2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SULTAN KHAN and others Versus PUBLIC FUNCTIONARIES
| Citation | 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar High Court |
| Bench Members | Syed Yahya Zahid Gillani and Zia-ud-Din Khattak, JJ |
| Parties | SULTAN KHAN and others Versus PUBLIC FUNCTIONARIES |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 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 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court bench comprising: Syed Yahya Zahid Gillani and Zia-ud-Din Khattak, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SULTAN KHAN and others Versus PUBLIC FUNCTIONARIES). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Misbahullah Khan for Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
SYED YAHYA ZAHID GILLANI, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that departmental appeal of petitioners dated 12-4-2007 regarding their entitlement to "generation allowance" are still pending before respondents. Disposal of these appeals is being delayed without any reason. He stated that he would not press this writ petition if a direction is issued to respondents to dispose of the aforementioned pending appeals of the petitioners, on merits, at the earliest. He placed reliance on 2007 MLD page 1898, wherein a similar direction was issued in the identical circumstances.
2. There can be no difference with the opinion that when departmental appeal is submitted, the public functionary/competent authority is duty bound to decide it within reasonable time, after application of independent mind, by giving reasons. This is a requirement of law as well as of principles of natural justice.
3. The public functionaries, by no stretch of imagination, are justified to remain indifferent on pending issues, vitally important for their employees. When they do have powers to either accept or reject an appeal, the power must be exercised and the appeals must be decided on merits, within reasonable time, so that the aggrieved employees should either get satisfied or seek further available remedy.
4. In view of rapidly increasing tendency in the offices of public functionaries to delay disposal of appeals and representations, we, over here, must express our observation that such delays prolong uncertainties, snatch peace of minds and create agonizing tensions. The public functionaries should act in a way to eliminate problems and not in a way to create further problems, as in this case, where 252 petitioners (Employee of WAPDA at Tarbela Dam, Tarbela) could not find any other legal mean, but to file this constitutional petition for mobilizing their relevant authorities, simply, to decide their appeals dated 12-4-2007 which are pending for last more than one year. Such an attitude must be given up by the public functionaries, in public interest.
5. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to issue direction, to respondents for disposal of departmental appeals of petitioners dated 12-4-2007 within a shortest time, but not later than one month.
6. Resultantly, the counsel for the petitioners does not press this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./140/P Order accordingly.