PLC(CS) 1992

1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAVED DASTGIR MIRZA Versus ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF

Jurisdiction / Court
Service Tribunal Punjab
Decided Date
Appeal No. 891/897 of 1987, decided on 24th November, 1991.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and Abdul Aziz Malik, Member
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Service Tribunal Punjab
Bench Members Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and Abdul Aziz Malik, Member
Parties JAVED DASTGIR MIRZA Versus ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
Primary Law Civil service
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman and Abdul Aziz Malik, Member.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (JAVED DASTGIR MIRZA Versus ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil service

Representation

  • Ch. Hamid-ud-Din for Appellant.
  • Syed Abbas Raza, D.A. for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 30th September, 1991.

Headnotes / Summary

Promotion

During the year, civil servant's promotion to BS-18 was due for which he was placed on special report for six months with a view to promote him from due date

Although civil servant had earned good report for that period and subsequent years, but his case was not considered despite the fact that meetings of Selection Board were held

Civil servant was deprived of being considered for promotion, whereas his, next junior was promoted in due time and his promotion was delayed for about 8 years despite his service record was good

Pro forma promotion of civil servant otherwise was wrongly and illegally disallowed against policy of Government as laid down in letter earlier issued by Government in that respect

Held, it was a matter of extreme hardship that civil servant should be made to suffer due to inaction and failure on part of Departmental Authorities

Orders of Authorities according to which civil servant was deprived of his due promotion, were illegal, arbitrary and capricious

Service Tribunal set aside orders of Authorities and directed that civil servant would be considered to have been promoted with all financial back benefits from date when next junior of civil servant was promoted.

Judgment & Decree

THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and others Appeal No. 891/897 of 1987, decided on 24th November, 1991.

Promotion

During the year, civil servant's promotion to BS-18 was due for which he was placed on special report for six months with a view to promote him from due date

Although civil servant had earned good report for that period and subsequent years, but his case was not considered despite the fact that meetings of Selection Board were held

Civil servant was deprived of being considered for promotion, whereas his, next junior was promoted in due time and his promotion was delayed for about 8 years despite his service record was good

Pro forma promotion of civil servant otherwise was wrongly and illegally disallowed against policy of Government as laid down in letter earlier issued by Government in that respect

Held, it was a matter of extreme hardship that civil servant should be made to suffer due to inaction and failure on part of Departmental Authorities

Orders of Authorities according to which civil servant was deprived of his due promotion, were illegal, arbitrary and capricious

Service Tribunal set aside orders of Authorities and directed that civil servant would be considered to have been promoted with all financial back benefits from date when next junior of civil servant was promoted. Ch. Hamid-ud-Din for Appellant. Syed Abbas Raza, D.A. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th September, 1991.