2008 PLP 656 (SCMR)
Miss RAHAT AFROZE — Petitioner Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 656 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Mian Shakirullah Jan and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ |
| Parties | Miss RAHAT AFROZE — Petitioner Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 656 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 656 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Mian Shakirullah Jan and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 656 (SCMR) (Miss RAHAT AFROZE — Petitioner Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asmat Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with A.H. Masood, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st July, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 21-1-2003 passed in M.P. No.10 of 2003).
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed by Service Tribunal and petitioner instead of challenging order of Service Tribunal before Supreme Court, filed a representation for correction of said order
Such representation was not competent before Service Tribunal as after having disposed of appeal, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the same
Application of petitioner, in. that respect, was rightly dismissed by Service Tribunal
Petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court filed after more than four months from impugned order was also barred by time especially when no application for condonation of delay was filed by petitioner
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave declined.
Judgment & Decree
This petition has been filed against the order of the Service Tribunal, dated 21-1-2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that prior to filing of civil miscellaneous application, appeal filed by her has been dismissed on 15-11-2002, therefore, instead of challenging this order before this Court she filed a representation for the correction of the order.
2. We have noted that such representation was not competent before the Tribunal, as after having disposed of the appeal, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Therefore, the application was rightly dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel then contended that petitioner had also challenged order, dated 15-11-2002. It may be noted that this petition was filed on 29-3-2003, therefore, it would be barred by time against the original order of the Tribunal. Surprisingly for seeking condonation of delay no application has been filed. It is to be observed that as the representation filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal after passing order, dated 15-11-2002 was not competent, therefore, the time for filing of the petition before this Court against this order shall not be arrested and it would continue running against her.
4. Thus, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the instant petition is not competent and the same is dismissed and leave declined. H.B.T./R-42/SC Petition dismissed.