1969 PLP 954 (SCMR)
GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN‑Petitioner Versus Mian MUHAMMAD HAYAT‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 954 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN‑Petitioner Versus Mian MUHAMMAD HAYAT‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Services Rules (Punjab) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 954 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Services Rules (Punjab) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 954 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 954 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN‑Petitioner Versus Mian MUHAMMAD HAYAT‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Said Akbar Khan, Advocate‑General West Pakistan (Muhammad Bashir, Assistant Advocate‑General with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Shafi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan, Senior Attorney for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 10th October 1967.
- The learned Advocate‑General has pointed out that the petition for a certificate that this was a fit case for appeal to this Court was dismissed by the High Court on 29‑5‑67, an application for certified copy of the order was made on the same day but it vas delivered on 28‑6‑67 and thereafter the petition for special leave was filed on 19‑7‑67. As the petitioner is not guilty of negligence or laches, we condone the delay.
- The learned Advocate‑General has contended inter alia.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 29th May 1967, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 391‑S of 1967 and order dated the 10th January 1967, in Writ Petition No. 2081 of 1964).
Vol. I, r. 7.3 (a) & (b)‑Inter pretation‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider, question of interpretation of r. 7.3 (a) & (b).
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.‑This petition is barred by time by 116 days. The learned Advocate‑General has pointed out that the petition for a certificate that this was a fit case for appeal to this Court was dismissed by the High Court on 29‑5‑67, an application for certified copy of the order was made on the same day but it vas delivered on 28‑6‑67 and thereafter the petition for special leave was filed on 19‑7‑
67. As the petitioner is not guilty of negligence or laches, we condone the delay. The respondent Mian Muhammad Hayat, a Superintending Engineer in the Irrigation Branch of the P. W. D., was charge -sheeted and suspended from service. The charge‑sheet was, however, dropped and he was reinstated in service. He then prayed for salary for the period of suspension, i.e. from 8‑4‑63 to 5‑3‑
64. The Governor of West Pakistan being of the opinion that he was not honourably acquitted, rejected his prayer. He then moved a writ in the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court accepted the petition and ordered the Government `to treat the petitioner's period of suspension from 8‑4‑63 to 5‑3‑63 as period spent on duty and allow him full pay which he was entitled to'. The Government seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court. The learned Advocate‑General has contended inter alia. (1) that the respondent was not honourably acquitted within he meaning of Rule 7.3 (a) and (b) of Civil Service Rule (Punjab) Vol. I ; (2) that in any event it was for the respondent to establish that he had been honourably acquitted ; (3) that it was not a fit case for issue of a writ of mandamus As the points raised involve interpretation of the Service Rules and also of Art. 98(2)(a) of the Constitution, which are of general public importance, we grant leave to appeal as prayed. Leave granted.