1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD YOUNAS MINHAS Versus SECRETARY, IMMIGRATION AND PASSPORTS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUNAS MINHAS Versus SECRETARY, IMMIGRATION AND PASSPORTS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD YOUNAS MINHAS Versus SECRETARY, IMMIGRATION AND PASSPORTS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Seniority‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Civil servants' departmental appeal was dismissed‑‑‑Civil servant filing appeal before Service Tribunal years after period of limitation for filing appeal had expired‑‑‑Service Tribunal, however, in spite of limitation, considered Civil Servants appeal on merits‑‑‑Civil servants had himself given undertaking that on promotion he would not go outside his home town due to his family circumstances‑‑‑Civil servant was thus, not entitled to be considered for promotion unless and until he ‑vas willing to go outside his home town‑‑‑Other factors due to which civil servant had not been considered for promotion were that he did not qualify departmental examination whereas those promoted though junior to him had qualified said examination and were given promotion‑‑‑Civil servant's contention that Service Tribunal was not justified in dismissing his appeal, was not tenable‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Mushtaq Ahmad v. WAPDA 1991 SCMR 1526 ref.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J: ‑‑This is a petition of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 16‑2‑1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No. 232(L) for 1991 filed by the petitioner praying that the respondents be directed to consider the petitioner for promotion as Superintendent from the date his juniors were promoted, dismissing the same for the following reasons:‑ " ..The appellant has challenged the promotion .of M/s. Muhammad Aslam Khan, Abdul Alim Khan and S. Istiaq Ali and it is a matter of 1981. From the record, it is clear that his representation for the same, cause of action was rejected on 29‑5‑1982. He did not come to the Tribunal and rather started making representations from time to time upto 1989. However, in spite of this limitation, we have considered the other aspects of the case on merits. The appellant has not challenged the seniority. He is working as Stenotypist. He himself gave undertaking that on promotion he will not go outside Faisalabad due to his family circumstances: In these circumstances, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1991 SCMR 1526 (Mushtaq Ahmad v. WAPDA), he is not entitled to be considered for any promotion unless and until he is willing to go outside his home town. Not only this, the other factors due to which he has not been considered for promotion are that he did not qualify the departmental examination whereas the respondents qualified the said examination and were accordingly given promotions. The appellant being a Stenotypist can get promotion as Stenographer in his cadre and according to the rules, the post of Superintendent being a 100% promotion post from U.D.Cs. he has no case to agitate. On this, the learned counsel for the appellant has not pointed out any discrepancy in the rules by which his rights have been jeopardised." The petitioner has, therefore, filed present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition Chaudhry Mushtaq Massood, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the petitioner's above appeal. The above contention seems to be not tenable. Reasons found favour with the Tribunal did not suffer from any infirmity. Leave is refused. AA./M‑2225/S Appeal refused.