PLC(CS) 2010

2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

DEPUTY POST MASTER GENERAL, REGION-III, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD and others Versus MUHAMMAD JAVAID

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.237-K of 2008, decided on 3rd November, 2008.
Honorable Judges
Mian Hamid Farooq, Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Mian Hamid Farooq, Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ
Parties DEPUTY POST MASTER GENERAL, REGION-III, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD and others Versus MUHAMMAD JAVAID
Primary Law Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Hamid Farooq, Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (DEPUTY POST MASTER GENERAL, REGION-III, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD and others Versus MUHAMMAD JAVAID). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000)

Representation

  • Rizwan Ahmad Siddiqui, D.A.-G. for Petitioners.
  • Suleman Habibullah, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment dated 12-1-2008 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi, passed in Appeal No.518(K) CS of 2002).

Ss. 3, 5, 6 & 10

Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)

Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXXIII

Limitation Act (IX of 1908) S.5

Dismissal from service

Reinstatement

Employee was dismissed from service by the competent authority

Service Tribunal on appeal set aside dismissal order and directed reinstatement of employee with all back-benefits

Validity

Petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court by the department was barred by time by two days for which the department filed an application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 read with O.XXXIII of Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for condonation of delay

Validity

In the absence of "sufficient cause " for condonation of delay within the parameters of law, delay could not be condoned

No question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Art.212(3) of the Constitution being involved in the case, no case for the grant of leave to appeal was made out

Petition was dismissed.

Judgment & Decree

MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.

Deputy Post Master General, Region-III, Post Office Department, Hyderabad and others petitioners, seek leave to appeal against judgment dated 12-1-2008, whereby the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi (Tribunal) accepted respondent's appeal, set aside the dismissal order and directed reinstatement of the respondent in service with all back-benefits.

2. We have heard the learned Deputy Attorney-General for a considerable length and examined the available record. It has been reported by the Office that the petition is barred by time by two days, for which the petitioners have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Order XXXIII of Supreme Court Rules, 1980, for condonation of delay. Upon examination of the contents of the said application, we do not find any "sufficient cause" within the parameters of law to condone the delay, thus we are not persuaded to condone the reported delay.

3. Additionally, after having heard the learned Deputy Attorney General, we are of the firm view that no question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is involved in this case. No case for the grant of leave to appeal is made out.

4. In view of the above, the present petition is barred by time and devoid of merits as well, thus stands dismissed on both the counts. Leave is declined. H.B.T./D-2/SC Leave refused.