1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD LATIF Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ch. Hasan Nawaz and Muhammad Ismail, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS |
| Primary Law | (d) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, (c) Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (d) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, (c) Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), (b) Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Ch. Hasan Nawaz and Muhammad Ismail, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD LATIF Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Azeem for Appellant.
- Zafar Ali Shah for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th February, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
S.4
Civil servant's departmental appeal against penalty of censure was rejected on 8-10-1987; information for same was received by him on 10-10-1987
Civil servant could come to Service Tribunal within thirty days of 10-10-1987, date on which final order was admittedly received by him
Appeal filed on 13-1-1988, was time-barred.
Para. 1725-RI
No second departmental appeal is allowed under provisions of Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual.
R.8
Time-barred appeal
No application for condonation of delay
In absence of any such application, question of condonation could not be dealt with by Service Tribunal.
R.4(1)(a)(1)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2-- Civil servant
Non-assumption of charge of post
Effect
Refusing to assume charge of post earmarked by respondent on plea that Civil Court had issued order of status quo
Post had already been abolished when status quo order was issued
Order of status quo meant that factual position obtaining at the time of Civil Court's order should be allowed to continue
Order of status quo did not clothe civil servant to be put incharge of that post which already stood abolished by the time such order was issued
Civil servant was thus, guilty of misconduct for his refusal to assume charge of the post which was earmarked by him by the Authority.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual
Para. 1725-RI
No second departmental appeal is allowed under provisions of Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual. (c) Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974
R.8
Time-barred appeal
No application for condonation of delay
In absence of any such application, question of condonation could not be dealt with by Service Tribunal. (d) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973
R.4(1)(a)(1)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2-- Civil servant
Non-assumption of charge of post
Effect
Refusing to assume charge of post earmarked by respondent on plea that Civil Court had issued order of status quo
Post had already been abolished when status quo order was issued
Order of status quo meant that factual position obtaining at the time of Civil Court's order should be allowed to continue
Order of status quo did not clothe civil servant to be put incharge of that post which already stood abolished by the time such order was issued
Civil servant was thus, guilty of misconduct for his refusal to assume charge of the post which was earmarked by him by the Authority. M.M. Azeem for Appellant. Zafar Ali Shah for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th February, 1992.