1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ZAFAR IQBAL Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others
| Citation | 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Salahuddin Mirza, J |
| Parties | ZAFAR IQBAL Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 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 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Salahuddin Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ZAFAR IQBAL Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Muzaffar-ul-Haq for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Substitution of
Petitioner's claim was that if the date of birth of respondent had not been substituted, petitioner would have been entitled to promotion as respondent would have retired from service upon attaining the age of sixty
Question as to whether date of birth of respondent had been properly substituted being a disputed question of fact, would need recording of evidence inter alia, as to the reason why the original date of birth was incorrectly given
No statutory rule was cited which provides the substitution of date of birth and which might have been violated
Constitutional petition was thus not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
Constitutional Petition No. D-923 of 1989, decided on 4th October, 1989.
Art. 199
Substitution of
Petitioner's claim was that if the date of birth of respondent had not been substituted, petitioner would have been entitled to promotion as respondent would have retired from service upon attaining the age of sixty
Question as to whether date of birth of respondent had been properly substituted being a disputed question of fact, would need recording of evidence inter alia, as to the reason why the original date of birth was incorrectly given
No statutory rule was cited which provides the substitution of date of birth and which might have been violated
Constitutional petition was thus not maintainable. Muhammad Muzaffar-ul-Haq for Petitioner. AJMAL MIAN C.J.--By this petition the petitioner has impguned the action of respondent No. 1 to substitute respondent No. 2's date of birth 1-9-1920 by 1-9-1934. The case of the petitioner is that if the above date of birth of respondent No. 2 would not have been substituted, he would have been entitled to the promotion as respondent No. 2 would have retired from the service upon attaining the age of
60. In our view the question whether the date of birth of respondent No. 2 has been properly substituted is a disputed question of fact which will need recording of evidence inter alia as to the reason as to why the original date of birth was incorrectly given. Mr. Mu7.affar-ul-Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner has not cited any statutory rule which provides the substitution of the date of birth and which might have been violated. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. However, it will be open to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. AA./Z-127/K Petition dismissed.