2005 PLP 768 (SCMR)
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Petitioners Versus Dr. NAVEEDA TUFAIL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 768 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Hamid Ali Mirza and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Petitioners Versus Dr. NAVEEDA TUFAIL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 768 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 768 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Hamid Ali Mirza and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 768 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Petitioners Versus Dr. NAVEEDA TUFAIL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate-General, Punjab with Tariq Mahmood Khokhar, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners (in all cases).
- Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1 (in C.R.P. No.142 of 2002).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.R.Ps. Nos.153 to 224 of 2002).
- Date of hearing: 9th January, 2003.
- 2. Learned Advocate-General, Punjab, has sought review of the judgment on the grounds firstly that the policies for regularization of the ad hoc employees introduced by the Federal Government and other Provinces cannot be made applicable to the ad hoc employees in the Province of Punjab, therefore, the principle of equal treatment as embodied in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was not attracted in the present cases. Secondly, a person holding an ad hoc appoint cannot claim permanent adjustment and regularization, except in accordance with the prescribed method of appointment under the law and thirdly, the respondents in the review petitions had already been given more than one chance to appear before the Punjab Public Service Commission for permanent appointment/ regularization but they failed to avail the opportunity and consequently, they were not entitled to be given a fresh chance of appearing before the Public Service Commission.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of this Court dated 25-9-2002 passed in Civil Petitions Nos.1093 to 1117 of 2002, 1135 to 1141 of 2002, 1169 to 1183 of 2002, 1190 to 1214 of 2002 and 1229 of 2002).
Art. 188
Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI
Review of Supreme Court judgment
No patent error on the face of record or a legal ground for review of the judgment was found
All the grounds taken in support of the review petition had already been considered in the judgment under review
Supreme Court noted it with concern that after lapse of considerable period, relevant quarters in Government of Punjab had taken no steps for implementation of the judgment under review
Supreme Court directed the concerned authorities in the Government of Punjab to ensure implementation of the judgment within one month
Review petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.
The above review petitions have been preferred against the judgment dated 25-9-2002 in the Civil Petitions Nos.1093 to1117 of 2002, 1135 to 1141 of 2002, 1169 to 1183 of 2002, 1190 to 1214 of 2002 and 1229 of 2002 which were disposed of as appeals.
2. Learned Advocate-General, Punjab, has sought review of the judgment on the grounds firstly that the policies for regularization of the ad hoc employees introduced by the Federal Government and other Provinces cannot be made applicable to the ad hoc employees in the Province of Punjab, therefore, the principle of equal treatment as embodied in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was not attracted in the present cases. Secondly, a person holding an ad hoc appoint cannot claim permanent adjustment and regularization, except in accordance with the prescribed method of appointment under the law and thirdly, the respondents in the review petitions had already been given more than one chance to appear before the Punjab Public Service Commission for permanent appointment/ regularization but they failed to avail the opportunity and consequently, they were not entitled to be given a fresh chance of appearing before the Public Service Commission.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents-caveators in the present petitions, on the other hand, has contended that all the three points raised in support of these petitions have already been considered in the judgment under review and the Government of Punjab has filed these review petitions without any legal justification and was unnecessarily prolonging the implementation of the judgment.
4. We having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents-caveators have not been able to find out any patent error on the face of record or a legal ground for review of the judgment as all the grounds taken in support of these petitions have already been considered in the judgment. It has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the respondents that despite lapse of a considerable period, the relevant quarters in the Government of Punjab have taken no step for implementation of the judgment. We, therefore, direct that concerned authorities in the Government of Punjab must ensure implementation of judgment within one month.
5. These petitions, with the above direction, stand dismissed. M.H./G-168/S Petitions dismissed.