1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD SALEEM-II, STENOGRAPHER Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
| Citation | 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM-II, STENOGRAPHER Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM-II, STENOGRAPHER Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th November, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments dated 17-7-1995 and 18-7-1995 Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeals Nos.271(R) and 273(R) of 1995).
S. 9
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)
Promotion-- Entitlement to promotion and specified pay
Petitioner appeared in seniority list at Serial No. 16
Petitioner admitted that none of his juniors had been promoted
Service Tribunal was justified in dismissing petitioner's appeal-- Petitioner was also claiming special pay of Rs.150 instead of Rs.120-- Service Tribunal had refused to grant relief to petitioner on the ground that in earlier appeal filed by petitioner he had claimed Rs.120 as special pay which was allowed to him
Petitioner having claimed Rs.120 per month as special pay and same having been granted to him it was not open to him to re-agitate the same matter. again
Judgment of Service Tribunal did not suffer from any infirmity so as to justify interference by Supreme Court-- Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.
Both the abovementioned two petitions are filed by Muhammad Saleem-II a Stenographer of Establishment Division to call in question two separate judgments of Federal Service Tribunal dated 17-7-1995 rendered in two Service Appeals filed by him.
2. In the first 'case the petitioner's grievance before the learned Tribunal was that he was not considered for promotion as a Private Secretary (B-17). The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence before it came to the conclusion that the name of the petitioner appeared in the seniority list at serial No. 16 while private respondents in the appeal were all senior to him. We have specifically asked the petitioner, who is appearing in person in the above cases, whether any person junior to him has been promoted as Private secretary (B-17). The petitioner replied in the negative. In view of the above stated facts the learned Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as without any cause.
3. In the second petition, the petitioner's grievance before the Tribunal was that he should be granted special pay of Rs.150 instead of Rs.120 as was allowed in the case of his juniors. The learned Tribunal refused to interfere m the case on the ground that in the earlier Appeal No.463(R) of 1994 filed by the petitioner, he had prayed for grant of a special pay which was allowed to him at the rate of Rs.120 per month vide judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 1-2-1995. It was observed by the learned Tribunal that in view of the decision in the earlier appeal by the Tribunal whereunder the petitioner was allowed only Rs.120 as a special pay instead of Rs.150 as claimed by him, it was not open to the petitioner to re-agitate the same matter in the appeal again before the learned Tribunal. The judgment of the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and no case is made out for interference by us. The petitions are accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. A.A./M-135/S Leave refused.