1998 PLP 934 (SCMR)
AIJAZ AHMAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Defence and another‑‑‑Respondents'
| Citation | 1998 PLP 934 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AIJAZ AHMAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Defence and another‑‑‑Respondents' |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants AM (LXXI of 1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 934 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants AM (LXXI of 1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 934 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 934 (SCMR) (AIJAZ AHMAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Defence and another‑‑‑Respondents'). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents. .
- Date of hearing: 26th March, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 17‑7‑1995 passed in Appeal No.82(R) of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Claim to benefits which had accrued to civil servant on account of promotion ‑‑‑Service Tribunal did not find civil servant entitled to such benefits allegedly on assumption that his appointment in Grade 18 was not promotion ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Civil servant had produced before Court photostat copy of office order of specified date whereby he was appointed to specific post in B.P.S. 18‑‑‑Office order clearly stated that civil servant was promoted to specific post in Grade‑18‑‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider petitioner's contention that he having been promoted to specific post in B.P.S. 18, he was entitled to fixation of pay in accordance with instructions dated 17‑11‑1991. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.
The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal' dated 17-7-1995 whereby his service appeal was dismissed. The petitioner who is appearing in person contends that this appeal was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on an assumption that his appointment as D.C.A.O. in Grade-18 was not a promotion and therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit which accrued to him as a result of such promotion. The petitioner has produced before us a photostat copy of the office order dated 2-7-1991 whereby he was promoted as Dy.C.A.O. in PBS-18. This office order clearly states that the petitioner was promoted as Dy.C.A.0 (B-18 plus rupees 250 as special pay) in G.H.Q. vice PC-1022 Mr. Shamiruddin, Dy.C.A.0. retiring from service w.e.f. 4-7-1991. The petitioner, accordingly, contended that in view of the fact that the petitioner was promoted, he was entitled to the fixation of pay in accordance with instructions dated 17-11-1991. The above contention, inter alia, requires further examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal. A.A./A-1408/S Leave granted.