1983 SCMR 57 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM GILL-Appellant Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS
| Citation | 1983 SCMR 57 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | -- Art. 212 and Punjab Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1974), S. 7-Seni ority list--Contention that after withdrawal of seniority list no other list prepared as required by s. 7-Held, petitioner should have called upon officer charged with such responsibility, then higher authority and thou Service Tribunal-Petition not raising any question of law and of public importance-Petition dismissed.-Civil service. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C. J. and Shafi-ur-Rehman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM GILL-Appellant Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 SCMR 57 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 SCMR 57 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Art. 212 and Punjab Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1974), S. 7-Seni ority list--Contention that after withdrawal of seniority list no other list prepared as required by s. 7-Held, petitioner should have called upon officer charged with such responsibility, then higher authority and thou Service Tribunal-Petition not raising any question of law and of public importance-Petition dismissed.-Civil service. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C. J. and Shafi-ur-Rehman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 SCMR 57 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM GILL-Appellant Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Amjad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 8th March, 1982.
- Malik Amjad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 18th March, 1979 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Case No. 32/87 of 1977).
Art. 212-Grievance that certain promotions made not in accordance with seniority list and that certain persons junior to petitioner shown as seniors -Petitioner not impleading persons superseding him-Held, neither Service Tribunal nor Supreme Court could deal with such objection in circumstances of case.-(Civil services]. -- Art. 212 and Punjab Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1974), S. 7-Seni ority list--Contention that after withdrawal of seniority list no other list prepared as required by s. 7-Held, petitioner should have called upon officer charged with such responsibility, then higher authority and thou Service Tribunal-Petition not raising any question of law and of public importance-Petition dismissed.-[Civil service].
Judgment & Decree
SHAFI‑UR‑REHMAN, J.‑The petitioner a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby his appeal against the promotion of certain persons belonging to his cadre was dis missed. It appears from what the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner bad three grievances which be wanted to get redressed. Firstly, his grievance was that certain promotions had been made in the year 1973 which had not been made in accordance with the seniority list as it should have been prepared. The other grievance of the petitioner is that the seniority list which was prepared in 1974 and held the field till 1976 when it was withdrawn, was not correctly prepared and certain persons junior to the petitioner were shown as senior. Thirdly, it is contended that after the with drawal of the seniority list in 1976 no other seniority list has been prepared, circulated or is being maintained as required by section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act. So far as the first two objections of the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned it appears that they could not be dealt with either by the Services Tribunal or by this Court because he has not impleaded any of the persons who according to him have susperseded him either in the matter of promotion or in the seniority list as such. In the absence of these, persons any adjudication on the entitlement eligibility or legality or legality of the action cannot be undertaken and concluded. As regards the third grievance the non‑preparation of the seniority list, the petitioner should have called upon the officer charged with the responsibility of preparing the seniority list and on his failure to do so he should have represented to the higher authority and then brought his grievance before the Service Tribunal directly with' regard to the non‑preparation of the seniority list. He ha, not done so. The) petition does not raise any question of law and of public importance which may justify consideration by this Court. Leave to appeal is refused. Leave refused.