2006 PLP 447 (SCMR)
ADAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 447 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ |
| Parties | ADAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 447 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 447 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 447 (SCMR) (ADAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme. Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th November, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 29-7-2002 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.1347 of 2000).
R. 4
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Petitioner, who was dismissed from service, was reinstated in service, but without back benefits
Petitioner had failed to furnish any satisfactory evidence to prove that during interregnum he did not work anywhere for gain and remained jobless
Service Tribunal, in circumstances, was quite justified in refusing back-benefits to petitioner in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
Case being not fit for grant of leave to appeal, as impugned judgment did not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by Supreme Court, petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused accordingly. Mrs. Munawar Sauni v. Director, Army Education 1991 SCMR 135 and Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P., Zakat, Social Welfare Department Peshawar and another v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 413 ref.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 29-7-2002, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, in Appeal No.1347 of 2000.
2. The petitioner, a Foot-Constable was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Multan, by order, dated 30-11-1985. His appeal there against was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan. His revision petition was accepted by the Inspector-General of Police, by order, dated 26-4-2000 whereby, the petitioner was reinstated in service but without back-benefits. The intervening period was treated as leave of the kind due. Therefore, the petitioner moved the Tribunal for back-benefits, by filing Appeal No.1347 of 2000, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 29-7-2002. Hence this petition for leave to appeal;
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner was not at fault, therefore, he was entitled to the grant of back-benefits consequent upon reinstatement in service. Reliance was placed on the cases of Mrs. Munawar Sauni v. Director, Army Education 1991 SCMR 135 and Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P., Zakat, Social Welfare Department Peshawar and another v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 413.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also gone through the available record. We find that despite the directions given by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation for deciding the revision petition of the petitioner within three months, the matter remained pending for a considerable period. The petitioner failed to pursue the matter with diligence and he allowed his revision petition to remain in a state of limbo for a long period. He also failed to furnish any satisfactory evidence that during the interregnum he did not work anywhere for gain and remained jobless. The Tribunal was quite justified in refusing back-benefits to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case. The ratio laid down in the precedent cases referred upon by the learned counsel is distinguishable on facts of the present one. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find 'any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. H.B.T./A-3/SC Petition dismissed.