1969 PLP 117 (SCMR)
GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN Petitioner Versus HAJI MUHAMMAD, MALI‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 117 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN Petitioner Versus HAJI MUHAMMAD, MALI‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 117 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 117 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 117 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN Petitioner Versus HAJI MUHAMMAD, MALI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Muhammad Bashir; Additional Advocate‑General West Pakistan (Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Siddiq & Company, Attorneys for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 21st. October 1968.
- The learned Additional Advocate‑General states that the respondent was a member of the contingent establishment which is distinguishable from civil service of a province within Article 178 of the Constitution. Relies on two decisions from the Indian jurisdiction Kartar Singh Jati Singh v. State of Patiala and East Punjab States (A I R 1953 Pepsu 25) and Lachmi v. Military Secretary (A I R 1956 Pat. 398).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 22nd December 1967, in R. S. A. No. 56 of 1964/BWP).
Art. 178‑Provision whether not applicable in matters relating to dismissal from service of an employee (a Mali) alleged to be member of a contingent establish ment as distinguished from civil service within Art. 178‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question. Kartar Singh Jati Singh v. State of Patiala and East Punjab States A I R 1953 Pepsu 25 and Lachmi v. Military Secretary A I R 1956 Pat. 398 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Kartar Singh Jati Singh v. State of Patiala and East Punjab States A I R 1953 Pepsu 25 and Lachmi v. Military Secretary A I R 1956 Pat. 398 ref. Sheikh Muhammad Bashir; Additional Advocate‑General West Pakistan (Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Siddiq & Company, Attorneys for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 21st. October 1968. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The respondent employed as a Mali in the Government Polytechnic Institute, Bahawalpur, was dismissed from service on the 10th March 1959, for being absent from duty. As no shovel‑cause notice contemplated under Article 178 of the Constitution was given, the High Court ‑has on appeal set aside the order of dismissal from which the Provincial Government seeks leave to appeal. The learned Additional Advocate‑General states that the respondent was a member of the contingent establishment which is distinguishable from civil service of a province within Article 178 of the Constitution. Relies on two decisions from the Indian jurisdiction Kartar Singh Jati Singh v. State of Patiala and East Punjab States (A I R 1953 Pepsu 25) and Lachmi v. Military Secretary (A I R 1956 Pat. 398). The question raised is of general public importance. We grant leave to appeal. Leave granted.