1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SAFDAR ALI RANDHAWA Versus SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | SAFDAR ALI RANDHAWA Versus SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SAFDAR ALI RANDHAWA Versus SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 3‑8‑1991 passed in Appeal No. 125 of 1989). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Withdrawal of departmental appeal by petitioner and preferring second departmental appeal‑‑‑Petitioner's appeal filed before Service Tribunal, after decision of his second departmental appeal, was time- barred‑‑‑Service Tribunal had recorded that petitioner had withdrawn his appeal‑‑‑Petitioner's contention that he had not withdrawn his appeal but wanted to press it was not supported from record‑‑‑Even if what Service Tribunal had recorded was to be ignored still, appeal fled before Service Tribunal was time‑barred‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Petitioner in Person.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 3‑8‑1991 dismissing the service appeal of the petitioner as withdrawn.
2. The petitioner retired from the service on completion of 25 years of service by reference to clause (ii) of Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, on 7‑5‑1986. He appealed against his retirement but it was dismissed on 13‑4‑1987. He preferred a second appeal on 19‑9‑1987 which was dismissed on 5‑7‑1989. This second appeal was addressed to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore. The reason for filing a second appeal not warranted in the Rules of service was provided by submitting that the post which the petitioner was holding before his retirement stood upgraded and his promotion had been ante‑dated entitling him to prefer an appeal to the Secretary of the Government. On dismissal of the appeal he came before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has recorded that he had withdrawn his service appeal. The petitioner states that in fact he had not withdrawn the appeal, and that he wanted to press it. He relies on the judgment in the domain of Shariat whereby this provision or such provisions empowering the Government to retire without show‑cause notice have been held to be un‑Islamic and ultra vires.
3. From the facts stated, even if we ignore what the Service Tribunal has recorded about the departmental appeal having been withdrawn by the petitioner himself, his appeal before the Tribunal was time‑barred because there was no justification for the petitioner preferring the second appeal to the Secretary to the Government and waiting for his order and then coming to the Service Tribunal. He should have, after filing first appeal within period specified, approached, the Service Tribunal. Besides, the decisions in the Shariat jurisdiction have not been given retrospective effect.
4. No case is made out for interference. Hence, leave to appeal is refused. AA./S‑795/S Leave refused.