1970 PLP 64 (SCMR)
ALLAH YAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH JOINT
| Citation | 1970 PLP 64 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALLAH YAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH JOINT |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 64 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 64 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 64 (SCMR) (ALLAH YAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH JOINT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Raja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim Sheikh, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 6th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 19th April 1967, in Writ Petition No. 523 of 1966). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 177-Person occupying temporary post in Department itself temporary-Undertaking given that service could be terminated on 15 days' notice-Termination, in circumstances, did not attract constitutional protection despite [pact that undertaking given sometime after his appointment.
Judgment & Decree
S. ‑ A. RAHMAN, J.‑Allah Yar Khan, the petitioner, was employed as a Civil Supplies Inspector, and posted in Mirpur District, by the Government of Pakistan. His services were terminated in 1958 by an order of Government, by which he was given 15 days' notice to quit. He challenged this order as un‑Constitutional before the High Court, but failed. He now seeks Special Leave to Appeal. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Anwar Raja in support of the petition. The High Court has found that the petitioner occupied a temporary post in so far as the whole department in which he served, was a temporary one, and that he had given an undertaking to the Department to the effect that the service could be terminated by either side, on giving 15 days notice. Mr. Muhammad Anwar contends that no such undertaking had been given by the petitioner. This contention cannot be acceded to. The learned Judges .have observed in the course of their order that the Government had produced before them a copy of the undertaking given by the petitioner in the sense mentioned above. Mr. Muhammad Anwar then adopted the alternative petition, that this undertaking was given long after the service utile petitioner started, and could not have been of any effect on his rights. It seems to us that though given sometime after he had been appointed, it constituted a term of the appointment itself. As the context of the undertaking itself shows, the termination of the petitioner's service did not attract the protective provisions of the Constitution, and to ground appears for Special Leave to Appeal. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.