PLC(CS) 2006

2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus P.I.A. through Security Incharge Atlanta Iqbal International Airport, Lahore

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore High Court
Decided Date
Writ Petition No. 6608 of 2004, decided on 21st September, 2004.
Honorable Judges
Mian Saqib Nisar, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Lahore High Court
Bench Members Mian Saqib Nisar, J
Parties MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus P.I.A. through Security Incharge Atlanta Iqbal International Airport, Lahore
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 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 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus P.I.A. through Security Incharge Atlanta Iqbal International Airport, Lahore). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Mian Jaffer Hussain for Petitioner.
  • Umer Sharif for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Civil service

Non-regularization of service

Petitioner could not make any grouse or grievance against respondent/P.I.A. for his non-regularization as petitioner was not employee of respondent/P.I.A., but had been employed by a contractor agency. Farid Ahmed v. Pakistan Burma Shell Ltd. 1987 SCMR 1463 ref.

Judgment & Decree

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J

After reading the parawise comments, I find that the petitioner is not the employee of the respondent/PIA, rather he has been employed by a contractor Agency M/s Naeem and Brothers, therefore, he cannot make any grouse or grievance against the PIA for his non-regularization. In support of above, reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported as Farid Ahmed v. Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. (1987 SCMR 1463). Dismissed. H.B.T./M-480/L Petition dismissed.