1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD and 3 others
| Citation | 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 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: 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nazir Ahmad, Advocate instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 29‑3‑1992 passed in Appeal No. 190‑L of 1988). ‑‑‑‑ Civil servant having been allowed deputation for one year from 8‑6‑1976 for service outside Pakistan did not report back for duty till 12‑3‑1985‑‑‑Civil servant was proceeded against departmentally and order was passed that he had ceased to be in service from 12‑6‑1977, when his deputation period expired‑‑‑Service Tribunal partly accepting civil servant's appeal to the extent that the date when he ceased to remain in service was to be read as 12‑6‑1982 instead of 12‑6‑1977‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Power of Department to pass orders from retrospective date had not been exceeded for only the legal consequence had been recognized from the date that it flowed due to continued absence of civil servant from duty‑‑‑Order in question, accompanied nothing more than giving effect to civil servant's continued absence‑‑‑Supreme Court declined interference. Mst. Marayam Yunus v. Director of Education, Cantonment, GHQ PLD 1990 SC 666 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 29‑3‑1992 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was accepted but only partly in so far as the date when he ceased to be a civil servant was modified from 12‑6‑1977 to 12‑6‑1982.
2. The petitioner was serving in the Telegraphs and Telephone Department when he was allowed deputation; for a year from 8‑6‑1976 and for service in Saudi Arabia. He did not report back after the expiry of the deputation period whereupon a notice was published in the Daily `Nawa‑e -Waqt', Multan dated 5‑3‑1985 informing him that if he failed to report, proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 shall start. He reported for duty on 12‑3‑1985 but was subsequently proceeded against departmentally and by an order passed on 21‑5‑1987 it was held that he had ceased to be in service from 12‑6‑1977 when his deputation period expired in view of Fundamental Rule
18. The monetary benefits that he drew during this period were directed to be recovered from him. He appealed to the Service Tribunal which accepted the appeal only to the extent that it was held that the date the petitioner ceased to remain in service shall be read as 12‑6‑1982 instead of 12‑6‑1977. The order with regard to the recovery was also set aside. The petitioner does not feel satisfied with the order and he seeks leave to appeal against it.
3. The petitioner controverted on the factual plane that the deputation was only for a year. He contended that it was extended once for a period‑of two years and the second time for five years. The departmental representative was asked to resolve this controversy and he has denied any extension having been made. According to him, five years extension has been' pleaded on the basis of the policy letter which was permissive in nature and without an independent order it could not itself operate so as to extend the deputation from the specified period to a period of five years. It in fact prohibited deputation beyond a period of five years. It is of no avail to the petitioner.
4. As regards the law on the subject, it has been laid down and exhaustively considered in Mst. Maryam Yunus v. Director of Education, Cantonment, GHQ (PLD 1990 SC 666). The power of the Department to pass orders from the retrospective date has not been exceeded because here only the legal consequence had been recognized from the date that it flowed due to continued absence of the petitioner from duty. The order accomplishes nothing more than giving effect to it.
5. No ground is made out. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. AA./M‑1904/S Leave refused