1989SCMR329 (PLP)
NAZIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR329 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR329 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR329 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR329 (PLP) (NAZIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Iftikhar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th August, 1988.
- Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Iftikhar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Federal Service Tribunal dated 26-8-1982 passed in Review Petition No. 12(L) of 1982).
Art. 212(3)--Civil service--Fixation of pay--Petition barred by 106 days--Case of petitioner dealt with properly on merits by Tribunal--Petitioner before his promotion was getting pay to a better scale than his promoted post carried and he was not to get anything above maximum of promoted scale what he was receiving before being promoted--Leave to appeal refused. S.A. Rizvi v. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and another 1986 SCMR 965 and Muhammad Farid Khan v. Water and Power Development Authority 1984 SCMR 603 ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Civil service‑‑Fixation of pay‑‑Petition barred by 106 days‑‑Case of petitioner dealt with properly on merits by Tribunal‑‑Petitioner before his promotion was getting pay to a better scale than his promoted post carried and he was not to get anything above maximum of promoted scale what he was receiving before being promoted‑‑Leave to appeal refused. S.A. Rizvi v. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and another 1986 SCMR 965 and Muhammad Farid Khan v. Water and Power Development Authority 1984 SCMR 603 ref. Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Iftikhar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th August, 1988. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, a civil servant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 26‑8‑1982 whereby his claim to proper fixation of pay was dismissed. This appeal is shown to be barred by 106 days and the explanation given by the learned counsel for the petitioner for it is that soon after the judgment of the Tribunal a Review Petition was moved but it did not succeed. It is admitted that as held by this Court in S.A. Rizvi v. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and another (1986 SCMR 965) and Muhammad Farid Khan v. Water and Power Development Authority (1984 SCMR 603) no review is competent. All the same, rule 25 of the Service Tribunals Rules does provide for correction of clerical errors. The Petitioner's case does not fall in it and the Petition is clearly barred. On merits too, we find that his case has been dealt with properly by the Tribunal. This is an unusual case where the Petitioner was before his promotion getting pay in .the Scale of Rs. 750‑50‑1500 and was at the maximum. His promoted post carried the scale of Rs. 500‑50‑1,000/50‑1250. It was, therefore, not possible for him to receive anything above the maximum of the promoted scale what he was receiving before being promoted. That has been done and that is all that could be done. Leave to appeal is, in the circumstances, refused. M.Y.H./N‑99/S Petition dismissed.