1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))
GULZAR AHMAD Versus A. O. (B. O. R.), SETTLEMENT OFFICE
| Citation | 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | 1976 P L C C.S.T. 32 |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Chairman, Ashfaq Ali Khan and Khalid Farooq Akhar, Members |
| Parties | GULZAR AHMAD Versus A. O. (B. O. R.), SETTLEMENT OFFICE |
| Primary Law | Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the 1976 P L C C.S.T. 32 bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Chairman, Ashfaq Ali Khan and Khalid Farooq Akhar, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) (GULZAR AHMAD Versus A. O. (B. O. R.), SETTLEMENT OFFICE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 2(b)‑Civil servant‑Settlement Department functioning under Federal Government and subsequently transferred to Provincial Government's control‑Official dismissed prior to transfer of Depart ment to Provincial Government, held, had never been in service of Provincial Government hence not a "civil servant" so as to invoke jurisdiction of Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
A. O. (B. O. R.), SETTLEMENT OFFICE Case No: 427 of 1974, decided on 4th November 1974. ‑‑ S. 2(b)‑Civil servant‑Settlement Department functioning under Federal Government and subsequently transferred to Provincial Government's control‑Official dismissed prior to transfer of Depart ment to Provincial Government, held, had never been in service of Provincial Government hence not a "civil servant" so as to invoke jurisdiction of Tribunal. SAAD SAOOD JAN (CHAIRMAN).‑The appellant was an employee of the Settlement Department. By an order dated 3‑9‑68 he was dismissed from service by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in whose office he was posted as Daftri. He preferred an appeal against his dismissal which was rejected by the Addl. Settlement Commissioner on 12‑5‑
69. His request for reinstate ment was turned down by the office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 10‑9‑
60. He has now come to this Tribunal. This appeal is misconceived for the reasons that at the time when the appellant was dismissed from service the Settlement Department was a part of the Central Government. Thus he has never been in the service of Provincial Government. Consequently, he is not a civil servant within the accuracy of clause (b) of section 2 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act so as to have the right to approach this Tribunal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.