1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
NEMAT ALI Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB PLAN NING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
| Citation | 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman, S. Hafiz‑ur- Rahman and Malik Zawwar Hussain, Members |
| Parties | NEMAT ALI Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB PLAN NING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT |
| Primary Law | Civil service ‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service ‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman, S. Hafiz‑ur- Rahman and Malik Zawwar Hussain, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (NEMAT ALI Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB PLAN NING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing : 18th May 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
Lein‑Official working against temporary post‑Leaving and joining other organisation‑On abolition of such organisation seeking re‑absorption‑Lein, held, rightly not retained‑Department advised to explore possibilities of accommodating such official in view of past service experience.
Judgment & Decree
M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑In this case the appellant is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent Department to reabsorb him after his services were dispensed with by the Rice Milling Corpora tion whose service he had joined in September 1976, as Assistant after being relieved from the Planning & Development Department. The appellant claims that he held a lien on the post of Superintendent in the P & D Department when he left the Department to take up his new job in the Rice Milling Corporation and now that the Corporation was no longer in a position to retain him after denationalisation of rice‑mills, the Department was bound to accommodate him. The respondent Depart ment contests the claim of the appellant that he hold a lien on the post of Superintendent. It is stated that the post of Superintendent to which the appellant was promoted from Assistant was purely temporary as is shown by the order dated 2‑11‑1973, and when the appellant was relieved on 30‑9‑1976, to enable him to join the R. M. Corporation the relieving order clearly stated that he would not retain any lien on the post of Superintendent.
2. The parties were heard and the record examined. The case of the appellant is certainly hard for he has lost his job in the .R. M. Corporation and his old Department is not in a position to accommodate him by right, As agree that the appellant held no lien on the post of Superintendent in the P & D Department and his service book shows him to be working all along against a temporary post: The S. & G. A. Department is also not willing to place him on the surplus pool because he does not fulfill the required conditions. We notice, however, that the: P. & D. Depart ment has not been entirely unsympathetic to the appellant's case. The S. & G. A. Department too has released the ban on fresh recruitment in his case if the P. & D. Department is willing to consider him for re‑absorption repatriation.
3. In view of the obvious hardship suffered by the appellant we hope that the P. & D Department will be able to see its way to providing a suitable post to .the appellant, particularly when the appellant's service experience in that Department has extended to more than eight years. With the observations above the appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of.