1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GHULAM QADIR Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KHAIRPUR AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KHAIRPUR AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Sind bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GHULAM QADIR Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KHAIRPUR AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aslam Jaffery for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Age‑‑Appointment to civil service‑Condonation or relaxation of prescribed age‑Cannot be claimed as a right‑Discretion of authority to make reference to Government for relaxation‑Service rendered in not civil service/Government service Claim for counting such service for purpose of age‑Interference refused by Service Tribunal‑Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), S. 4.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 53 of 1978, decided on 28th February 1979. ‑‑‑Age‑‑Appointment to civil service‑Condonation or relaxation of prescribed age‑Cannot be claimed as a right‑Discretion of authority to make reference to Government for relaxation‑Service rendered in not civil service/Government service Claim for counting such service for purpose of age‑Interference refused by Service Tribunal‑Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), S.
4. Aslam Jaffery for Petitioner. GHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The appellant seeks to count the service as copyist for the purpose of counting his age but this conten tion cannot be accepted as copyist is not a Government service and the age for the purpose of Government service has to be considered on the date when he was appointed as clerk. Admittedly he was overage on that date. However, it has been urged that the case of appellant should have been referred to Government for condonation of age, This cannot A be claimed as a right. It is discretionary with the authority to make any such reference or not. Refusal to refer the matter to Government is not', open to any exception, Appeal is summarily dismissed. Appeal dismissed.