsement on the judgment annexed with the memo. of petition that one copy was issued on 6th November, 2000 but he did not receive it. We are not inclined to agree with him for the reasons that under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, presumption is that the service has been duly effected upon the petitioner under a registered cover envelope containing judgment and it was received by him, therefore, arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner, seeking condonation of the delay in filing of petition on this ground is not acceptable legally. Thus in view of above discussion, petition is dismissed being barred by time. S.A.K./M‑351/S Petition dismissed.