1987 PLP 1348 (SCMR)
WAPDA‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL LATIF QURESHI Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1348 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | WAPDA‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL LATIF QURESHI Respondent |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1348 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1348 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1348 (SCMR) (WAPDA‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL LATIF QURESHI Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Siraj‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court with M..A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 15th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 8‑10‑1986 in Appeal No.407 (R)/85‑53(L)/84.) ‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S.17(1‑A)‑‑Removal from service of WAPDA employee‑‑Order set aside by Service Tribunal‑‑Question of jurisdiction‑‑Matter having already been decided by Supreme Court in almost a similar case, leave to appeal refused. WAPDA and another v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SCMR 18 ref. Water and Power Development Authority v. Muhammad Rashid 1986 S C M R 588 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment of the Central Service Tribunal dated 8‑10‑1986; whereby service appeal of the respondent against his removal from service under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, was allowed. Learned counsel has contended that the case of the respondent did not fall under either of the three categories of cases in which the Tribunal can interfere, as held, by this Court in WAPDA and another V: Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 S C M R 18, therefore, the impugned judgment merits interference. The action taken by the WAPDA against the respondent was almost the same as taken against one Muhammad Arshad. His appeal was also allowed by the Tribunal and the petition for leave to appeal by the present petitioner, was dismissed by this Court on 14th December, 1985. See Water and Power Development Authority v. Muhammad Rashid 1986 S C M R 588.
2. Learned counsel agreed that there is no distinguishing feature between the two cases. That being so, there is no alternative but to refuse leave to appeal in this case as well. The petition accordingly is dismissed. M. I. /W‑4/S Petition dismissed.