1990SCMR1481 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NABI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION
| Citation | 1990SCMR1481 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah mid Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NABI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1481 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR1481 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah mid Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1481 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NABI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 5‑7‑1989. of the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No.315(R) of 1987). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal Question raised in petition not being free from difficulty, notice to respondents was issued to appear and explain authority on which certain observations in the impugned order made by Service Tribunal were based.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑In the impugned order of the Service Tribunal it has been inter‑alia observed:‑
"Since all the posts in various offices, under the control of the Resident Commissioner for Northern Area, paid out of development budget, as they were existing on 16‑10‑1973, were brought on permanent footing from that date, as aforesaid, the appointment of the appellant and the respondents against some of those posts stood regularised. In that eventuality they could count their previous service for all purposes including seniority. 1t follows that the respondents who were appointed as Assistant Engineers earlier than the appellant were rightly allowed seniority over the appellant and he has no case to succeed" According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the earlier appointments of the respondents were in the capacity of Work‑charge/Ad hoc Assistant Engineers only and such appointments did not entitle them to the benefits of seniority. This question is not free from difficulty. Notice to respondents Nos.l to 4 (for a date to be fixed by the office) who shall depute an official or a counsel, fully conversant with the facts of the case, to appear before the Court and explain the authority on which the observations underlined above are based. H.B.T./M‑1111/S Order accordingly.