2006 PLP 997 (SCMR)
and others — Petitioners Versus ANSAR PERVAIZ — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 997 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ |
| Parties | and others — Petitioners Versus ANSAR PERVAIZ — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 997 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 997 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 997 (SCMR) (and others — Petitioners Versus ANSAR PERVAIZ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Compulsory retirement---Respondents, who were appointed as Dispensers, were directed to get their services regularized within 90 days failing which they would be considered to be out of service---Representations of respondents having been rejected by Departmental Authorities they filed appeals before Service Tribunal which were partly allowed by impugned judgment whereby their penalty of removal from service was converted into compulsory retirement---Respondents had rendered about 14/15 years' service---Authorities could not take benefit of their inaction at the relevant time---Service Tribunal in facts and circumstances of the case, was quite justified in converting penalty of removal of respondents from service into compulsory retirement---Petitions not involving any substantial question of law of public importance within meaning of Art.212(3) of the Constitution, were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.Aziz Ahmad Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court with Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both cases).Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 15th December, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 27-10-2003 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeals Nos.841 of 2003 and 842 of 2003).
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The petitioners, Government functionaries, seek leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 27-10-2003, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeals Nos.841 and 842 of 2003. (2). The respondents were appointed as Dispensers in the Health Department, District Narowal. By order, dated 30-1-2003, they were directed to get their service regularized within 90 days failing which they would be considered to be out of service w.e.f. 1-5-2003. Their A representations were rejected by the departmental authorities on 24-4-2003 and 5-4-2003 respectively. Therefore, they moved the Tribunal by means of Appeals Nos.841 and 842 of 2003, which were partly allowed by the impugned judgment, dated 27-10-2003 whereby their penalty of removal from service was converted into compulsory retirement w.e.f. 10-5-2003. (3). The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents had been originally appointed against leave vacancies. However, they managed to continue in service for a period of fifteen years or so. Therefore, there was no justification for the Tribunal to have converted their removal from service into compulsory retirement from service. (4). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the caveat submitted that the respondents had rendered satisfactory service for more than 15 years. Therefore, their removal from service was not justified. (5). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the available record. Admittedly, the respondents had rendered about 14/15 years' service. The petitioners could not take benefit of their inaction at the relevant time. The Tribunal in the facts and the circumstances of the case was quite justified in converting the penalty of removal of the respondents from service into compulsory retirement. In any case, these petitions do not involve any substantial B question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (6). For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these petitions which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. H.B.T./D-5/SC??????????? Petitions dismissed. .