1989 PLP 1455 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHAFOOR Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1455 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFOOR Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1455 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1455 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1455 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHAFOOR Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Haider Alghazali, Advocate Supreme.Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Oadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Akhtar, Addl. A‑G. and Abdul Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment, dated 15‑10‑1981 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Case No.304 of 1976). ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Civil servant, status of‑ Determination‑‑Service Tribunal's finding was that appellant was not a regular civil servant, there being no regular post to which he could be appointed‑‑No infirmity was pointed out in the finding of Service Tribunal‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The only question for consideration in this petition for special leave to appeal is whether the petitioner was a civil servant holding the post of dispenser m the Government Degree College, Hafizabad. Admittedly, there is no formal order issued by any competent authority appointing him as such. The Tribunal has gone through the relevant record and observed: On going through the record we find that the appellant received no remuneration from 1‑3‑75 to the beginning of the summer vacation. This was at his own request. He was appointed part‑time Dispenser w.e.f. 18‑8‑1975 on Rs.60 P.M. honorarium. He was not a regular civil servant there being no regular post to which he could be appointed. The Principal's statement in his letter, dated 20‑11‑1975 to respondent No.2 that the appellant was working since 1‑3‑1975 means just that and not that he was working against a sanctioned post of regular Dispenser. The endorsement of the A.D. Colleges on this letter that his pay may be drawn against the regularized post of Dispenser is not a letter of p. ,, appointment issued to the appellant". The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the findings of the learned Tribunal suffer from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed. A.A./A‑481/S Petition dismissed.