2007 PLP 1020(2) (YLR)
MUHAMMAD LAL — Petitioner Versus GHULAM SUBHANI; GENERAL MANAGER, MULTAN, TELECOMMUNICATION REGION (PTCL), MULTAN-Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1020(2) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LAL — Petitioner Versus GHULAM SUBHANI; GENERAL MANAGER, MULTAN, TELECOMMUNICATION REGION (PTCL), MULTAN-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1020(2) (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1020(2) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1020(2) (YLR) (MUHAMMAD LAL — Petitioner Versus GHULAM SUBHANI; GENERAL MANAGER, MULTAN, TELECOMMUNICATION REGION (PTCL), MULTAN-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Murtaza Malik for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for Respondent.
- 2. I have examined the records of the writ petition and I find that it was categorically stated repeatedly in the writ petition that the petitioner is the son of Allah Yar, a deceased employee of the respondent-Corporation. Written statement was filed which was signed by the General Manager as also the learned counsel for respondent. It was nowhere denied. Father was admitted without any demur that the petitioner is the son of the said deceased employee. This being so, even if there is some discrepancy in the said documents, the respondent or the said Corporation cannot deny the said fact duly admitted in the course of pleadings in the said writ petition decided inter parties. Needless to state that no appeal was filed against the said of judgment this Court. It is but apparent that there has been a non--compliance of the judgment of this Court but in the circumstances of the case where the respondent-Officer has pleaded said confusion of the discrepancy of the date of birth of the petitioner vis-a-vis the date of his father's death, I am not inclined to take any punitive action. The Crl. Org., however, is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to comply with the said judgment and to issue the requisite orders within two months from today under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 204
Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), Ss.3 & 5
High Court in constitutional petition earlier filed by petitioner, had directed respondent to consider petitioner in employment being the son of deceased employee
Present petition had been filed by petitioner complaining that judgment passed by High Court, was not being complied with by respondent
Respondent did not deny the fact that petitioner was son of deceased employee
Non-compliance of the judgment of the High Court had taken place, but in circumstances of the case where respondent-officer had pleaded confusion or discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioner vis-a-vis the date of his father's death, no punitive action was called for--Petition for contempt of Court was disposed of with direction to respondent to comply with the judgment and to issue requisite orders within specified period. Ghulam Subhani for PTCL, Multan.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--Vide judgment dated 3-3-2005, this Court allowed Writ Petition No.8785 of 2002 filed by the petitioner and directed the respondents to consider him for employment being the son of a deceased employee, Present Crl. Org. has been filed complaining that the said judgment is not being complied with. The respondent has filed a written reply and has taken the plea that upon a perusal of the birth certificate produced by the petitioner in juxtaposition to the death of his father, it has become doubtful as to whether he is the son of the deceased employee or not.
2. I have examined the records of the writ petition and I find that it was categorically stated repeatedly in the writ petition that the petitioner is the son of Allah Yar, a deceased employee of the respondent-Corporation. Written statement was filed which was signed by the General Manager as also the learned counsel for respondent. It was nowhere denied. Father was admitted without any demur that the petitioner is the son of the said deceased employee. This being so, even if there is some discrepancy in the said documents, the respondent or the said Corporation cannot deny the said fact duly admitted in the course of pleadings in the said writ petition decided inter parties. Needless to state that no appeal was filed against the said of judgment this Court. It is but apparent that there has been a non--compliance of the judgment of this Court but in the circumstances of the case where the respondent-Officer has pleaded said confusion of the discrepancy of the date of birth of the petitioner vis-a-vis the date of his father's death, I am not inclined to take any punitive action. The Crl. Org., however, is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to comply with the said judgment and to issue the requisite orders within two months from today under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. H.B.T./M-577/L Order accordingly.