1991 PLP 1867 (SCMR)
Agha MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1867 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | Agha MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1867 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1867 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1867 (SCMR) (Agha MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Hanif Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was appointed as a Cameraman (Grade‑16) on ad hoc basis in Inter‑Services Public Relations Directorate, G.H.Q. on 12‑6‑1980 and was regularized by the recommendations of the Federal Service Commission in January, 1981. He was sent on deputation to Saudi Arabia in May, 1983 and was repatriated to Pakistan in September, 1983 and reported for duty at his parent unit on 6‑11‑1986 where he was informed that his services were terminated under section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 on having become surplus because of non‑availability of a substantive post and the existing one was held by Mr. Riazuddin. The petitioner filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 21‑2‑1989. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgment. We have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this petition which deserves dismissal forthwith. As the petitioner failed to prove that there was a post of Cameraman available against which he should have been appointed on his return from Saudi Arabia because the one available was already occupied by Mr: Riazuddin and on his return from Saudi Arabia to his substantive post and thus the petitioner was rightly declared as surplus. Under the circumstances, we do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave. It is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1261/S Petition dismissed.