1990 SCMR 1538 (PLP)
Mr. M.M. ANSARI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
| Citation | 1990 SCMR 1538 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Ali Shah arid S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mr. M.M. ANSARI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 SCMR 1538 (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 1990 SCMR 1538 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Ali Shah arid S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 SCMR 1538 (PLP) (Mr. M.M. ANSARI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hakeem Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents:
- Date of hearing: 14th January, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 25‑8‑1988, passed in 180‑R of 1985). ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Service Tribunal on factual question involved in the case, had given a correct finding which suffered from no legal infirmity‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against such order of Service Tribunal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 25‑8‑1988, whereby, appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner was a Cypher Assistant in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was placed at serial No. 11, while Muhammad Iqbal Khan (deceased) and Amil Siddiqui respondent No. 3 were shown at S. No. 12 and 14 in the seniority list. The petitioner was ignored for promotion to the post of Cypher Officer and hence, he filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. Copy of the proceedings of departmental promotion committee while considering the name of the petitioner has noted the following observation:‑‑ "A disciplinary case is pending against him. His case is, therefore, deferred for the time being." The appeal was dismissed by the Federal Service Tribunal on the ground that under provisions of section 4, subsection (1), proviso (b) of the Service Tribunal Act, no appeal lies against the order determining the fitness of a person to be promoted to the higher post. Hench this petition for leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly stressed that the word "deferred" means only postponement and submitted that there is no disciplinary case pending against the petitioner and according to him the case of the petitioner was merely postponement as what the word "deferred" means and hence for mere postponement his promotion should have been considered according to the seniority list. The learned counsel have also informed that the petitioner being deprived of his seniority has left the service in order to indicate his honour. We find that the factual question is involved in this case on which the learned Tribunal has given a correct finding which suffers from no legal infirmity. This being so, it is not fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1224/S Petition dismissed.