1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ASHFAQ HUSSAIN RANA Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS
| Citation | 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman and Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Member |
| Parties | ASHFAQ HUSSAIN RANA Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
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 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman and Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ASHFAQ HUSSAIN RANA Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellant.
- Masud Ahmad Riaz for Respondent No. 3.
- A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S . 4‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Does not lie against tentative seniority list‑Appellant aggrieved of his seniority position as shown in tentative seniority list‑‑Appeal, held, premature‑‑Request for direction to Department to publish final seniority list and disposal of representation of appellant accepted by Service Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-‑Ashfaq Hussain Rana, Assistant Agricultural Engineer has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Govern ment of the Punjab through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore, Chairman, Public Service Commission, Lahore and M/s. Mian Muhammad Afzal and 39 others, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appellant be assigned seniority from the original date of appointment i.e. 16th June, 1968 and the seniority so assigned to him from 7th August. 1973 was arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice.
3. This case became ripe for arguments and was heard on 28th April, 1983 when it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respon dents that the seniority list which has been impugned, has not yet been made final, therefore, no appeal would lie against a tentative list and the case before this Tribunal, was premature. When confronted with this situation the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the case may be disposed of with the direction to the respondent Government to publish final seniority list as well as to dispose of the representation of the appellant so filed by him before the said authority.
4. We do not find any difficulty in accepting this request as it will be in the interest of justice and fair‑play to finalize the list and dispose of the representation of the appellant so pending with the Government so as to apprise the appellant of his real seniority position after the disposal of his representation..
5. With this observation, we dispose of the appeal as immature. There will be no order as to costs. A.B Appeal dismissed.