1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SECRETARY, EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others Versus SHAZIA ABBAS
| Citation | 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J., Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ |
| Parties | SECRETARY, EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others Versus SHAZIA ABBAS |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 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 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J., Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SECRETARY, EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others Versus SHAZIA ABBAS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Khalid Iqbal Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th April, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 13-10-1994 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in 1. C. A. No. l of 1994).
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 212(3)-- Termination of service of civil servant
Civil servant filed Constitutional petition against termination of her services which was dismissed on the ground that only course open for civil servant \vas to have approached Service Tribunal for redress of her grievance
High Court, in Intra-Court Appeal, however, set aside order of dismissal of Constitutional petition declaring that High Court had jurisdiction and that civil servant would be deemed to be in service throughout
Petitioner's plea was that civil servant being employee of Government, only way open for her was to challenge order of termination of her service passed by Authorities before Service Tribunal
Jurisdiction of High Court was barred in terms of Art. 212 of the Constitution
Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether termination of service could be challenged before Service Tribunal or whether Constitutional petition was competent before High Court.
Judgment & Decree
MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.
The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13-10-1994 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, whereby the judgment dated 1-9-1993 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court and the order dated 7-8-1993 passed by the petitioners terminating the service of the respondent were set aside.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that on 17-5-1993 the respondent was appointed as P.T.C. Teacher in BPS-7 by the Deputy District Education Officer, Kahuta. Her appointment was made purely on temporary basis and liable to termination on one month's notice or surrender one month's pay in lieu thereof. On 7-8-1993 the appointment of the respondent was cancelled. She filed writ petition before the High Court, who was pleased to dismiss the same in limine on 1-9-1993. Inter alia, the learned Judge observed that only course opened to the respondent was to have approached the Service Tribunal for redressal of her grievance under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the writ petition was not maintainable. The respondent filed Intra Court Appeal before the High Court. On 13-10-1994 a Division Bench of the High Court was pleased to set aside the judgment dated 1-9-1993 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and also declared the order dated 7-8-1993 passed by the petitioners as being illegal. The Court further observed that the respondent shall be deemed to be in service throughout.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent was employee of the Government and the only way opened for her was to challenge the termination of her service order passed by the petitioner before Service Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the High Court was barred in that respect under Article 212 of the Constitution.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that case of the respondent was not covered by section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act. Only remedy for her was to approach the High Court in writ petition.
5. It is to be seen whether the termination of the service of the respondent could be challenged before the Service Tribunal or the writ petition was competent before the High Court. The point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners needs consideration. Leave to appeal is granted accordingly.
6. The appeal be fixed for hearing at any early date before the summer vacation. A. A./S-31/S Leave granted.