1998 PLP 435 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 435 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 435 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 435 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 435 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th January, 1997.
- Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- 2. In support of the above petition Hafiz Tariq Nasim, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the above order of suspension, dated 26-11-1996 was passed by the Chairman and the aforesaid Appeal was assigned to Member-II by the Chairman, Member-I was not entitled to recall the above suspension order particularly when the case could not have been listed before him. However, he was unable to point out any rule, whereby the above appeal was marked by the Chairman to Member-II as contended by the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
1997. ‑ (On appeal from the order dated 11‑12‑1996 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No. 1681 of 1996). ‑‑‑‑S.9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Repatriation of civil servant to his parent Department‑‑‑Service Tribunal's interim order for suspension of repatriation order was, subsequently, recalled‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appeal against order of repatriation was still pending‑‑‑Suspension order was recalled as it was done in other similar cases‑‑‑No exception could be taken to impugned order‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order, dated 11-12-1996 passed by Member-1 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, to Appeal No.1681 of 1996, filed by the petitioner against the order of his repatriation, dated 24-11-1996 to his parent department from the post of Sub- Divisional Officer, Zilla Council, Sialkot, recalling the interlocutory order, dated 26-11-1996 suspending the above order of repatriation. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition Hafiz Tariq Nasim, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the above order of suspension, dated 26-11-1996 was passed by the Chairman and the aforesaid Appeal was assigned to Member-II by the Chairman, Member-I was not entitled to recall the above suspension order particularly when the case could not have been listed before him. However, he was unable to point out any rule, whereby the above appeal was marked by the Chairman to Member-II as contended by the petitioner.
3. It is an admitted position that the above appeal is still pending. The above suspension order was recalled as it was done in other similar cases. We are, therefore, of the view that no exception can be taken to the impugned order. Leave is refused. A.A./M-3371/S Leave refused.