2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SHAFQAT ALI Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary Sindh and 3 others
| Citation | 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Athar Saeed and Munib Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | SHAFQAT ALI Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary Sindh and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Athar Saeed and Munib Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SHAFQAT ALI Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary Sindh and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saifullah, Asstt. A.-G. Sindh for Respondents.
- This review application has been filed by the Provincial Government for review of the order of this Court dated 2-2-2010 whereby we had allowed the petition filed by the present petitioner and had cancelled the order and summary passed by the Chief Minister and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as JST if he possesses basic qualifications necessary for such appointment, within thirty days of that order. This order was passed on the basis of Notification dated 2nd September, 2002 whereby certain benefits of appointment were given to children of deceased personnel of the department if they meet the basic qualifications. The petitioner's father had died somewhere in 1986 and we had after reading the Notification consciously held that the Notification not only applies to the children of those government personnel who died after coming in force of this Notification but also to children of all the government servants who died even before coming in force of the Notification. The only point now canvassed by the learned Assistant Advocate-General is that the Notification does not have retrospective effect and therefore this Court committed an error of law by holding that the Notification has retrospective effect.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 114 & O.XLVII, R.1
Application had been filed by the Provincial Government for review of the order of High Court, whereby it had allowed the constitutional petition and cancelled the order and summary passed by the Chief Minister and directed the Authorities to appoint the petitioner as JST, if he possessed basic qualification necessary for such appointment
Said order was passed by the High Court on the basis of notification whereby certain benefits of appointment were given to the children of deceased personnel of the department, if they met the basic qualification
Petitioner's father had died somewhere in 1986
Said notification was not only applied to the children of those government personnel who died after coming in to force of said notification, but also to children of all the government servants who died even before coming in to force of the notification
High Court had declared the notification to have retrospective operation, after carefully considering its implication
Notification had retrospective effect, and if the law had not been properly applied by the High Court, only remedy available to the Authority was to file a civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court and review application was misconceived. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
This review application has been filed by the Provincial Government for review of the order of this Court dated 2-2-2010 whereby we had allowed the petition filed by the present petitioner and had cancelled the order and summary passed by the Chief Minister and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as JST if he possesses basic qualifications necessary for such appointment, within thirty days of that order. This order was passed on the basis of Notification dated 2nd September, 2002 whereby certain benefits of appointment were given to children of deceased personnel of the department if they meet the basic qualifications. The petitioner's father had died somewhere in 1986 and we had after reading the Notification consciously held that the Notification not only applies to the children of those government personnel who died after coming in force of this Notification but also to children of all the government servants who died even before coming in force of the Notification. The only point now canvassed by the learned Assistant Advocate-General is that the Notification does not have retrospective effect and therefore this Court committed an error of law by holding that the Notification has retrospective effect. Without going into the merits of this case we are of the considered view that we had declared the Notification to have retrospective operation, after carefully considering its implication and it is our considered view that the Notification had retrospective effect and therefore if the law had not been properly applied by us the only remedy available to the respondent is to file a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal before the honourable Supreme Court as this point does not fall within the three basic ingredients on which review can be filed. For the above reasons we declare the review application to be misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./S-84/K Application dismissed.