PLC(CS) 1988

1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR, S.D.O., C. AND W. DEPARTMENT Versus N.W.F.P. PROVINCE through the Chief Secretary,

Jurisdiction / Court
Service Tribunal N.-W.F.P.
Decided Date
Appeal No. 67 of 1987, decided on 17th July, 1988.
Honorable Judges
Malik Muhammad Parvez, Chairman
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Service Tribunal N.-W.F.P.
Bench Members Malik Muhammad Parvez, Chairman
Parties MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR, S.D.O., C. AND W. DEPARTMENT Versus N.W.F.P. PROVINCE through the Chief Secretary,
Primary Law Norwth-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Norwth-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal N.-W.F.P. bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Parvez, Chairman.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR, S.D.O., C. AND W. DEPARTMENT Versus N.W.F.P. PROVINCE through the Chief Secretary,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Norwth-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974)

Representation

  • Khawaja Abdur Rashid for Appellant.
  • Saadullah Khan for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 11--North, West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Rules, R. 20--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.1, R. 10--Impleading of a party--Appeal against list of seniority--Petitioner's application to be impleaded in appeal as respondents--Justification for--Service Tribunal is empowered to impaled a person as party who is interested in the result of appeal--Although strictly speaking provisions of Civil Procedure Code were not applicable to proceedings before a Tribunal, yet spirit embodied in rules, so far as same did not stand against enactment and Rules framed there under were to be followed by Special Tribunals--Anybody who might be aggrieved by an order passed in his absence by a Court/Tribunal must be allowed to contest the proceedings--Applicants having been marked as senior to appellant apprehended that their valuable rights would be at stake if they were not given opportunity to contest appeal--If appeal succeeds, applicants would be constrained to file appeals or enter into litigation qua appellants--It would be appropriate, fair and in the interest of justice that applicants be allowed to contest appeal as respondents.

Judgment & Decree

Khawaja Abdur Rashid for Appellant. Saadullah Khan for Petitioners. Petitioners 8 in number, prayed for the permission to become respondents in the instant appeal on the ground that the appellant was junior to them in the seniority list dated 21-5-1980 and if his appeal succeeds, he will supersede them, their valuable rights shall be damaged and they will have to enter into litigation after the decision of the present appeal. Application was denied by the appellant on the ground that he claims his seniority on his appointment as Assistant Engineer by the Public Service Commission. The seniority list was incorrect qua him and the petitioners are junior than him. Arguments heard and the available record seen. Petitioners are shown at S.Nos. 26 to.28 and 30 to 33 of the seniority list dated 21-5-1980. I was told at the bar that petitioner Syed Ajmal Shah is just below the petitioner Abdul Ahad in the revised seniority list which was not attached with the petition. According to the representative of the department the name of respondent No. 3 figures in the seniority list after Mr. Nimat Shah who is at S.No.

17. Appellant on the other hand claims seniority over respondent No.

3. Rule 20 of the rules framed in the light of the Act, 1974 empowers the Tribunal to implead a person as a party who is interested in the result of the appeal. Similarly although strictly speaking the provisions of C.P.C. are not applicable to the proceedings before a Tribunal, yet the spirit embodied in the rules, so far it does not stand against the special enactment and the rules framed there under, are to be followed by the Special Tribunal like the present one. These principles emphasize that anybody who might be aggrieved by an order passed in his absence by a Court/Tribunal must be allowed to contest the same. The position that emerges in the present case is that petitioners claim seniority over the appellant and they apprehend that their valuable rights shall be at stake if they are not given the opportunity to contest the appeal. They are marked senior than the appellant in the seniority list, attached with the appeal and if in the long run the appeal succeeds, they will suffer an irreparable loss and will be constrained to file appeals or enter into litigation qua the appellant. So it is appropriate, fair and in the interest of justice that they be allowed to contest the appeal as respondents. Appellant is directed to furnish the copies of the amended appeal within 10 days from today and the respondents are directed to file the written statement at camp Court, Abbottabad on 17-8-1988. AA./92/Sr. N Application allowed.