1990SCMR1496 (PLP)
MUBASHIR HUSSAIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE through Secretary, Finance Department and 3
| Citation | 1990SCMR1496 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUBASHIR HUSSAIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE through Secretary, Finance Department and 3 |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan (Non‑Gazetted) Civil Services (Pay Revision) Rules, 1959‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1496 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan (Non‑Gazetted) Civil Services (Pay Revision) Rules, 1959‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR1496 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1496 (PLP) (MUBASHIR HUSSAIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE through Secretary, Finance Department and 3). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Azam Rasul, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Chaudhry. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st July, 1989.
- 4. Malik Muhammad Azam Rasul, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that the petitioner was entitled to Secretariat Scale of Pay which was wrongfully denied to him. His grievance before the Service Tribunal was, therefore, not premature.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the lodgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 17‑9‑1987 passed to Appeal No.501/881 of 1986). ‑‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Departmental orders challenged by petitioner before Service Tribunal were not determinative orders, but were simply letters addressed by Officer on Special Duty to Department concerned in which clarification with regard to certain matters concerning service record of petitioner and certain information concerning question of fixation of' pay were asked from the Department‑‑‑No final order adverse to terms and conditions of service of petitioner having been passed by Authorities below against which appeal could be filed before Service Tribunal appeal, held, was rightly dismissed by Service Tribunal being premature‑‑‑No question of law of public importance requiring further examination having been raised, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 17‑9‑1987 whereby the Service appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Service Tribunal as premature.
2. The petitioner challenged two departmental orders before the Service Tribunal. The one, dated 20‑12‑1984 was a letter addressed by the Officer on Special Duty in the Office of the Accountant General Punjab to the Superintending Engineer Irrigation, Bahawalpur, seeking certain clarifications with regard to certain matters concerning the service record of the petitioner and others. The other order challenged by him was dated 11th of June, 1986 from the Irrigation Department addressed to the Chief Engineer Irrigation, Bahawalpur regretting the inability of the Finance Department to agree to the proposals contained in the representation dated 8‑12‑1985. He sought a relaxation in the Rules with regard to the exercise of option under the West Pakistan (Non -Gazetted) Civil Services (Pay Revision) Rules, 1959, which was refused.
3. The Service Tribunal formed an impression from such a submission that the matter had been prematurely brought before it as would appear from the following conclusions recorded:‑‑ "These clarifications still remained unanswered and the appellant proceeded to make the representation for verification of his pay in the Secretariat scale. This clearly amounts to admitting the view point canvassed by the Accountant‑General in its memo. attached as an Annexure `J'. The Government has not so far decided the matter when the appellant proceeded to file the present appeal. This is in fact an attempt to forestall any future action from the authorities. When the case is considered from this angle, then the appeal is rendered incompetent as' the authorities are yet to pass the final order. We have asked the learned counsel for the appellant to explain how this appeal is competent? He maintained that since his representation for verification of scale for the Secretariat Group has been turned down, therefore, he can maintain the appeal. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The representation was not directed against any order. This way there is no final order against which appellant can file this appeal."
4. Malik Muhammad Azam Rasul, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that the petitioner was entitled to Secretariat Scale of Pay which was wrongfully denied to him. His grievance before the Service Tribunal was, therefore, not premature.
5. It has already been indicated by reciting the facts that by his representation last made, he was seeking relaxation of the Rule and the relaxation having been refused he cannot claim it as a matter of right. The earlier order is not a determinative order but only asking for certain information from the Department concerning the question of fixation of pay as such.
6. In the circumstances, no question of law of public importance arises which may require further examination. As and when a final order is passed adverse to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner, he may seek appropriate redress. Leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./M‑1138/S Leave refused.