2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
EJAZ AHMAD HASHMI and 6 others Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and another
| Citation | 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Actg. C.J. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Tassadduq Hussain Jillani, JJ |
| Parties | EJAZ AHMAD HASHMI and 6 others Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and another |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Actg. C.J. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Tassadduq Hussain Jillani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (EJAZ AHMAD HASHMI and 6 others Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and A.H. Masood, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Jehanzeb Khan Bharwana, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th January, 2005.
- "Abdul Rashid Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation, in some appeals, has submitted that these appeals are time-barred. His objection is not correct. All appeals were filed in time. But even in time-barred appeals benefit of the judgment of the Tribunal has to be extended to those employees also who have not filed appeals. The objection is overruled."
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 212(3)
Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XIII, R.1
Plea of one petitioner was that he was informed late about judgment
Plea of other petitioner was that he was mentally disturbed and under high tension due to family circumstances, thus, could not approach Court within time
No plausible reason had been assigned for condonation of delay
Supreme Court dismissed petitions in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
Listed petitions have been filed against the judgments dated 22nd June, 2004. Concluding para. therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "Abdul Rashid Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation, in some appeals, has submitted that these appeals are time-barred. His objection is not correct. All appeals were filed in time. But even in time-barred appeals benefit of the judgment of the Tribunal has to be extended to those employees also who have not filed appeals. The objection is overruled."
2. Petitions are barred by time. Applications have been moved separately for condonation of delay mainly on the ground that the petitioners were informed later on about the judgment as such they approached the Court with the delay of 2/3 days in each case.
3. It may be noted that plea taken by them is not acceptable because the arguments were advanced and judgment was announced on 22nd June, 2004 in presence of parties and their respective counsel. However, in one of the petitions i.e. 2912-L of 2004 petitioner has taken plea that as he was mentally disturbed and under high tension because of, family circumstances, therefore, he could not approach the Court within time. We are of the opinion that grounds taken in all petitions are not available. Besides it, learned counsel for caveat informed that in pursuance of impugned order petitioners were reinstated on 28th June, 2004 and presently they are facing proceedings under the Removal from Services (Special Power) Ordinance, 2000. Be that as it may, no plausible reason has been assigned for condonation of delay, therefore, instant petitions are dismissed accordingly. S.A.K./E-28/S Petition dismissed.